The Future of Justification

Introduction

Time to get started!  The introduction to Piper’s book, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright is a section that includes all of Piper’s major criticisms condensed into a series of brief paragraphs. The outline of the book, along with Piper’s position on Justification becomes clear as you read the introduction. If you’d like to read this section online before we dive in, you can click the link below.

www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bfj/books_bfj.pdf

I want to start by saying, that I respect Piper for not writing this book as a way to “one-up” Bishop Wright.  He is not interested in debating Wright as a way to increase his own stature (13)

And second, I’m happy to hear Piper say with conviction that he does not believe Wright to be under the curse of Galatians 1:8-9 (15).  Even though Piper holds to his belief that Wright’s doctrines are in error (this is obvious, because his book is a response to Wright’s beliefs), he does not question Wright’s salvation.  And he does not call Wright’s view of the Gospel, a different gospel.  Therefore, before we move on, let’s get rid of the notion that Wright’s view of the Gospel is heresy or a “false gospel”, that so many reformed believers accuse him of.  (I did promise to be unbiased in this process).

So, this brings us to the next question- “What exactly is Piper’s issue with N.T. Wright’s view/views?”  Piper says:

“Wright’s portrayal of the Gospel- and of the doctrine of justification in particular- is so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognize it as biblically faithful.”

Your interpretation may differ from mine, but I believe that Piper is clearly saying that Wright’s beliefs will lead to a kind of preaching that fails to adequately preach the Gospel.

I can hear it now- the federal vision, or as some call it, the new perspective proponents, are screaming that Piper is bashing Wright.  I disagree.  Piper is very respectful of Bishop Wright.  And fair.  This is evident already in Piper’s introduction.  Piper even points out the positive aspects of N.T. Wright’s work.  (15-16)  Piper even expresses a great bit of appreciation for Wright’s theology.  Which brings me to this conclusion:  If you’re reformed, like me, it would do you much good to at least read Wright and understand where he is coming from.

I am glad, and respect Piper so much more, for not teaming up with so many other Reformed critics who have attacked Wright without ever understanding what Wright is trying to say.  Piper recognizes that Wright is trying to paint a totally different picture of theology altogether- one that changes the categories.  Because of this, Piper recognizes that we cannot simply take Wright’s views out of context, compare them to the “old way of thinking” and then declare them completely inferior to the other. 

Piper summarizes the main points that he finds in Wright’s theology.  Piper takes a clear stance on Wright’s statements about the Gospel not being about how to get saved and about justification not being about how one becomes a Christian.  Piper believes that Wright is inaccurate in saying that the doctrine of justification is not what Paul means by “The Gospel”.  Piper believes that Wright is misleading people in saying that one is not justified by faith in the doctrine of justification by faith.  He sees Wright’s statements on “righteousness” and “future justification” based on the “whole-life lived” as confusing.

In Piper’s introduction alone, he has laid out an entire list of complaints in response to Wright’s theology that he views as dangerous.  The home run here is that Piper states that Wright’s theology lacks clarity, and he repeats this claim several times throughout the introduction, and at the end says

“Wright levels many ordinary folk not with the rewarding ‘ah-ha’ experience of illumination, but with a paralyzing sense of perplexity.”

WOW!  Piper isn’t holding back!  Again, this isn’t an example of Piper “hammering” Wright.  Remember, Piper respects the Bishop.  However, Piper also holds to his convictions on what he believes to be true and he respects the seriousness of the situation.  Piper has also made a commitment to preach the Gospel, and you can’t fault a man for defending, or taking a clear stance on an issue.

Piper is concerned with the situation at hand.  Piper seeks clarity and truth.  He believes that Wright’s views bring about complication and confusion, and are in error on some important doctrines. 

Whether or not these claims against Wright can be supported, I haven’t found out at this point, but we will see in some later chapters.

Some thoughts- And so we begin!

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

Let me start by saying, anyone who knows me, knows that I love John Piper.  I’ve read quite a few of his books and have benefited greatly from them.  On the issue of justification, I remain Reformed and agree with Piper more than I agree with N. T. Wright.  With that being said, I will make a conscious effort to remain as unbiased as possible with the summarization of this book.

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

Why have I decided to weigh in on this controversy? I hope this series will not be misconstrued as the ramblings of a kid who overestimates his own importance. I am a kid just trying to further grow my faith and someone who tries to further the Gospel, first and foremost – a servant of God’s church. I do not have the intellect of N.T. Wright. Nor do I have the pastoral experience of John Piper.

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

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

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

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

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