Interview with Tom Wright.

Trevin Wax recently posted an interview with Tom Wright about his latest book, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, which is a response to John Piper on the issue of justification. Here's a sample, and some of the money quotes from the interview:

Trevin Wax: What would you say are the key differences between you and Piper on justification?

N.T. Wright: Well, I set justification within the larger Pauline context, where it always comes, of God’s purposes to fulfill his covenant promise to Abraham and so to rescue the whole creation, humankind of course centrally included, from sin and death. Piper holds that Abrahamic context at arm’s length.

Second, I understand justification as basically a law-court term, where it means the judge’s creative declaration that a person is ‘in the right’ in terms of the lawcourt, whereas Piper holds that justification involves the accrediting to a person of the moral, not the forensic, ‘righteousness’ of Christ – something Paul never says (as J. I. Packer admits).

Third, I understand Paul’s doctrine of justification as eschatological, that is, the justification of the faithful in the present time is both the fulfilment of the long story of Israel and the anticipation of the eventual verdict to be delivered on the last day, as in Romans 2.1-16 and 8.1-30.

Fourth, in line with many Reformed readers of scripture, including Calvin, I understand Paul’s doctrine of justification to be of those who are ‘in Christ’, whereas Piper and others don’t make that a central element in justification itself. Conversely, for Piper the center of justification is the ‘imputation’ of ‘the righteousness of Christ’, seen in terms of ‘righteousness’ as a kind of moral achievement earned by Jesus and then reckoned to those who believe. I believe that this is an attempt to say something close to what Paul actually says in Romans 6, namely that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is ‘reckoned’ to those who are ‘in him’. Putting it the way Piper (and one part of the Reformation tradition) puts it is a pointer to something which is truly there in Paul, but one which gives off misleading signals as well.

Finally, for Piper justification through Christ alone is the same in the future (on the last day) as in the present, whereas for Paul, whom I am following very closely at this point, the future justification is given on the basis of the Spirit-generated life that the justified-by-faith-in-the-present person then lives. In fact, the omission of the Spirit from many contemporary Reformed statements of justification is one of their major weaknesses.

Closing out the interview, Wax ask the question:

Trevin Wax: What is at stake in this debate over justification? If one were to adopt Piper’s view instead of yours, what would they be missing?

N.T. Wright: What’s missing is the big, Pauline picture of God’s gospel going out to redeem the whole world, all of creation, with ourselves as part of that.

What’s missing is the big, Pauline view of the church, Jew and Gentile on equal footing, as the sign to the powers of the world that Jesus is Lord and they aren’t.

What’s missing is the key work of the Holy Spirit in enabling the already-justified believers to live with moral energy and will so that they really do ‘please God’ as Paul says again and again (but as Reformed theology is shy of lest it smack of smuggling in works-righteousness again).

What’s missing is an insistence on Scripture itself rather than tradition . . .

[HT: Chris Marlow]

Comments

[Friar_Tuck]

It is surprising and interesting that he honors Piper with a whole book of response.

[Derek Rishmawy]

I am really excited about this book. I finally get to see Wright respond fully to critiques of his position and his response to Piper will be particularly interesting. I went to the Amazon page and got really excited that the book is over 200 pages long so its going to be a legitimate work.

I have to say, having read Piper's criticism, I am glad he's doing this. I hope, and expect, Wright to be as fair and as discerning in his response as Piper was. Piper missed the point a couple of times, at least, in his criticism of Wright, but there were some substantive points made. Also, aside from a couple of over-dramatic points, Piper was very fair and I think he did a good job of trying not to straw-man or mischaracterize Wright in his evaluation. He even cleared up a misunderstanding a great deal of the popular New Reformed kids have about Wright's view of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

So, all in all, I'm very happy that Wright wrote a response.

[Derek Rishmawy]

I wrote a response and then lost it.

Basically, I'm really excited that this is coming out and that Wright wrote a more than 200 page response. This should be good.

I do recommend reading Piper's book first. It will be pretty easy reading for you Mike and I think you'll be surprised at how much Piper goes out of his way to try to not mischaracterize or misrepresent Wright even when he disagrees with him. I think he's wrong at a few points, but I also think he raises some valid criticisms.

By the way, you can get the book free in pdf form at Desiringgod.org so you don't have to pay for it or wait for it.

Blessings