Piper writes:

Then, there is Wright’s affirmation of Sanders’ claim that the religion of the Pharisees was not the “religion of legalistic works-righteousness,” and that the “The Jew [of Jesus’ day] keeps the law out of gratitude, as the proper response to grace.” The only explanation I can find for such amazing statements is that the testimony of Jesus is denied or obscured. It is my impression that evangelicals enamored by the NPP have not reckoned seriously enough with the fact that the origination of the NPP seems to have taken place in the halls of such denial or obscuring.

Dr. Piper makes amazing accusations without any basis whatsoever. Where does Dr. Piper himself show us “the testimony of Jesus” which sates that Judaism was a “religion of legalistic works-righteousness”? Nowhere.

Piper takes three things and simply acts as if they back his position.

1. The Pharisees were condemned in the strongest terms as unaware of the true god. As I’ve pointed out, What Piper says here is correct. But there are other forms of damnable unbelief than “legalistic works righteousness.”
2. The Pharisees were guilty of pride, self-exaltation, and arrogance. Because we all know that people who subscribe to a religion of sola gratia are never guilty of this.
3. The Pharisees were satisfied with the era of the Law and didn’t believe it needed to be ended. (Were the Israelites who wanted to stay in Egypt guilty of “legalistic works righteousness”?)

Now, a soteriology of legalistic works righteousness could produce these three things, but Piper has not offered any argument that this is the case. He simply assumes it and accuses anyone who wants actual proof of denying or obscuring the plain teachings of Jesus.

But what sort of preacher would preach against people committed to “legalistic works righteousness” in this way?

He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

And the crowds asked him, “What then shall we do?” And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.” Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”

Notice how closely this resembles James’ assertion that faith without works is dead. If James’ reference to believing God is one is a reference to the shema then they are virtually identical statements.

The problem with Israel is that many were arrogant presumptionists–they presumed on the grace of God. As Heinrich Bullinger wrote many years ago in explaining infant baptism:

we consider children of parents to be children and indeed heirs even though they, in their early years, do not know that they are either children or heirs of their parents. They are, however, disowned if, after they have reached the age of reason, they neglect the commands of their parents. In that case, the parent no longer calls them children and heirs but worthless profligates. They are mistaken who boast about their prerogatives as sons of the family by virtue of birth. For he who violates the laws of piety toward parents is no different from a slave; indeed, he is lower than a slave, because even by the law of nature itself he owes more to his parents. Truly this debate about the seed of Abraham has been settled for us by the prophets and the apostles, specifically that not everyone who is born of Abraham is the seed of Abraham, but only he who is a son of the promise, that is, who is falthful, whether Jew or Gentile. For the Jews have already neglected the basic conditions of the covenant, while at the same time they glorified themselves as the people of God, relying on circumcision and the fact that they were born from the parent Abraham. Indeed, this error is denied and attacked not only by Christ along with the apostles but also by the entire body of the prophets (The One and Eternal Testament or Covenant with God, in Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition, Charles S. McCoy and J. Wayne Baker [Louisville, KY: W/JKP, 1991], 106).

Likewise, Calvin, saw in Judaistic presumption a precedent for the claims of Roman Catholicism:

In the present day, therefore, the presence of the Romanists is just the same as that which appears to have been formerly used by the Jews, when the Prophets of the Lord charged them with blindness, impiety, and idolatry. For as the Jews proudly vaunted of their temple, ceremonies, and priesthood, by which, with strong reason, as they supposed, they measured the Church, so, instead of the Church, we are presented by the Romanists with certain external masks, which often are far from being connected with the Church, and without which the Church can perfectly exist. Wherefore, we need no other argument to refute them than that with which Jeremiah opposed the foolish confidence of the JewsÛnamely, ÏTrust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord are theseÓ (Jer. 7:4). The Lord recognises nothing as his own, save when his word is heard and religiously observed. Thus, though the glory of God sat in the sanctuary between the cherubim (Ezek. 10:4), and he had promised that he would there have his stated abode, still when the priests corrupted his worship by depraved superstitions, he transferred it elsewhere, and left the place without any sanctity. If that temple which seemed consecrated for the perpetual habitation of God, could be abandoned by God and become profane, the Romanists have no ground to pretend that God is so bound to persons or places, and fixed to external observances, that he must remain with those who have only the name and semblance of a Church. This is the question which Paul discusses in the Epistle to the Romans, from the ninth to the twelfth chapter. Weak consciences were greatly disturbed, when those who seemed to be the people of God not only rejected, but even persecuted the doctrine of the Gospel. Therefore, after expounding doctrine, he removes this difficulty, denying that those Jews, the enemies of the truth, were the Church, though they wanted nothing which might otherwise have been desired to the external form of the Church. The ground of his denial is, that they did not embrace Christ. In the Epistle to the Galatians, when comparing Ishmael with Isaac, he says still more expressly, that many hold a place in the Church to whom the inheritance does not belong, because they were not the offspring of a free parent. From this he proceeds to draw a contrast between two Jerusalems, because as the Law was given on Mount Sinai, but the Gospel proceeded from Jerusalem, so many who were born and brought up in servitude confidently boast that they are the sons of God and of the Church; nay, while they are themselves degenerate, proudly despise the genuine sons of God. Let us also, in like manner, when we hear that it was once declared from heaven, ÏCast out the bondmaid and her son,Ó trust to this inviolable decree, and boldly despise their unmeaning boasts. For if they plume themselves on external profession, Ishmael also was circumcised: if they found on antiquity, he was the first-born: and yet we see that he was rejected. If the reason is asked, Paul assigns it (Rom. 9:6), that those only are accounted sons who are born of the pure and legitimate seed of doctrine. On this ground God declares that he was not astricted to impious priests, though he had made a covenant with their father Levi, to be their angel, or interpreter (Mal. 2:4); nay, he retorts the false boast by which they were wont to rise against the Prophets–namely, that the dignity of the priesthood was to be held in singular estimation. This he himself willingly admits: and he disputes with them, on the ground that he is ready to fulfil the covenant, while they, by not fulfilling it on their part, deserve to be rejected. Here, then, is the value of succession when not conjoined with imitation and corresponding conduct: posterity, as soon as they are convicted of having revolted from their origin, are deprived of all honour; unless, indeed, we are prepared to say, that because Caiaphas succeeded many pious priests (nay, the series from Aaron to him was continuous), that accursed assembly deserved the name of Church. Even in earthly governments, no one would bear to see the tyranny of Caligula, Nero, Heliogabalus, and the like, described as the true condition of a republic, because they succeeded such men as Brutus, Scipio, and Camillus. That in the government of the Church especially, nothing is more absurd than to disregard doctrine, and place succession in persons. Nor, indeed, was anything farther from the intention of the holy teachers, whom they falsely obtrude upon us, than to maintain distinctly that churches exist, as by hereditary right, wherever bishops have been uniformly succeeded by bishops. But while it was without controversy that no change had been made in doctrine from the beginning down to their day, they assumed it to be a sufficient refutation of all their errors, that they were opposed to the doctrine maintained constantly, and with unanimous consent, even by the apostles themselves. They have, therefore, no longer any ground for proceeding to make a gloss of the name of the Church, which we regard with due reverence; but when we come to definition, not only (to use the common expression) does the water adhere to them, but they stick in their own mire, because they substitute a vile prostitute for the sacred spouse of Christ. That the substitution may not deceive us, let us, among other admonitions, attend to the following from Augustine. Speaking of the Church, he says, ÏShe herself is sometimes obscured, and, as it were, beclouded by a multitude of scandals; sometimes, in a time of tranquillity, she appears quiet and free; sometimes she is covered and tossed by the billows of tribulation and trial (August. ad Vincent. Epist. 48). As instances, he mentions that the strongest pillars of the Church often bravely endured exile for the faith, or lay hid throughout the world.

