Book Review

The 'justification' debate

I have a lot of time for N.T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham, and share many of his convictions. But on the nature of justification he is, in my view, off-track.

John Piper tackles the issue from every conceivable angle, subjecting Wright's teaching to kindly yet rigorous scrutiny. He concludes that he is indeed off-track and that the orthodox understanding of justification as summarised by Paul in 2 Cor 5:21 is to be upheld.

If you find yourself caught up in this controversial issue you will find all the answers here. The book is The Future of Justification: A response to N.T. Wright by John Piper (IVP, 2008, ISBN 978-1-84474-250-9).

My conviction concerning N. T. Wright is not that he is under the curse of Galatians 1:8-9, but that his portrayal of the gospel—and of the doctrine of justification in particular—is so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognise as biblically faithful. (p15)

My own assessment of the need of the church at this moment in history is different from Wright's: I think we need a new generation of preachers who are not only open to new light that God may shed upon his word, but are also suspicious of their own love of novelty and are eager to test all their interpretations of the Bible by the wisdom of the centuries. (p37)

God defines 'right' in terms of himself. There is no other standard to consult than his own infinitely worthy being. Thus, what is right, most ultimately, is what upholds the value and honour of God—what esteems and honours God's glory. (p64)

In Wright's passion to liberate the gospel from mere individualism and to make it historical and global, he leaves it vague for individual sinners. (p86)

Does Wright succeed in portraying first-century Judaism, and Paul's pre-Christian life as a Pharisee, and the experience of the Jewish agitators in Galatia as a life of 'gratitude, as the proper response to grace'? I don't think so. (p145)

In view of Jesus' penetrating and devastating indictment of the Pharisees, and in view of Paul's testimony that he was one from that group (Gal. 1:13; Phil. 3:6; Eph. 2:2-3; 1 Tim. 1:13-14; Titus 3:3), it seems to be a historical fantasy to portray the pre-Christian Saul or his later opponents in Galatia as true lovers of God who had drunk from the fountain of divine grace and who therefore genuinely followed the Torah out of heartfelt gratitude to God. (p155)

In Adam's case, it only took one sin to completely fail. In Christ's case, it took an entire life to completely succeed. That is how their disobedience and obedience correspond to each other. Thus when Paul compares the 'one trespass' of Adam to Christ's 'one act of righteousness' (Rom. 5:18), there is no single act in Christ's life that corresponds to the eating of the forbidden fruit. Rather, his whole life of obedience was necessary so that he would not be a second failing Adam. (p214)