Customer Reviews

The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

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 that they were righteous [dikaioi], and treated others with contempt' (Luke 18:9). A deep root of `treating others with contempt' (whether the others are ethnically similar publicans or ethnically different Gentiles) is: `[They] trusted in themselves that they were righteous.' . . . In other words, the exclusivistic treatment of others is one manifestation of the self-righteousness that trusts in its own law-keeping. Legalism and ethnocentrism have the same root. They are not separate conditions of the soul. Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector also shows that the branches of this root of exclusivistic self-righteousness can, amazingly, make protests and prayers to the effect that all is of grace. Thus, the Pharisee prays, `God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector' (Luke 18:11).

Is this not a clear warning to us that finding grace-dependent statements in Second-Temple Judaism does not necessarily demonstrate that the hearts of those who made these statements were not, at root, self-righteous" (pp. 156-157)?

So what is the crux of the doctrine of justification, according to Piper?

"Our only hope for living the radical demands of the Christian life is that God is totally for us now and forever. Therefore, God has not ordained that living the Christian life should be the basis of our hope that God is for us. That basis is the death and righteousness of Christ, counted as ours through faith alone. On the cross Christ endured for us all the punishment required of us because of our sin. And in order that God, as our Father, might be completely for us and not against us forever, Christ has performed for us in his perfect obedience to God all that God required of us.

This punishment and this obedience are completed and past. They can never change. Our union with Christ and the enjoyment of these benefits is secure forever. Through faith alone, God establishes our union with Christ. This union will never fail, because in Christ, God is for us as an omnipotent Father who sustains our faith, and works all things together for our everlasting good. The one and only instrument through which God preserves our union with Christ is faith in Christ--the purely receiving act of the soul." (p. 184)

This book may stretch you, but to be stretched is sometimes a good idea!

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.

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).

I've enjoyed reading both John Piper and NT Wright for a long time now and it was a pleasure to read Piper on Wright. I kinda wish all my favorite writers would comment on each other!

Some thoughts on NT Wright:
Trying to understand Wright on justification is a tortured task (as this book testifies). It was comforting to know that I wasn't alone in being totally confused. As Piper points out, Wright repudiates the classic definitions and is not entirely consistent even with his new definitions. On the whole, Wright is maddeningly vague about what he means. Much of Piper's book is painstaking exegesis of Wright's writings, which, come on, we shouldn't have to do with a masterful theologian as Wright.

If you are going to take on the huge theological project of redefining the classic Catholic-Protestant debate on justification (and announcing that everyone's heretofore got it wrong), you have to be exquisitely clear and systematic. Perhaps we'll see a fuller discussion with his upcoming book on Paul (the 4th in his Christian Origins series). In the end, after much parsing and analysis on Piper's part, it seems that Wright's view on the ground of our standing with God is much closer to the Roman Catholic view (a grace-infused life of good works) rather than the classic Protestant view (Christ's imputed works alone).

Some thoughts on Piper on Wright:
I think Piper made several excellent points: (1) Pharisaism, at its heart, was legalistic and self-justifying moralism. I really don't get how Wright could absolve rabbinic Judaism from this charge. Wright contends the only crime of the Pharisees was an overly restrictive view of covenant membership (ethnocentrism), but as Piper points out, the heart of that restrictive view was indeed self-justifying moralism. Was there not an arrogance behind the clean-law restrictions? And especially in light of Jesus and Paul's dispute with Pharisaism, I just don't get how Wright could transform the Pharisees into a heroic group. My guess is that the scholar fell in love with his subject and lost objectivity.

(2) God's righteousness is not merely God's covenant faithfulness (his actions), but his character. I think Piper overkills this point but it's a good point. Wright, for his part, believes that this means God's righteousness is like a vapor that moves across the courtroom to the defendant, which doesn't say so much about the Protestant view but Wright's really poor understanding of the Protestant view on justification.

Some thoughts on Piper:
(1) The book was way too long. Piper mentions how he doubled the length at one point - bad advice! I kinda wish a good editor had carved out a shorter, punchier version, without the laborious clarifications and scholarly asides (though I liked the footnotes!).

(2) I wish Piper could have interacted a bit more with Wright's view of covenant. Wright thinks covenant membership is the same thing as being justified by God. But not all Israel is Israel. Not everyone who is 'in the covenant' is known by God. There is the old Reformed distinction of the 'invisible church' and the 'visible church,' which I guess is not a concept well-known to Baptists?

(3) The was a very different book from Piper's usually stuff. I like it. I sometimes forget Piper has a Ph.D. in theology. I hope he publishes more scholarly stuff in the future.

