John Piper misses the mark by miles - Rated 
Coming up with a review of this book has proved to be a mighty difficult task. Piper has a gift for writing an articulate, persuasive and even convincing argument. There is much here which on the surface suggests that he is being fair to N.T.Wright, whose view of Justification is in his sights. Reading through this book, and warming to Piper's style, I found it easy to begin ticking off points one by one, much as if I was marking a student's dissertation. I found myself thinking - this boy Piper is going to make the grade, in fact he's going to pass with flying colours!
The problem is that the easy surface sheen of this book masks huge problems with it's analysis that go right to the heart of the matter in hand. So that is where I will go.
124 pages in, after much argument that would suggest - in the nicest possible way of course - that Wright's view is seriously deficient, Piper lays out in diagram form the difference between the Traditional Reformed doctrine of Justification and Wright's. He can only find one point of difference. Both the traditional view and Wright believe in the imputation of the merits of Christ's death and his resurrection. But Piper detects that Wright leaves out the imputation of Christ's active obedience.
At this moment we should take a deep breath.
Some evangelicals hold this point dear. Others find the imputation of the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection sufficient, indeed superabundant. We can look in vain at evangelical Statements of Faith, we will not find the imputation of Christ's active obedience in them. From the UK try those of the Evangelical Alliance, or the University and Colleges Christian Fellowship, try that of more conservative Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. Not there. Try John Piper's own General Baptist Conference in the USA. It isn't in his own denomination's Statement of Faith! Mr Piper, If this makes the difference between the true gospel and an defective one you should be making a stand in front of your own denomination! Why are you going after N.T.Wright as someone pedalling a dangerous new view - when that same view is all over the evangelical world . What has N.T.Wright done to you that you would have him as your whipping boy, suffering the lash of your argument for a view that probably the majority of evangelicals hold? Generations of Christians have agreed to stand together despite differences on this point. Is 2007 really the time to attempt to break open a new fault line across the already much divided evangelical landscape, dividing Christians one from another? Does such a strategy serve the gospel?
The real sadness is that Wright actually does include Christ's active obedience, in his own way. Piper quotes Wright. "On my reading of Paul the `righteousness' of Jesus is that which results from God's vindication of him as the Messiah in the resurrection' Piper reads this as seeing righteousness as a vindication not a reckoning of Christ's obedience. This is to wilfully misread Wright's words. Wright sees God the Father vindicating Jesus as the Messiah, which means vindicating him as the one who has obediently taken upon himself the vocation of the suffering servant in Isaiah (see Wright's `The Victory of God'). God the Father is vindicating Jesus' obedient bearing of the judgement due to a disobedient people, even unto death, so that by God the Father's vindicatory resurrection of Jesus, that people may be raised to new life as an obedient people.
I could go through other areas of this book where Piper expends much argument hiding the fact that he and Wright actually substantially agree on the point in question, but a review can only be so long.
I will just briefly mention the section on legalism in first century Judaism. Piper spins out a long argument against Wright's view of the relationship between Israel's national pride and works righteousness without coming to the vital point, that he and Wright agree on the conclusion - that in Christ there are no ethnic distinctions in the church, and that this is part of the message of Justification!
This has been a difficult review to write, but in the end the conclusion is easy, this is very poor book. John Piper has written some excellent books, from Desiring God in the 1980's to God is the Gospel in 2005. This is not in the same league. A huge disappointment.
If you are interested in the thinking that led John Piper to write this book you should read his earlier 'Counted Righteous In Christ'. This book is effectively part 2 of the earlier one, so perhaps it would be best to read the earlier book first - I have also reviewed it.
A clear and powerful argument - Rated 
John Piper writes with such clarity that, to my mind, he provides one of the best introductions to the "new perspective" on Paul, and Wright's views on justification that I have read. He also brings out the pastoral implications of these ideas in a helpful way. You may not agree with his conclusions (I mostly do) but you can't ignore his arguments.
A courteous and generous rebuttal of N.T. Wright's views - Rated 
Piper sets the perfect tone for any theological debate right at the start
of this book - he points to his nearness to glory and explains he has no
desire to score cheap points off anyone, to misrepresent what they say, or
to use any tricks to make his argument seem stronger than it is ... and,
in my opinion, he admirably achieves it.
Piper interacts carefully with N.T. Wright's views on justification.
It seems that Wright replied with a 10,000 word essay to an earlier draft
of this book, and Piper responded by increasing and modifying his
treatment. As far as I can tell, having read most of Wright's works that
Piper quotes, Piper has done a good and fair job of representing Wright's
views.
Is this book important? Yes. Wright is typically presented as one of the
three principle developers of the so-called "New Perspective on Paul",
along with E.P. Sanders and James D.G. Dunn, and the New Perspective is
currently influential in many theological departments. This means that
in time, its ideas will have been taught to many who come to lead the
Church. The significance of this is increased by the radically different
understanding of justification and the gospel that Wright and the other
New Perspective scholars have compared with, for example, the Reformers.
Wright at different times has both emphasised the distance between his
own views and the Reformers, and minimised the significance of these
differences. Piper admirably (and generously) grapples with the
complexities and subtleties of Wright's various writings, critiquing
them from the Bible, and contrasting them with traditional Reformed
interpretations.
