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

by John Piper

N. T. Wright, a world-renowned New Testament scholar and bishop of Durham in the Church of England, has spent years studying the apostle Paul's writings and has offered a "fresh perspective" on Paul's theology. Among his conclusions are 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's confidence that the church has gotten it wrong for 1,500 years, given his enormous influence, has set off warning bells for Christian leaders such as John Piper, a pastor and New Testament scholar. If Wright's framework for interpreting the New Testament text and his understanding of justification find a home in the church, not only could the doctrine of justification be distorted for generations to come, but the New Testament writers' original intent could be silenced. So 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.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity, Nonfiction, Faith, Biblical Studies, Christian Non Fiction

240 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2002

About the author

John Piper is founder and teacher of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. For 33 years, he served as senior pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

He grew up in Greenville, South Carolina, and studied at Wheaton College, Fuller Theological Seminary (B.D.), and the University of Munich (D.theol.). For six years, he taught Biblical Studies at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota, and in 1980 accepted the call to serve as pastor at Bethlehem.

John is the author of more than 50 books and more than 30 years of his preaching and teaching is available free at desiringGod.org. John and his wife, Noel, have four sons, one daughter, and twelve grandchildren.

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.

Reviews

[Ben De Bono · Rating 2 out of 5]

Before I discuss the content of the this book, I want to briefly talk about the book itself and my feelings on whether or not it should have even been written. If you've looked at the rest of my Goodreads page, you can tell pretty quick I'm a fan of N.T. Wright. I find his theology to be a breath of fresh air. Because of that there's a part of me that is a bit annoyed that John Piper felt the need to write an entire book critiquing N.T. Wright.

On the one hand, I don't believe Wright (or anyone else) is above criticism. Far from it. Criticism and interaction is an in important part of any scholarly work, and is especially important when it comes to theology. I don't mind that Piper and others disagree with Wright, and in the end we're probably all better off for the interaction.

On the other hand, Piper isn't responding to Wright as a scholar but as a pastor (he says as much in the book's introduction). His primary goal is not scholarly interaction, but to protect his flock from Wright's "dangerous" theology. It's here that I start to have an issue with Piper even writing this book. It is certainly a pastor's job to defend his flock from false teaching, but is what Wright is saying so far out there that it warrants a 200 page attack? Hardly.

What Wright is teaching falls well within biblical orthodoxy. Again, that doesn't mean everyone should instantly agree with him. There is room for healthy debate, and a lot of it, within big-tent evangelicalism. But the magnitude of Piper's response makes it seem like he is going well beyond healthy dialogue and moving toward the Neo-Reformed crowd, which views reformed theology as synonymous with biblical orthodoxy. (You can read Scot McKnight's slightly over the top, but mostly accurate, description of the Neo-Reformed movement here)

For Piper to write a paper or two responding to Wright would have been more than appropriate, but the effort of writing an entire book would have been better spent exposing many of false, unorthodox doctrines that legitimately threaten evangelicalism. I find it ironic that while N.T. Wright warrants an entire book, Piper summed up his criticism of Rob Bell's theological train wreck, Love Wins, in a single tweet.

All that said, do Piper's criticisms hold water? Put simply, no. Piper is fair to Wright in the book. This isn't a slanderous attack. He quotes Wright's work extensively and tries to give him the benefit of the doubt in several places. However, a few things become clear from very early on in the book.

1. Piper doesn't really understand Wright's theology. This is especially true when he's attacking Wright's view of the Gospel (I described Wright's view in some detail here). He claims that Wright's view of the Gospel, as the announcement that Jesus is king instead of a means to individual salvation, is devoid of good news for the individual sinner. However, it's clear when reading Wright in context that this is not the case. Piper acknowledges that Wright still believes in individual salvation but believes that by not making it the primary emphasis of the Gospel he is creating unnecessary confusion for the individual. Piper's critique falls flat on two fronts. First, we ought to be more concerned with accuracy than clarity. Both matter but accuracy is more important than coddling people. Second, it really isn't that hard to explain Wright's view of the Gospel in a clear way that includes individual salvation. I was able to do so in a recent message I preached. The idea that Wright's view of the Gospel is too confusing is absurd and falls completely flat. The real issue is that Piper doesn't understand Wright's theology. The reason for this leads me to my second main criticism.

2. Piper regularly seems more interested in defending church tradition (specifically the reformed theological tradition) than in defending the Bible. His main issue with Wright seems to be that Wright’s view of justification undermines a couple of key points in reformed thinking. This inability to look beyond his preconceptions is even more true when it comes to Piper’s view of Christian hedonism (the purpose of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever). I don’t have any particular issue with Christian hedonism. It’s a good category to think in, but it can’t become the only lens through which we view the Bible. It’s very clear throughout the book that Piper is viewing Wright’s theology through the lens of Christian hedonism and little else. When Wright’s positions stretch that view, Piper is completely inflexible and will not even consider the possibility that what Wright is saying may be correct.

3. Finally, Piper is very over the top when he talks about the effects of Wright’s theology. Although he does state outright that he doesn’t see Wright as being under the curse in Galatians 1:9, it’s clear he believes Wright is teaching a false Gospel. He’s convinced that following Wright’s theology is going to negatively impact preaching. Speaking as one whose preaching has been influenced by Wright’s theology, I must disagree. I don’t see myself moving one bit further from biblical orthodoxy as a result of Wright’s influence. On the contrary, I believe my teaching is becoming more theologically robust and closer to what the Bible actually has to say.

If it isn’t clear by now, let me say that I’m far from convinced by Piper’s argument. That said, I would recommend reading this book. The issues being discussed are important and wherever you come down you’ll find yourself stretched by the interaction. Piper responds to several of Wright’s works but the primary one seems to be What Saint Paul Really Said. I would read that book first, then Piper’s response and then finish, as I’m about to do, by reading Wright’s response to his critics: Justification.

The debate is important and, if for nothing else, I’m grateful to Piper for forcing Wright to write another book in response that further explores his position on justification.

[Matt Pitts · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book neither as a John Piper fanboy nor as an N.T. Wright critic. I read it as someone who has benefited from the work of both men and who wants to get justification right.

I am currently in the middle of Wright’s massive Paul and the Faithfulness of God and felt the need to listen to a critical dialogue on Wright’s view of justification. The reason for this is simple: Wright’s writing is simultaneously complex and compelling. The danger in this is that it is easy to be swept away not only by his complex arguments but also by his compelling prose without thinking critically about his proposals. Piper wrote The Future of Justification for precisely this reason. In his own words, “I hope that those who consider this book and read N.T. Wright will read him with greater care, deeper understanding, and less inclination to find Wright’s retelling of the story of justification compelling” (16).

What makes Piper’s aim work is his respect for Wright and his careful engagement with Wright’s writings that were available at the time (Paul and the Faithfulness of God was years away when this book was published). He does not try to prove Wright wrong at every point, but only on justification. And he patiently listens to what Wright has said, sometimes quoting Wright’s own words so often that it begins to feel repetitive. Piper’s arguments are clear and forceful but are never of the sort that generate more heat than light.

Piper’s work has done for me exactly what I needed and exactly what he aimed to accomplish: to “read [Wright] with greater care.”

I plan to read Wright’s response soon and post a brief review here as well.

[Bret James Stewart · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Piper has written a book critiquing the views of N.T. Wright primarily regarding justification. I would first point out that Piper has done so in an engaging and non-hostile manner. He is concerned about some of Wright's views, but does not attack Wright himself. N.T. Wright is a renowned theologian and scholar known, among other things, for his non-traditional views on Paul and what he thinks the Bible says regarding justification. Wright essentially holds to what is known as the New Perspective on Paul. The New Perspective (NPP) basically promotes the idea that the traditional interpretation of the Bible regarding this matter is inaccurate and that the idea of God's righteousness means maintaining His covenant relationship with His people (as opposed to Piper's more traditional view that it refers to maintaining God's glory). Although the NPP brings some thoughtful and legitimate ideas to the table, I have to agree with Piper and reject the system, overall. The more important factors are the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer and the ongoing works vs. faith debate. In a nutshell, the NPP holds that righteousness is not imputed to the believer (this is justification) by faith alone, but is, rather, a mixture of faith and actions worked out "over the entire life lived" and these good works result in "final justification" at the final judgment. Piper holds to the traditional view that justification is imputed to the believer separate from works and through Christ alone. I think the biblical evidence supports Piper's view. This is an important debate, and I am glad Piper wrote this book as it elucidates the core issues. Piper's book is relatively short, so it does not grapple with every point of contention. This review is even shorter, and it does not grapple with every point of Piper's book.

Piper has laid out his argument in and easy to read and understand manner using headings and subheadings and frequently includes questions in the titles. This makes it easy to stay on track and understand his argument. The book is great as it includes Wright's views in a fair manner with a lot of direct quotes. Footnotes add additional value. Piper includes additional sources in support of both his and Wright's position. He is very fair in this book, and I recommend it to anyone interested in the NPP and an evaluation of the same. I would have ranked it just over 4 stars if I could, but not enough for 4.5, so I rounded down to 4. I have read one other book, Desiring God, by Piper. His style is approachable and clear. I will be reading other books by him in the future.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

My second time through this book was probably even more helpful than my first time through. It is obvious that Piper isn't out to win a debate--he truly believes that true and right doctrine is being attacked by the New Perspective on Paul and he provides a very helpful response to this way of thinking. I am very thankful that Piper wrote this book. It has helped me tremendously when thinking through these issues.

[Parker Haines · Rating 4 out of 5]

N.T Wright?? More like N.T WRONG 🔥🥴

I kid

But no seriously this book was great. Ever since taking Shriners New Testament 2, the new perspective on Paul has been something that’s been a little vague and fuzzy in my understanding. This book helped me see that part of the reason that is, is because the new respective itself is vague and fuzzy.

That being said, I now feel that I have a firmer grip on what the new perspective teaches when speaking to the righteousness of God, justification, and imputation. Piper does a great job of highlighting how those who articulate the new perspective seriously stray from biblical orthodoxy in their Soteriology.

For example, this book made clear that Wright does not hold that the imputation of Christ righteousness is necessary for salvation, nor does he believe that justification refers to a sinner being declared righteous before God, based on the Merritt of Christ. Instead, Wright describes justification as a declaration that a person is a covenant member, and holds that believing that Christ’s own righteousness is imputed to the believer by faith is a category mistake, because the righteousness of God is his “covenant faithfulness.” Piper rejects this idea, insisting that God’s righteousness is not his covenant faithfulness. That is perhaps one of the things that his righteousness does, but is not the essence of his righteousness. Instead the essence of the righteousness of God is his unwavering commitment to do what is right. Namely, to uphold the weight of a his own Glory.

The conversation is nuanced, but for anybody who feels that the new perspective is on the edge of their understanding, I would highly recommend this book. It will inform how I engage with N.T Wright, in the future, along with others who holds to the new perspective(even if they are undercover), like John Mark Comer.

Good book 🙌🏼 Piper is the G.O.A.T

[Stephen Scholtz · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a difficult one to review, personally. I know where many dear brothers stand on this subject and I have benefitted incalculably from Piper’s ministry and theology. There are many things to be said. What follows are some general comments, not a detailed review.
Some positive points:
1. I believe Piper did a good job in understanding Wright and that he represented him well in this book. He obviously worked hard to come to grips with Wright’s work.
2. Piper is careful not to reject Wright’s work wholesale. He shows where he agrees with Wright and carefully specifies what exactly he disagrees with.
3. He doesn’t label Wright a heretic (a label brandished by many “discernment ministries”).
4. Piper’s critique is nuanced and careful.
5. Piper’s challenge to Wright’s understanding of the role of works on the last day is, I believe, a strong challenge. I myself have struggled to understand Wright on this point, and Piper’s critique is very helpful.

Some negative points:
1. I am not convinced by Piper’s exegesis of Romans that “the righteousness of God” refers to God’s commitment to glorify himself. I do believe this is a theme throughout Scripture, but I’m hesitant to see it as the denotation of dikaiosune theou.
2. I believe Piper downplays the significance of Jew-Gentile relationships as the context for justification (especially in Romans and Galatians). His reduction of ethnocentrism to legalism is unfounded and raises more questions than it answers.
3. This will be harsh, I know, but I believe Piper’s understanding of biblical theology would be sufficient without Genesis 4-Malachi 4. He doesn’t allow the full weight of God’s plan in and through Israel to become the motif of Paul’s theology. This may be the reason Chapter One is about how biblical theology doesn’t always give us helpful answers.
4. Piper’s overemphasis on law-court imagery in Romans is ... wait for it ... unjustified (sorry, I just had to).
5. Piper’s challenge to Wright’s comment that the gospel is about the declaration of Jesus’ Lordship is unhelpful. I believe this reveals a latent pragmatism embedded in much American theology (that I’ve read, not all American theology).
6. Piper’s main contention that Wright’s view of the gospel is confusing begs the question. It assumes Piper’s is easier to understand. Furthermore, this being the center of the book’s argument (cf. pg. 15 on Piper’s conviction concerning Wright) again reveals a sort of pragmatism.
7. Piper’s reduction of second temple Judaism to legalism is not nuanced enough. It also suffers from the same critique he lodges at Wright earlier in the book, namely, that one should refrain from making sweeping declarations about the nature of second temple Judaism.

One caveat: this review is not an affirmation of my views about Wright’s theology or the ‘New Perspective.’ This is simply a list of general thoughts about ‘The Future of Justification.’

[Jon · Rating 1 out of 5]

I have read and been deeply impacted by many John Piper books. I was disappointed, because I found in this book that he seems to be arguing a strongly polemical position from a place of passion about preserving traditions. This is ironic, given that the traditions he's arguing to preserve are the traditions of the reformers who argued that we should scrutinize traditional teachings carefully in light of the Bible. Piper argues less from the Bible than from the tradition. My second disappointment was that this book is written as a response to N. T. Wright; however, it seemed to me like Piper was arguing against a straw man. Either he hasn't read Wright very carefully, or he genuinely is unable to understand Wright's arguments; I'm guessing it's the former, because Piper is very intelligent and articulate.

[Bryce Beale · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a powerful, careful critique of a powerful, careful scholar.

Wright is well-beloved among evangelical academics because of his industrious labors in the historical background of the New Testament, and because of his genial nature and writing. But his adoption (with modifications) of E. P. Sanders' "New Perspective on Paul" is wildly troubling.

Basically, Wright argues that the Reformers, and hence nearly all Protestants thereafter, got Paul wrong on the question of justification by faith—no small criticism, since that was the material cause or principle of the Reformation. Paul, argues Wright, was not combatting moralistic legalism in his opponents, but rather their refusal to allow Gentiles into the fold. The "works of the Law" are not moral behaviors intended to earn merit before God, but "badge markers" that set the Jews apart from the Gentiles (circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc.).

Wright consequently redefines "the righteousness of God" in Paul to mean mainly, perhaps only, God's faithfulness to his covenant and his covenant people, and by doing so he also denies the imputation of Christ's righteousness, since he does not view righteousness as a "thing" that can be so imputed. Justification for Paul, says Wright, is primarily future and will be based on the "whole life lived," i.e. works, although there is a present justification not based on works that is a kind of preview of the other.

