| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
42 of 54 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
This book may stretch you, but to be stretched is sometimes a good idea!,
By Adrian Warnock (London, UK) - See all my reviews
This review is from: The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright (Paperback)
Bishop Tom Wright has long been the darling of many evangelicals. He is praised particularly for his work on the resurrection. But there is another side to Wright which is coming increasingly to the fore. His ability to woo evangelicals has, according to some observers, made it easy for him to subtly change some key concepts we all hold dear. Many evangelicals have followed Wright away from orthodox doctrines that have defined evangelicalism for centuries. For example, it was in Wright's work that Steve Chalke and others found criticisms of penal substitutionary atonement as it is usually preached. Steve Chalke is not so winsome as Wright, so when he popularized the criticisms found in Wright and dismissed the ancient doctrine as "cosmic child abuse," there was a significant backlash that ultimately led to the publication, in my mind, of one of the most important Christian books of the last decade--Pierced For Our Transgressions (PFOT).
Wright was very unhappy about the book, Pierced For Our Transgressions. He wrote a scathing article at the same time that there was a major disagreement within UK evangelicalism about Spring Harvest discontinuing a partnership, partly, it seems, over their desire to continue having Steve Chalke on their leadership team and as a main speaker. John Piper's, The Future of Justification, should be read by anyone who has either been influenced by Wright themselves or knows someone who has. I urge you to get a good understanding of the cross first, for this is a book on the subject of justification. It will be a great help to you in understanding Piper's current book if you already understand penal substitution. This is not an easy book to read in some ways, and if you love the work of N. T. Wright, it will be a painful book to read. But it is not very complex. Piper shines the light of gospel clarity into the opacity of much of Wright's work. Piper is very clear in this book. He warns against Wright's teaching specifically and explicitly. But at all times he interacts with Wright with amazing graciousness. A quote from The Future of Justification introduces the core issue and the main disagreement between Piper and Wright. Bishop Wright had every opportunity to comment on drafts of Piper's book, and Piper has every reason to say the following. On its own, you might be surprised, or think Piper is being unfair, but if you follow along with my interaction with his book, the reasons for the following quote will emerge. Piper is speaking about the concept of justification, and sets the scene of the cosmic law court. He begins by asking the most crucial question in his whole book: "The question is: When the Judge finds in our favor, does he count us as having the required moral righteousness--not in ourselves, but because of the divine righteousness imputed to us in Christ? My answer is yes . . . Wright's answer is no. To review, he thinks that the whole discussion of imputing divine righteousness to humans is muddle-headed. It is simply not operating with proper biblical-historical categories. For the last fifteen hundred years, the discussions of this issue in the church have been misguided. If we use the language of the law-court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys, or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom." That infamous quote from N. T. Wright and his framing of thousands of years of debate about the imparting or imputing of Christ's righteousness as `muddle-headed' is breathtaking. Wright seems to see himself as a lone figure, reforming the whole church alone in a similar way to Martin Luther himself, and incidentally, arguing that Luther was as much in error as the Pope of his time, OR Wright, however bright a scholar he is, is very wrong. I believe Piper has shown how very wrong Wright is. John Piper elegantly exposes the heart of the differences between his position and that of N. T. Wright's. For those without the time to read massive volumes written by the current Bishop of Durham, Piper has done a great service. His scrupulous attempts to be fair to Wright are most useful. I also love the way which, in responding to Wright's teaching, Piper adequately uses the opportunity which error presents us to clarify and restate truth. In explaining where Wright disagrees with classic reformed teaching, Piper restates that teaching in a helpful way and demonstrates the way in which Wright agrees with all, but one, aspect of this explanation. "In historic Reformed exegesis, (1) a person is in union with Christ by faith alone. In this union, (2) the believer is identified with Christ in his (a) wrath-absorbing death, (b) his perfect obedience to the Father, and (c) his vindication-securing resurrection. All of these are reckoned--that is, imputed--to the believer in Christ. On this basis, (3) the "dead," "righteous," "raised" believer is accepted and assured of final vindication and eternal fellowship with God. In Wright's exegesis, the middle element in step 2 is missing (2b), because he does not believe that the New Testament teaches that Christ's perfect obedience is imputed to us. Thus the pattern is: (1) A person is in union with Christ by faith alone (expressed in baptism). (2) The believer is identified with Christ in his wrath-absorbing death (there is no identification with or imputation of Christ's perfect obedience) and his vindication-securing resurrection. Both of these are reckoned--that is, imputed--to the believer in Christ. On this basis, (3) the "dead" and "raised" believer is accepted and assured of final vindication and eternal fellowship with God." (pp. 124-125) What is striking about this explanation is precisely where this puts Tom Wright. Both Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians have agreed that there is some sort of righteousness transfer that goes on. Where Catholics argue that this is an