It is possible that the most important address related to the recent N.T. Wright and Together for the Gospel conferences was given at neither, but was instead written afterward by the astute and unassuming Brett McCracken?
Thursday, April 22, 2010, 8:32 PM
April 23rd, 2010 | 7:56 am | #1
Nothing justifies schism.
April 23rd, 2010 | 9:50 am | #2
It is interesting that, broadly speaking, the various ecclesial attitudes toward schism are also reflected in their doctrine regarding divorce and remarriage. Only the Catholic Church maintains the biblical ideal of “no divorce and remarriage” albeit with sometimes abused weasling of annulments (though annulments are sometimes valid, of course).
April 23rd, 2010 | 9:56 am | #3
Gross heresy and apostasy is worse than schism.
April 23rd, 2010 | 10:05 am | #4
If we don’t have justification by faith alone, we don’t have the Gospel. If we don’t have the Gospel, we might as well go back to Rome.
Bishop Wright may be as earnest and sincere as anyone in history when it comes to his desire for unity in the body of Christ, but unity has nothing to do with “a new way of being human”.
Unity has EVERYTHING to do with receiving those who are in the faith, testing ourselves to make sure we are in the faith, and rejecting those who deny the faith. There is no such thing as “unity” that is not uniform in the essential doctrines. If we differ on a matter like the ground of our justification before God, we may be neighbors, but not brothers.
April 23rd, 2010 | 10:58 am | #5
James says, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”
April 23rd, 2010 | 7:08 pm | #6
“If we don’t have justification by faith alone, we don’t have the Gospel. If we don’t have the Gospel, we might as well go back to Rome.”
“James says, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.””
Here we have a very nice transitive relation. Steve B. says, “If not JBFA, then not G. If not G, then we should R.”
Orthodoxdj points out that “not JBFA.”
And by logical transition, we arrive at “we should R.”
I attended the Wheaton conference (very good papers all around, especially on the second day, which focused on Paul). One interesting point: The very last question asked of N.T. Wright was from the audience: “What is the difference between your view of justification and the Roman Catholic view?”
It must be said that Bishop Wright’s response ducked the question, in a way that would have disappointed many of the posters here. But most of the audience understood his carefully coded language; keep in mind, this was at Wheaton College, under the auspices of a decidedly Reformed theology faculty. His answer came down to (my paraphrase): Between the classical (pre-1500s) Christian view of justification, and the Catholic view–there really isn’t any difference.
Regarding the point on schism: Keep in mind that when Bishop Wright speaks of schism, he is referring to the sin committed by those in heresy and apostasy. So we can’t really say that “heresy and apostasy” are worse than schism, since the sins are being committed by the same people. When Wright says, “Nothing justifies schism,” this is his intended meaning, I think. Heretics and apostates are schismatics. And so in faithful, orthodox Christians, nothing justifies the continually present schismatic impulse.
April 24th, 2010 | 6:53 am | #7
“Nothing justifies schism,” N. T. Wright
“Duh!,” St. Thomas More
April 24th, 2010 | 9:04 am | #8
Orthodoxdj,
Here are a few more for you:
“For by grace you have been saved a through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift ofGod, not a result of works that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8-9).
“Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1).
And one more for good measure:
“O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly a portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Gal. 3:1-3).
Therefore, not R.
April 24th, 2010 | 10:04 am | #9
Dear Brad Williams: I looked carefully, but didn’t see the “alone” in any of those verses.
If you just meant “saved by faith,” then we agree.
I conclude: R.
(I refrained from writing, “R, matey!”)
April 24th, 2010 | 1:26 pm | #10
Craig,
What I mean when I say one is justified by faith is not what you mean. You mean justified by faith and works or merits. I mean what Paul and James meant.
You may not have noticed, but each of the quotes I used excludes adding merit through works for our justification. One is justified through the imputed righteousness of Christ by grace through faith (2 Cor. 5:21).
Not R.
April 24th, 2010 | 2:04 pm | #11
I’m guessing James was wrong. My bad.
April 24th, 2010 | 3:19 pm | #12
Orthodoxdj,
Don’t be silly. James is correct, and wonderfully so.
