Comments on: Future of Justification 4: Historical Research

By: trevinwax

trevinwax — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:49:41 +0000

Lou,

Thanks for your comment. I hope that I have fairly represented Piper, as it has been my goal to fairly represent both him and Wright.

I know that Piper is to be commended in much of what he writes. I also know that he believes strongly in the value of historical research, only that in this case, I believe his hermeneutic of suspicion could serve as a muzzle for any serious scholar of history who might suggest we look at the biblical text from a different angle.

Piper’s concerns with regards to historical research are commendable. My fear is that if the concerns are always at the forefront, there will be no historical research that can be done.

By: Celucien Joseph

Celucien Joseph — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:17:57 +0000

Trevor,

Thanks for blogging on this topic. It seems that you overstated Piper’s perspective on the importance and use of historical research in Biblical studies. After I read this post, I can’t help myself, but to conclude that you did not read Piper quite well in this particular chapter. Second, you seem to imply that, Piper does not value historical data in studying Scriptures. Third, he does not take into account the historical milieu in which the Bible was written, especially the NT documents.
Piper is a former NT professor, having taught in the discipline for many years. I am quite sure he is familiar with historical backgrounds and resources when it comes to understanding and interpreting the Bible.
(Have you read The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23 ?)

Blessings,
Lou

By: trevinwax

trevinwax — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:52:41 +0000

I’m glad you guys are enjoying the series. It’s a good book and it deserves some commentary.

Brian,
I don’t think Piper believes that justification is a strictly judicial decree. I’ve heard him on this subject and he seems well-balanced in his view. There are two extremes we need to avoid: the one that downplays the judicial aspect and the one that concentrates only on the judicial part.

By: Brannon

Brannon — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:54:55 +0000

Trevin,
I am thoroughly enjoying your blogging through Piper’s new book. I look forward every day to reading it.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:11:26 +0000

It’s interesting that your blog commentaries of the Piper/Wright views are intertwined with your commentaries on the Prodigal Son. In the world of systematic theology, the expectation is that biblical truths come to us in neat, tidy packages. It’s as if we should expect that the Bible should have come with tabs so that we could look up baptism under the “B” tab, and justification under the “J” tab. Systematic theology can come across as sterile, overlooking some of the mystery of our faith. The prodigal son story introduces a familial connection to God, our Father, in great contrast to justification being a strictly “judicial decree.” While I haven’t read Piper’s book, I recognize in Wright’s work an embracing of the familial, covenental connection we receive as members of the body of Christ. Piper surely would not deny such, but Wright has tapped into another level of biblical understanding that proves to be a burr under the saddle of the dyed in the wool systematic guys who want biblical understanding compartmentalized into tidy, air-tight compartments.

By: Tom Kushman

Tom Kushman — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:57:59 +0000

Trevin… your blogs on Piper’s Book are very helpful and insightful too. Thanx for all so far… please keep them coming! I wish Piper would have given some more detailed examples exactly where he thinks Wright is misunderstanding specific historical sources. IMHO, Piper only gets about half way there in making his own case in this chapter. Tom Kushman, Black Hills of South Dakota