Piper's criticism of Wright is that, at the very least, he is unclear on a matter of first importance. Among the many arguments that Piper makes I appreciated most his "going deeper" on points that Wright tries to keep at the surface. So for example, Wright defines God's righteousness as his covenant-keeping—but what about before there was a covenant to keep? Was God not still righteousness in eternity past? Of course he was! His righteousness, more deeply, is his commitment to his own glory which shows itself in his covenant loyalty, among other things. Or again, the Jews were ethnocentric and did try to exclude the Gentiles, but ethnocentrism shares the same root with moralism or legalism, which is self-righteousness. And self-righteousness is what Jesus and Paul were fighting against, manifesting itself in various ways.

One of my great takeaways from this book, as from all of Piper's works, is the importance of sticking close to the text. Wright does look at texts, but he leans rather heavily on historical background and has a penchant for novel interpretations based on extra-biblical material. Piper on the other hand can hardly write a handful of paragraphs without stopping to consider the exegesis of a particular passage. In this way, he reminds me very much of the church fathers.

[Tim Donnelly · Rating 2 out of 5]

To begin, I understand that as a huge fan of NT Wright and his work, I am biased… but here we go :-)

First, Piper seems to primarily misunderstand Wright’s theology and view of Justification. I agree with Wright that the Gospel is centrally the proclamation that Jesus is King, and it isn’t ultimately justification by faith. This justification by faith (which is amazing news) comes as a result of the royal good news that Jesus has been given supreme authority over creation (you see this in Daniel 7.) One of my primary critiques of Piper is that he fails to emphasize Israel and covenantal theology in his own reading, which I think Wright has rightly pointed out is a huge piece of the Biblical mosaic. Piper seems to be too concerned with defining righteousness in terms of moral uprightness, which again I think Wright has made a much more biblical and compelling argument that this isn’t the lens through which Paul and his Jewish peers would have understood righteousness. It is an anachronistic reading based on the reformed tradition.

On the same note, Piper’s commitment to his reformed, individualistic hermeneutical lens far too often gets in the way of attempting to read Scripture through the eyes of a first century Christian. (Which is one of the reasons I have come to love Wright’s work so much.) In fact, early in the book he warns against using “first century ideas” to refine how we should read scripture. Which… what? Isn’t that what the reformers were doing? Trying to return to an apostolic view of Jesus? I understand the need for an appropriate amount of caution but if we’re afraid to engage with other STJ texts to better understand our view of what Paul was actually saying, then maybe we have placed our own tradition on a pedestal. This much is clear in how at times Piper turns to reformed confessions to settle his disagreements with Wright’s exegesis rather than turning to Scripture.

Throughout the book I was constantly reminded of these words from the wise Matthew Bates:

“Justification by faith as the gospel's heart? Today many scholars still speak of our justification by faith as central to the gospel. For example, John Piper declares, "I am thrilled to call justification the heart of the gospel." He goes on to clarify: "By 'heart' I mean that justification addresses the main problem between God and man most directly. ... [It is] the sustaining source of all the other benefits of the gospel." Piper has made two questionable assertions about the gospel. One is claiming that justification by faith is the heart of the gospel. Sounds plausible. But do you have a concordance or an electronic version of the Bible? Search on every word occurrence of "gospel" or "good news." Try mixing it with various combinations of "faith" and "justification" or "righteousness." Do these searches in Greek if you know how. List the passages where justification by faith is explicitly said to be part of the gospel. This shouldn't take long. Done? If you are working in the original language of the New Testament, there aren't any… If the Bible never once says that the gospel is justification by faith, perhaps we can at least agree that Piper's claim that it is the gospel's heart is suspect.” (Gospel Allegiance)

Two stars because Piper at least quotes NT Wright at length and I did enjoy reading those little tidbits along the way. And for the record I don’t totally despise reformed theology and the reformation, it has done so much course correcting - but why did we stop 400ish years ago?

[Matt Koser · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wright’s view summarized: We are justified because of union with Christ
Piper’s view summarized: we are justified because of assignment of righteousness

I wanted to read this response to Wright because I’ve been reading his stuff recently and it’s been really great. Piper has some good points. There are some moments that I agree with his criticisms (at least as of 2008—I’ve been reading more recent Wright writings). But overall, I think Wright is more convincing.

[Jake Owen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Could make this review very long, but I’ll keep it short for everyone.
To sum up:
- don’t think Piper engages Wright on his own terms
- I think he somewhat misunderstands second temple Judaism
- he argues from a stance of tradition rather than scripture
- Piper writes a more pastoral book than a theological one which I think is why he does a poor job at defending the reformed view
- also so many straw men I wanted to cry
- Piper also has just a fundamentally different hermeneutic than Wright and I think he reads that into the texts he uses to defend his view (especially in the imputation section wow)
- overall enjoyed the book and was honestly open to being convinced or even pushed to more reformed position but Piper did not do it for me.
- I would recommend this book as it is important to be educated on these things and I think Wrights justification book is a fantastic (and much better) response

[Christian Barrett · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this short rebuttal to the “New Perspective on Paul” John Piper raises some of his major concerns with the teachings of N.T. Wright and justification. One of the things that Piper does extremely well is present the teachings of Wright. Many times he quotes him for pages before summarizing what Wright has said. This goes to show that Piper is not looking to break down a straw man, but the real argument. Piper also shows how this teaching is contradictory to historical understanding of justification and of how it differs from the biblical presentation. This is a great primer to this deep discussion, and I believe many should be aware of this issue as it may become more and more prevalent in laity.

[Matthew Searson · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are some flaws in Wright’s view, for sure, and I admire Piper for standing up for what he believes to be Biblical. It was a respectful and kind critique and I enjoyed it... with that said, however Wright is leaps and bounds ahead of Piper in his Biblical theology and Piper was just not the man for this job.

[Mark Lickliter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Glad I'm done with this. Truth is that I'm not impressed with much of what N.T. Wright says. He too often distorts the plain meaning of the text in favor of novel ideas in the academic community. Justification is clear. The reformers are a more reliable guide than Wright.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

