John Piper is proud to stand next to N.T. Wright in proclaiming the cosmic scope of the gospel (88). But Piper believes that Wright has missed the essence of what makes the lordship of Christ good news – the fact that individual sinners can be forgiven because of Christ’s work on the cross.

In perhaps the most illuminating misstep in his argument, Piper quotes from 1 Corinthians 15:1-3, hoping to show that the crucial three words (that Jesus was crucified for our sins) are the climax and essence of the good news (89).

Unfortunately, Piper stops at verse 3! The gospel that Paul received and that was preached to the Corinthians (by which salvation comes [v. 1] – notice in this chapter that “the gospel” and “salvation” are not equivalents for Paul, as Wright contends) climaxes not with the three words “for our sins,” but with the three verses that Piper fails to mention – three verses that show the climax and crucial part of “the gospel” as being the Resurrection of Christ. (In fact the entire chapter is devoted to breaking down “this gospel” in terms of the resurrection.)

Piper goes on to say:

“Without at all insisting that Paul always announced the truth of justification in every gospel message, I would still want to insist from Paul’s own words that his announcement of the death and resurrection and lordship of Jesus became good news in Paul’s preaching precisely because in some way he communicated that believing in this Christ brought about justification (90).”

With all due respect to John Piper, I’m afraid he is contradicting himself. If justification is the crucial aspect of the “gospel,” how can Piper say that Paul did not announce it in every gospel message? According to Piper, a sermon without the doctrine of justification does not qualify as preaching “the gospel.”

I believe that Piper’s thorough scholarship has already alerted him to the fact that many of the sermons in Acts proclaim Christ’s resurrection and lordship without articulating the doctrine of justification. Piper doesn’t want to go so far as to say that the apostles are not preaching “the gospel,” so he adds qualifying statements like the one quoted above.

Wright’s insistence on seeing the “gospel” message as a message about Jesus for us is more exegetically plausible. The “gospel” as defined carefully in the New Testament is not primarily about how an individual gets saved. The gospel is a specific announcement about the crucified and risen Christ that then brings salvation of individual sinners.

If Piper is right (that “justification” makes the “gospel” good news), why didn’t the early Church call Paul’s epistles “Gospels?” After all, the epistles more clearly articulate and define justification than do Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Why did we begin calling the biographies of Jesus “Gospels,” if not because “gospel” meant “a message about Jesus’ life, death, resurrection and lordship?”

Let’s ask the question another way: what is the doctrine that if not preached in a sermon disqualifies the sermon from being a “gospel message?” I would argue that if Jesus is not preached as the crucified and risen Lord of the world in a gospel presentation, then the presentation ceases to be “gospel.” The message might be about personal forgiveness or a spiritual experience, but if it does not contain Paul’s “gospel,” then we have preached conversion instead of Christ.

In an ironic twist, I believe Piper (who has worked admirably for decades as a preacher and pastor who advocates a radical God-centeredness) is defining “the gospel” in a way that is less God-centered than Wright’s! Wright keeps Jesus Christ and his rule front and center, and he will not allow anything, even our precious personal salvation upstage Jesus as the main part of the gospel message.

Now… should I be attacked for not believing in justification, let me say a couple of things in conclusion. If someone asked me to define “the gospel” the way Paul would define the gospel, I would be inclined to state very simply that the gospel is this: “Jesus of Nazareth has been crucified for our sins has been raised from the dead and is the Lord of the world.”

If someone asked me to share “the gospel,” then I would tell a longer story. Put quite simply, “the gospel” is not good news or bad news (or anything but puzzling news at all) unless it comes within an overarching narrative.

I would start at Creation. I would mention the Fall of humans into sin and slavery to evil. I would tell the story of God’s chosen people Israel and the promises for deliverance and restoration. I would briefly tell the story of Jesus – culminating in his death and resurrection. I would proclaim “the gospel” of Jesus’ resurrection and lordship within this overarching narrative. Then, I would bring in the doctrine of justification, urging the person to trust solely in Christ for salvation and forgiveness of sins and to become part of God’s people, people who are saved from God’s wrath and called to be agents for new creation in the world we live in.

Tomorrow, we look at Wright’s view of justification and what determines our right standing before God.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Chapter 5 is important for John Piper’s critique of N.T. Wright. It is here that Piper levels one of the most serious accusations against Wright’s theology: that by not including justification in his definition of “the gospel,” Wright is misrepresenting the gospel itself.

Piper understands Wright’s motivation for centering the gospel on the announcement of Christ’s lordship. He shares with Wright a common desire to see Christ magnified and to see preaching rescued from “myopic, individualistic limitations (81).” In my recent interview with the Bishop, I asked him to define the “gospel,” which he did this way:

“I could try taking a Pauline angle. When Paul talks about ‘the gospel,’ he means ‘the good news that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and therefore the Lord of the world.’” Now, that’s about as brief as you can do it…

It’s very clear in Romans. Romans 1:3-4: This is the gospel. It’s the message about Jesus Christ descended from David, designated Son of God in power, and then Romans 1:16-17 which says very clearly: ‘I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God unto salvation.’ That is, salvation is the result of the gospel, not the center of the gospel itself.”

Piper agrees with Wright’s emphasis on the lordship of Christ, but he finds it “perplexing” that Wright will not allow the message of justification be part of the gospel (82). So, Piper seeks to counter Wright by providing several passages of Scripture that present the gospel with the doctrine of justification by faith included.

Piper’s examples, however, prove Wright’s point. Wright is using words very carefully. When asked how Paul would define “the gospel,” Wright answers by providing the Christ-focused announcement that Paul has been commissioned to spread. It is “the gospel” which brings salvation.

Piper equates “salvation” with “the gospel,” as is evident in the examples he provides. Wright, however, believes that Luke very carefully uses “message of salvation” when speaking of personal redemption and “the gospel” when speaking about the lordship of Christ which accomplishes personal salvation.

Piper also takes issue with Wright’s contention that we are justified by our faith in Jesus and not our faith in the doctrine of justification (85). (It is puzzling that Piper sees this as such a problem. After all, one of the English Reformed theologians of the late 1500′s, Richard Hooker argued this point during the English Reformation.)

Piper believes that unless we include the doctrine of justification in our “gospel,” the good news about Jesus’ lordship is left undefined. Even worse, the news of Jesus’ lordship is terrifying to those who are in rebellion against him. It is bad news, not good news for guilty sinners (85-86).

“The announcement that Jesus is the Messiah, the imperial Lord of the universe, is not good news, but is an absolutely terrifying message to a sinner who has spent all his life ignoring or blaspheming the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and is therefore guilty of treason and liable to execution.” (86)

I will post some personal reflections on this chapter Monday…

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Anyone who has done a cursory reading of John Piper and N.T. Wright knows that a major area of disagreement will come up regarding the ”imputation of Christ’s righteousness.” 

I’ve already shown how Piper believes Wright’s definition of righteousness to be too minimal. Piper sees another major flaw in Wright’s set-up of the law-court scene where justification takes place: Wright fails to take into account the omniscience of the Judge (73).

For Piper, God is unjust if he (knowing the guilt of the defendant) rules in the sinner’s favor (74) without something to uphold to the standard of justice.

N.T. Wright treats “reckoning righteousness apart from works” and “not reckoning sin against someone” as equivalents. They are two ways of saying the same thing: God has forgiven guilty sinners. God has granted clemency (74).

Piper admits that this interpretation is plausible, but he believes that it is more plausible to interpret Paul as counting a positive righteousness wherever God does not count sin against someone (75).

Why is Piper convinced that Paul is speaking of a positive righteousness being counted to the defendant that is not the same as the verdict of clemency? The Judge’s omniscience.

“An omniscient and just judge never ‘finds in favor’ of a guilty defendant. He always vindicates the claim that is true. (76)”

Piper (in a very long footnote) admits that “righteousness” is used in a variety of perplexing ways in the Old and New Testaments. He understands that the biblical witness is messy at times. He is not arguing for one sweeping definition of righteousness that can be easily inserted into every single place it’s used in the Bible.

But Piper is convinced that Paul’s writings clearly point to the truth expressed in the doctrine of ”imputation.” He brings “moral righteousness” into the picture (77), already anticipating Wright’s counter-argument that he is introducing a foreign concept into the biblical category. Piper seeks to show that “moral righteousness” is a feature of Pauline theology, again making use of Hebrew parallelisms (77).

