First Thoughts on "The Future of Justification" by John Piper
I just got my hands on John Piper's new book, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. I was so tired last night that I only got through the first 7-8 pages. I anticipate commenting in much more detail about the book once I get through it, perhaps even a series. But in my groggy reading of those first few pages last night, a passage caught my eye that may give some perspective to those reading or who will read the book. The passage reads as follows:
"As critical as this book is of Wright's understanding of the gospel and justification, the seriousness and scope of the book is a testimony to the stature of his scholarship and the extent of his influence. I am thankful for his strong commitment to Scripture as his final authority, his defense and celebration of the resurrection of the Son of God, his vindication of the Deity of Christ, his belief in the virgin birth of Jesus...and the consistent way he presses us to see the big picture of God's universal purpose for all peoples through the covenant with Abraham--and more."
Something struck me as I read this, and maybe you have to be familiar with Wright's works to grasp this, or maybe not. Let me start toward the end of the passage, "...the way he presses us to see the big picture..." This, I believe, is what separates Wright from the field. He starts with a Scriptural "big picture," one that is gleaned from the holistic metanarrative of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, incorporating wholly Jewish categories and taking complete seriousness of the cultural-historical setting in which the texts were written. It is only after drawing that worldview-level "big picture," and only within it, that Wright goes on to expound the details, including the authority of Scripture, the Deity of Christ, the resurrection, and the "more" that Piper welcomes. But anyone who is remotely familiar with Wright's work will immediately notice that the path he takes, that is, the manner in which he arrives at these details, is brilliant, unique, Biblical, and, again, as a result of the "big picture." As Wright has said, after a lifetime of studying Scripture, he still recites and believes every word of the classic creeds, but he now realizes that he means something very different by them. And that's the thing that doesn't come across in the passage I cited from Piper's book. Yes, Wright is committed to the authority of Scripture, the resurrection of the Son of God, the deity of Christ, etc., but he means something very different by those concepts than what, I think, Piper does. And the same is true of Wright's position on the doctrine of justification. It just so happens that, following the same process as he does in arriving at the conclusions that Piper lauds, Wright's vision of "justification by faith through grace" turns out to be different than what Piper and others have been taught to believe.
The point, I guess, is this. Wright's method has led to his firm belief and brilliant exposition of most every orthodox Christian doctrine from a clearer and more holistic perspective than we have seen in quite some time. If that is the case, and that same method produces a vision of the doctrine of justification that so neatly fits within the overall picture, shouldn't we conclude, initially at least, that there might be good reason to believe that he's on to something here, that maybe the Protestant theology of justification has been, if not wrong, then at least incomplete? I'm not saying that since Piper admits that Wright is correct in most of his views, then he should admit that he's probably correct in this one as well. What I'm saying is that if an exegetical method produces so many conclusions that someone believes are correct and that are so clearly consistent with the historical Christian faith, would it not trouble someone to disagree with one specific conclusion produced by it? Would it not seem too coincidental that such a method produced all those true, orthodox beliefs, and this one heretical one? If someone thought so, wouldn't they have the burden of explaining this odd coincidence in a book written explicitly to answer that one heretical belief, and at precisely at the point that the book praises the other, orthodox beliefs?
Just wondering. Like I said, probably a lot more on Piper's book to come. Also, I read another really interesting post along the same lines as what I'm saying here. Give it a read.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
I know this tread is not dealing specifically with the curse of Galatians 1:8-9, but within his courteous treatment of Wright, Piper used these words and others to describe Wright’s treatment of the gospel and justification - “disfigured,” “distorted,” and “blurred.” Just how disfigured, distorted and blurred does teaching on the gospel have to become before Galatians 1:8-9 applies? I would like to know where Piper and others would draw the line.
Happy New Year!
http://www.reformedcow.com
Tandy,
I appreciate your comment, and on the issue of line-drawing re: "the curse of Galatians 1:8-9," I guess I would say that although I'm not a big fan of line-drawing, or even of saying that anyone is in a position of judging where that line would be drawn, Paul himself is very clear on it: the curse would apply to anyone who proclaims a gospel contrary to the one "we proclaimed to you." The thing is, though, that while the original recipients of Galatians would immediately recognize what precisely that gospel was, and which ones would be contrary to it, we in the 21st century have to do a bit of searching, exploring, exegesis. And that's why, I think, Piper stops short of saying that Wright is so accursed, because he rightly realizes that what he and many others are trying to do is to properly characterize "the gospel" that Paul originally proclaimed. Although I tend to side with Wright's interpretation of what that gospel was and is, I, too, would never say that Piper is under the curse of Galatians. But I would say this, maybe as a clue, maybe as a metaphor, I don't know: notice how Piper's book has Luther on its cover, and Wright's ("Paul: In Fresh Perspective") has Paul on its cover? Just a thought.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Raffi,
I think you are on track and given Piper’s statement that He does not think that Wright is under the curse of Galatians 1:8-9 we will have to take him at his word. I would still like to know how Piper would apply Galatians 1:8-9. It does not satisfy me to say that the original readers would know but we cannot know how the curse is to be applied. Once you have this opinion on difficult sayings where does its application stop? If you are correct how can we know anything biblical with certainty?
On your observation regarding the covers of Piper’s and Wright’s books I would say two things. First, I’m confident Piper chose Luther at the Diet of Worms for good reason. If you recall, this was Luther’s concluding remarks:
“If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it can not be right for a Christian to speak against his country. I stand here and can say no more. God help me. Amen.”
Wright as you observed has Paul on his cover. In this sense Piper and Wright are basically claiming the same thing, that is, that they are both subject to God’s word. Only Wright is claiming to do this by leaping over two-thousand years of church history. And as Paul Tillich once noted, “No one can leap across two-thousand years of church history and become contemporaneous with the early church.”
By the way I look forward to the release of your book. I went to your website but did not notice a release date.
Tandy,
Thanks about the book. Actually, I'm still in the process of editing it, so it'll be a while still, but it is encouraging to hear about your interest.
As for the Piper/Luther / Wright/Paul issue, I would agree that both men are devoted to Scripture, but I don't think Wright would claim to be jumping over two thousand years of church history. I think he is wrestling with that history and, going back to Scripture, voicing his well-reasoned beliefs about areas where the church may have gotten things muddled (it has done that on occasion, wouldn;t you agree?).
As for your initial comment about the curse of Galatians and how we can know anything with certainty, it really made me think. So much so, that I decided to devote my response to a post of its own.
I'm really enjoying the coversation; I just wish I had the time to respond more promptly. Forgive me.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi