While thinking about what to say about this, I realized I have somehow did not import August 2006. I don’t know if I will be able to salvage it. This means that my first comments on Piper v. Wright aren’t here, unless I post them now.
Here we go:
Piper v. Wright: Some things that are true
August 8th, 2006
I will have more to say about this at some point. Though the sermon itself says nothing of the kind, word in the blogosphere claims this is the beginning to some sort of Wright v. Piper smackdown.
For now I’ll just point out some things that are true and some things that are false.
It is true that Wright’s commentary on Romans is both excellent and readable.
It is false that the following quotation appears anywhere in Scripture: “Being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” (Rom. 10:3).
It is true that Paul speaks of a righteousness from God (”…and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through the faithfulness of Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith…” Philippians 3.9)
It is false that this expression “righteousness from God” (εκ θεου δικαιοσυνην) appears anywhere in Romans.
It is true that Romans says a lot about “the righteousness of God” (δικαιοσυνη θεου).
No matter how important is the righteousness from God for the salvation of sinners, it is false that God is going to say “well done” to anyone for inserting it into Romans.
It is true that the NASB remains superior to the ESV in many significant ways.
It is false that when some “trust in themselves that they are righteous and treat others with contempt” that this necessarily means they hold to a theology that their own (God given) inherent righteous is the basis of their standing before God (The statement could simply mean that they were sure they were righteous even when Jesus told them otherwise), or that we are supposed to regard the sin of holding others in contempt as merely a fruit of merit legalism and not a damning sin in its own right.
It is true that God hates the arrogant and will cut off the arrogant who hold their gracious election and salvation as a license to be arrogant toward others (Romans 11.13-24).
It is false that Wright (in the excellent commentary mentioned above) is able to do justice to the warning in Romans 11.
It is true that Wright holds to a rather simplistic understanding of individual “once saved, always saved” that prevents him from doing justice to these passages. A more consistently covenantal hermeneutic would help him.
It is false that the Bible says anywhere that it is righteous to fast twice a week or to tithe everything you acquire (One “gets” by purchasing; the Pharisee is boasting in more than a tithe of the increase).
It is true that Jesus might actually be condemning not only the Pharisees attitude toward the tax-gatherer, but the precise behavior he describes in his prayer.
It is false that the previous statements of truth and falsit represent any threat or lack of loyalty to the Reformation doctrine that sinners are justified by God only by grace alone and through faith alone and in Christ alone.
It is true my beliefs regarding the justification of sinners before God are summarized here.
Fake interview w/Wright & Piper
August 8th, 2006
Theologically inexplicable slashing
August 9th, 2006
It is false that when some “trust in themselves that they are righteous and treat others with contempt” that this necessarily means they hold to a theology that their own (God given) inherent righteous is the basis of their standing before God (The statement could simply mean that they were sure they were righteous even when Jesus told them otherwise), or that we are supposed to regard the sin of holding others in contempt as merely a fruit of merit legalism and not a damning sin in its own right.
Here is what Caneday wrote:
It is doubtful that Luke 18:9 bears the meaning that John Piper attempts to extract from it in the above quote. Luke 18:9 says that Jesus “told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt.” The expression, “trusted in themselves that they were righteous,” does not readily yield the meaning that Piper thinks that he has found in the words. The text does not say that “they trusted in the righteousness that God had given them as the basis of their justification.” The passage does not even use the familiar word pisteuō to depict their “trust.” Rather, the text reads tous pepoithotas eph’ heautois hoti eisin dikaioi, translated: “to those who were confident in themselves that they were righteous.” Accordingly, Luke does not tell us that the fault of the Pharisees to whom Jesus addresses the parable is that they put their faith in a righteousness that God had worked in them. Rather, Luke tells us that their fault is two-fold: (1) their confidence is misplaced; their confidence is in themselves; and (2) they hold others in contempt. Confident of themselves, they judge themselves righteous while behaving unrighteously by condemning others. They submit to their own judgment of themselves and not to God’s judgment, as the tax collector does.
Finally, despite Piper’s reputation as being fair and all that Caneday writes:
What is rather odd is that John Piper argues that the Pharisees to whom Jesus spoke the parable were not legalists. He paints a rather positive portrait of them. He insists that Luke’s statement in 18:9 is not descriptive of a person who looks to one’s own deeds as meritorious. In other words, Piper’s descriptions of the Pharisees approaches N. T. Wright’s own descriptions of the Pharisees and of first-century Jewish views of what is entailed in righteousness. Yet, Piper exploits this almost agreement to slash at N. T. Wright as though Wright himself were one of the Pharisees to whom Jesus speaks the parable of 18:9-14.
This goes to a recurring conviction I have about this debate ripping apart the Reformed ghetto: Real theological difference does not explain the energetic slashing that is going on.
For those interested, Caneday has written a second and third installment on the issue.
PS. By the way, I doubt anyone will believe me, but Piper has long been one of my heroes. I have promoted him among my friends and given his books as gifts. I still think he has great gifts and I am disappointed him that he has started to misuse them . But I had no partiality against him. I’ll elaborate more later if I remember.
Piper Wright Augustine
August 9th, 2006
Caneday v. and pro both Piper and Wright
August 10th, 2006