Just received “The Future of Justification - A Response to NT Wright” by John Piper. Anyone else got it?

Apparently you can read it for free online.

In his intro he states that he doesn’t believe Wright is a heretic, or that he is under the curse of Galatians 1:8-9, but he believes that his portrayal of the gospel (justification in particular) is so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognize as biblically faithful.

He also states that the implications to his view will lead to “a kind of preaching that will not announce clearly what makes the Lordship of Christ good news for guilty sinners or show those who are overwhelmed with sin how they may stand righteous in the presence of God”.

I’m looking forward to read it. Apparently Piper (according to Wright) has attempted to be as fair as possible as he deals with Wright’s work.

Geoff Chambers - 19 December 2007 12:48 PM

Just received “The Future of Justification - A Response to NT Wright” by John Piper. Anyone else got it?

Hi Geoff,
I received my copy recently from Amazon, because it wasn’t in stock locally.

I have started on it but pre-Christmas busyness has taken over....

It is pleasing to see that John Piper has written this book in a firm but peaceable and gentle manner [Titus 3:2]....
unlike the ad hominem attacks [ = against the person] that sometimes pass for “Christian” debate, particularly in the U.S.A. 

Grace & peace,

Terry

I just received my copy of “Faith and Obedience in Romans” by Glenn Davies. While not an pro-"NPP" exegete, his work here seems to agree with Wright on a few points. I don’t dare say more until I have finished the book.

Also, I get the impression that a lot of the fight occurs between those who want to defend systematic definitions of Justification developed in specific historical contexts (com’on guys, they didn’t develope in an abyss) and the use of the terms by the apostle Paul to deal with specific situations and church-contexts.

That is, Wright (and others) may definately be onto something in seeing that Justification, as used by Paul, has indeed a lot to do with Jew/Gentile relationships within the church. Lets be honest, it was one of THE issues of the early church, as we even see in Acts.

To this problem area, Paul brings up the doctrine of justification as the basis for reminding “everyone” that by faith [or rather, by union-with-Christ by faith], Gentile and Jew could stand side-by-side in right standing with God. Not by the Law, but by Faith in Jesus, the Law-fulfiller and New Israel. That is, that Gentiles were now also inheritors of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal. 3:10-14,23-29).

However, while this might be true, isn’t it ALSO true that the Reformers where RIGHT in bringing the same truth of Justification to bear on the issues facing the medieval catholic church, which had clouded the free gift of salvation in Christ by adding good-works of penance and others.

That is, the Reformation view of Justification was CORRECT in viewing that Paul’s doctrine of Just., used to deal with Jew-Gentile issues in the early church, could also be brought in to correct semi-pelagian (and eve flat-out pelagian) practises in the church.

That is, its important to distinguish between historically-grounded readings of Scripture (and therefore) Paul, and becareful in relating to how the doctrines relate to new contexts. But maybe I’m opening the back door for some sort of “doctrinal development”.

I’ll now run for cover…

Here’s a recent article from Mark Seifrid entitled “The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Fresh Response to N. T. Wright”.

Worth a look if you’re interested in the subject. It shows just how tenuously based Wright’s understanding of ‘covenant’ in Paul’s theology is, among other things.

Siegfried is helpful (as usual) however, I don’t agree with him on a number of points. He fall into the usual dispensational (or semi-dispensational, or progressive dispensational) emphasis, as a Baptist, on discontinuity between the O and N covenants. His arguments seem pretty solid, as he points out that the rare uses of the term by Paul are in contexts in which the apostle seems to emphasiez discontinuity (as in 2 Cor. 5).

However, fundamentally I have to side with Wright (and most covenant theologians, including Dumbrell and Frame), that “covenant” would be a defining marker of “jewishness” of jewish identity. The word “covenant” doesn’t need to appear for a Biblical writer to be writing in covenant-categories or describe covenant-making (like 2 Sam. 7).

There are, other ocurrences in the OT of ‘covenant-making” and ‘covenant-renewal’, (even if the exact word does not appear). Covenant was the ground (at least in part), for the entire Israelite wordlview and self-understanding. The constant use of “hesed” in the Psalms and other places are a reminder of this. Here I think Seigfried is weaker than Wright, and I still agree with the Bishop on this point, and therefore in many ways, his reading of Paul.

Having said this, I think Seigfried’s criticism in many places, including what he defines as Wright’s “Moral optimism” (or something like that) and Wrights narrative-theology problem, is quite correct. Wright needs to understand that seeing (and therefore interpreting) Scriptures in a completely narrative way does lead into problems.

Samuel,

A small point - “Seigfried” should be Seifrid.

I had a longer response but for some reason when I went to post the reply the content disappeared.

So here’s my condensed version: Wright appears to assume the concept of covenant everywhere in Scripture. How does one demonstrate that? Wright needs a watertight methodology that he does not have. Next, once you assume a covenant theology everywhere (as Wright does), it’s no surprise to anyone when you find it.

Whoops, sorry about “Seigfried”, you are absolutely right.

As for the issue of covenant, I don’t think that Wright “assumes” a covenant theology. All you have to do is look at Biblical history to see how God’s covenants continually (a) progressively reveal something about Himself and His plans for the world (b) move the (hi)story forward (c) serve as the basis for God’s dealing with humanity, -particularly Israel and therefore her understanding of the world itself. I mean, the Bible is even divided, between two eras defined as Covenants (Testaments).

Dumbrell himself (in trying to defend a covenantal reading of the New Testament) puts it quite well. I hope you’ll excuse me if I quote him at length, but I think its worth it:

“Covenant theology in discussion of New Testament theology has not been given the high profile it deserves, bearing in mind the thoroughly Jewish character of the early church, for whom a covenant connection and perspective would have been axiomatic [...] As with the OT, however, the importance of the covenant concept in the NT is not to be determined by the frequency of its mention.

Jesus Himself by His death had instituted the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 bearing upon the last days, and had identified the Lord’s Supper as a continual memorial of that death. Why a New Covenant? Sinai had brought Israel into being , the total work of Jesus would bring into being a New and true Israel. Its is clear, however, that a renewel is in mind, not only from the semantic possibilities of Hebrew hadrash “new”, (Jer. 31:31), which the LXX by its kaine diatheke exploits, but also to the connection with the Sinai Covenant to which Jer. 31:32 points.

Thus Jesus’ New Covenant must be understood as the continuation of the Sinai purposes for the world through Israel, but with a different Israel, and not as a replacement for that arrangement. Paul never hints that God has abandoned His covenant with Israel. It is only the question of the identification of Israel that is a Pauline concern. By the death of Christ, however, the covenant arrangements with national Israel was being terminated but the arrangement with Israel would continue through a New Israel to be brought into being through and in evidence on the day of Pentecost. This fact is sufficient in of itself to warrant and to expect that the New Covenant, which came into operation with the death of Jesus, would be a vital NT doctrine. The inauguration of the New Covenant leading to the New Creation becomes, indeed, the major blessing to stem from the death of Jesus”.

Dumbrell, William J. Romans: A New Covenant Commentary (Wipf & Stock, 2005) pp.3, 4

G’day Samuel,

Samuel Lago - 04 July 2008 12:15 AM

Whoops, sorry about “Seigfried”, you are absolutely right.

As for the issue of covenant, I don’t think that Wright “assumes” a covenant theology. All you have to do is look at Biblical history to see how God’s covenants continually (a) progressively reveal something about Himself and His plans for the world (b) move the (hi)story forward (c) serve as the basis for God’s dealing with humanity, -particularly Israel and therefore her understanding of the world itself. I mean, the Bible is even divided, between two eras defined as Covenants (Testaments).

Hmmm...Is this assuming that there’s a covenant theology everywhere in Scripture? Statements like, “All you have to do is look at Biblical history...” seem to me like an assumption, rather than a demonstration. (I’m taking you to task because I have an interest in the topic).

And do covenants really serve as *the basis* for God’s dealing with humanity?

All this talk of covenants and the mention of W J Dumbrell are somewhat nostalgic for me.  When I was at Moore College (early 80s) Bill Dumbrell and Glenn Davies were affectionately known as “Bill and Glenn, the Covenant Men”.  Ah, the good old days . . .

I don’t think its any more “assumed” than people who do exegesis and develop theology from word-counts. We all come to Scripture with pressupositions, but I geniunely believe that if you look at the Jewish worldview, even to this day, covenant underlines their understanding how the relationship between God and Israel “works”. That’s one thing that Sanders got right (yikes). Abraham Heschel, a jewish theologian goes quite a bit into this.

As for Covenant being the “basis” of they’re relationship… well ok, its God’s own graceful initiative in bring glory to Himself. But how does God carry this out?

How does He establish, define, delimit and determine His relationship with Israel, and reveal HImself to them? Through the Covenant: expressed promises, signs, rituals, symbols and typology. Responded to through oaths, in song, festival and story telling. One of God’s big didactic tools in the OT, to teach and marinate Israel’s children about the truth of His redemption and salvation was via a meal. I don’t know about you, but I’m fascinated by a God who does that!

So I think your question by analogy, could be compared to someone asking: “What is the basis of a marriage, their mutual love and self-giving, or their commitment expressed through the marriage ceremony?” I could be wrong, but it seems like a false dichotomy!

Maybe I should quickly add that I’m not here to endorse Wright. There are objections to his teachings, raised here, and by Siefrid and elsewhere, that I completely agree with. I myself would “side” theologically with the “covenant men” mentioned by Mr. Cameron, more than someone like Wright. I just think that He doesn’t get (or certainly in the forums doesn’t seem to) the fair treatment others would. Having said that, I’ve heard rather alarming reports (hopefully just rumours) that he hasn’t exactly done the best job in Durham terms of evangelism, and I still cannot understand his endorsement of Chalke and his attack (and I think the word “attack” is appropriate) of the book “Pierced for our Transgressions”.

What sort of covenant theology are we talking about here? The type that has the covenants of grace and works and redemption?

Dannii Willis - 04 July 2008 01:43 PM

What sort of covenant theology are we talking about here? The type that has the covenants of grace and works and redemption?

Dannii, I don’t think it’s a specific “covenant” but the progressive covenants that God made with Israel from Abraham through to the New Covenant (of Jer 31:31-34 & Heb 8:8-12) as inaugurated in Jesus. This is prominent in Wright’s understanding of “God’s Righteousness” which he sees (partly) as God’s faithfulness to fulfill his covenant promises to Israel and hence to Christians as the new Israel.

Yep, but is this part of the covenant theology framework? New covenant theology? Something else?