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

This book is a great breath of "Biblical air" after reading N.T. Wrights works on his view of Pauline Theology. What Piper's thesis is is NOT a "well the tradition has been....so we MUST go with that." If you want that then this is the wrong book and you have NOT even read beyond the fist two pages. The problem with N.T. Wright is that he strives so hard to be orthodox in his theology, but like Barth, and cannot seem to do so. He is a "Roman Catholic in Protestant clothes" per se. Wrights thesis, and lifes goal, is to disprove the reformation based off of a very twisted view of scripture and a dangerous helping of a select few Judaic 1st century documents that support his claim. Piper on the other hand takes a big helping of Scripture and states his case very plainly and shows that you cannot view the Bible through the lens of 4QMMT or any other book from 1st century literature without looking at the WHOLE of it all. E.P. Sanders(is it just me or do all the "NPP" people have initials at the beginning of their names?) sought to disprove the fact that the religious leaders in Israel were NOT legalistic, and in fact, quite orthodox. This of course throws my mind into a spiral, but it would be like taking a few of the history books about the civil war and basing your whole view on it. Plus, we are talking about 2000 years. Will we have all the books from Jewish leaders? No. Well, Piper aptly deals with this in the book and pleads for a Biblical approach to the scriptures and not a "word swap" which is what Wright does with scripture. I will not settle for a works based salvation and never will. But I did look at all the literature and "tested everything" to see if it was Biblically tried and true. Thank God for both men, but I will choose to defend Sola Gratia.

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

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..."

Warning about NPP (New Perspective Theology on Paul). A well thought out discussion over the debate concerning NT Wright and the traditional Reformed view of Justification. It asks very important questions related to the doctrine of justification and then attempts to answer each in light of historical and Biblical theology. What is most interesting about this book is that Piper took the time and courtesy to run it by Wright before publishing it in order to be sure Wright was fairly represented (something unheard of in today's debate circles but exemplifies the humility and earnestness of Piper to present an accurate commentary on the debate). How unfortunate and ironic however that Piper is so quickly labeled by those who disagree with him as a non-thinking-exegetical traditionalist who has no heart for growth instead of acknowledging that Piper has every right (even obligation) to put the burden of proof on an individual who calls himself reformed but then appears to depart dramatically from the concepts of the historic view of justification. Today's culture is much more exemplified by those who are to quick to jump on the band wagon than to be a gatekeeper of truth. It would be easy to just let this one pass (due to it's depth) and hope that 'we all could just get along' but this doctrine is to important to be dismissed since it has momentus implications for the doctrine of justification in the church.

After reading Wright's "What Saint Paul Really Said" I know by instinct that, while he stated applicable truths to today's evangelicals and provided a certain balance that we all need, he also excluded some important aspects of the gospel as presented in Paul's epistle to the Romans. What's especially great about this book is that it lives out the gospel by respectfully addressing Wright's thought. Piper pays Wright the respect that he deserves as a great scholar by giving Wright's thoughts the time in reflection they deserve. As a fourth-year Bible student who has studied the Bible and the original language on the New Testament, I agree with Piper's critique of Wright's portrayal of justification by faith and the dangers it does bring to churches and youth groups today.