I received this book in the mail on Friday and read it over the weekend. In The Future of Justification, Piper delivers a devastating blow to Bishop N. T. Wright's doctrines of the righteousness of God and the nature of justification.

Justification, for Wright, is a declaration or affirmation of what we already are by election, thus it is God declaring that we are "within the covenant." However, God's present act of justification, in Wright's teaching, is really only an "anticipation" of his future and final justification, which, in his own words, "occurs in the future, as we have seen, on the basis of the entire life a person has led." Thus not only does Wright attempt to destroy the biblical view of justification, but also of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Final justification is based on grace plus our works.

Justification, for Piper, is displayed as the sinner standing before the bar of judgment and being declared righteous by God the Judge by means of the imputation of the active and passive obedience of Christ (the imputation of His righteousness) through faith. It is "a definite action that accomplishes something now" (41). "Something decisive and once-for-all happens at justification" (42).

Thus justification isn't merely an affirmation of covenant membership in anticipation of a life of justifying works which, finally, God will declare in the future. No, it is how we become covenant members, it "is an essential saving act" (43).

A few other thoughts on this book:

1. Piper is not a covenant theologian and this shows. I think he would have been even more devastating in his response to Bishop Wright if he were arguing from a consistent covenantal position, rather than from New Covenant Theology.

2. Piper's writing is extraordinarily understandable. He explains Wright far better than Wright explains himself. And Piper does it with courtesy and kindness. From time to time, I actually became rather intrigued with Wright's ideas in certain areas that I had previously read but not understood as clearly as I did when Piper re-stated them. It almost made me want to go back and re-read Wright. In fact, there are many areas where I agree with Wright in a broad sense, while disagreeing with him in specific theological outcomes.

3. This book will probably be of little interest to a person who knows nothing of Wright or the New Perspectives on Paul. However,

4. I was amazed at the similarities between the words of Wright and the parroted words of many proponents of Federal Visionism. The FVers, however, assume only the worst part of Wright's doctrine without his eventual "positive" twists. What you end up with is a distorted view on justification, a near denial of the imputation of Christ's righteousness (his active and passive obedience), and a fearful wondering whether or not we are permanently elect or just temporarily elect At least Wright's teaching gives a basis for the assurance of the final justification of the covenant people through the anticipatory justification (declaration or affirmation) in the present. The outcome is that Bishop N. T. Wright is far more Reformed than those who teach Federal Vision theology. While they say differently, in reality, they destroy the Five Points and gut the Westminster Confession of Faith. A person would be safer to follow Wright alone, than to follow his theology regurgitated through the mouths of Federal Visionists.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone who has read Wright or any who are studying Federal Visionism. It is also understandable enough to give to knowledgeable laymen who ask about Wright or FV soteriology.

I received The Future of Justification from a colleague a couple of years ago, and I finally got motivated and made a goal to finish the book this school year. This is by far the most academic of the Piper books I have read, and I had to take my time reading it. I read certain portions of the book more than once in order to gain a fuller understanding of what was being stated. Although the book was not one of the more enjoyable Piper books I have read, I realize I need to read more books like this. It covers a topic that I teach and a topic that all of us need to better understand. It is not surprising to see such a range in the reviews of this book, but I do feel that Piper is Christlike in how he responds to Wright and the `New Perspective on Paul.' Keep in mind that Pastor Piper read an 11,000-word response from Wright himself as part of the detailed critical feedback he received to improve the first draft of this book. The 240-page book is organized into eleven chapters and contains six self-standing appendices that were not written in response to the work of N.T. Wright. If you read The Future of Justification like many leading scholars have done, you will be taking a serious look at the biblical doctrines of justification and imputation.

The 'New Perspective on Paul' (NPP), in its reception by the Reformed community, has taken over the past few decades the course that William James laid out for any new theory. First it 'is attacked as absurd; then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant; finally it is seen to be so important that its adversaries claim that they themselves discovered it'. John Piper is still, however, fighting a pitched battle on the first stage, this book his attempt to trounce N.T. Wright, the most persuasive representative of the New Perspective. The NPP is essentially a paradigm for reading the Apostle as addressing primarily the concerns of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the church rather than the issues of an individual believer before God. It emphasises ecclesiology over soteriology as the import of the doctrine of justification.

I am not a fan of dense exegetical warfare and subtle arguments about Greek verbs, so 'The Future of Justification' required a bit of concentration, as I think it will for most of its intended audience (whom I take to be the educated layperson troubled by the debate). Piper is a skilled Biblical exegete, and he does find some of the weaknesses of Wright's views. However, this detail tends to obscure the real structure of his thinking and his engagement with Wright. Depending on how you look at it, what is at stake here is either a minor variation within Reformed soteriology (not that they haven't split churches over less) or two radically different visions of the Christian faith. Wright often protests, and I believe him, that what he is talking about is only a re-thinking of the vocabulary and emphases of how we discuss the gospel. He desires more of a focus on the role of Christ as the messianic head of the new community, the proclamation of the good news of his resurrection heralding a new age for the world and its liberation from oppression by political and spiritual evil. This is in contrast with the tradition that focusses on how the individual wrestling with sin finds a gracious God and free forgiveness through faith. But Wright believes he is as Reformed as the next man.

I think Piper, however, perceives correctly that Wright's system poses a grave challenge to his own. Piper is driven by the theological vision of Jonathan Edwards - following Calvin - with an overwhelming emphasis on the glory of God and the idea that glorifying himself is God's overriding concern (and should be ours too). This transcendent mystical vision entails the necessity of radical human abasement and the abolition of any ground whatsoever that grace may be construed as operating in any way with our consent or co-operation. Wright, on the other hand, derives his vision more from a purely biblical perspective of the God who calls a people with a mission for the world and empowers them to achieve it. Thus he is far more positive about human possibility and the necessity for real sanctification as part of justification and not just as a response to it. The grave fear that this engenders in Piper and others is that this brings us close to Roman Catholic theology (which indeed it does, and Wright thinks it should).

I don't entirely agree with either Piper or Wright, though I am more sympathetic with Wright. I think that Piper constructs a vision of the Christian church that is precisely vulnerable to Wright's critique, in that for Piper it is a community that glories in its being the chosen people of God set apart from the world and driven by awareness of this 'grace' to works of righteousness. Wright is correct that this is precisely the attitude that Paul is arguing against in Romans and Galatians.

Overall, this is not a bad overview of the issue for those who admire Piper and are predisposed to read his books, though it would need to be balanced by a more sympathetic and full treatment of the NPP. The praise Piper has received for his 'charitable' and irenic stance, and his own self-congratulation for his attitude to controversy, are not entirely warranted, since he does proceed forthwith to paint Wright as almost irredeemably lacking in exegetical skill and insight.

N.T. Wright is an incredibly popular and engaging writer. He's saying things in a new way and that has everybody (especially those enthralled to Reformation Theology) a little jumpy. Wright is an incredibly engaging and talented communicator both in written and spoken word. He has helped and emerging generation of church leaders look at church, the Bible, and the gospel in a fresh way.

Don't mistake my use of the word "emerging" to mean Emerging Church (although Wright has made headway with those folks). Wright has become a premier Bible scholar and Bible interpreter in this generation. His work will be influential for years to come.

Thus, you have Piper's need to write the book. Congregants hand him one of Wright's books and ask him, "what about this guy?"

Piper takes issue with Wright's take on the doctrine of Justification. In a nut shell, Wright tells what it does to a believer's standing with God on the Last Day. Piper is convinced that Paul teaches the necessity to know what it IS, not just what it DOES. If one doesn't know what it IS, then one's understanding of what Christ accomplished on the cross will be misunderstood. In fact, what the church believes about Justification may be distorted for years to come due to Wright's ever expanding influence.

The author's thesis is that the righteousness of Christ and His perfect obedience is imputed to the believer once faith is placed in Christ. Piper makes the point that Wright believes God declares us righteous based on the work of Christ and includes us in His family. That Jesus defeated evil and sin and took our place on the cross. God vindicated Jesus by raising Him from the dead and in our identification with that (the resurrection) we, too, are vindicated. This is what Justification does. This is not good enough for Piper.

Piper makes a compelling argument, but I think it's weak. I've familiarized myself with the work of both these men and find my preference to lean more in Wright's direction and method of biblical exposition than Piper's. Piper, in my opinion, is more beholden to Reformed Theology and all his exposition is obviously and unashamedly run through that filter.

Piper takes a chapter to set up what Wright says about a subject and then in the next chapter, dismantles Wright's thesis.

I think the book could have been half the size, maybe a quarter. I got Piper's point early in the book. He's given credit from many scholars as giving Wright a fair shake, but I don't feel he has really made the effort to understand what Wright is saying.

imagePiper, book reminds me of the character Jim Carrey used to play in a bit on In Living Color. Carrey's plays the over zealous life guard of a hot tub. Carrey's schtick is he gets on a bull horn and enforces rules that would be posted at a public pool. "Time for laps!" Carrey announces with a bull horn in a hot tub users ear.

Piper is doing laps across a hot tub.

If you like theology or Piper or Wright, you might enjoy this book. If you are not familiar with Wright but read most of what Piper writes, you'll come away from this book thinking a) what's the fuss all about, or b) Wright's a heretic. It depends where you stand with Reformed Theology or your status in the John Piper fan club.

I think my membership's been revoked.

John Piper has written a great response to NT Wright... it is clearly written and to the point... and I guess it was good enough to compel Wright to respond with a book of his own - how's that for an endorsement?

--- The Final Arbiter? ---
John Piper makes a number of excellent observations in "The Future of Justification" that I believe have been ignored up until now in this debate. Here is the most important one:

"We are agreed....Scripture... is the final arbiter of truth..." (pg. 17).

The way Piper words it above would imply that he and Wright are in agreement on this point, but I think in actual practice this is far truer of Piper than of Wright. For me, Piper won this debate when I looked more closely at II Cor. 5:21. Wright's exegesis/interpretation for that verse was underwhelming to say the least (see Wright's book, "Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision"). Wright's analysis simply came off as very "forced" (more on this same sort of thing below in regards to I Timothy 1:5-11). I can see where Wright's allegiance to an overarching theory had become a thorn in his side when certain key bible verses stubbornly refused to yield to his "larger" vision. Wright ignored the plain reading of II Cor. 5:21, apparently in an attempt to make "the whole thing fly" (pg. 16). As Piper notes, Wright often has to "break the back of exegesis" to make his "system" work (p. 24). One senses that Wright did not come to his "system" from the bottom up, but rather from the top down - apparently the "vision" is more important than the pesky "details". But, back to my first comment... isn't Scripture itself the final arbiter of truth? One gets the feeling that Wright MUST redefine some rather well established verses (ex. II Cor. 5:21) not so much because the Scriptural context demands it, but rather because if he doesn't then "the whole thing" begins to unravel - and he certainly cannot have that happen!

--- Larger Theologies? ---
One key weapon in Wright's persuasion arsenal is that he promotes the idea that a vision of Pauline theology that incorporates/encompasses the "larger picture" is automatically going to be superior right off the bat compared to those that don't (pg. 38). And how could one disagree with that sort of spin?! If the implication is that Wright's opponents are leaving something out of certain theological frameworks - i.e. that they are obtuse in some critical aspects - then it would seem that Wright would clearly have the upper hand, as more is always better - right? Well... maybe. Regardless, this is indeed a very powerful marketing tool and one that Wright uses to his advantage; obviously, no one wants to be guilty of holding to a theology that has left something out or that is not doing all that it should do - no one wants to be shortchanged!

In short, Wright encourages a reader to accept, on the face of it, that "larger" theological frameworks are more aligned with God's larger, bigger purpose... God is a big concept and therefore we need big theologies to do him justice. HOWEVER, when one applies Wright's own logic in that regard to his own specific position on "Covenant Faithfulness" it actually works against him! Piper correctly outlines how "Wright's Definition of Righteousness Does Not Go Deep Enough" (Chapter Three, beginning on pg. 62). Here we see that it is Wright whose concepts are small, deficient - just not large enough....

"There is something far deeper in God than covenant faithfulness.... God... was righteous before there was any covenant to keep" (pg. 64)

Piper shifts the argument around (see Chapter 3) to reveal that the shoe is now on the other foot - God's Righteousness is the larger framework under which any discussion of Covenant Faithfulness must reside. [see Wright's book, "Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision" (pg. 178-179) for his less than compelling response to Piper] Between these two very different perspectives, I think Piper wins - the larger Tradition Reformed viewpoint is simply more comprehensive and therefore more compelling to me than Wright's rather narrow and by now almost obsessively singular focus on "covenant faithfulness". It seems to me that Piper has got it right and Wright has gotten it wrong.

--- The Role of the Law? ---
The Apostle Paul clearly outlines and discusses at length, and in no uncertain terms, the role of the law. See I Timothy 1:5-11. It is significant that Paul unpacks the function of the law here solely in terms of the "just" versus the "lawless and disobedient."

"...the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient..." (I Timothy 1:9)

It would appear that this verse flies directly in the face of Wright's system. How so? Well, unlike the Apostle Paul, Wright frames law keeping primarily as a response by Jews to God's grace (pg. 145). However, to take this one step further; how exactly does Wright's view line up with what Paul actually says in I Timothy 1:9? For one thing it would seem rather ridiculous to believe that Wright would have the "lawless and disobedient" in mind as those responding to grace! So... does that mean then that Wright is saying the law was made for the "just"!? But isn't that the exact opposite of what Paul says? The Apostle Paul clearly states that the role of the law is to reveal sin... in "unjust" people. Nowhere does the Apostle Paul say anything in this verse about the law being a response to grace by "just" people. Under Wright's system, how could "lawless and disobedient" people be responding to grace through obedience to a law which Paul clearly states they are breaking? (see I Timothy 1:5-11 for an extensive list of examples of lawlessness). You cannot both keep the law and break it! Which is it Mr. Wright? It appears patiently obvious that I Timothy 1:5-11, on the face of it, directly refutes one of the key pillar's of Wright's system. Granted neither Piper nor Wright discuss this particular verse as a bone fide point of contention in either of their books (as far as I know); regardless, it is still it is a question I would like to see a response to. Sorry Mr. Wright, your "new perspective" just doesn't make any sense... on any level. No amount of redefining of terms or hiding behind "larger" perspectives is going to change the plain meaning of the Apostle Paul's words in those verses...

--- Fuzziness... Friend or Foe? ---
I do not care for the way that Wright retains just enough fuzziness on what he "really means" in his books to make meaningful criticism and debate problematic. We readily accept this sort of difficulty for the writings of the Apostle Paul because he is not around to clarify and he came out of a different time and culture - yes, we have to unpack the Apostle Paul; but Tom Wright is not some ancient writer where one has to reconstruct his ideas from bits and pieces left to us by history! Wright has written perhaps a hundred times the volume of the Apostle Paul, specifically on narrow topics such as justification and Pauline theology... and YET, he still flies to a significant degree under the radar in terms of being nailed down as to what he is trying to communicate! I dare say that today one is far more certain of what the Apostle Paul meant versus understanding what NT Wright "seems" to think Paul meant!

By being so slippery, Wright only serves himself. He creates enough confusion that people are drawn to comment and discuss his work and as a result he becomes famous and well-known. That is great for him, but if one views him as a pastor then he is certainly not providing clarity to the flock. And that is a problem. No, Wright is not pastoral, not at all.

--- Clarity or the Lack of it? ---
One of the great services that John Piper has provided here is to come right out and say what Wright's positions really mean in practical terms for those who take all of this seriously and not just as an academic excercise (see the Piper's "Introduction" section). I agree with Piper that clarity, which is lacking from Wright's side, is what the church needs. Piper's book forces that particular issue to the forefront where it belongs. I want to know which theological position is the correct one to pass on to others... not just for academic reasons, but also out of concern for believers. Those types of pastoral concerns should be at the forefront of this debate and not just an afterthought.

--- A New Cottage Industry? ---
I'll end this on a rather humorous note... have you noticed that Wright's redefining of terms and the resulting subterfuge has resulted in a new cottage industry of Wright "interpreters"! There is now a whole cadre of Wright devotees who are in an almost co-dependency relationship where they are constantly "interpreting" Wright for those who "don't get it". A quick perusal of Amazon review comments will reveal extensive blog-like back and forth exchanges of this sort. These Wright "experts" will attempt to "translate" Wright-speak to the uninitiated with lengthy dissertations only to then turn around and disagree amongst themselves! Again, where is the clarity? How does Wright's fuzziness help anybody? I think it is fair to say that reading more of Wright in a quest for more clarity simply results in more questions instead of more answers. In my opinion, Wright clearly missed his calling as a politician.... Wright should be concerned that he might very well be remembered by history not as his proponents wish, as the new Martin Luther, but rather as the Bill Clinton of the Theological world....

In "The Future of Justification," Pastor John Piper responds to N.T. Wright's aberrant view of the biblical doctrine of justification. Piper defends the forensic view of Declared Righteousness, expiation, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Piper is patient and kindhearted in his evaluation of Wright's position of this consequential doctrine, nonetheless he refutes Wright's errors with clarity, precision, and care.

Piper states that Wright's notion of justification is "so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognize as Biblically faithful. In my judgment, what he has written will lead to a kind of preaching that will not announce clearly what makes the lordship of Christ good news for guilty sinners, or show those who are overwhelmed with sin how they may stand righteous in the presence of God."

Romans 4:4-5 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.

Forensic justification and Christ's imputed righteousness are momentous doctrines that make the Christian faith utterly unique and compelling. May the church continue to proclaim and defend this truth as Piper has done in this substantial volume.

Psalm 32: 1-2 "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputes not iniquity..."
No other faith provides the marvelous and unique doctrine that furnishes the sinner with a perfect, complete righteousness through the obedience of Jesus Christ. Christ alone obeyed the Law every moment in thought, word, and deed, and this righteousness is imputed to the believer by grace alone, through faith alone because of Christ alone.
see my new book that utilizes the truth of Justification as an aspect of Apologetics:
Truth, Knowledge and the Reason for God: The Defense of the Rational Assurance of Christianity