April 24th, 2010 | 3:29 pm | #13
Dear Orthodoxdj,
Keep in mind: James is wonderfully correct, as long as you keep in mind that he actually means exactly the opposite of what he actually says. Or “works” doesn’t really mean works, or “not by faith alone” doesn’t really mean faith, or faith alone, or something. We really need to put our trust in something besides scripture only to understand this verse–wait, I mean we DO need scripture only, but in the case of this verse and others like it we need to–
Well, forget it. Just remember: Catholics are wrong. And probably not Christians. After all, they believe in salvation through faith in Christ, but they also believe you must live for Christ. Which is wrong. Or something.
April 24th, 2010 | 4:02 pm | #14
Craig,
Hey! I’m happy that a Catholic is reading his Bible. If you keep it up, you might actually get what James is saying instead of putting the abominable doctrine of salvation by faith plus works into James’ mouth. You might start by beginning in 2:14 and reading on to the stated quote. The context will help you. Especially the 2:18-19 part when he speaks of demonic faith.
No born-again Christian will deny that we were “created in Christ Jesus for good works.” However, if you ask me to leave the full righteousness of Christ imputed to me for an “infused” righteousness that is dependant upon me to magnify it, you can forget it.
If you only mean that a faith that will not lead to works is no faith at all, then I am in full agreement. One is not justified in claiming to be in the faith if it is not followed by works. However, works do not justify us in the sense that Paul means that faith justifies us in Rom. 5:1.
April 25th, 2010 | 9:01 pm | #15
Speaking of which, are you planning to be at the Life and Learning conference in June?
April 25th, 2010 | 9:02 pm | #16
“Hey! I’m happy that a Catholic is reading his Bible. If you keep it up, you might actually get what James is saying instead of putting the abominable doctrine of salvation by faith plus works into James’ mouth.”
Perhaps instead of being only concerned about your getting into heaven, you should be just as concerned about getting heaven into you. That is the message of James, and that is the message of the Catholic Church, and that is the message of Jesus. “Faith + Works” is an urban legend that no literate Catholic believes.
I must confess, however, that we throw the better parties. :-)
April 26th, 2010 | 5:33 am | #17
@4: That’s a stretch. Being Catholic isn’t just about works and faith getting you in heaven. It’s primarly about the Eucharist, the real presence of Christ.
You can believe that’s it’s works and faith, but when you are denying the real presence of Christ, you don’t belong in Rome.
April 26th, 2010 | 7:40 am | #18
My question about the conference somehow got misplaced; it’s supposed to follow Francis Beckwith’s comment about parties.
Otherwise, it does seem a bit random.
April 26th, 2010 | 9:33 am | #19
Francis,
I’m not concerned with only getting into heaven. No literate Evangelical thinks like that, its merely an urban legend. “Heaven” has already gotten into me anyway. I have been sealed with the Holy Spirit because I believe that Jesus is the Christ. Christ also dwells in me by faith according to the Apostle (Col. 1:27). I am also seated with Christ in the heavenlies according to the Apostle (Eph. 2:5), as are all who are in Christ by faith.
And seriously, and I mean that, help me dispell the idea that Rome teaches justification by faith + works/merit. Do they teach that a person is justified by faith alone now?
April 26th, 2010 | 10:39 am | #20
Dear Brad Williams:
Let’s start with something we all agree on: (1) salvation by works is a heresy, the Pelagian heresy, and has been condemned several times by the Catholic Church.
Something else we agree on: (2) we hold to the faith which works by love.
So how about this: (3) The faith which works by love is saving faith.
And the part we disagree on: (4) To say we are saved by faith “alone” is unscriptural.
So couldn’t we say we agree on points 1-3? To a Catholic, the works of love are part of the saving action of faith. A Catholic therefore would actually agree with the simple formulation: We are saved by faith in Christ.
April 26th, 2010 | 11:10 am | #21
Craig,
J. I. Packer, in the Reformed camp, says, “What saves is faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone.”
John McArthur says, “The true test of faith is this, does it produce obedience? If not, it is not saving faith” (The Gospel According to Jesus).
John Calvin is often quoted as saying, “‘We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is not alone.”
They both affirm, along with many others, that we are saved by faith alone, but they are also careful to point out that saving faith is never alone.
Can you agree with those formulations?
