Comments on: Future of Justification 2: Piper's Introduction http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2007/11/30/future-of-justification-2-pipers-introduction/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=future-of-justification-2-pipers-introduction Kingdom People - Living on Earth as Citizens of Heaven Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:45:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Val http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2007/11/30/future-of-justification-2-pipers-introduction/#comment-1346 Val Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:26:42 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/2007/11/30/future-of-justification-2-pipers-introduction/#comment-1346 It seems to me that Wright's and Piper's works represent two different genres, and that herein lies a problem. Piper, in order to expalin (and, in some respects, refute) Wright's theology, for ordinary Christians, he has to mediate a scholarly approach and interpret its implications (as he understands them) for the individual, personal experience of salvation. So, although he recognises Wrights new paradigm, his desire to preserve "the, old, old story" in all its plain simplicity (so clearly revealed in the Acknowledgments, as Michael pointed out), leads perhaps to an oversimplification, and hence, distortion, of the effects of Wright's proposals on the doctrinal issues addressed. It seems to me that Wright’s and Piper’s works represent two different genres, and that herein lies a problem. Piper, in order to expalin (and, in some respects, refute) Wright’s theology, for ordinary Christians, he has to mediate a scholarly approach and interpret its implications (as he understands them) for the individual, personal experience of salvation. So, although he recognises Wrights new paradigm, his desire to preserve “the, old, old story” in all its plain simplicity (so clearly revealed in the Acknowledgments, as Michael pointed out), leads perhaps to an oversimplification, and hence, distortion, of the effects of Wright’s proposals on the doctrinal issues addressed.

]]> By: Tandy http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2007/11/30/future-of-justification-2-pipers-introduction/#comment-1345 Tandy Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:14:42 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/2007/11/30/future-of-justification-2-pipers-introduction/#comment-1345 I know this tread is not dealing specifically with the curse of Galatians 1:8-9, but you did bring it up as did Piper. Within his courteous treatment of Wright, Piper used these words and others to describe Wright's treatment of the gospel and justification - "disfigured," "distorted," and "blurred." Just how disfigured, distorted and blurred does teaching on the gospel have to become before Galatians 1:8-9 applies? I would like to know where Piper and others would draw the line. Happy New Year! www.reformedcow.com I know this tread is not dealing specifically with the curse of Galatians 1:8-9, but you did bring it up as did Piper. Within his courteous treatment of Wright, Piper used these words and others to describe Wright’s treatment of the gospel and justification – “disfigured,” “distorted,” and “blurred.” Just how disfigured, distorted and blurred does teaching on the gospel have to become before Galatians 1:8-9 applies? I would like to know where Piper and others would draw the line.

Happy New Year!
http://www.reformedcow.com

]]> By: trevinwax http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2007/11/30/future-of-justification-2-pipers-introduction/#comment-1343 trevinwax Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:54:09 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/2007/11/30/future-of-justification-2-pipers-introduction/#comment-1343 I didn't plan on mentioning the Acknowledgements in this series. Maybe I'll add some final thoughts at the end of this (already-too-long) series and say something about my impression. Regarding the ending, I thought the Concluding chapter worked fine as a Conclusion. I believe the Appendix was unnecessary. I didn’t plan on mentioning the Acknowledgements in this series. Maybe I’ll add some final thoughts at the end of this (already-too-long) series and say something about my impression.

Regarding the ending, I thought the Concluding chapter worked fine as a Conclusion. I believe the Appendix was unnecessary.

]]> By: matt vander wiele http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2007/11/30/future-of-justification-2-pipers-introduction/#comment-1344 matt vander wiele Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:03:38 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/2007/11/30/future-of-justification-2-pipers-introduction/#comment-1344 I just finished the book this weekend, (Future of Justification). I felt as if for 90 % of the time Piper debated or maybe better said micro managed some of the terminolgy of Justification being declared or effective at Salvation. My favorite part was the section on second temple Judaism and the difference of the opinion between Legalism and ethnocentric culture. However my main concern without going into all the depth of the book is the abruptness of the ending. I t seems to just end with no summary of anything, and leads write into the appendix, i was dissapointed with how the book quickly ended with out a real good conclusion of anything. it was like he had run out of time and had to go....... I just finished the book this weekend, (Future of Justification). I felt as if for 90 % of the time Piper debated or maybe better said micro managed some of the terminolgy of Justification being declared or effective at Salvation. My favorite part was the section on second temple Judaism and the difference of the opinion between Legalism and ethnocentric culture.

However my main concern without going into all the depth of the book is the abruptness of the ending. I t seems to just end with no summary of anything, and leads write into the appendix, i was dissapointed with how the book quickly ended with out a real good conclusion of anything. it was like he had run out of time and had to go…….

]]> By: Charles http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2007/11/30/future-of-justification-2-pipers-introduction/#comment-1342 Charles Sat, 01 Dec 2007 02:37:59 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/2007/11/30/future-of-justification-2-pipers-introduction/#comment-1342 Dr. Piper is to be commended by all - as he was by Bishop Wright - for at least allowing Wright to respond before going to print and then not going to print before reading the response! That's certainly even handed and, as you note, better treatment than most "reformed" critics give the Bishop. I look forward to reading the rest of your posts on this subject. Dr. Piper is to be commended by all – as he was by Bishop Wright – for at least allowing Wright to respond before going to print and then not going to print before reading the response!

That’s certainly even handed and, as you note, better treatment than most “reformed” critics give the Bishop.

I look forward to reading the rest of your posts on this subject.

]]> By: Michael http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2007/11/30/future-of-justification-2-pipers-introduction/#comment-1341 Michael Sat, 01 Dec 2007 00:56:38 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/2007/11/30/future-of-justification-2-pipers-introduction/#comment-1341 I think Piper's effort to be fair are commendable (and from what I understand, it is a far cry better than 95% of Wright's critics). Unfortunately, despite his effort to the contrary, I feel that his book isn't what I would hope for from someone who claims to be taking a rational perspective on how to arrive at conclusions. Now I realize that this post is about the introduction, but I felt that you really ought to have started 4 pages further back so I thought this would be the appropriate place to comment on the acknowledgments. I felt that starting from page one, (and by page one I actually mean page 9-the acknowledgments) Piper really cares most, not about framing a strong argument, but rather about convincing people. Not that I'm accusing him of trying to twist the truth, but rather that he appears to have an overblown sense of his own grasp of the truth. The content of the book starts in the introduction on page 13 but his argument starts on page 9. Anyone who disagrees (that he starts the argument here, not that he has an overblown estimation of his own understanding) simply has to realize that probably about half of the "acknowledgments" are no such thing. He starts his argument on page 9 with an emotional story about how his father preached the gospel. Now, mentioning how much his father impacted his life is one thing, but including a whole story about how his father "was a lover of the great, deep, power-laded old truths." and that such truths included imputed righteousness is emotional manipulation, plain and simple. Was Piper conscious of doing such? I hope and honestly believe that he didn't. Does that change what it is? No. Now to be honest, I really don't have any (maybe much would be a better word...) problem with him framing a story about his father in that way, but I DO and very strongly so, have a problem with him putting it, not only IN a book about a controversy involving such things, but in such a deceptive place as the acknowledgments. Even my roommate who loves Piper admitted that the story was inappropriately placed. I think Piper’s effort to be fair are commendable (and from what I understand, it is a far cry better than 95% of Wright’s critics). Unfortunately, despite his effort to the contrary, I feel that his book isn’t what I would hope for from someone who claims to be taking a rational perspective on how to arrive at conclusions.

Now I realize that this post is about the introduction, but I felt that you really ought to have started 4 pages further back so I thought this would be the appropriate place to comment on the acknowledgments.

I felt that starting from page one, (and by page one I actually mean page 9-the acknowledgments) Piper really cares most, not about framing a strong argument, but rather about convincing people. Not that I’m accusing him of trying to twist the truth, but rather that he appears to have an overblown sense of his own grasp of the truth. The content of the book starts in the introduction on page 13 but his argument starts on page 9. Anyone who disagrees (that he starts the argument here, not that he has an overblown estimation of his own understanding) simply has to realize that probably about half of the “acknowledgments” are no such thing. He starts his argument on page 9 with an emotional story about how his father preached the gospel. Now, mentioning how much his father impacted his life is one thing, but including a whole story about how his father “was a lover of the great, deep, power-laded old truths.” and that such truths included imputed righteousness is emotional manipulation, plain and simple. Was Piper conscious of doing such? I hope and honestly believe that he didn’t. Does that change what it is? No. Now to be honest, I really don’t have any (maybe much would be a better word…) problem with him framing a story about his father in that way, but I DO and very strongly so, have a problem with him putting it, not only IN a book about a controversy involving such things, but in such a deceptive place as the acknowledgments. Even my roommate who loves Piper admitted that the story was inappropriately placed.

]]> By: Raffi Shahinian http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2007/11/30/future-of-justification-2-pipers-introduction/#comment-1340 Raffi Shahinian Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:57:34 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/2007/11/30/future-of-justification-2-pipers-introduction/#comment-1340 It's interesting that you and I appear to be at the same point in our lives right now, reading Piper because we're interested in Wright. I look forward to your comments on the book, as I have a few posts on my own blog about the subject as well. Would love to hear your comments. Grace and Peace, Raffi Shahinian www.ParablesofaProdigalWorld.blogspot.com It’s interesting that you and I appear to be at the same point in our lives right now, reading Piper because we’re interested in Wright. I look forward to your comments on the book, as I have a few posts on my own blog about the subject as well. Would love to hear your comments.

Grace and Peace,
Raffi Shahinian
http://www.ParablesofaProdigalWorld.blogspot.com

]]>