Friday, 4 September 2009

Biblicistic good or bad?

The 'Between Two Worlds' web site has an excellent discussion of N T Wright and the New Perspective. Mark Seifrid, however, who is one of the panel and a writer I find very helpful says something that jars.

I more or less quote
, 'Wright is somewhat biblicistic... that is to say he holds on to a text without regard for context and the history of Protestant tradition and theology... He’ll have to be answered at some level in terms of the Bible itself.'

The context is a discussion on Wright's view on imputation. He accuses Wright of ignoring context and where this is so Wright is indeed culpable. He then defines 'biblicistic' as a disregard for the history of Protestant thought and theology. A much lesser charge in my view. What if Wright has considered it and rejected it? Certainly Protestant thought is not uniform on the issue of imputation. Seifrid then concedes that Wright and others (here I include myself) will not be satisfied with the logic of systematics or the dogmas of confessions. Seifrid says, 'He’ll have to be answered at some level in terms of the Bible itself. '

Exactly. No posturing or pontificating or huffing and puffing is a substitute for Scripture. If imputation is such a critical issue and so integral to the gospel let it be shown to be taught in Scripture. If it is biblicist to insist a belief is clearly biblically based then I am biblicist.


Nick Mackison said...

How irritating were the number puns on 'Wright'?

Donald Ferguson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JohnGreenview said...

The problem is all these books Seifrid is almost certainly aware of and has no doubt read yet he said (only yesterday) that sooner or later someone is going to have to prove Wright wrong biblically.

It seems as if he thinks these books have not done their job.

Pity Donald can't comment.