John Piper took issue with some of N.T. Wright’s views on justification. Because of this, Piper decided to write a whole book to point out the areas where he felt that Wright was misleading his audience. In this book, Piper raises 8 questions concerning Wright’s teaching. I will discuss all 8 questions by first stating Wrights view, then stating Piper’s view, then concluding with my response to that particular question.
Question #1: The Gospel Is Not about How to Get Saved?
N. T. WRIGHT
Regarding the relationship between the gospel message and justification, N. T. Wright aims to stress a separation between the two. He writes: “I must stress again that the doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’…‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved.” Wright makes this separation because of his belief that the preaching of the gospel message during the first century was not a message about justification, but rather a message about Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection. In fact, along these lines, Wright says that, “If we come to Paul with these questions in mind – the questions about how human beings come into a living and saving relationship with the living and saving God – it is not justification that springs to his lips or pen…he has a clear train of thought, repeated at various points. The message about Jesus and his cross and resurrection…is announced to them…God works by his Spirit upon their hearts; as a result, they come to believe the message.” It is clear from the previous quotations of Wright that he does not feel that the doctrine of justification is needed as part of the gospel.
JOHN PIPER
John Piper is confused by Wright’s claim that the gospel is not an account of how people get saved. His first argument against what Wright proposes is that it does not line up with Paul’s preaching of the gospel found in the book of Acts. Piper’s strongest use of the book of Acts to prove his point comes in the form of Acts 13:38-39. Here, Paul says, “Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses (Acts 13:38-39, ESV). Piper believes that having laid down a historical foundation in previous verses, these two verses show that Jesus’ death and resurrection make this history “good news.”
Furthermore, Piper disputes Wright’s claim that, “it is not justification that springs to [Paul’s] lips or pen,” when the question arises about how humans come into a saving relationship with God. Piper does not try to argue that Paul announced the truth of justification in every gospel message, but he does feel strongly that Paul’s announcements about Jesus’ death, resurrection, and lordship are good news because believing in this Christ brought about justification.
MY RESPONSE
With Question #1 in mind, I tend to side with Piper. It seems clear from Scripture that the separation Wright makes between the gospel message and the doctrine of justification is not evident in Paul’s preaching. Furthermore, Wright appears to be arguing his point in a way to better present his opinion that the individual’s experience should be minimized when looking at the gospel. Overall, I agree with the concerns that Piper has about Wright’s stance. Piper is concerned that Wright’s passion to get people to view the gospel as historical and global rather than as something for the individual may have an unwanted consequence. Piper fears that this approach will leave the gospel too vague for individual sinners to understand how to gain salvation. I agree with what Piper says when he writes that, “If the gospel has an answer, it would have to be a message about how the rebel against God can be saved – indeed, how he can be right with God and become part of the covenant people.”
Question #2: Justification Is Not How You Become a Christian?
N. T. WRIGHT
To Wright, justification is not the process by which someone becomes a Christian. He puts it like this: “Justification…is not a matter of how someone enters the community of the true people of God, but of how you tell who belongs to that community…‘Justification’ in the first century was not about how someone might establish a relationship with God…it was not so much about ‘getting in’, or indeed about ‘staying in’, as about ‘how you could tell who was in’.”
In Wright’s view, the first step is God’s call on a person, which instantaneously awakens faith in the individual. “There is no lapse of time between God’s call and our justifying faith.” Because of this, Wright labels God’s act of justification as a “second-order doctrine.”
JOHN PIPER
Piper sharply disagrees with Wright concerning the role of justification in a person’s journey to becoming a Christian. About Wright’s belief that justification is a second-order doctrine, Piper writes that, “we may conclude that justification should not be called a ‘second-order doctrine,’ only giving assurance but not part of the event by which we enter God’s favor. Calling/faith/justification are parts of one event that brings us from God’s enmity to his acceptance.”
To debunk Wright’s theology further, Piper goes back to analyzing Wright’s desire to modify people’s view of the gospel from the emphasis being put on the individual to the emphasis being put on the historical and global elements of the gospel. About Wright’s modification of the gospel, Piper writes: “The kind of gospel preaching that will flow from Wright’s spring will probably have global scope to it but will not deal personally with the human heart of sin with clear declarations of how Christ dealt with sin and how the fearful heart can find rest in the gospel of grace – the active grace that, while not exhausted by God’s act of justification, does include it.”
MY RESPONSE
I am in an interesting dilemma because I found myself agreeing with Piper in regards to Question #1, yet find myself siding with Wright in regards to Question #2. I am sure my thoughts on this subject are early in their development since I am new to the “justification debate,” however I find it odd that I would not align with the same theologian on both questions. The reason that I align with Wright in this case is that I can see how God’s call would awaken a faith in us that would instantaneously lead to our justification. Once our faith is alive inside of us, the justification process happens as an immediate result. Romans 5:1 laid it out clearly when Paul wrote that we are justified by faith.
I find Piper’s argument that justification could not be a second-order doctrine because calling, faith, and justification, “are parts of one event that brings us from God’s enmity to his acceptance,” to be a weak argument in that Wright has already established that faith and justification happen instantaneously after the call of God. In this case, it appears that Piper is arguing for something very similar to what Wright has stated.
Question #3: Justification is Not the Gospel?
N. T. WRIGHT
To put it plainly, N. T. Wright says, “I must stress again that the doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’…‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved.” Wright makes this separation because he feels like something larger is happening with the preaching of the gospel. The gospel is a proclamation, and a royal proclamation at that. Instead of seeing the gospel as a system of how people get saved, Wright sees this royal proclamation resulting in people being saved. Furthermore, Wright describes the average understanding of ‘justification by faith’ as people, “trying to pull themselves up by their own moral bootstraps. They try to save themselves by their own efforts; to make themselves good enough for God, or for heaven.” This, Wright says, will not work as one can only be saved by the grace of God (and only then by faith, not works). Finally, Wright points out that, “Justification for Paul cannot be understood apart from eschatology.”
JOHN PIPER
In John Piper’s writing, he almost seems to take offense to Wright’s claim that justification is not the gospel. Scripturally speaking, Piper points out that a significant problem with Wright’s claim is that, “Exegetically…the portrayal of Paul’s preaching of the gospel in the book of Acts seems to contradict what Wright says.” In a story found in Acts 13, Paul says, “Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39, ESV). Piper points out that, “Before telling them exactly what [Paul] is offering them as ‘good news,’ he tells them how God is bringing it about.” Piper goes on to say that justification language is clear in Paul’s teaching. Piper sees justification language occurring, “as the climactic expression of the gospel to both Jews and then Gentiles, offering them forgiveness of sins, a right standing with God, and, in that way, eternal life. Even though there are different contextualization challenges in making ‘justification’ understandable to Jews and Gentiles, what Acts makes plain is that the same ‘salvation’ that Paul offers to the Jews is offered to the Gentiles.”
MY RESPONSE
I am prone to agree with Wright, who said that when Paul wrote about how people come to a personal knowledge of God in Christ, “he does not use the language of ‘justification’ to denote this event or process. Instead, he speaks of proclamation of the gospel of Jesus, the work of the spirit, and the entry into the common life of the people of God” I believe that the reason that Paul writes about these things instead of putting the emphasis on justification is because becoming one with Jesus and joining the family of God comes first. After that, we are given justification as a sign that we are a part of God’s family. Romans 1:16 makes this clear: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Romans 1:16, ESV). Here we see that the gospel proclamation is the power of God for salvation to all who believe.
Eschatologically speaking, justification is made truly public during Final Judgment, when it acts as a legal status which we carry out of court with us. I agree with Wright that, “Justification is not how someone becomes a Christian. It is the declaration that they have become a Christian.”
Question #4: We Are Not Justified by Believing in Justification?
N. T. WRIGHT
N. T. Wright has said that, “If we are thinking Paul’s thoughts after him, we are not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith. We are justified by faith by believing in the gospel itself – in other words, that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead.” Piper points out that Wright is essentially saying that, “the message of justification is not the gospel, and not a message about how we get saved.” Additionally, he goes on to say that we can believe in justification by faith, in that through that belief we recognize that we are eternally part of God’s family. “We are now and forever part of the family to whose every member God says what he said to Jesus at his baptism: you are my beloved child, with you I am well pleased.” In this sense, salvation comes to us as a family, and as a community of believers. Again, the emphasis is less on the individual, and more on the family that is created by those who have put their faith in Jesus.
JOHN PIPER
John Piper asserts that Wright’s statement that we are not saved by believing in justification (but rather by believing in Jesus’ death and resurrection) contains “misleading ambiguity.” Piper believes that this ambiguity comes from the fact that our reason for believing in Jesus’ death and resurrection is left undefined. Taking it to the next step, Piper goes on to say that the gospel of Jesus’ death and resurrection does not become “good news” until the hearer of the gospel learns what Jesus is offering personally and freely – justification. Using Scripture to prove his point, Piper quotes Acts 13:39, in which Paul says that, “by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses (Acts 13:39, ESV). Piper says that freed can also be translated as justified, so that the verse would ultimately mean that everyone who believes is justified from everything which the law could not justify us from.
MY RESPONSE
I can see both sides of this argument. While it seems that, in a sense, both are saying the same thing, I can understand Piper’s desire to have a more in depth explanation from Wright. While I believe that both would agree that salvation starts with a belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection, it makes sense that Wright could have clarified further his statement about Christians not being justified by believing in justification. The clarification of what Jesus’ death and resurrection led to (salvation for those who believe) is truly what makes the gospel good news. I agree with Piper’s summation of the argument over Question #4: “Of course, it is Jesus who saves, not the doctrine. And so our faith rests decisively on Jesus. But the doctrine tells us what sort of Jesus we are resting on and what we are resting on him for”
With that being said, I also agree with Wright’s assessment that justification is not conversion itself, but is more synonymous with vindication. It is not our transformation into a “just as if we had never sinned” state which makes us Christian. It is our initial belief in Christ – his death and resurrection – that leads to our right standing with God.
Question #5: The Imputation of God’s Own righteousness Makes No Sense At All?
N. T. WRIGHT
N. T. Wright does not believe that God’s own righteousness is put upon those who are justified. He writes that, “Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom…To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake.” Rather, Wright believes that, “God’s righteousness remains, so to speak, God’s own property.” Wright sees “the righteousness of God” as, “referring to a status of righteousness which humans have before God.” He uses Philippians 3:8-9 as one verse that illustrates his point: “Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ – the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith” (Philippians 3:8-9, ESV).
Furthermore, Wright likens receiving the righteousness of God with being vindicated. As members of a covenant relationship with Christ, Christians have died and been raised with Jesus, dead to their sins. Wright objects to saying that Jesus, “earned something called ‘righteousness,’ and that he then reckons this to be true of his people…On my reading of Paul the ‘righteousness’ of Jesus is that which results from God’s vindication of him as Messiah in the resurrection; and particularly, that this is what Paul means when he speaks of ‘God’s righteousness.’”
JOHN PIPER
Concerning the idea that the imputation of God’s own righteousness makes no sense, John Piper often accuses Wright of being overly ambiguous with his thoughts. In one passage, Piper writes: “It is unclear whether Wright is merging our imputed position in Christ as vindicated before God with an imparted newness of nature that lives by faith.” Piper also compares Wright’s exegesis of the text with the traditional Reformed exegesis. When outlining both, side by side, Piper revealed that Wright’s exegesis removes the imputation of Christ’s obedience as a result of one’s union with Christ. Piper then points out that the absence of a real perfect imputed obedience, “leaves the gift of the status of vindication without foundation…[which] results in a vacuum that our own Spirit-enabled, but imperfect, obedience seems to fill as part of the foundation or ground or basis alongside the atoning death of Jesus.”
MY RESPONSE
In regards to Question #5, I find myself siding with Wright, as he demonstrated through Scripture that “God’s righteousness” is a phrase that has, “always and everywhere else from the Psalms and Isaiah onwards, refers to God’s own righteousness as the creator and covenant God.”
I also agree with Wright that Paul likely used that phrase to denote, “the righteous status which God’s people have in virtue of justification.” The key thing that won me over to Wright’s side over Piper’s position is Wright’s use of Scripture to prove his point. I found Wright’s usage of biblical evidence to be more compelling than that of Piper’s. I was particularly swayed by the way that Wright used Philippians, 2 Corinthians, and multiple passages from Romans to prove what Paul really had in mind when addressing “God’s righteousness” in his letters.
Question #6: Future Justification is on the Basis of the Complete Life Lived?
N. T. WRIGHT
N. T. Wright believes that, “God the Judge will find in our favor on the basis of the works we have done – the life we have lived – and in the present he anticipates that verdict and declares it to be already true on the basis of our faith in Jesus.” Using Romans 8:3-4 as an explanation of Romans 2:13, Wright concludes that, “‘the doers of the law’ are those who ‘walk by the Spirit’ and thus fulfill the ‘righteous requirement of the law,’…This means that justification…will be based on the life of obedience that we live in the power of the Spirit.” Wright has also said that, “Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led – in accordance, in other words, with works. He says this clearly and unambiguously in Romans 14.10-12 and 2 Corinthians 5.10. He affirms it in that terrifying passage about church-builders in 1 Corinthians 3. But the main passage in question is of course Romans 2.1-16.”
JOHN PIPER
Seeing the importance of Romans 2:13 to Wright’s view, John Piper breaks down Wright’s argument by saying that, “Paul does not say how being a ‘doer of the law’ functions in relation to being justified at the last day.” Furthermore, Paul does not use the phrase, “from works,” which can often be translated as “on the basis of works” (as opposed to “according to works”). Piper adds Romans 3:20 and Romans 3:28 to his list of biblical proofs for his position. Romans 3:20 says, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20, ESV). This is followed by Romans 3:28 which says, “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Romans 3:28, ESV). To encapsulate his thoughts, Piper writes: “Given the demands of the flow of the argument in Romans 2:6-16…I doubt that we can press this statement very far for the defense of justification by works. Paul makes a statement that in this context functions as a principle (doing, not hearing, will matter at the judgment), rather than a declaration about how that doing relates to justification – let alone whether the doing of Christ may supply what our doing lacks.”

