The following was initially a blog post. I have refrained from editing out matters of informality etc.
Disclaimer: While I am a reasonable typist, I nonetheless cannot type at speech-speed at the best times, much less on a laptop keyboard. Consequently, these notes vary from word to word to close summary, and much of the ground in between. To be sure of precise wording, you will of course need to consult the tapes or CDs.
Q/A Session #2
Reminder: during the Q/A sessions, the speakers were first given opportunity to query one another, prior to the moderator reading questions from the audience.
Intramural questions
Wright to Gaffin: I'm fascinated that you come back again to justification and sanctification as if those were the great categories - why not the categories of Romans 8.30? Sanctification is at best minor in terms of Romans. You were also sliding justification back into the call. (I do agree with everything you understand about the call.) 1 Corinthians 15 never was about justification, but resurrection. But in Romans 5, it is the climax of the argument so far, and also visibly the foundation of the argument to come. So we shouldn't be surprised: 5.18-19 are talking about God doing this for all people. It is clear this isn't just "this works for everybody," but Jew and Gentile alike. The passage to which you appeal makes the point I have been making.
Gaffin: Why [have I been speaking of] sanctification rather than glorification? I should make clear that a cluster of terms have to do with renewal, culminating in glorification. Thus I want to construe the chain in terms of already/not yet eschatology. I could comfortably call this "realized glorification." If there is value to my reflections on 1 Corinthians 15, I don't think we can just isolate. . . [I] insist: the Adam/Christ contrast in Romans 5 is not a different kind of contrast, though different issues are in view. Thus the first/last; first/second [ideas in 1 Cor 15] = those are implicit for [Paul] in Romans 5. That points up the whole lissue of justification coming out of its deepest ground. . . . The issue of justification is deeper than Jew and non-Jew. I ask back to you: What is the problem with saying [that the Jew-Gentile issue is] "the ecclesiological epiphenomenon emerging from a soteriological core?"
Wright: It is the phenomenon. I totally agree with you that justification language is declarative, not restorative: this is who they are right now - "My people."
Questions from the Audience
Question for Wright: What does Paul mean in Romans 4 that God justifies the ungodly?
Wright: Short questions, not always short answers! It surely means that Abraham, when called by God, was not circumcised and part of this people of God, but believed God and the state he was in constituted him part of that family. "Ungodly" is not often used by Paul. It appears to be a similar word to the one used in Romans 1. [Or: similar usage? My notes are a bit sketchy here.] [It means that Abraham] has no moral worth, no circumcised status; [justification] is just a pure declaration.
Question for Gaffin: When was Abraham justified? What about Romans 4 and James 2; is there more than one justification event, or more than one kind of justification?
Gaffin: Abraham is justified at the point he exercises justifying faith. That faith is exhibited in Genesis 12. It is not helpful to think of a constant being rejustified in the sense of falling out and being brought back into a state of justification. In one sense, justification is a "once-and-done" deal, yet a reality of the life of the believer, so that at any point you can see justifying faith exhibited. The faith that relies on Christ initially is no different from the faith that continues, that perseveres.
Question for Wright: Does Scripture ever refer to individual soteriological election?
Wright: The trouble here: words which are used somewhat infrequently in Scripture itself have become technical terms. In Romans 9, Paul talks about God's purpose in election in reference to individuals. But it's a tricky one. . . . When you tell the story of the history of salvation, it isn't simply that all members of Abraham's family are part of the purpose. What you've got is something to do with the choice of individuals to carry that purpose forward, but Paul does not address the question we always want him to address - "Does God before all time elect certain individuals for salvation?" [A note of explanation regarding what I hear Wright saying. His point is that the big aim of Romans 9 is not to talk about individual election, as defined by systematics. Its goal rather is to tell part of the story of salvation-history. There are elements present that form part of the systematic doctrine, as can be seen in Wright's articulation. Particularly, God's choice of individuals to carry His purpose forward indicates His sovereignty over salvation history, including at an individual level. But Romans 9 does not discuss the eternal counsel. I suspect, also, that Wright would hesitate to say that the individuals in view in Romans 9 are being classified according to elect/reprobate categories, but he did not discuss the point directly.]
Question for Gaffin: Is it possible for Christians to keep the law of God? (The questioner appeals, for example, to the blamelessness of Zechariah and Elizabeth mentioned in Luke 1.6.)
Gaffin: [The passage] means what it says! . . . it's the case of what Romans 8.4 says: the law will be fulfilled in those who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. . . . I wouldn't want to suggest there is not a very positive law-keeping in the life of the believer.
Wright: Could I have a little stab at that? Paul himself says that under the law he was blameless - he maintained his status, because whenever he did something wrong, he made the necessary sacrifice, etcetera. Is it possible to please God? Many in the Reformation tradition are very worried about that; Paul was not worried about that at all. He says in Romans 8 that it is those who are in the flesh who cannot please God. Wright adds that this possibility of pleasing God did not start with Christ (i.e. Old Testament believers too pleased God).
Brief Thoughts
This is my shortest report to date; I think the session itself was briefer than most others, but my note-taking was probably somewhat less comprehensive than in other cases. It is to be duly noted that I find it much easier to keep up with a lecture than back-and-forth questions and answers.
A few thoughts:
1. It was interesting to see Wright call Gaffin on the latter's attempt to tie 1 Corinthians 15 to Romans 5 in order to submerge Israel's role. I'm somewhat ambivalent with what Gaffin did there, but I also find it somewhat curious to hear Wright saying that 1 Corinthians 15 is about resurrection, not justification. Why do I find that curious? Well, because Wright (like Gaffin) ties justification so closely to resurrection. If, as seems to be the case from Romans 4.25, Christ's resurrection provides some sort of basis for our justification (however we may wish to articulate that - basis is perhaps not what we are looking for, given our Aristotelian concept of ground), is it so odd to think that 1 Corinthians 15 is in fact a justification text of sorts? Just a question; I haven't done biblical-theological work in the chapter in connection with the justification issue, but it seems to me that the notion should not be dismissed out of hand.
2. A couple of nice admissions to see: (1) Wright saying that Paul's use of ungodly in Romans 4 infers that Abraham had no moral worth as well as no circumcised status. (2) Gaffin insisting, "The faith that relies on Christ initially is no different from the faith that continues, that perseveres." I deeply appreciate that comment, given the (puzzling to me) attempts by many to turn justifying faith into a "nanosecond faith" which only appears for a moment and is discontinuous from the remainder of the Christian life. Gaffin's statement is the spirit of Paul (I think particularly of Galatians 5.1-6).
3. I appreciate too Gaffin's insistence, in the same context, that we must not look at justification as an "in-and-out" sort of thing, but I do tend to wonder if he quite addressed a major point of the question: Abraham's faith is counted as righteousness in Genesis 15, many years after his initial justification. This text - and the corresponding Pauline citations in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 - still needs revisiting by Reformed exegetes and theologians, to clarify how it relates to initial justification.
4. Doubtless, many people will be troubled by Wright's hesitance to say outright that Paul speaks directly of individual election to salvation. I can understand that; on the other hand, I can also understand Wright's reticence. As he implied, Romans 9, the classic proof text, is not in fact speaking about eternity, but about God's choices in history; and furthermore, it is dealing with the outworking of God's purposes. Still, it would have been interesting to have heard some follow-up on this. While Romans 9 itself should not be forced to speak to eternity (although Ephesians 1 does so), as I noted above, there are integral elements of the doctrine here that should not be overlooked. Wright was not doing systematics here, but if he were, one would have to ask if and how he would integrate these elements into a greater whole.
I have to admit that when I first heard Wright's response on this point, I was more disappointed than when I went back to my notes. But I still tend to think that the primary issue we are concerned about in the doctrine of election is not "eternity past," but the matter of unconditionality of God's choice - a matter which Wright (correctly) implied is present in Romans 9, and that at an individual level. And so I simply observe: If Wright is concerned that the forest of the chapter is frequently lost for the trees, I nonetheless maintain that the components of the forest remain trees. Paul is doing something salvation-historical there (and it is interesting to read through Romans 9-11 while keeping matters of chronology in mind), but that does not change the fact that the salvation-history in question proceeds by way of the sovereign choices God makes of individuals.
I really don't think that Wright would be likely to deny any of this; after all, in his commentaries he clearly articulates the call in terms of irresistible grace (note that in this session, too, he expressly says he agrees with Gaffin regarding the call), and he still readily identifies himself as Reformed in outlook. As an Anglican, however, he clearly does not have the sort of focus on these doctrines as your average conservative Presbyterian or Reformed minister.