|
| The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright | 
 enlarge | Author: John Piper
Publisher: Crossway Books
Category: Book
List Price: $17.99
Buy New: $11.00
You Save: $6.99 (39%)
New (23) Used (11) from $10.32
Avg. Customer Rating:  19 reviews
Sales Rank: 26567
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 240
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.6
Dimensions (in): 8.4 x 5.5 x 0.8
ISBN: 1581349645
Dewey Decimal Number: 234.7
EAN: 9781581349641
ASIN: 1581349645
Publication Date: November 1, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Why Believe Paul? August 5, 2008
0 out of 36 found this review helpful
I have yet to hear an evangelical Protestant justify the assumption that the writings of Paul are Scripture. Why all the fuss over who interprets Paul correctly when it has yet to be established (by Protestants anyway) that one is justified in viewing Paul as an inspired authority? "Fait accompli" will not do. It is incumbent upon evangelical Protestants to explain why they assume that Paul's writings are inspired Scripture. To date they have failed to do so. In view of that failure, all the fuss over who correctly interprets Paul on justification, or on anything else, is premature.
 With Piper's book, the Future looks bright June 2, 2008
1 out of 8 found this review helpful
The doctrine of justification by faith alone has been at the center of controversy for nearly five hundred years. It was this doctrine that Martin Luther appealed to in response to the Roman Catholic practice of selling indulgences for penance. To Luther and others, justification by faith alone became the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. So important was this doctrine that Luther later called it the doctrine by which the church stands or falls.
But recent developments have shown us that this is not simply a Protestant vs. Catholic rift. The so-called New Perspective on Paul, which has come about in the last fifty years, also calls into question the historic doctrine of justification by faith alone, and it doesn't do so on Catholic grounds. But it's not just justification that has been targeted by NPP proponents. N. T. Wright, the most popular and influential advocate of the NPP, comments that "The discussions of justification in much of the history of the church, certainly since Augustine, got off on the wrong foot -- at least in terms of understanding Paul -- and they have stayed there ever since." Wright believes that we've been reading Paul wrong all these years.
Aside from Wright, some other notable proponents of this New Perspective over the years have been E. P. Sanders and J. D. G. Dunn. Wright, however, as noted above, is far and away the most influential and well-known of the NPP scholars. This is why John Piper has chosen to frame his response to the NPP, entitled The Future of Justification, as a response against Wright. Piper explains: "The reason I take up controversy with N. T. Wright and not, say, J. D. G. Dunn or E. P. Sanders is that none of my parishioners has ever brought me a thick copy of a book by Dunn or Sanders, wondering what I thought about them. But Wright is a popular and compelling writer as well as a rigorous scholar" (p. 27).
In The Future of Justification Piper engages with Wright's major critiques against the historic understanding of justification by faith alone. He responds to Wright's law-court objections (chs. 2-4), Wright's claims that justification isn't the gospel, and that the gospel isn't an account of how people get saved (chs. 5-6), Wright's position on the basis of our justification (chs. 7-8), and Wright's take on Paul in his first century context (ch. 9-10). Afterwards, Piper positively presents an impressive case for justification by faith alone as the imputation of Christ's merit on our behalf (ch. 11). In the conclusion he spells out the implications of NPP theology. He writes, "My ultimate reason for writing this book is to avert the double tragedy that will come where the obedience of Christ, imputed to us through faith alone, is denied or obscured.... 1) [That] in our desire to elevate the importance of the beautiful works of love, we [will] begin to nullify the very beauty of Christ and his work that they were designed to display.... and 2) [That we will undermine] the very thing that makes the works of love possible.... Christ's perfect obedience (counted as our righteousness) and Christ's perfect sacrifice (counted as our punishment)" (p. 187).
Piper also includes six articles as appendices dealing with themes pertinent to the issues addressed in the book. Since they were written by Piper before he had read Wright's work, they do not deal with Wright's arguments head on. But they're useful in drawing out some of Piper's views more positively.
I found The Future of Justification to be a sound refutation of Wright and the NPP. It can be quite technical in certain places, what with greek words and grammatical observations. But overall the book should be accessible to anyone that has bothered to think through the soteriological issues in the Bible at some length. Piper writes clearly and repeats himself often, which helps to guide the reader along some of the tougher waters in this debate. He quotes Wright often, which is helpful in many ways, not the least of which in showing Wright's perspective in Wright's own words. Those that have yet to be introduced to Wright's material can see for themselves how winsomely he writes. But on this topic he's outclassed, not just by Piper, but by the biblical force of the historic Protestant position. Chapter 11, Piper's presentation of justification by faith alone, is simply too powerful an argument for Wright's thesis. Technically-precise, biblically-profound, and logically-sound, Piper's The Future of Justification is a compelling argument for Christians to stand for the historic doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Wright is Right April 26, 2008
44 out of 60 found this review helpful
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 (a 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).
Helpful but a bit long April 8, 2008
9 out of 14 found this review helpful
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.
 Piper is a respectful, thorough and clear communicator March 31, 2008
1 out of 7 found this review helpful
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.
|
|
|
 | |
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.