Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
75 of 99 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Compelling theological argument against N.T. Wright, November 9, 2007
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.
|
|
|
74 of 102 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Wright is Right, April 26, 2008
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).
|
|
|
78 of 112 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Justification is More than an Affirmation, November 12, 2007
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.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Timothy Keller
by N. T. Wright
by G. K. Beale
See all Editorial Reviews