THERE IS NOT ENOUGH ROOM HERE TO INCLUDE ALL MY THOUGHTS, SO CONTINUE TO READ MY RESPONSES TO PIPER'S QUESTIONS IN THE COMMENT SECTION BELOW.

[Cathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Piper's book is very thorough and very scholarly. At the end of it, he summarizes, "Justification is, in fact, part of the event of becoming a Christian. By justification we come into a right standing with God. And until we do, we are not saved, we are not Christians."

This has been my primary concern with Wright's teaching: that people will think they are Christians when they are not, that they are "saved" when they are not. There is no more horrific mistake than one could make in terms of heaven and hell. Wright, however, does not believe in Hell, just that people fade away as they reflect God's image and glory less and less. (Wright in "Surprised by Hope.") The best that I can tell is that Wright does not believe in Hell because he doesn't like it. God Himself doesn't like death, Hell, judgement, (Ezekiel 18:32, Ezekiel 33:11, Matthew 18:14, 2 Peter 3:9) but that doesn't make it less of a reality.

Again, Piper writes, in the section, "Why This Book?," "If we begin to deny or minimize the importance of the obedience of Christ, imputed to us through faith alone, our own works will begin to assume the role that should have been Christ's. As that happens, over time (perhaps generations), the works of love themselves will be severed from their root in he Christ-secured assurance that God is totally for us."

That has also been part of my worries with Wright's teaching: that Christian service and volunteering will eventually become severed from Christianity. It seems to me that has happened in many churches - that people volunteer for this or that, and then eventually leave the church and volunteer for secular organizations in ways that do not bring either glory to Christ or people to Jesus. (I am not saying that volunteering in secular organizations is bad, just that it is no replacement for belonging to a body of believers, and more importantly, belonging to Jesus.) It just seems like either these people have lost their faith or they never had it or they are content with just doing good works, without partnering with God in them - and that is a profound loss.

Piper also wrote, "The kind of gospel preaching that will flow from Wright's springs will probably have global scope to it but will not deal personally with the human heart of sin with clear declaration of how Christ dealt with sin and how the fearful heart can find rest in the gospel of grace - the active grace that, while not exhausted by God's act of justification, does include it."

In the introduction of this book, John Piper lists some of the verses relating to the high calling that both he and N. T. Wright have in regards to teaching and leading their churches. I have taken that list of verses and am praying them, not only for our own church leadership, but also for other church leaders who have shown us kindnesses over the years. Sometimes, I pray them for Wright and Piper as well.

I also liked what Piper wrote about theological controversy, reasons for it, that it should be done in love, and that even the love chapter (1 Corinthians 13) is sandwiched between other controversial issues of those times.

My husband and I had read a book recommended to us by someone we respected, N. T. Wright's "Surprised by Hope," and we came up with our own list of its troubling contradictions with the Bible. Then, I read John Piper's "The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright." While I don't think Piper's book was written specifically in reference to "Surprised by Hope," he did have a section explaining how Wright places more importance on other 1st century documents than the Bible. I thought it explained one of the problems I have with Wright very well. He places preference on these other documents to try to interpret scripture, but Piper found some difficulties with that approach:

*This extra material has been "less studied than the Bible" and "does not come with a contextual awareness" that most scholars bring to the Bible. So there is significantly less sureness as to what the authors meant.

* Scripture has "divine inspiration," which leads us to hope for coherency, and that the Holy Spirit will illuminate it.

* A surviving document of the times may not be indicative of the whole of thought and world view of the time. Probably there were differing opinions. American culture does not have one universal opinion on things; most likely 1st century authors did not either.

* It may be misapplied to scripture when the scriptural authors have clearly defined things elsewhere.

Piper writes of the "stubborn clarity" of the Bible despite these 1st century documents, and I have to agree. Well, okay, I haven't read the 1st century documents, but the Bible seems to say what the Bible says, despite what Wright tries to do to it.

Piper identifies the 1st century group, Qumran, whose writings N. T. Wright takes as a basis for his understanding of the New Testament. I had heard of that group before, as a Jewish cult or sect, not mainstream Judaism, but more or less a group cast off to the side. If the group was not widely considered valid in its own time, it surprises me that Wright would give it such credence today. Of course, that is not the only test for validity, but it needs to bear scrutiny. Wright wrote a book called, "4QMMT and Paul: Justification, 'Works,' and 'Eschatology" The document 4QMMT is from manuscripts found in a cave at Qumran.

If you plan to read the rest of the book, be prepared to read a thoroughly slow-paced, scholarly work.

Wright tends to redefine words, which doesn't always work when put back into Biblical contexts.

He redefines justification as being a covenant member of God's people instead of how we are saved and made right before God. Piper dove into Greek to show why Wright's definition didn't make sense grammatically or within the verses Romans 3:28 and Romans 4:6.

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." - Romans 3:28

"David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 'Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.'" - Romans 4:6-8

Wright also denies part of what is usually considered essential in the gospel. (The Good News.) He shortens it to just being about Jesus' Lordship and resurrection, dropping the connection to our being saved or justified. I like what Piper said about that. "That Jesus died, rose, and reigns as King of the universe may be terrible news in view of my treason, unless that announcement includes some news about how and why I personally will not be destroyed by the risen Christ."

Piper shows how Paul links this in Acts 13:38-39

"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses." - Acts 13:38-39

Also, Piper showed how 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 related to this. (I felt good about that one. It was one that I'd come across myself in refuting Wright.)

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" - 1 Corinthians 13:3

Piper wanted to re-attach Romans 10:10 to Romans 10:9 to give a fuller understanding than Wright gave.

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." - Romans 10:9-10

Wright also denies that God gave us Jesus' righteousness, when He took our sinfulness upon Himself. He does this by redefining righteousness, not as a characteristic or attribute, but as an action. He said that God's righteousness in behaving as a just judge cannot replace our righteousness (or lack thereof) in being good subjects, because those are different actions. Wright also talks about righteousness as being covenant faithfulness, but God had righteousness before there was any covenant.

Piper showed verse after verse after verse showing what the Bible means by God's righteousness, tying it to God's own glory. Psalm 145:17, Psalm 98:9, Isaiah 48:9-11, Isaiah 43:25, Psalm 79:9, Ezekiel 36:20-23, 2 Timothy 2:13, Psalm 143:11, Romans 1:18-23.

Several times, I found Piper's footnotes with Bible references in them to support his arguments to be more clear than the larger words he used in the main body of his book. And after all, I have heard the Bible described as "a letter to children." But I wish that Piper had included more of the Bible verses footnoted into the main text of his book. An example of this is those verses that show we must keep the whole law, not just strive towards it imperfectly. (Hab 1:13, Hebrews 2:2, James 2:10, Hebrews 10:1-4, Leviticus 26: 14-16, Galatians 3:10.) Jesus did that for us and we have His righteousness.

I also found the chart on page 125 helpful in showing how Traditional Reformed Exegesis differed from Wright's Exegesis in leaving out the importance of Christ's obedience. Since we must keep the whole law, then if we do not depend on Jesus' obedience and righteousness, then we are in a precarious state.

I also wish that Piper had defined pre-Pelagianism and distinguished it from other forms of legalism earlier on. It is the belief that "one must earn one's justification and salvation by unaided good works."

I thought it was funny that Wright used Romans 4:1-8, saying that Paul was not talking about legalism, but ethnocentrism, shown outwardly through circumcision, keeping the Sabbath, and being kosher. But in that passage, Paul had quoted an Old Testament passage showing that David, at that point, was without works because of his disobedience, although he had been circumcised, kept the Sabbath, and was kosher. So Paul wasn't talking only about ethnocentrism but also legalism - the exact opposite of Wright's point.

Piper had other verses to show how important righteousness and more importantly, Jesus' righteousness and our justification is to us. (Phil 3:8-9, 2 Cor 5:21, Phil 3:9, Gal 2:17, 1 Cor. 1:30) A key verse he used is "For our sake [God] made [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." - 2 Cor. 5:21, especially in the context of vs 20, with Paul pleading for people to become reconciled to God.

The more I read of Wright, the more concerned I am about people following his teachings.

[Nick Hay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Piper writes this book as a critical evaluation of NT Wright’s doctrine of justification. Piper quotes a lot of Wright’s work, and mostly gives him a fair representation, even while his usual pastoral and passionate heart drives each page.

Piper’s characterization of Wright’s message was a tad perplexing to me, given that he simultaneously sees it at a dangerous distortion, but not a false gospel that would place NT Wright beyond the bounds of orthodoxy.

One of Piper’s main grievances with Wright’s perspective seems to be his discontinuity with tradition and the novelty of his readings. However, since the writing of this book, Matthew Thomas has released a study on “works of the law” in patristic writings, demonstrating an early understanding closer to that of the New Perspective. I bring this up not to say it completely undermines Piper’s critique, but it at least demonstrates that not every piece of his readings is novel, and that at least at some level, what is called novel is actually in line with some of the earliest interpreters of Paul.

In my estimation, Piper lays too much weight on a defense of the reformed tradition, and not enough on exegesis. He does deal with texts, but mostly in a proof texting format, jumping to different texts to back up the point of each chapter, rather than walking through whole sections of text.

I do think there are valid critiques and helpful questions raised in this book, and for this, it is valuable. However, I find other critiques of Wright and frameworks for understanding justification to hold the weight of the Biblical texts better.

[Joshua Biggs · Rating 4 out of 5]

A technical and helpful book. I think Piper asked a lot of good questions and made compelling critiques of Wright’s view (and the New Perspective on Paul as a whole) on justification, and on the whole, added more light than heat.

Notable points:

-Piper is concerned that Wright mistakes what the righteousness of God is (God’s commitment to always do what is right, namely the praise of his glory) for what it does (God’s covenant faithfulness)

-Wright’s definition of “the righteousness of God” being “the covenant faithfulness of God” is very difficult to square with 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Do we become the convenant faithfulness of God through our union with Christ?? Wright has an answer to this, but to Piper it’s not convincing.

-Wright asserts that Paul was not arguing against a legalistic Judaism but an ethnocentric Judaism, this then informs the reading/interpretation of a number of texts on justification. Piper points out that legalism (the traditional view of the error of the Pharisees) and ethnocentrism (Wright’s view of the error of the Pharisees) both share the root of self-righteousness in that they promote a puffed up vision of one’s self on some intrinsic characteristic, wether moral or ethnic. Thus, the root problem doesn’t change.

-Wright argues justification is not the Gospel. The Gospel is the announcement that the king of the universe, Jesus, has died and resurrected and is establishing his kingdom on the earth. I think Wright is close to being right about how the Bible uses the word “gospel”, but this comment left by itself is unhelpful and creates an unnecessary separation from the announcement of the resurrection of the Son of God and the means by which we can be made right with him.

-I appreciated Piper’s clear respect and gratitude for much of Wright’s work and his willingness to accept him as a brother despite their difference.

All in all, a good read. At times I felt like I wasn’t quite smart enough to track with everything, but I’m not super familiar with the conversation this book addresses to start with. I also havnt read much of Wright’s thoughts on the topic, so that would be a good next step.

[Philip Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Illuminating discussion on issues surrounding Wright and the so called new perspective on Paul. Piper argues for the historic Protestant view of justification, that on the final day, our good works will function as evidence that we we were in Christ, from whom we receive an alien righteousness by faith alone. The discussion on the righteousness of God was good, as was the pastoral application of the doctrine of justification.