I’m not denying that the Reformers saw in Judaism also precedent for Roman Catholic merit soteriology. But whether or not they were right to do so needs to be settled by an actual appeal to Scripture. As it stands, there are other alternative explanations on the table.

And they ought not simply be dismissed with an allegation that everyone who disagrees with Piper denies or obscures clear statements from Jesus that Piper himself fails to produce.

This was supposed to be a break from this, but it didn’t quite work out…

Through BHT I found Reformed Chicks Blabbing’s link to excellent story about N. T. Wright. Also, there was a link to this nice pithy blurb about the Bishop. That was all I was going to say. This was going to be a break from polemics. But then I notice what she said in the middle of her post:

Christ became the true Israel and fulfilled what they were supposed to be. My OT professor shared with us Wright’s interpretation of Romans 2 in light of the promises made to Israel in the new covenant and it really helped me to understand it better (more on that after my final).

So here is a woman at a Reformed seminary learning that Wright’s view is really helpful with understanding Romans 2. Interesting.

Piper writes:

Wright’s statements are baffling in several ways. One way is that the Jews of Romans 2:17-24 do indeed claim to be successful moralists. They teach morality, but do not teach themselves (v. 21). They preach against stealing, but steal (v. 21). They oppose adultery, but commit adultery (v. 22). They denounce idolatry, but commit idolatry (v. 22). They boast in the law, but dishonor the law (v. 23). And in all this, they cause the Gentiles to blaspheme God (v. 24). How Wright can use this paragraph to distinguish moral boasting from racial boasting escapes me (as does the distinction itself).

So what is Piper telling us? Do people get to make a living in unrepentant robbery while preaching against robbery and remain members in good standing at Bethlehem Baptist Church? Does Piper regard double-living adulterers who claim to be Christians to be heirs of the Kingdom?

Nothing in Romans 2 mandates that anyone think the Jews were trying to be good enough to win God’s favor. Quite the contrary, Paul condemns them as a nation (the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of this behavior: it is done openly and is a matter of public knowledge) because they are living like unregenerate hypocrites. They think merely possessing the Faith is enough rather than actually living it. OK, Paul said they think possessing the law is sufficient, but it all sounds remarkably like James.

Piper claims to be “baffled” by Wright. Having won my respect as a scholar in the past, I confess I am having a failure of the imagination now in trying to picture Piper as baffled by this. Whatever. I think I have much more right to be baffled by this response than he does in regard to Wright.

To be continued (I’m starting a Piper v. Wright category).

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

From 05/05/2004 on a previous blog:

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree (Romans 11.17-24).

Paul says that the Gentiles now included in the Abrahamic Covenant can fall under the same judgment that the Jews fell under. Is there any way to interpret this passage so that it means, “Don’t you become merit legalists just like those Jews were all merit legalists”? No. What Paul says is that Gentiles must not become proud–arrogant toward another ethnic group, the Jews. Merit legalism is, of course, a form of pride. But that is simply not the direct object of this warning. I’m listening to John Piper preach on this passage and he quite clearly states that Paul is rejecting an attitude of ethnic superiority. So, since Paul is telling the Gentiles not to fall into the same sin as the Jews did, how can we say that Paul is dealing with merit legalism among the Jews throughout Romans? So on balance, Paul writes a letter which opposes the Gospel to something that the Jews are doing, arguing that God “is not the God of the Jews only,” but “of the Gentiles also.” He includes as a step in his argument that “God is one” and therefore could not be the exclusive property of Jews. He then ends a long argument warning believing Gentiles not to feel or act or think themselves superior the Jews on the basis of their election.