In some ways, this is a frustrating book to read. However, this does not
reflect poorly on Piper, but rather on the relatively unsystematic
way Wright has written on justification. Piper points out the
flaws in Wright's wilder statements, and then moves on to "give him
the benefit of the doubt" by treating his position as if it were actually
that in his more sober (qualified) statements. This is what leads
a earlier reviewer to conclude that the only issue at stake in this
debate is the imputation of Christ's active obedience. Piper does
effectively reach this conclusion at one point, but only after
tackling many of Wright's more extreme statements, and then
ignoring them and interpreting him in the most conservative way
possible. It is not true that this is all that this "New Perspective
on Paul" debate is about.
In conclusion, this is a good critique of a critical thinker on a
profoundly important subject that is only going to become more
important in the years ahead. A must read for all New Testament scholars,
ministers and church officers.
Christ is our righteousness! - Rated
I have to take the opposite review of the first reviewer - Piper has restated a long lost truth that may well now appear in many statements of faith as a result of the ongoing debate. Many, many people fail to understand what justification by faith really means. They use the old story of the little boy in Sunday Scool saying that "justified" means "just as if I'd" never sinned - and everyone smiles warmly and says what a good definition of justification that is. WRONG! Our sins are removed through the cross, but we NEED righteousness as well, or God cannot accept us! The "just as if I'd" theology has no place for an "alien righteousness" that we desperately need, because we singularly lack any of our own! But by BOTH His passive AND His active obedience, Christ has provided us with a PERFECT righteousness which is imputed to us by faith alone - and then we are righteous forever in Him! Piper masterfully restates what evangelicals have long believed in this matter and this wonderful book draws from the great truths of the PAST to point to what "The Future of Justification" SHOULD be! Embracing this glorious truth!
an often great author misses the mark by miles - Rated
Coming up with a review of this book has proved to be a mighty difficult task. Piper has a gift for writing an articulate, persuasive and even convincing argument. There is much here which on the surface suggests that he is being fair to N.T.Wright, whose view of Justification is in his sights. Reading through this book, and warming to Piper's style, I found it easy to begin ticking off points one by one, much as if I was marking a student's dissertation. I found myself thinking - this boy Piper is going to make the grade, in fact he's going to pass with flying colours!
The problem is that the easy surface sheen of this book masks huge problems with it's analysis that go right to the heart of the matter in hand. So that is where I will go.
124 pages in, after much argument that would suggest - in the nicest possible way of course - that Wright's view is seriously deficient, Piper lays out in diagram form the difference between the Traditional Reformed doctrine of Justification and Wright's. He can only find one point of difference. Both the traditional view and Wright believe in the imputation of the merits of Christ's death and his resurrection. But Piper detects that Wright leaves out the imputation of Christ's active obedience.
At this moment we should take a deep breath.
Some evangelicals hold this point dear. Others find the imputation of the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection sufficient, indeed superabundant. We can look in vain at evangelical Statements of Faith, we will not find the imputation of Christ's active obedience in them. From the UK try those of the Evangelical Alliance, or the University and Colleges Christian Fellowship, try that of more conservative Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. Not there. Try John Piper's own General Baptist Conference in the USA. It isn't in his own denomination's Statement of Faith! Mr Piper, If this makes the difference between the true gospel and an defective one you should be making a stand in front of your own denomination! Why are you going after N.T.Wright as someone pedalling a dangerous new view - when that same view is all over the evangelical world . What has N.T.Wright done to you that you would have him as your whipping boy, suffering the lash of your argument for a view that probably the majority of evangelicals hold? Generations of Christians have agreed to stand together despite differences on this point. Is 2007 really the time to attempt to break open a new fault line across the already much divided evangelical landscape, dividing Christians one from another? Does such a strategy serve the gospel?
The real sadness is that Wright actually does include Christ's active obedience, in his own way. Piper quotes Wright. "On my reading of Paul the `righteousness' of Jesus is that which results from God's vindication of him as the Messiah in the resurrection' Piper reads this as seeing righteousness as a vindication not a reckoning of Christ's obedience. This is to wilfully misread Wright's words. Wright sees God the Father vindicating Jesus as the Messiah, which means vindicating him as the one who has obediently taken upon himself the vocation of the suffering servant in Isaiah (see Wright's `The Victory of God'). God the Father is vindicating Jesus' obedient bearing of the judgement due to a disobedient people, even unto death, so that by God the Father's vindicatory resurrection of Jesus, that people may be raised to new life as an obedient people.
I could go through other areas of this book where Piper expends much argument hiding the fact that he and Wright actually substantially agree on the point in question, but a review can only be so long.
I will just briefly mention the section on legalism in first century Judaism. Piper spins out a long argument against Wright's view of the relationship between Israel's national pride and works righteousness without coming to the vital point, that he and Wright agree on the conclusion - that in Christ there are no ethnic distinctions in the church, and that this is part of the message of Justification!
This has been a difficult review to write, but in the end the conclusion is easy, this is very poor book. John Piper has written some excellent books, from Desiring God in the 1980's to God is the Gospel in 2005. This is not in the same league. A huge disappointment.
If you are interested in the thinking that led John Piper to write this book you should read his earlier 'Counted Righteous In Christ'. This book is effectively part 2 of the earlier one, so perhaps it would be best to read the earlier book first - I have also reviewed it.
|