April 26th, 2010 | 11:36 am | #22
1.) Nothing justifies schism within the Body of Christ.
2.) The Body of Christ is called to guard the deposit of the faith, i.e. doctrine (especially the gospel). Those who don’t believe the gospel are not in the Body of Christ; it’s not schism to call them out.
i.e., You can’t schism[1] from an apostate or gross heretic. (If any schism occurs, it’s the heretic schisming from Christ.)
3.) On the other hand, it’s horrendous to mistakenly reject a brother on the grounds that he’s a gross heretic, when he isn’t.
[1] Can I use schism as a transitive verb? Probably not. My apologies for verbing a noun uglily.
April 26th, 2010 | 11:38 am | #23
Dear Jeff Doles: I understand the thrust of their statements (although I wouldn’t use the phrase “faith alone,” since that is anti-scriptural). However, my question would be directed to evangelicals: What do YOU think about these statements? That is, is “faith alone, but also” the same thing to you as “faith alone”? Is that even coherent?
P.S. I have said, virtually word for word, the same thing as MacArthur is quoted as saying. Would evangelicals accept that statement? I know his “Lordship salvation” teachings are controversial amongst evangelicals.
April 26th, 2010 | 11:41 am | #24
Jugulum: I tried to say the same thing in the last paragraph of post 6. Your way of saying it is more clear and more elegant (eleganter?). Thanks.
April 26th, 2010 | 12:05 pm | #25
Those formulations by Calvin, Packer and McArthur et al seem coherent enough to me. The kind of faith that saves brings forth good works and obedience to God. Those works may result from faith and accompany faith, but are not the cause or means of salvation.
Paul said, “By grace you have been saved through faith … not of works” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Good works are not a cause of salvation, but they are not left out of the picture, for Paul then says, “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (v. 10). They are the result of salvation.
April 26th, 2010 | 12:27 pm | #26
Craig,
Ah, so you did. Thanks. :) But you also talked about what Wright means, and I can’t tell if you’ve got that right.
If that’s what Wright meant, then wouldn’t his comment translate to “Nothing justifies abandoning or twisting the gospel”? I seriously doubt that’s what he intended. Why would anyone ask what would justify embracing heresy? Why would “nothing does” be a powerful statement? That’s a “Duh”, not powerful. (Or am I misunderstanding you?)
We need more context. (Can anyone point us to the context? Does anyone know if it’s in one of the mp3s here?)
Surely he meant more than “Don’t abandon the truth of the gospel.” The CT description makes it sound like Wright was discussing the priority of visible unity, and the proper response when we perceive others going astray.
April 26th, 2010 | 3:11 pm | #27
I have a new doctrine, or at least a new phrase for what I believe is an old doctrine:
Salvation is by worship alone. If you don’t worship God, you’re not going to enjoy Him forever.
Btw, Calvinists don’t believe in faith alone. They believe in election alone. Election is BOTH necessary AND sufficient for salvation. Works and faith are merely the extension of election.
April 26th, 2010 | 3:38 pm | #28
Dear Jugulum:
The problem is, schismatics don’t think of themselves as schismatic. It is always the group they are splitting from which is the problem. I think this is what Wright was getting at.
However, I could be simply justifying what he said. Maybe he meant something stronger: that nothing justifies a split within Christianity. I find it difficult, however, to think that this is what he meant. Otherwise, I’d go with TUAD, way back in Post 3.
April 26th, 2010 | 4:23 pm | #29
Craig,
The problem is that on the face of it, “Nothing justifies schism” doesn’t contain even a nod toward “guarding the deposit”, false teachers, and those who “make a shipwreck of the faith”. I assume that the questioner was partly wondering how to handle that–but Wright’s answer was “Nothing justifies schism”?
I can hardly believe that he suggests we should call someone “brother” who denies the divinity of Christ–or one of the rare people who call themselves “Christian atheists”. But what does he suggest? Would he say that’s not schism, that’s something else?
That’s why we need more context. If that was really the entire substance of his answer, then it’s woefully lacking in the nuance that you recognize.
April 28th, 2010 | 1:08 am | #30
[...] the aftermath of my article on unity within the body of Christ, which since last week has spawned anything but unity in the blogosphere. I have more follow-up thoughts that I will share in a few days, but [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact