All Comments for: The Justification Debate: A Primer | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > June

Christianity Today, June, 2009 |

The Justification Debate: A Primer

Two of the world's most prominent pastor-theologians on justification—and what difference it makes.

John Piper and N.T. Wright, compiled by Trevin Wax | posted 6/26/2009 09:54AM

Since Christianity Today's August 2007 cover story, "What Did Paul Really Mean?" Piper and Wright have taken the debate on justification from the academy to the masses. Here is where the two evangelicals ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 35 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

Daniel

Posted: July 06, 2009 9:11 AM


Dave N. - Where is this "misunderstanding" of the 1st Century Jews that Piper has? Could you please elaborate?

Dave N.

Posted: June 30, 2009 10:47 PM


Very helpful summary. It seems were Piper gets off track is in his misunderstanding of 1st Cen. Judaism. On the other hand, Wright seems to have a very clear understanding of the letter to the Galatians--at least from what we are provided here.

Michael

Posted: June 30, 2009 6:59 AM


After finishing a rather lengthy lecture series on the Reformers (Protestant and Catholic), it is clear to me that the main thing that needs to be addressed, before any of this, is that of Authority.

George T.

Posted: June 29, 2009 3:59 PM


Great article. Very instructive and much needed,specially today

Dennis Evans

Posted: June 29, 2009 12:07 PM

I wonder if you could get Piper and Wright to sit down together and address each other. I don't see the primer elements really doing that. What I gained from the primer is the impression that I can combine Piper and Wright together, as TJ says. I liked what both of them said, and I don't think this is because I don't know my own mind, or sound thelogy, but because the two spoke to different aspects of the same things.

Nathan

Posted: June 29, 2009 12:03 PM

Bernie, you don't sound like you've read Piper and Wright's books because they are charitable with each other. Piper states right in the introduction that he considers this debate to be a debate with a Christian brother. He said the reason he challenged Wright's view is not because he thinks its a false gospel, but because he thinks it's confusing and emphasizes things which shouldn't be emphasized while minimizing the most important things. Wright has made similar comments. The only people who see this as "bickering" are those who perhaps have been misinformed by some of the people alleging "heresies" on both sides, but I assure you neither Piper nor Wright are doing that.

alison

Posted: June 29, 2009 9:40 AM


Bernie, I like what you say. We have such an "either-or" mentality that we sometimes end up either diluting or exaggerating the truth.

bernie kopfer

Posted: June 29, 2009 8:07 AM

I remember reading somewhere this about essential truth: 1. Plain and simple, never esoteric ( even a child can understand it) 2.Ever glorifies Jesus and centers in him 3.Never rests on a single passage of scripture (its a theme throughout the Bible) 4. Can be determined by the words of the Bible alone (you don't need a degree in Hx to understand it) Applying these criteria to this debate and to much of what passes for gospel teaching makes me wonder if we have lost what is essential and specialize on nonessential truth. Perhaps a little more charity and a attitude of and-also rather than either-or would go a long ways towards healing our fractures and divisions so that the "body of Christ" would appear to the world as a group of people known for their love of each other rather than how we now look with our distinctives and resultant bickering and fighting.

TJ	Posted: June 29, 2009 12:23 AM


From the primer, me thinks one has to combine Wright's and Piper's view and you get the "whole" message of justification! Another ideal candidate for this debate would have been Christopher J. H. Wright. Looking forward to the rest of this.

Dale Fincher

Posted: June 28, 2009 5:25 PM

This primer was a bit too vague to be helpful... Need more details for points of contention. I get the feeling, from this survey, that Piper doesn't even know the Hebrew Scriptures exist nor how we fit into it without ignoring it. And I get from both Piper and Wright that the idea of "gospel" is only to be used in a very limited sense around a dying and rising Messiah before we are born and what he will do in the future after we die (surely, there is more good news than this!). I attribute this to the author's certain evangelical definition of "Gospel" and not Piper or Wright. Let's focus on the real contention of justification between these two so those who haven't read them could be part of the real discussion.

Steve Dumas

Posted: June 28, 2009 12:51 PM

David, I used to think that, too. The only problem is that no one seeks God or is able to come to him apart from God's enabling grace whereby sinners are made alive and, thus, freely choose Christ. Jesus did not purchase the *possibility* of salvation on the cross. He actually accomplished the salvation for the elect from the foundation of the world. The Holy Spirit applies that salvation through the new birth.

Paul W

Posted: June 28, 2009 3:25 AM


This is an irenic and helpful compilation - thank you.

Ray	Posted: June 27, 2009 8:53 PM


John C - Have you read Pierced for our Transgressions by Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey and Andrew Sach. It is a more academic presentation of penal subsitution. Having said that, I GREATLY appreciated The Future of Justification by Piper.

David

Posted: June 27, 2009 4:35 PM


God created both the light and the dark, good and evil. And then he gave creation the freedom to chose sides and face the consequences. It is only through grace and mercy that our bad decision has been canceled through Christ.

John C

Posted: June 27, 2009 11:05 AM

Admittedly, I have read more NT Wright than Piper. My wife is a great fan of Piper. However, this isn't really a fair debate. Wright is a primarly a scholar who also works in parish ministry in his calling of a Bishop. I respect this. Piper is primarly a Pastor who dabbles in the more academic aspects of theology. I greatly respect him as a Great devotional writer. So, comparing the two is not really a fair debate. So, the conversation will need to continue. Hopefully, there can be a more serious response to Wright's points who do more than repeat the same old traditional arguments. About a decade ago CT had a cover article on "Theologians to watch" in the future. They were right on Wright! Let the conversation continue. Please, turn down the noise and shrill volume. God will lead us. After all, it is His word and he has promised us the Spirit. Speak Lord, for your servants are listening. May we be listening for your Voice among the voices we hear.

