A quick comment from memory regarding Dr. Piper’s interview with my friend Bob Allen regarding N. T. Wright (all linked from here).
First of all, I really appreciated Dr. Piper’s tone, cordiality, and carefulness. I’ve worried in the past about what his book would contain. I’m a lot less worried at the moment. Dr. Piper’s character really shines in this interview.
I think his criticisms are basically 3: 1. “justification”–does it mean a point of transition from wrath to grace or something else? 2. “righteousness of God” is it an imputed righteousness from God or the demonstration of God’s own character?; 3. Gospel–What is it as denoted by the term.
Briefly then:
Regarding (1) I don’t understand Wright’s position at all. I don’t understand Sander’s either, with whom Wright is disagreeing (ironically, Sanders is not an orthodox Christian at all, or even an unorthodox one). At point though, Wright seems to be doing nothing more than distinguishing between “effectual calling” and “justification” in a very traditional “ordo salutis” (a term that would normally be “order of salvation” except Latin is more pretentious and gives the speaker more merit [!]). Other times, he simply is not understandable to me. So I’m sympathetic to Piper’s diverging from Wright in not wanting to embrace whatever Wright is saying, because I can’t embrace something i don’t understand. On the other hand, I think he is making too much of it.
Regarding (2), is Wright making a universal point about salvation and how Christ’s work and status is not attributed to believers? That simply is not possible, given Wright’s positive teaching about Christ’s work, his representative kingship, his substitutionary atonement, and the nature of faith as relying on what is true of Christ rather than what is true of oneself. On the other hand, if Piper is going to insist that the term “righteousness of God’ must denote imputed righteousness from God, then he is just wrong. That is not what the term “righteousness of God” means in the Bible. It refers to God’s integrity which, among other things (including punitive justice sometimes) guarantees that He will keep his promises to bring salvation to his people. Thus, the Gospel (the story of Jesus) reveals the righteousness of God (demonstrates that and how he has kept covenant).
Finally (3), regarding the term, “Gospel,” and what it means, all you have to do is look at what is preached when the Bible says the Gospel is preached, or look at the content that is given in the Bible whenever Paul or anyone else (NT or OT!) refers to the Gospel. Wright is right and Piper is wrong. It is that obvious and that simple and absolutely nothing in orthodoxy hinges on the issue. Obviously, Paul preaches salvation through trust in God as the one who has brought about salvation in Christ. Obviously, the term Gospel is the story of Jesus, not a description of a method of salvation. This shouldn’t be an issue, especially when we have the book of Acts in the canon of Scripture.
I guess my final point is that I’ve never felt what I regarded as Wright’s mistakes were all that convincing. I’ve just found his way for arguing for, defending, and bringing out the implications of orthodox theology to be a real treasure. I have learned new things from him (i.e. the meaning of “the righteousness of God”).
Mark,
I’d be interested in reading what you don’t understand about Wright on justification. I read his Romans commentary, and didn’t find it puzzling on this point, but maybe I wasn’t sharp enough to get puzzled.
Have you written on the topic elsewhere?
Hi Mark.
Interesting comments here. I agree that Piper is a sharp and humble guy and very gracious. I think he means good will in his end of the conversation. I am concerned a bit about something else aside from the actual content of Piper’s argument. That part can be waded through when the book is released from Crossway in January or whenever it is.
Anyway, I was listening to an interview with Piper regarding Wright and the “new perspective” (I think it was from the 9 Marks website) and the interviewer asked something to the effect of how Piper was interacting with Wright – by correspondence? No. By hearing Wright live? No. By reading Wright? Not really. Piper, at least from when this interview had taken place (11/06, at which point the book was underway) was interacting with Wright by way of some audio lectures and reading portions of Wright’s work as it relates to justfication. He also said he hadn’t even read Wright’s article on justification in the IVP dictionary of theology.
I’m not saying he hasn’t wrestled with Wright (you can hear the interview yourself) but it just seems a little odd. Hopefully more reading went in behind the book before its completion.
Regarding your ending comment, I myself have found Wright’s work to be a big help for me, especially as I find myself within – often times at odds with – the Lutheran tradition that I’ve been in for the last handful of years. Why I am here is a long and complicated story!
Hi Mark,
Good stuff. I seem to recall Don Garlington penning an essay on justfication in which he deals with some (apparent) problems with Wright’s views on the subject. I will try and find it and if I do I will send it allong, it may be of some help in understanding exactlly whath the “good bishop” is saying.
Good stuff.
For point #1, I too thought that Wright is just making a distinction between “effective call” and “justification”, where “effective call” is God’s perspective of saving or “justifying” the ungodly, while “justification”for Wright is from a human perspective where the Christian realizes they are in the covenant and forgiven…that is why Wright calls faith a “badge” of covnenant membership and “justification” as the doctrine of assurance.
That’s why I also think people who charge Wright of having an analytical view of justification are wrong because his view of “effective call” covers the important idea of “God justifying the ungodly” and he doesn’t define “justification” they way most people do.
Blessings,
dan