Piper then makes the case for seeing imputation of divine righteousness as an integral part of the text. The way Wright has set up the scene keeps Wright from going in this direction. By tweaking Wright’s law-court picture, Piper shows how imputation of Christ’s righteousness not only fits, but is demanded by the biblical picture (78-80).

I am closer to Piper than to Wright on the question of imputation. Wright doesn’t see imputation. Piper creates a bigger picture in which imputation is clear. But I think Piper is missing an even bigger picture that includes, but transcends the question of imputation.

Reformed scholars have not traditionally made the imputation of Christ’s righteousness the basis for justification. Most Reformed theologians see “union with Christ” as the ground for justification, of which imputation then plays an integral part. (D.A. Carson would argue something like this, for example.)

Yes, it is true that God justifies us because God imputes our sin to Christ and his active obedience and righteousness to us. But why stop here? Why not see that everything about us is put on Christ and all that Christ can offer is given to us? Why stop at righteousness?

1 Corinthians 1:30 states that Christ became for us (1) wisdom from God and (2) righteousness and (3) sanctification and (4) redemption. Yes, righteousness is an integral part of this picture (and I’m surprised that Wright doesn’t see the emphasis on imputation in Romans). But the picture is bigger than even Piper sees. By virtue of our union with Christ, we have everything that Christ can give us – including moral righteousness.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Chapter 3 of The Future of Justification represents John Piper’s first significant area of disagreement with N.T. Wright’s theology. Piper seeks to fairly represent the building blocks of Wright’s theology of justification and righteousness. He quotes Wright extensively at the beginning, especially Wright’s words about justification being primarily the final justification at the Last Day (57-58).

Piper sees Wright’s contention that justification in Pauline usage is always final justification as “too sweeping.” He then quotes Wright on what “righteousness” means in this Last-Day lawcourt.

The question surfaces: Is N.T. Wright a modern-day Martin Luther? After all, if Wright is correct on the definition of righteousness, then 1500 years of Christian theology have been terribly misguided. Piper appreciates that Wright hopes to stand in the Reformation stream of questioning tradition by appealing to the text (61). But Piper gently points out how the Reformers sought to show that the early Church Fathers agreed with their interpretation, something that Wright does not do.

Piper’s main critique deals with Wright’s definition of righteousness as “covenant faithfulness.” Piper believes that Wright’s definition is reductionistic.

“Wright’s definition of the righteousness of God does not go to the heart of the matter, but stays at the level of what divine righteousness does rather than what it is. (62)”

Piper affirms what Wright affirms. Righteousness is God’s faithfulness to the covenant, his impartiality, his dealing with sin, and his helping the helpless. But Piper wants to go further than Wright in actually defining what righteousness is in its essence, not merely its actions.

Piper wants to ask the question he believes Scripture demands we ask: What is it about God’s righteousness that inclines him to act in this way?

What follows is a very Piper-esque definition of righteousness:

“The essence of the righteousness of God is his unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of his name. And human righteousness is the same: the unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of God. (64)”

Piper-esque though it may be, this definition is closer to the biblical understanding of righteousness than Wright’s. Piper trots out several Old Testament texts containing Hebrew parallelisms which back up his definition (64-66). He then argues that Paul himself saw righteousness in these terms. At one point, he lists a text where he sees Wright himself backing away from his reduced definition because Piper’s fits so much easier (68).

One of the reasons I enjoy reading N.T. Wright is because he never allows the “gospel” to be narrowed down to just me and God and my personal salvation. He insists we see the gospel in all its glorious manifestation and makes the pale, truncated gospel of evangelicalism look as pitiful as it often is.

That’s why I am all the more surprised that Wright has rejected what is essentially a more robust, glorious definition of “righteousness.” Piper has not argued against what Wright says righteousness does. He has zoomed in like a laser beam and exposed the reductionistic definition of righteousness in Wright’s theology. He is arguing essentially that Wright doesn’t go far enough, doesn’t go deep enough. I believe Piper’s critique is valid.

This sets the stage for the next chapter – where Piper tackles Wright’s denial of imputation…

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

We are still in Chapter 2 of Piper’s Future of Justification. The end of this chapter features a section on the penal-substitutionary model of the atonement. 

Piper praises Wright for his clarity and strong stance on the doctrine (47). He quotes Wright at length on the atonement, specifically how Jesus is both a propitiation of God’s wrath and an expiation of our sins.

Piper then turns to Wright’s endorsement of Steve Chalke’s The Lost Message of Jesus – a book which builds on Wright’s theology, but which seems to deny penal substitution. Piper provides an excursus in which Wright lays out his reasoning for endorsing Chalke’s book.

I am weary of the furor over Steve Chalke for several reasons. First, I think it is pointless for Wright to continue to stretch the doctrine of penal substitution to fit Chalke’s view. The more I read Chalke, the more I am convinced that he does not believe in the doctrine. I understand that Wright sees Chalke as a friend and does not want to hold him to a standard of precision one would expect of a theologian. But I feel that Wright could maintain his personal affinity for Chalke and still articulate clearly his different position on the subject.

Another reason I have grown tired of this controversy is the “guilt-by-association” tendencies of the conservative crowd. Now that Chalke has gone on record denying penal substitution, anyone and everyone who likes Chalke personally, has endorsed Chalke publicly, or has read Chalke privately is viewed with suspicion. Do you like Steve Chalke? Okay… you must be a sell-out!

(I have been the target of this kind of guilt-by-association myself. “Trevin reads N.T. Wright, so he must believe in the new perspective and thus he has abandoned the gospel.” “Trevin reads Scot McKnight, so we know that Trevin must be a closet Arminian who is really an ‘Emerging Church’ guy posing as a Reformed conservative who studies at Southern Seminary.” And on and on.)

The last reason I am weary of the whole Chalke-Wright controversy is because I believe Wright has a major blind spot and I am afraid he is too much in the thick of the discussion to see it. He has criticized Pierced for our Transgressions ruthlessly for the book’s neglect of the Gospel material. I believe that this criticism is legitimate.

But why can’t Wright give the authors of Pierced for out Transgressions the benefit of the doubt the way he does Chalke? Especially since Wright’s view of penal substitution seems much closer to the authors of Pierced for our Transgressions than Steve Chalke’s view!

Piper is as perplexed as I am regarding Wright’s endorsement of Chalke and his critique of Pierced for our Transgressions. On the one hand, Wright’s view of penal substitution is unequivocal. (I have written extensively of Wright’s view of penal substitution here.) On the other hand, his endorsements and critiques don’t line up.

Next, we look at Piper’s critique of Wright’s definition of “righteousness.”

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Piper’s chapter analyzing the lenses through which Wright looks at justification (Covenant and Law-court) is  important for understanding the criticisms that he will soon level against Wright’s theology. Piper rightly understands that a substantial, fair critique of N.T. Wright must do justice to the overarching framework that provides the structure to Wright’s theological outlook.Wright sees God’s covenant with Israel as the dominant concept for understanding Paul and justification. Piper enters into Wright’s covenantal “world” in order to give a fair critique from the inside. That is what this chapter is all about.

First, Piper takes issue with Wright’s view that justification is simply a declaration of the salvation event. For Wright, the effectual call to salvation and the act of justification may take place in the same instant, but the terms “call” and “justification” refer to two separate activities.

Piper doesn’t think this division in terminology holds up under intense scrutiny. He provides a couple of examples where Wright’s definition of justification doesn’t seem to fit (40-41) and appeals to other texts that seem to indicate that justification not only declares salvation, but also establishes salvation in some sense (42-43).

Piper’s conclusion?

“Wright seems to have things backward: first covenant membership, then justification. In fact, justification is part of the ground, not the declaration, of saving covenant membership.” (43)

The next section features Piper defending Wright’s desire to hold together both covenantal and law-court imagery. Interestingly enough, Piper takes on Wright’s critics here, as he quotes the Bishop over and over again regarding the importance of social and political redemption and personal forgiveness of sins (44-46).

Piper doesn’t take issue with Wright’s understanding of the global effects of salvation. He believes that Wright’s “gospel” (that Jesus is Lord and God raised him from the dead) is insufficient because it fails to explain why or how that is good news for people (46).

In other words, Piper and Wright are agreed on the gospel message and its effects, but the two scholars are looking at the gospel from two different perspectives. Piper is looking at the gospel as primarily about the salvation of individual sinners, which has as an effect the restoration of the entire cosmos. Wright is looking at the gospel as primarily the restoration of the entire cosmos, which includes the personal salvation of individual human beings. (See diagram above.)