Basil

Posted: June 27, 2009 10:50 AM


Wonderful primer. However more questions need to be asked and the primary sources from each of the authors need to be critically read. Whatever be the case we must avoid the theological dog wagging the biblical tail.

Paul	Posted: June 27, 2009 10:45 AM

"If future justification is only for the doers of the law, what about the thief on the cross, who never did the works of the law?" First, what? I am not going to conduct a lengthy debate in defense of N.T. Wright's theology, but that statement is absolutely not what he teaches. N.T. Wrights theology on Justification comes predominantly from our mis-reading of Luther to think that when Luther talks about the "works of the law", he is talking about Paul's understanding of 1st century Judaism, when in reality he is simply reacting against the Catholic Church. Remember, 1st century Judaism was based upon grace, i.e. God's action for Israel and Israelites believed this. This is why Jesus was so angry! The Exodus narrative had been interpreted as God's grace for a people enslaved, not a "works based theology". Also, when we say "law", we should usually say, "Torah", or instruction. Wrights books: New Testament and the People of God; Jesus and the Victory of God;

Sophie Firmin

Posted: June 27, 2009 9:53 AM

This article is not a clear representation of NT Wright's worrisome theology. His "covenant badge" is a subtle way to promote a faith+ salvation while calling it faith-alone. In his own words, he states "Justification, at the last, will be on the basis of performance, not possession" (Romans, p.440, quoted by Guy Prentiss Waters in Justification and the New Perspective on Paul, p.133, a most scholarly review which I highly recommend). If future justification is only for the doers of the law, what about the thief on the cross, who never did the works of the law? What about Romans 4:5 which clearly states God justifies the ungodly? Wright's teaching is a veiled attempt to take us back to works salvation - be aware that false teaching always has SOME truth and is subtle! Also worrisome is his total omission on hell and implied anhilation theology in Surprised by Hope and the chapter on hell in Following Jesus. And his use of exbiblical text as if authoritative, to build his theology.

Mike	Posted: June 27, 2009 8:37 AM


The dog Pseudo-Piper: Four legged animal created by God. Most breeds shed, but they make excellent pets. Historically they are aids to hunting. Pseudo-Wright: Wonderful animals with good senses of smell and hearing. Their loyalty can remind us of God's unconditional love.

H. D. Schmidt

Posted: June 27, 2009 7:48 AM

Yes, God created a perfect world, as supposedly to be the only creator of anything and everything, right? However, another creator must have existed to create sin? Can someone explain that? What about Lucifer in Heaven, is he not the one that created sin, as another creator created by creator God himself? Besides, we are told that God knew that Adam and Eve would sin? Is that not we Christians speak about? We are also told that after Planet Earth is restored, sin will never rise again, right? Adam and Eve were created perfect and chose sin anyway, right? How about us, were are born into the world with a strong tendency to evil, and nothing but evil? Yet, how can we be capable to even know what is truly the think to do, etc., at anyone time? Lastly how much more misery God "needs" to see in this world before he cleans house? Just look at the world, in the last 200 years more wars have been faught, since sin entered. Look at this Nation under God, with its horrendous war machinery!

Paul	Posted: June 27, 2009 7:18 AM

This is a classic case of both saying the same thing but Piper stops short of elaborating how or why. What about God's righteousness or glory. Wright picks up the slack. Piper is just too vague, or at least the editors made him vague. Each of his paragraphs needs to be asked, "What do you mean by that?" The only major difference I see between these two is that Piper has the me and Jesus approach/ the personal encounter with Christ where as Wright sees one's faith with Jesus within the context of the Church and how Christ has acted within history and the Church. This may seem minor but makes a huge difference in thinking about which is the Kingdom of God more like, how Piper describes or Wright? The communal context is much more accurate, although Piper's points are right too they just need to be fleshed out more, and if they did it would end up what Wright wrote.

corpuschristioutreachministries

Posted: June 27, 2009 7:08 AM


If you read carefully, wright simply seems to be adding 'texture' to the foundational doctrine of justification by faith alone. I really dont see a contradiction between them.

Philip Williams

Posted: June 26, 2009 8:54 PM


Jesus said "By their fruits you shall know them." If we see no righteous fruits, it must be manmade theology. He also said that the church is to be a light on a hill. If people are not giving off light, they must not have any.

peter alexander

Posted: June 26, 2009 7:43 PM


I think the discussion is excellent. Those with Jewish upbringing will certainly understand the inclinations to which Wright appeals. I imagine we all would do well to suspend conclusion on issues we are hardly qualified to speak on as authority: indeed, issues on which we are hardly even qualified to speak as students...

Piper fan

Posted: June 26, 2009 6:06 PM

As smart as Wright is- I must strongly disagree with his definition of God's righteousness. God's righteousness is not refering to his covenant with Abraham. God was/is righteous before he created Abraham. God is righteous outside of his covenant with Abraham. God's righteousness is present in all of his attributes at all times in all places. Not limited to one specific interaction with humanity. (example, step outside of humanity, God is righteous in his dealings with angels, demons, and animals). Hebrew people can concieve of non-covenantal righteousness of God- because they have the book of Genesis- which has pre-Abrahamic God being righteous. All in all though, facinating points of view. More of this type of synopsis CT!!!

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment