Wright can be confusing and difficult at times but Piper is mainly pop theology. Keep the rhetoric right (speak about God’s Glory like traditional reformed is the only one that gives God Glory), accuse people of liberalism and remain as western eurocentric as possible in interpretation.

I can understand your worry.

The question is whether traditional views are right and Tom Wright and others are trying to foist a new idea on people
or
Has tradition gone away from Biblical truth and people like Tom Wright are trying to get us back to that original meaning?

I suggest the only option is for you to decide for yourself.

Read all the scriptural references mentioned in this debate afresh alongwith other relevant material.

From that you will need to decide:

Do you believe that the Gospel in the Bible was about maximising the number of the saved people who would then spend eternity in heaven with God thus requiring maximum evangelism in its most basic preaching form
or
Was it a declaration that Jesus is now Lord of all and that we should be his disciples and follow his example to make things better on the earth until he returns and puts it all fully to rights which would imply a form of evangelism which includes proactively doing many things as well as preaching with words (Mission societies tend to callm it ‘holistic mission’).

You probably just need to pray for God’s guidance and then decide for yourself.

Some teachers tend to get bored with the same ol’, same ol’ teachings and will look for something new-something revelatory. Then they try to convince us that it is something the church has forgotten or twisted and the new teaching is right and straight.

We must ever be the Bureans and that includes the teachers we feel we can trust, like John Piper (and his recent controversy with Rick Warren is a good example of why we must be on our toes with all teachers!).

I think it is important to read the Word yourself to establish a solid foundation on the Gospel and its effect on our lives, lest we apply our own fears and misgivings and personalities to a debate like this, and confuse them with the stance of scripture that is very clear.

The question of the Gospel is, “Do you believe that Christ’s blood justifies you before God, now and forever?” I feel that N.T. Wright seems to be afraid to just give a “an outright yes”. N.T.Wright mentions that “justification in the future is is given on the basis of the Spirit-generated life that the justified-by-faith-in-the-present person then lives”. This statement seems to bring back the camera of righteousness back on oneself and one’s works, rather than the Grace of God alone.

Is Wright saying that a Christian will naturally live a Spirit-led life and then be justified in the future on the basis of that? If he is saying that, he might as well not say anything at all! This debate would be useless. However, it is clear Wright doesn’t think so. He seems to think that learning this new perspective would increase Christian energy and activity.

If so, he is making that statement out of fear, not out of true biblical conviction.

This is not surprising at all. Many have pointed fingers at those who preach the Gospel as it is- which central message is the forgiveness of all our sins, and the blotting of remembrance of all our sins. (Hebrews) They bring their own human fears that “shall we sin more so that grace may abound”, and term their fear- fear of cheap grace. However, by holding onto that fear, it is clear they have indeed strayed away from beholdig the Gospel. As Paul say, “how that we who are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” Isn’t it clear also, that the chapter on the fruits of the Spirit is in a book that speaks of falling from Grace (falling from the New Covenant)? And Paul describes all transformation as a result of beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord (Christ). Why? Because we will begin to reflect Him, “by the Spirit of the Lord”. Therefore Wright’s concern that the Reformers do not participate or draw from the Spirit is unfounded, because the Spirit works BEST when believers contemplate Christ. Because as Jesus said, the Spirit comes to show us what belongs to us, things given to us by Christ. Therefore, understanding imputed righteousness is at the heart of the Gospel- because we need to realise that “as He is, so are we in this world”. That is true reality as seen by God (Piper is right)… a Christian who commits adultery is not seen by God as adulterer because God sees him in Christ. What about that sin then? It was imputed to Christ. Therefore, I don’t see any other way “in Christ’ can be properly expounded without pointing one to the imputation of righteousness.

Lastly, to add, even Tim Keller (go listen) talks about change and transformation as the result and effect of beholding the beauty of the Gospel truth that we are now adorned with the beauty of God Himself. (sermon- spiritual addictions). And read “prodigal God”- Keller makes it clear that all change springs forth from our reckoning of what Christ has done for us. I don’t see any similarity between Keller and Wright in this respect of how a Christian should view the Gospel/New Covenant, as a matter of justifcation in the future based on Spirit-filled living.

If that is taken too far by Wright, it is back to your works- and that is falling from Grace.

Yahweh could have contextualized our experience in a temporal reality in any number of ways: Wright reminds us that He has chosen to use history as His contextual template. We thus have an historical context against which we can measure our conceptual understanding of His words and behavior – and discard that which does not measure up to His historical standard.

How do the various theological constructs compare to the verbal and behavioral examples already provided in Yahweh’s history? Is there an historical consistency to one’s interpretation of Yahweh’s Word – from the first verses in Genesis to the final verses in Revelation – or must inserts or omissions be made to known history in order to explain a line of human reasoning?

Yahweh does nothing serendipitously: certainly not our placement in time, with its ensuing historical context. We would be remiss to ignore this.

Conservatives support Piper because they don’t like the idea that the gospel of Jesus requires they “do” anything. They’d rather continue living selfishly and feeling righteous while doing so. This allows them to ignore the requirements of righteous living — i.e. helping the poor, the sick, the immigrant, the marginalized, God’s creation, etc. Truthfully, the conservative view, as epitomized in most SBC churches, is rather unchristian when one considers Jesus.

Liberals will support Wright because liberals like to talk about the full gospel which includes both faith and works. It’s really that simple.

I know most reading this will be angry about what I’m saying. You may even try to rationalize your way to even calling my views heretical. Whatever. I’d simply encourage you to read the bible. Especially the words of Jesus. This is also something Wright emphasizes.

I could list hundreds of verses, but here’s just one I hope conservatives will consider:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Mt. 7:21

Oh, on the issue of creation care, here’s one to think about:

“The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great–and for destroying those who destroy the earth.”

Revelations 11:18

God will destroy those who destroy the earth. Ever hear that one talked about in church?

You’ll find the answers in the bible. But, pay particular attention to the passages rarely talked about in church.

God bless.

at any rate, it seems to me to be a real bummer that these two can’t ‘get along’ so to speak. they both clearly love God/Jesus/Holy Spirit and the scriptures. i seriously doubt, at the end of the day (and sincerely hope) that they wouldnt call into question one another’s salvation…so why the debate. In many regards it seems to just be semantics.

I believe it was Spurgeon who said, in regards to Calvinism vs Arminianism: ‘why is there arguing amongst brethren’.