There is a danger in both ways of viewing the gospel. Piper’s way of viewing the gospel could lead us to so emphasize personal conversion and the salvation of individuals that we forget the cosmic implications of the lordship of Christ which are manifested politically and socially. If we negate the cosmic effects of the gospel, we truncate the message and leave the Caesars (idols) of the world on their thrones.

On the other hand, Wright’s view of the gospel could lead us to so emphasize the cosmic implications of the gospel that we devote all of our time and energy to politics, social work, and philanthropy and leave little room or passion in our outlook for personal salvation, evangelistic activity and bold proclamation of the gospel for individual sinners. If we negate the personal, individualistic aspect of the gospel, we neuter the message by failing to call individuals to repentance and faith.

We needn’t choose between the personal and cosmic gospel. We need both dimensions. Thankfully, Piper and Wright agree that the gospel includes both these dimensions. But I would suspect that they would also argue that the primary lens through which we view and preach the gospel should be either personal or cosmic.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Piper begins the substance of his critique against Wright by arguing that historical research does not shine as much light on a biblical text as we might expect. Piper points out possible distortions that may creep up in systematic or biblical theology. He gives an example: seeing eschatology as the driving framework of the New Testament can distort the biblical witness (33). (I am confused by his footnote, implicating George Ladd’s The Presence of the Future. I am not sure whether or not Piper is quoting Ladd favorably or if he is critiquing Ladd for overemphasizing eschatology.)

Piper sees N.T. Wright’s theology as biblical theology, not systematic. By biblical theology, he means this:

“Biblical theology aims to read the authors of Scripture along the trajectory of redemptive history in light of the authors’ own categories that are shaped by the historical milieu in which they lived.” (34)

Piper clearly sees the usefulness in pursuing the formulation of a biblical theology. But he believes that some cautions are in line.

First off, Piper says that interpreting Scripture in light of the first century is not always illuminating. A fascination with historical research can lead to wrong ideas (34).

How? First, he believes that people can misunderstand the historical sources. In other words, why should scholars be more sure of their interpretations of first-century works than they are of their study of the New Testament texts themselves?

Piper makes a good point here, but I am afraid that under closer inspection, it doesn’t hold up. There is no interpretation, indeed no translation at all without historical study of the first century! It is possible that we can misunderstand the sources, that we can interpret other historical works incorrectly, and that we can mistranslate the texts based on faulty lexicons… but that is a risk that we must, indeed we are forced to take! There can be no interpretation or translation at all without such historical research.

Piper’s warning should be heeded. Let us not overestimate our ability to understand the time period.

But I fear that Piper’s warning may lead some of his followers to disregard the historical question altogether. Downgrading research in historical Jesus studies (which Piper does in the preface to What Jesus Demands from the World), downplaying the importance (even necessity) of historical research in understanding the biblical text, and disregarding historical findings that do not align with our neatly-defined categories of systematic theology will bring us again to the doorstep of old Bultmann-styled liberalism. Piper would never go this far, of course, but I can see that cliff not too far in the distance.

Piper also warns us against assuming agreement with a source when in fact there is none (35-36). Words can be used in different ways to different people (he uses the word “evangelical” as an example). We shouldn’t assume that the way a word is used in one source is the way it is used in Scripture. Again, this is a good warning. We shouldn’t always assume that definitions line up.

At the same time though, employing this hermeneutic of suspicion could wind up paralyzing biblical scholars. Ironically, Piper thinks Wright’s theology will bog down pastors in a swamp of perplexity. I believe Piper’s hermeneutical suspicion will paralyze Greek scholars and English translators the same way.

How are we to know what any of the words of the Greek New Testament mean without studying them in relation to the language used at the time and in other writings? Piper is right that we shouldn’t be overconfident in our interpretation of words in other sources. But he fails to mention that we can’t properly translate the New Testament without such research.

The end of the chapter features Piper’s complaint that N.T. Wright’s “fresh” and “new” perspectives on ancient Bible texts represent a trend in our current culture. ”Freshness” is not always the result of faithful exegesis. He also believes Wright fails to express “exuberant” gratitude for the insights of previous generations of expositors.

“To be sure, we need preachers who (1) give themselves to the text and (2) allow themselves to be taken wherever it truly leads. But when Wright continues the sentence by saying we need pastors who ‘think new thoughts’ and ‘dare to try them out,’ he implies that this will be the result of allegiance to the text. In fact, allegiance to the text may as often awaken joyful gratitude and worship over and confirmation of insights that have been seen clearly and cherished for centuries (37).”

I agree with Piper 100% here. We can expect a “fresh” word from the Lord upon studying the text, but that fresh word may (and usually will) be a word that was fresh to someone in generations past as well.

I also believe that Wright would agree with Piper on this subject. Consider Wright’s allegiance to traditional Church teaching on sexual morality and the historic doctrines of the faith. His testimony does not reveal a man who is carried to and fro by the winds of the latest fads in scholarship.

Nevertheless, Piper’s warning should be heeded. We should not seek “freshness” and “novelty” and “innovation” for the sake of it. This chapter ends with a foretaste of future critique (38). Piper sees that Wright is bringing large conceptual frameworks to his reading of the New Testament. That is true. He also sees that Wright’s frameworks might not always be accurate and thus distort the texts rather than illuminate it.

I agree with Piper’s critique at this point. While reading Wright, I have always felt that he approaches the text with large frameworks – such as “exile and return” – into which he then seeks to fit all the biblical data. (But it should be mentioned that we all come to the biblical text with large conceptual frameworks. More on that later…)

The next chapter sets up one of those frameworks. We will take a look at that chapter next…

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Why is John Piper taking on N.T. Wright, devoting an entire book to arguing against his theology? “On Controversy” lays out the reasons why Piper is writing this book as well as some ground rules for how the debate must take place.

Some followers of the “new perspective” discussion might be perplexed to see Piper criticizing Wright, arguably the most conservative and traditional scholar writing from the New Perspective landscape. Piper gives good reasons for targeting Wright. Because Wright is the most conservative proponent of the New Perspective, a prolific evangelical writer, and a widely-read scholar in evangelical circles, it only makes sense that Piper would see Wright as a bigger threat to evangelicalism than Sanders, Dunn and others (27).

I appreciate Piper’s belief that truth must not be compromised in the name of “unity.” Unity is indeed a second-order doctrine which follows from truth. Peace is a virtue that all Christians should seek after, yet true and lasting peace stems from agreement on Christian doctrine (30-31).

I found myself in total agreement with Piper in this section. He wisely points to earlier evangelical controversies and the way that older evangelical statesmen engaged in polemics as examples for the present discussion (28-29). (This emphasis on past controversies foreshadows one of the major critiques Piper levels against Wright – a lack of appreciation for the wisdom from older theologians.)

Hopefully, readers of The Future of Justification will not skip over the “On Controversy” section. We must be careful to not feed ourselves on doctrinal disputes – to crave controversy and polemical discourse. Piper’s reminder is good for us all:

“Faithful Christians do not love controversy; they love peace. They love their brothers and sisters who disagree with them. They long for a common mind for the cause of Christ. But for this very reason they are bound by their conscience and by the Word of God to try to persuade the church concerning the fullness of the truth and beauty of God’s Word” (31-32).

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Let’s get started on The Future of Justification - John Piper’s response to N.T. Wright. Today we’ll look at the Introduction, a section that includes all of Piper’s major criticisms condensed into a series of brief paragraphs. The outline of the book becomes clear as you read the introduction. If you’d like to read this section online before looking at my comments, you can find it here.

First off, I appreciate the fact that Piper has not written this book as a way to “one-up” Bishop Wright. He is not interested in debating Wright as a way to increase his own stature (13).

Secondly, I’m glad to hear Piper announce quite strongly that he does not believe Wright to be under the curse of Galatians 1:8-9 (15). Though Piper believes Wright’s doctrines are seriously in error (after all, this book’s purpose is to refute them), he does not question Wright’s salvation. Nor does he call Wright’s exposition of “the gospel” another gospel. (So let’s dispense of the unhelpful rhetoric of “heresy” and “false gospel” that so many uninformed seminary students use against Wright.)

What, then, is Piper’s main problem with N.T. Wright’s theology? He says,

“(Wright’s) portrayal of the gospel – and of the doctrine of justification in particular – is so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognize it as biblically faithful” (15). 

Piper believes that Wright’s work will lead to a kind of preaching that fails to adequately preach the gospel.

