|
The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright | 
 enlarge | Author: John Piper
Publisher: Crossway Books
Category: Book
List Price: $17.99
Buy New: $12.23
You Save: $5.76 (32%)
New (35) Used (8) from $10.00
Rating:  18 reviews
Sales Rank: 80457
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 240
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.6
Dimensions (in): 8.4 x 5.5 x 0.8
ISBN: 1581349645
Dewey Decimal Number: 234.7
EAN: 9781581349641
ASIN: 1581349645
Publication Date: November 1, 2007
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Pastor John Piper thoroughly analyzes the teachings of Bishop N. T. Wright on the topic of justification and sounds a call to discernment for the entire church.
N.T. Wright, a world-renowned New Testament scholar and bishop of Durham in the Church of England, has spent years studying the apostle Paul's writings and has offered a "fresh perspective" on Paul's theology. Among his conclusions are that the discussions of justification in much of the history of the church certainly since Augustine got off on the wrong foot, at least in terms of understanding Paul and they have stayed there ever since.
Wright s confidence that the church has gotten it wrong for 1,500 years, given his enormous influence, has set off warning bells for Christian leaders such as John Piper, a pastor and New Testament scholar. If Wright s framework for interpreting the New Testament text and his understanding of justification find a home in the church, not only could the doctrine of justification be distorted for generations to come, but the New Testament writers original intent could be silenced. So Piper is sounding a crucial warning in this book, reminding all Christians to exercise great caution regarding fresh interpretations of the Bible and to hold fast to the biblical view of justification.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 13 more reviews...
 The Future of Justification November 16, 2008
N.T. Wright is an incredibly popular and engaging writer. He's saying things in a new way and that has everybody (especially those enthralled to Reformation Theology) a little jumpy. Wright is an incredibly engaging and talented communicator both in written and spoken word. He has helped and emerging generation of church leaders look at church, the Bible, and the gospel in a fresh way.
Don't mistake my use of the word "emerging" to mean Emerging Church (although Wright has made headway with those folks). Wright has become a premier Bible scholar and Bible interpreter in this generation. His work will be influential for years to come.
Thus, you have Piper's need to write the book. Congregants hand him one of Wright's books and ask him, "what about this guy?"
Piper takes issue with Wright's take on the doctrine of Justification. In a nut shell, Wright tells what it does to a believer's standing with God on the Last Day. Piper is convinced that Paul teaches the necessity to know what it IS, not just what it DOES. If one doesn't know what it IS, then one's understanding of what Christ accomplished on the cross will be misunderstood. In fact, what the church believes about Justification may be distorted for years to come due to Wright's ever expanding influence.
The author's thesis is that the righteousness of Christ and His perfect obedience is imputed to the believer once faith is placed in Christ. Piper makes the point that Wright believes God declares us righteous based on the work of Christ and includes us in His family. That Jesus defeated evil and sin and took our place on the cross. God vindicated Jesus by raising Him from the dead and in our identification with that (the resurrection) we, too, are vindicated. This is what Justification does. This is not good enough for Piper.
Piper makes a compelling argument, but I think it's weak. I've familiarized myself with the work of both these men and find my preference to lean more in Wright's direction and method of biblical exposition than Piper's. Piper, in my opinion, is more beholden to Reformed Theology and all his exposition is obviously and unashamedly run through that filter.
Piper takes a chapter to set up what Wright says about a subject and then in the next chapter, dismantles Wright's thesis.
I think the book could have been half the size, maybe a quarter. I got Piper's point early in the book. He's given credit from many scholars as giving Wright a fair shake, but I don't feel he has really made the effort to understand what Wright is saying.
imagePiper, book reminds me of the character Jim Carrey used to play in a bit on In Living Color. Carrey's plays the over zealous life guard of a hot tub. Carrey's schtick is he gets on a bull horn and enforces rules that would be posted at a public pool. "Time for laps!" Carrey announces with a bull horn in a hot tub users ear.
Piper is doing laps across a hot tub.
If you like theology or Piper or Wright, you might enjoy this book. If you are not familiar with Wright but read most of what Piper writes, you'll come away from this book thinking a) what's the fuss all about, or b) Wright's a heretic. It depends where you stand with Reformed Theology or your status in the John Piper fan club.
I think my membership's been revoked.
 justified October 14, 2008
0 out of 3 found this review helpful
It came in a very good condition and good time.I like the subject I DID NOT regret ordering it at all,every Christian should understand justification more and more every day
I agree with Piper, but too early for this one... September 9, 2008
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
This book is a tough one. The reason I say this is because I totally agree with John Piper's view, and the Reformation's view of the Pauline theology of justification by faith. I agree with Piper's and the Reformation's view of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer. I also disagree with N.T. Wright's, which ultimately started with Schweitzer, Wrede and Sanders, view of Pauline theology and the link they believe it has with second century temple Judaism. Although I do like their premise of trying to understand Old Testament Judaism. I believe though that they get confused in what God intended with the Law and how the Jews misused it.
So, now that I have stated all that, you would expect me to really like Piper's book on the topic. The problem is that I think it is a little too early to try and refute what Wright is coming out and saying. The reason for this is because no one really has a clear understanding of what Wright believes (at least those who I have talked to). Piper even praises Wright for many of his views of Scripture, and also the high view that Wright places on Scripture. But, there are many places in here that Piper says that he "thinks" Wright means this, or that Wright "might" believe that. I would think that it would be better to go ahead and wait this out until we find what Wright is really saying before we try and refute him outright.
With all this said, I also understand why Piper desired to come out with a refutation. I just believe it was too soon. I believe he would have been better to come out with a short intro to some disturbing beliefs of Wright and then wright a polemic on the justification of God and the imputation of Christ. I know that Piper has a couple of books that do this, so maybe an update to those books with this intro would have served better.
The book, because of the confusion of Wright's beliefs, is very hard to follow. There are even parts in the book where I would probably either agree with what Wright is saying, confused on what the problem is, or just am completely confused on what Wright really believes. The book really makes you feel like Piper is as confused as you are with what Wright is trying to say.
I honestly wouuld not recommend this book to anyone trying to get a grasp on what Wright believes, it was very confusing. Because of this, Piper's refutations come out very confusing as well. The best part of the book was the end, when Piper gives a small defense of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.
I believe that this book will be something that will be forgotten and will need to be thrown away once we understand more on what Wright is trying to get across in his views of Justification and Pauline theology. Once a better understanding is seen, I would ask Piper to try again. Not Recommended.
It looks good to me. August 25, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
I bought this book because my old church (I left because of a job and not theology) has embraced Wright's theology. I asked my former pastor about the imputation of righteousness and Wright's view of justification. As I remember the conversation, he asserted that the imputation of righteousness does not matter because eventually you end up in the same place. I found that hard to believe. When I saw this title of Piper's latest book, I was glad and Piper addressed these type of issues directly.
Piper corresponded with Wright to get Wright's input. He pointed out where Wright has done a great service to the Church in several areas, but Piper also pointed where Wright's theology or at least his ambiguity about the doctrine of justification may lead several churches astray.
I'm not a theologian or even a pastor, but I was able to follow most of the arguments and realized the importance of the issues that Piper addressed. I haven't read more than a few short works of Wright and I was able to glean some good stuff from this book. My favorite part of the book was where Piper showed how Wright defined righteousness and then described how Piper defined righteousness. I found Piper's definition far more complete. The book was written well, but it was not an easy read. I need to go back and reread some of the sections so I can more fully understand his arguments.
 Why Believe Paul? August 5, 2008
0 out of 22 found this review helpful
I have yet to hear an evangelical Protestant justify the assumption that the writings of Paul are Scripture. Why all the fuss over who interprets Paul correctly when it has yet to be established (by Protestants anyway) that one is justified in viewing Paul as an inspired authority? "Fait accompli" will not do. It is incumbent upon evangelical Protestants to explain why they assume that Paul's writings are inspired Scripture. To date they have failed to do so. In view of that failure, all the fuss over who correctly interprets Paul on justification, or on anything else, is premature.
|
|
|
|
Powered by CBN AssociateStore
| |
