More on the Piper-Wright Debate on Justification.
Yesterday, Tom Schreiner, Mark Seifrid, Brian Vickers, and I had a conversation with the students of Boyce College about Paul’s doctrine of justification. In particular, we discussed Tom Wright’s new book Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision, which is largely a response to John Piper’s 2007 book The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright.
The audio begins about halfway through my opening remarks. So I will print below my full opening statement so that you can read how I set up the discussion.
—————-
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION
I want to welcome all of you to the final Boyce Chapel meeting of the year. As you all know, we are doing something a little bit different today. In lieu of our normal chapel service, we meet today for a theology forum to discuss the topic of justification in writings of the apostle Paul. In particular, we are concerned with the debate that is heating up around the publication of two books, one by John Piper and the other by N. T. Wright.
N. T. Wright is the Bishop of Durham and one of the world’s leading New Testament scholars. He is associated with the “new perspective” on Paul and has been writing and speaking about Paul’s doctrine of justification for many years. His views are widely known and widely embraced in the evangelical movement. In addition to numerous articles on the topic, several of Wright’s books have been seminal in this conversation: The Climax of the Covenant, What St. Paul Really Said, and Paul: In Fresh Perspective (to name a few).
John Piper is the pastor of the Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In 2007, Dr. Piper wrote a book to refute N. T. Wright’s views on justification, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright. As the title suggests, Piper does not aim in this book to refute the “new perspective” on Paul as a whole, but rather he sets his sights narrowly on N. T. Wright. In particular, Piper interrogates the notion (found numerous times throughout Wright’s published writings) that Christians will be justified at the final judgment based upon works (Future of Justification, p. 22). Piper’s assessment of Wright is stark and unflinching: “I am not optimistic that the biblical doctrine of justification will flourish where N. T. Wright’s portrayal holds sway. I do not see his vision as a compelling retelling of what Saint Paul really said. And I think, as it stands now, it will bring great confusion to the church at a point where she desperately needs clarity. . . When it comes to the deeper issues of how justification really works both in Scripture and the human soul, I don’t think N. T. Wright is as illuminating as Martin Luther or John Owen or Leon Morris (Future of Justification, pp. 24-25).
Today we are gathered to discuss Wright’s new book which is in the main a rejoinder to Piper’s 2007 book from which I just quoted. Wright’s book is titled Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision. The book is set to be released in America in June of this year, but InterVarsity Press graciously sent us an advance copy so that our panel might read and discuss the issues today. By his own admission, N. T.Wright doesn’t really say anything new in this book. Most of the material in this book is a recapitulation of what he has written elsewhere (Justification, p. 13). Nevertheless, the specific engagement with Piper is new, and I’ll read a little passage to you to give an idea of the tenor of Wright’s response to Piper: “For John Piper and the school of thought he represents, present justification appears to take the full weight. Piper and others have then accused me of encouraging people to think of their own moral effort as contributing to their final justification, and hence of compromising the gospel itself. I insist that I am simply trying to do justice to what Paul actually says, and that when we factor in the Spirit to the whole picture we see that the charge is groundless” (Justification, pp. 12-13).
Here is what I cannot figure out about Wright. Either he sees that he is distorting historical Sola Fide and is deceptively dodging accusations on the grounds that “he just wants to be faithful to Paul,” or he really doesn’t get that he’s undermining Sola Fide and thus is actually more clueless than anything about what he’s really saying. Either option is bad news.
That said, I think Piper’s downfall is in addressing “impute,” which he doesn’t really look into but assumes, which Wright shows, according to it’s Greek usage, does not involve an alien righteousness.