impartation, Protestants claim it is an imputation. That difference in wording, which led to the Reformation itself, almost sounds like a minor nuance when Wright comes along and sweeps the whole concept of an alien righteousness away! To Wright neither group is right and are both, as he puts it, "muddle-headed." Thus, the most critical difference between N. T. Wright and Piper is that Wright does not believe that Christ's righteousness is in any way transferred to our account. This is a vital point. Without this concept of an alien righteousness either credited or transferred to us, ironically, both the Protestant and the Roman Catholic understandings of salvation unravel. Wright seems to believe that he and other modern theologians have discovered something that every theologian for millennia have missed. We should therefore be very careful before we accept such assertions. Men as epoch-shattering as Luther only come along very rarely. Is Wright such a man? Or is he deluded and quite plainly wrong? Another key argument from Wright and others who advocate the New Perspectives on Paul is that we have misunderstood the Pharisees through the perspective of the Reformation. The first century Jews were never legalists, we are told. There are a number of problems with that position. The first is looking at Jesus' own perspective on the Pharisees, seen most prominently in Luke 18. The second is that while we should acknowledge that the original message of the OT was one of grace, even if the official documents of the first century do indeed point to grace, that does not mean that grace was what was practiced. John Piper explains this further: "Legalism may also exist in practice, even if grace is trumpeted in theory. Religionists may easily proclaim the primacy of grace and actually live as if the determining factor was human effort. The history of the Christian church amply demonstrates that a theology of grace does not preclude legalism in practice. It would be surprising if Judaism did not suffer from the same problem. Legalism threatens even those who hold to a theology of grace since pride and self-boasting are deeply rooted in human nature. . . ." (p. 147) The emphasis of people like Wright on our need to demonstrate that we have changed in order for God to finally justify us has an interesting effect. It is ironic indeed that in trying to claim Judaism was not legalistic, it is possible to argue that the new perspective has created a new form of `soft' legalism. In fact, if first century Judaism was not in any sense legalistic, this would be most remarkable. Surely they would have been the only religious group in the history of the world who escaped its ugly stain. Anyone within the evangelical movement with any knowledge of history should appreciate that. For all our talk about grace, we have all too often succumbed to the deceptive allure of legalism. This would most likely not be obvious in a review of our doctrinal statements and other written documents, but would be true nonetheless. Piper responds to some of the notions of the New Perspectives group who claim that first century Jews had not drifted from the grace message of the Old Testament into legalism. He explains: "In regard to the second objection to the general view that `the Jew keeps the law out of gratitude, as the proper response to grace,' it is important to see that, from Jesus' standpoint, relational exclusivism (ethnic or otherwise) is rooted in self-righteousness, which means that ethnocentrism and legalism have the same root. This connection between self-righteousness and exclusivism is one of the points of Jesus' parable that begins, `He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves... Read more ›
117 of 160 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Compelling theological argument against N.T. Wright,
By
This review is from: The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright (Paperback)
Critically reading The Future of Justification was a difficult pleasure. I am somewhat humbled by other reviewers' gauging of this book's difficulty. While it certainly isn't at the level of difficulty of John Owen, nor of some other theological-philosophical obscurantist pedants who shall likewise remain nameless, I would not rate it quite so low as 3 out of 5 for difficulty - more like 4 out of 5, at least for this reviewer. Its intricacy arises from its two main objectives: 1) to examine and assess the New Perspective teachings of N.T. Wright, Anglican bishop of Durham; and 2) to celebrate and reinforce the traditional reformation teachings on the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
In view of the specialty nature of this book, it would not be helpful to list the chapter headings, which are wordy and technical. But even before he embarks upon the substance of his debate against N.T. Wright's positions on justification, righteousness, and legalism, Piper's opening remarks go a long way toward preemptively smoothing the waters and de-ruffling feathers. He begins by enumerating for the public record his appreciation of Wright's orthodox positions on many fundamentals, such as the virgin birth, homosexuality, biblical inerrancy, the resurrection and the deity of Christ, and penal substitutionary atonement (the latter is especially relevant to the maelstrom over penal substitutionary atonement in Britain at the moment). Piper rounds out his introductory remarks by invoking J. Gresham Machen's perspective on controversy. Readers may be familiar with this material, as it was lifted directly from Contending For Our All, Piper's latest installation in the Swans Are Not Silent biographical series. But Piper does not spend time approbating Wright. While avoiding ad hominem attacks on Bishop Wright, he often exclaims incredulity at many of Wright's conclusions. Piper's sense is that although Wright does not fall under the curse of Galatians 1:8-9, he is nevertheless seriously misguided in his interpretations and misleading in his conclusions. Much more helpful than the chapter headings for following the flow of Piper's argument is the series of questions he poses in the introduction, followed by the chapters in which they are addressed: * The gospel is not about how to get saved? (Ch. 5) * Justification is not how you become a Christian? (Ch. 6) * Justification is not the Gospel? (Ch. 6) * We are not justified by believing in justification? (Ch. 5) * The imputation of God's own righteousness makes no sense at all? (Ch. 8 ) * Future justification is on the basis of the complete life lived? (Ch. 7) * First-century Judaism had nothing of the alleged self-righteous and boastful legalism? (Ch.. 9-10) * God's righteousness is the same as His covenant faithfulness? (Ch. 11) The first chapter constitutes an extended word of caution to all readers, whether laypeople or students of theology. Echoing the chapter's title, Piper warns that "not all biblical-theological methods and categories are illuminating." He especially rattles his saber at novel theological approaches lacking grounding in historical theology, although he is careful to say that all historical theology must subject itself to the authority of scripture. Chapter 2 launches Piper's sustained critique of Wright's understanding of covenant, righteousness and the ordo salutis (the order of salvation, a reformed concept based primarily on Romans 8:30). On the surface Wright may sound like a solid reformer based on his emphasis on covenant, but Piper carefully deconstructs Wright's awkward equivalence of `righteousness' with `covenant faithfulness', exposing its fatal flaws. What I appreciate most about Piper's book most how biblically based it is. When Wright declares "What I'm saying is in the Bible," Piper both graciously and devastatingly meets him in theological disputation on Wright's own terms - biblical exegesis. While Piper does briefly appeal to theological work accomplished by others, including the founding Anglican theologians who wrote the Thirty-Nine Articles, Luther's colleague Philipp Melanchthon, the framers of the Helvetic confessions, the Westminster divines, and Westminster's Richard Gaffin (not to mention CREC pastor Douglas Wilson and Piper's own theological assistants at Desiring God), Piper establishes his arguments primarily on extensive scriptural exegesis rather than standing on the shoulders of a tradition that Wright routinely criticizes. Wright apparently champions the concept of covenant so enthusiastically because he perceives theological and commonsensical problems with the forensic understanding of God's imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers. While Wright does not object to penal substitutionary atonement itself, he balks against the idea of grace `streaming' through a metaphysical conduit from righteous judge to unrighteous convict, thereby clothing the convict in the judge's righteousness. He claims that the mental image of such law-court dynamics is simply nonsense. Wright asserts the Church has misunderstood justification for at least the past fifteen years - he takes special aim at Augustine for initiating this misapprehension - and counts himself a modern-day Luther figure, at least in terms of method. In what will be a constant theme throughout the book, Piper faults Wright for a shallow, narrow and incomplete definition of righteousness, wherein Wright makes a category mistake by defining righteousness by way of an arbitrary set of denotations, not its intrinsic connotations. Piper also takes Wright to task for what seems a chronologically messy understanding of the process (or rather, event) of justification. Instead of taking justification to be the God-effected event that simultaneously regenerates a believer and effectually declares him (imputes him) righteous based on the perfect righteousness of Christ, Wright construes justification to be both a present/future occurrence for believers which comes to fullness only at the judgment seat following the second coming. Thus, works do contribute to our final `justification.' This of course is not a new strain of teaching. Arguably Wright's most enigmatic idea is the distinction he draws between first-century Jewish ethnocentrism and our current understanding of legalism. In his mind the two are poles apart, whereas Piper presents the convincing argument, by virtue of scripture and logic, that ethnocentrism is merely a subset - one of many manifestations - of legalism as practiced both intentionally and unintentionally by Jews and Christians of all stripes throughout redemption history. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) This book is not a must-read for a substantial cross-section of the Church at large. Piper himself recommends against the regular churchgoer attempting it. He even advises pastors against investing in the book if they haven't yet come up against the New Perspective in their churches. One of Wright's most admirable ambitions is "to help us see more clearly the historical sweep and global scope of God's purposes in the gospel." This is a worthy goal, but Wright has gone about it in an artificial and contrived way which ultimately disregards accuracy on the subject of justification, and in turn generates dire pastoral implications. Piper provides no less than six appendices which exposit key verses concerning justification. Pastors should find a wealth of information therein. Who then should read this book? Optimistically, Wright aficionados will be inspired to take a critical look at his teachings from the perspective of a respected pastor-theologian, and will sincerely engage with this book's careful critique. I have a sneaking suspicion that relatively few Wright devotees have done careful exegetical work to establish whether Wright is sound of not, but I could be wrong. Thankfully, Piper has done the work for those who have not done it. Friends of Wright's followers should also be encouraged to pass on copies of Piper's book to their Wright-influenced friends. At only $12 or so, personal book allowances should bear the cost of at least a couple of copies. I can think of few Christian figures who have proven such a boon to Evangelical thought and practice as John Piper has in the past twenty-five plus years. The Future of Justification is yet another gift from his hand, and while it will take considerable mining to get at its mother lode, the effort will be worth it. Discerning Reader.
182 of 253 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Wright is Right,
By
This review is from: The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright (Paperback)
John Piper's new book, as its subtitle indicates, is a rejoinder to N. T. Wright's take on justification in the letters of Paul. The volume consists of eleven chapters and six appendices, all endeavouring to lay bare what Piper considers to be the shortcomings of Wright's understanding of justification and related matters. In his Acknowledgements (11), Piper informs us of his intentions and expectations in a quotation from Solomon Stoddard: "The general tendency of this book is to show that our claim to pardon and sin and acceptance with God is not founded on any thing wrought in us, or acted by us, but only on the righteousness of Christ." By thus framing the issue, Piper's book functions as a broadside against any and all attempts, especially those of Wright, to introduce things "wrought in us" or "acted by us" into the Pauline preaching of justification by faith, thereby detracting from "the righteousness of Christ only." A certain amount of hype has attended the advent of this publication, particularly the "warning" that any other than Piper's outlook on Paul is playing fast-and-loose with the apostle's teaching. According to Piper's web page, "Piper is sounding a crucial warning in this book, reminding all Christians to exercise great caution regarding `fresh' interpretations of the Bible and to hold fast to the biblical view of justification" (http://www.desiringgod.org / Store/Books / 728_The_Future_of_Justification). In the Conclusion (184), Piper clarifies that the book's title is intended to draw attention to where the doctrine of justification may be going, as well to "the critical importance of God's future act of judgment when our justification will be confirmed."
On the upside, Piper rightly maintains that justification for Paul entails more than a declaration that one is a member of the covenant (à la Wright). Instead, quoting Simon Gathercole: "God's act of justification is not one of recognition but is, rather, closer to creation. It is God's determination of our new identity rather than a recognition of it" (42). Even with the various qualifications allotted to Wright, Piper effectively scores some points regarding justification as the experience of salvation by arguing successfully throughout the book that it is a false distinction to bifurcate "justification" and "salvation." In this particular regard, Piper's discussion makes for helpful and even stimulating reading. Also, Piper does score a point as regards Wright's exegesis of 2 Cor 5:21. Here the traditional reading makes more sense: in Christ God's righteousness has become ours. A parallel text is Phil 3:9 However, the upside of the book is easily outweighed by its downside. In a nutshell, this volume is mainly a defense of traditional doctrines, with a minimum of persuasive exegesis and a heavy reliance on confessionalism. It is understandable that Piper has a pastoral concern. But is Wright's theology of justification so dire that it warrants being dubbed a "double tragedy" by Piper? I think not. It is Wright who has "delivered the goods" when it comes to penetrating exegesis and, dare one say, fresh insight into the letters of Paul. It is also understandable that Piper would want to allay the "confusion" he senses on the part of his parishioners. However, I must say that such "laypersons" would have to be theologically literate indeed to tackle this volume, not least its microscopic footnotes. Otherwise, the confusion is liable to remain! As much as anything, this book is flawed by its near phobia of anything that smacks of newness and freshness, which, for Piper, must be suspect by definition. This is why we are exhorted to be suspicious of "our love of novelty" and eager to test biblical interpretations by "the wisdom of the centuries" (38). Agreed, but surely "the wisdom of the centuries" includes our own century. Wright is precisely correct: we are "to think new thoughts arising of the text and to dare to try them out in word and deed" (quoted on 37). Piper would do well to recall Matt 13:52: "And he said to them, `Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old'." I would say the appropriate response to matters "new" and "fresh" is not skepticism but the Beroean spirit of searching the Scriptures to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11).
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product).
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
|
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