[John Pawlik · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book very helpful for understanding Piper’s position on the New Perspective, and some of the biblical arguments in favor of the traditional. There was a bit of mischaracterization, and it was less than nuanced sometimes, but overall really helpful introduction to the argument. I wouldn’t read this unless you plan on getting the other side from the Horse’s mouth, or unless you have no desire to understand the other perspective.

[Reagan Vernon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Piper is deeply respectful of Wright and quotes him at length throughout. He calls out ambiguity in Wright's language and shortfalls in his exegesis. He ultimately argues that justification should be understood as imputation in the pattern of the reformers. Call me biased, but Piper's academic flavor is deeply rich and satisfying.

[Saul Rooker · Rating 2 out of 5]

Writing style makes for a difficult read. Arguments are not entirely convincing, even though they could be correct.

[Ben Adkison · Rating 3 out of 5]

Several months ago I set out to understand the theological debate between N.T. Wright and John Piper about the meaning of "justification" in the Bible (in the Greek the phrase under consideration is "dikaiosyne theou" - the righteousness of God). Here's what I read, and the order in which I read it:

Paul In Fresh Perspective - by N.T. Wright

The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright - by John Piper

Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision - by N.T. Wright

A Review of: Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision - by Michael Horton

And finally a few blog posts by Kevin DeYoung about this whole discussion

Here's what I learned:

Piper and Wright (and I should add Horton & DeYoung) are all really smart.

They are all much smarter than I am.

Both Piper and Wright have given us a rather good picture of what a debate between brothers in Christ should look like. Now I know there's quite a bit of hubbub about this whole ordeal in the blogosphere, and this may lead one to think that these two men aren't really playing nice, but if you read their books and responses to one another, it's all rather cordial.

Both men add useful information to the discussion about the nature and meaning of justification, and more specifically to the topic of imputation as a feature of justification.

In order of who is the most difficult to read: Wright is the toughest, followed by Horton, and then finally Piper and DeYoung. This leads me to want to side with Piper simply because he writes in a more precise way and is easier to understand.

If I put aside my bias in favor of Piper (because of the aforementioned clarity with which he writes), and really just try to understand what is being discussed here, I think I come down in the middle, albeit more notably on Piper's side. Despite all of Wright's arguments to the contrary, I am still inclined to believe that Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers, and that at the final judgement, people will be judged 'righteous' based solely on Jesus' merits and not our own. Our deeds do demonstrate the reality of saving faith within us (and thus bear witness to the fact that we are really in Christ), but they are not in any sense the ground of our righteousness. Jesus alone makes us righteous.

I do think that Wright has correctly called our attention back to the meta-narrative of Scripture and covenant, the importance of the church, and the importance of examining Scripture not just bottom-up, but also top-down. I think he's a brilliant scholar, and I plan to read him more in the future. But I think he's a little off on this discussion. Two things are especially condemning in my final estimation of Wright in regards to this subject: 1) He seems to misunderstand much of the reformed tradition that he critiques (read Horton's review for an explanation of this point), and 2) despite the sheer volume of works that he's written on this subject, he still seems to lack the precise clarity and forthrightness that make his viewpoints easy to pin down and judge accordingly.

I should note, I'm not the only one expressing this frustration about clarity. Several others have mentioned this. In fact, there was much discussion following the 2010 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society about whether or not the view that Wright expressed during those meetings had changed from the view He expresses in his writings. (see: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/j...)

Overall Fun Reading!!! I think I'll go listen to a Robert Ludlum audiobook now, and put my brain in relax mode.

[JC]

I’m probably unable to rate this book fairly, because I believe I’m too theologically remote from Piper’s convictions to reduce his work here to a quantitative value (of stars). So I won’t bother with that this time. That being said, maybe that’s a serious ecumenical problem, because Christians across the theological spectrum spend so much time talking past each other. Such a problem is why I appreciate this dialogue between Wright and Piper in the first place. (Even if that talking past each other still inevitably occurs.) Not too many evangelicals take time to engage with more academic theology, and not many theologians of secular academic institutions or mainline protestant churches take time to seriously engage with evangelicals. (Of Course Wright identifies as an evangelical himself, but he's not what people usually conjure up in their mind when the term 'conservative evangelical' is used.) I’m in no way a theologian myself, but most of my theological reading has tended towards academic theologians, and hence mainline protestantism. So despite the fact I attend a conservative evangelical church with my family, I’ve tended to read outside its theological radius.

Having stumbled upon this exchange between Wright and Piper, and rarely having the motivation to read through books by evangelical writers like Piper, I found this a good opportunity to try doing so. Out of the so-called New Calvinists, I admire people like Francis Chan and John Piper a lot more than others because of their socio-economic conscience regarding poverty and racism, and their extolling of frugality (what Piper calls wartime living, which I hope he’s reading 'non-violently' through the lens of 2 Corinthians 10:3-5) among other things. Piper is also quite well read on major 20th century theologians like Bultmann and Barth, and did his dissertation in that same academic ethos, though never coming to agree with it. Piper doesn't try to convince anyone the earth is 6000 years old, and both Piper and Chan also tend to traffic far less in toxic masculinity, which I feel can't quite be said about other so-called New Calvinists (like Driscoll). That being said, I still believe men like Piper imposing complementarianism on women is sexist. There are of course a host of other issues like that. I came to this book aware that I have particular biases against Piper, so I hoped to compensate by reading his work before Wright’s.

The NYT food critic, Sam Sifton, came up with something called the Pizza Cognition Theory, which states that the first enjoyable pizza slice a child experiences becomes the defining paradigm for all other slices of pizza, and any slice that differs from this first slice is at risk of being considered ‘not pizza’ or not ‘proper’ pizza. (There is a more general name for this cognitive bias that I think I read about in Daniel Gilbert’s book Stumbling on Happiness, but I cannot seem to find it right now.)

Anyways, understanding this possibility, I wanted to give Piper the chance of presenting me with my first slice of justification. Now I’m of course familiar with the broad outlines of this basic Christian doctrine. But I wanted to give Piper the chance to stake out what ‘proper’ justification was, and in what specific ways Wright didn’t quite get it right. Additionally however, I should probably confess that one of my main motivations for reading this book was to gain a proper prerequisite framing of Wright’s book on justification, which was written in response to this book Piper wrote, and which I intend to read very soon.

Tom Wright’s theological orientation is already fairly more ‘conservative’ than mine, and John Piper inevitably more so. But I think Wright has such an incredible grasp of how various parts of the Bible are connected to each other, and the way later writers were quoting, referencing, and thinking about older biblical texts, that I always find listening to Wright worthwhile, regardless of whether I agree with his conclusions. I cannot say I’ve always had that same unfluctuating appreciation. When I read his book with Marcus Borg, I honestly lacked the patience to fully appreciate his chapters. I found Borg far more convincing then. But I think I was in a period of life where I was suffering from a very narrow reactionist response to my fundamentalist upbringing. My theological horizons have since expanded, and I’ve acquired a taste (or rather, even an appetite) for Wright’s theology, thanks largely to a United Church minister I greatly admire who was involved in the campus ministry community I was a part of in grad school. The minister talked a lot about the bodily emphasis in Wright, and highlighted this very earthy perspective Wright had regarding the Kingdom of God.

I only discovered this decade-old exchange between Wright and Piper rather recently. But I think this exchange is an important ecumenical bridge between what seem in my mind to be rather theologically remote universes. This is something I appreciate about Wright. He takes Paul's urgings for church unity very seriously, and consequently is engaged in dialogue with theologians literally across the spectrum, from John Piper to Marcus Borg. (It's hard to imagine two theologians as theologically distant from one other.)

So regarding this book by Piper, I actually found Wright's arguments, as presented by Piper, rather compelling and illuminating. I think this reflects the extent Piper tried to properly present Wright's perspective. As much as I love Wright and his work, I must admit that I feel he sometimes has a habit of belittling and misrepresenting views that are not his own. (I think this is a habit of many people who possess highly functional intellects; they seem to have to work a bit harder to be more patient towards other perspectives that may not seem to them as considered as their own). With the limited number of excerpts Piper presents from Wright's work, I think the main sense of Wright's thoughts still came through. The participationist imagery is also finally coming through to me. It's illuminated something I read in a Hauerwas article after my grandmother died: "Confronted by a sudden and unexpected death of a 'loved one,' it is natural to use the phrase, 'they have gone to a better place.'... But this is not the language of the faith. God is not a 'place'."

Anyways, I feel like Piper was pretty fair in his attempts not to misrepresent Wright. I heard Wright talk in a podcast rather appreciatively of the way Piper approached the issue, and reached out to Wright to clarify understandings of Wright's work. However, theological exchanges are of course constrained by time and human finitude, and there were definitely a number of points I could see Piper misinterpreting Wright, or misassuming the sense in which Wright was using a word or framing an idea.

I can frequently see how the way Piper uses words like salvation, gospel, Kingdom, glory, Lord, justice, righteousness, faith differs quite markedly from the way mainline protestant theologians are using those words. And so while it’s useful to define terms, one can already see with something like the word justification, so much dialogue is required to contest the term, with little shift or change of heart on either side. When people have a whole constellation of terms that are used in such different ways, it’s rather unlikely (in my mind) that we can so easily find common ground on what we mean by certain words. But this book and Wright’s book are a good start.

In the end, I think Piper’s affinity for Christian writers like Charles Hodge and Puritans like Jonathan Edwards, is far too removed from where I’ve drifted to theologically. I do feel rather strongly that Piper's intensely lodged into these medieval renderings of Christian theological language, and it's really hard for me to resonate with this mode of Christian theology (at least right now in my life). There were however a a number of points in the book I agreed with Piper, which I look forward to hearing about in Wright’s response. I think one of the most interesting things I encountered in the book were quotes from the Cambridge professor, Simon Gathercole, who has done some extensive critiques on the so-called New Perspective(s) on Paul. That’s something else I’d liked to check out in more detail when I get a chance.

I think Piper’s eschatological views are a lot more fixated on hell than Wright’s, and Piper also still seems tied to this notion that God created human beings of finite moral competence and of endless fallibility, yet demands perfection of them. This only came up explicitly once or twice in the book, but I think its a central issue that leads to such divergent views between these two thinkers. Also I think Piper’s conception of grace is very narrowly fixated on soteriological preoccupations, and he doesn’t fully appreciate Wright’s comments on the Holy Spirit with respect to the grace of our ‘obedience’. Anyways, the book was highly readable, and organized into pretty small sections, which I find helps me read faster for some reason. I didn't bother reading through the appendices though, but I think they seem quite extensive for anyone who's interested in Piper's views on justification apart from Wright's, and his readings of particular Pauline passages. If you’re interested in an introduction to the justification debate between American evangelicalism and moderate Anglicanism (unconventionally coloured by the New Perspective on Paul), this book would be a good place to start.

[Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have heard numerous Pastor's quote N.T. Wright and with the quote state his title which convinces the audience to think, "ooooh, aaahh, this Pastor is reading some impressive theologian with impressive titles so he must have really good things to say" but unfortunately, the hearer doesn't research any further into what the person being quoted believes or if what is being fed to them is good solid food and not a trendy sushi bar smorgasbord called a new “fresh perspective”. (I'm leery of anyone who makes such a brash statement no matter who they are or what degrees they have earned.)

Piper dissects what NT Wright is really saying and challenges him throughout this book. What I absolutely love about Piper and Wright, respectively, is their ability to be gentleman in how they handle controversy and disagreement. We can all learn from their example.

You can read more online on Piper's Desiring God website.

[John Rabe · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very thorough and careful response to N.T. Wright's pervasive and influential contra-reformational teaching that Paul's use of the term "justification" is about ecclesiology rather than soteriology. I'm about halfway through and taking it carefully. It is a substantial work--as evidenced by the fact that Wright himself saw fit to write an 11,000 word response to Piper's first draft. It's also a model of charitable theological disagreement.

[Mike Knox · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book a long time ago (early summer maybe?) and I won’t be taking time to review it. Except to say that John Piper has gone to great pains to hear Wright out and understand him. This book is a model for how to disagree with someone.

[Timothy Bertolet · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book, easy read for anyone who wants to understand more about the New Perspective on Paul. Piper is gracious and clear. Sometimes he adds a few to many caveats as he tries to understand what N.T. Wright says--but he engages the issue without a condescending tone.

[Jerry · Rating 4 out of 5]

A much needed and well-crafted response to NT Wright's justification errors.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The New Perspective on Paul (NPP) reminds me of the Federal Vision debate, in that it seems like whichever proponent you may ask, you will get different definitions and different attributes of the view.

In traditional Pauline interpretation, often aligned with Reformation theology, Paul is seen as the prosecutor of the Law, arguing that it condemns all under sin and that justification comes solely through faith in Christ. The Law, in this view, is akin to a harsh judge that no one can satisfy.

The NPP, however, repositions Paul more as a defense attorney for the Law. In this view, Paul’s argument isn’t against the Law per se, but against the misuse of the Law as a boundary marker excluding Gentiles. The Law is seen not as a harsh judge but as part of a larger narrative of covenantal inclusion, where faith in Christ opens the covenant to all, Jew and Gentile alike, redefining what it means to be God’s people.

When considering a theological viewpoint, I like to think, “What would Calvin think about this?” Not because he alone is the theological litmus test, but because he encompasses so much of what we understand as orthodox theology, notwithstanding the Arminians who would disagree. But John Calvin, grounded in Reformation theology, would likely have reservations about the NPP. Calvin emphasized the total depravity of humanity and the impossibility of fulfilling the Law’s demands, leading to the necessity of grace through faith in Christ alone. For Calvin, and I think the Apostle Paul as well, the Law functioned primarily as a mirror to reveal our sinfulness and drive us to Christ.

From Calvin’s “Commentaries,” he states: “By the law, I understand the whole law of God, but chiefly the moral law, which alone is the true rule of righteousness, so that the conscience, being convinced of its judgment, may stop its mouth, and be without excuse.” And in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” Calvin writes, “For the law is not in fault, that it can of itself give no life, or confer righteousness on us.”

Calvin’s focus is on the inability of the Law to justify and the essential role of faith, contrasting with the NPP’s emphasis on understanding the Law within the context of covenant and community. Calvin’s approach is like viewing the Law as a strict teacher revealing our failings, while the NPP sees it more as a guide to understanding our place in a broader community of faith.

Piper, in this book, does a good job of pointing out the obvious errors in NPP but is limited in several ways as a result of his own theological heritage. It should be noted that if you watch/listen to the debate between Wright and James White on NPP and justification, Wright mops the floor with White for several reasons, one being that White quickly learned in real time that the NPP Is not a monolithic viewpoint and such was severely underprepared. But the majority of Piper’s arguments are fleshed out by White and responded to by Wright in that debate.

Wright, in my opinion isn’t that far off from getting Pauline theology correct. I realize that is a pretty pompous thing for me to say to a giant like Wright, but I honestly think it is true. Folks like E.P Sanders are probably a better target of Piper and White because Sanders absolutely whiffs on Paul under the banner of NPP. Wright qualifies his position well, and doesn’t go too far with it either - something that Piper admits. But this review has gone on long enough. I end it by commenting that Piper’s book here is a good way to dip your toes in the debate, but just know there is more in the soup than Piper lets on here and you should read Wright and Sanders to get a good grasp of NPP and maybe someone like Robert Cara to get a more balanced and reformed critique of NPP.