Piper’s graciousness to Wright is nowhere more evident than in his strong affirmations for the positive aspects of Wright’s work. (15-16). Piper obviously respects the Bishop. He expresses appreciation for much of Wright’s theology. (Those who critique Wright without having read him would do well to take Piper’s affirmations seriously).

Piper demonstrates a remarkable effort to be fair to Wright in this book. I am glad that Piper has not joined the ranks of many other Reformed critics who have attacked Wright’s theology without understanding the entire picture that Wright is painting. Piper rightly recognizes that Wright is putting together a different paradigm for theology altogether – one that changes the categories. Because of this shift, Piper realizes that one cannot simply take Wright’s statements out of context, compare them to the old paradigm and then declare them inferior. One must “get inside the globe and see things from there.” (17).

Piper quickly summarizes the main points of contention he finds in Wright’s theology. He takes issue with Wright’s statements about “the gospel” not being about how to get saved and about justification not being how one becomes a Christian. He believes Wright is wrong to say the doctrine of justification is not what Paul means by “the gospel.” He believes Wright is misleading people when he says that one is not justified by faith in the doctrine of justification by faith. He sees Wright’s view of “righteousness” as woefully reductionistic and Wright’s statements about future justification being based on the “whole life lived” as confusing.

In the introduction, Piper has laid out a list of complaints regarding Wright’s theology that he finds dangerous. Perhaps the biggest charge that Piper levels against Wright is that Wright’s theology lacks clarity and forthrightness. He repeats this charge several times throughout the introduction and says it again at the end: “Wright leaves many ordinary folk not with the rewarding ‘ah-ha’ experience of illumination, but with a paralyzing sense of perplexity” (24).

Piper is concerned with N.T. Wright, not just because he believes Wright is in error on some important doctrines, but because he believes Wright’s theology to be misleading and unnecessarily complicated. Piper seeks clarity. He believes Wright’s work breeds confusion.

Whether or not these charges can be substantiated, we will see in later chapters…

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Over the next few weeks, I plan on blogging chapter by chapter through John Piper’s new book The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright.

I admire both John Piper and N.T. Wright. Both are men of God who have a deep love for the Scriptures. Both have devoted their lives to the service of the kingdom. Both men are scholars who are simultaneously devoted to the Church.

Piper’s book is an important contribution to the current debates surrounding the “new perspective” on Paul. I also believe Piper’s critique of N.T. Wright to be gracious and even-handed.

Why have I decided to weigh in on this controversy? I hope this series will not be misconstrued as the ramblings of a seminary student who overestimates his own importance. I am a minister, first and foremost – a servant of God’s church. I do not have the intellect of N.T. Wright. Nor do I have the pastoral experience of John Piper.

But I do believe that my experience in mission work overseas has helped to alert me to several deficiencies in the way we present the “gospel” in evangelical circles in the U.S.

I began reading John Piper and N.T. Wright at about the same time (2003). I have benefited greatly from both of these men’s works. It has been theologically sharpening for me to have read extensively from both sides of this debate.

I have grown weary of the constant battling between “new” and “old” perspectives. So far, the discussion has been polarizing. You are either in the Reformed traditional camp or you are a Federal Vision/New Perspective proponent. In other words, either Wright is completely wrong and Piper, Carson, Seifrid, etc. are completely right or Wright is completely right and Piper and the other critics are completely off-base.

But what if the proponents of both sides of this debate are right on some things and wrong on others? What if, when reading both Wright and Piper, we come away from their works saying, “Yes, but…”? I’m afraid that Piper’s book may serve as ammunition for those who take target at Wright without ever reading him. Likewise, I’m afraid Wright fans might dismiss Piper’s book as just another critic who “doesn’t really understand the bishop.”

Piper’s critique is terrific in its scope, attractive in its clarity, and devastating in much of his argumentation against Wright. And yet, there are points where I think Piper totally misses the mark and Wright has offered some insights that we must take into account.

The evangelical Church has much to learn from these two scholars.

So, perhaps I am qualified to weigh in on this debate about justification. Perhaps I am not. That will be left for the reader to decide. I do pray that this series will shine light on this subject and that those who come across these posts will be better pastors, laypeople and faithful Christians – faithful to the gospel and to our Savior – for having read it.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog