The Future of Justification
May 30th, 2008
(Book Review by Nathan Williams)
The Future of Justification by John Piper
The works of N.T. Wright are becoming more and more popular. With his recently published book dealing with Heaven and the mission of the church, his writings are moving more into the mainstream of evangelicalism.
Even with his new books coming out, Wright is best known for his work on justification and the “New Perspective on Paul.” I’ll be the first to admit that what I have read and heard about the New Pauline Perspective seems complicated and difficult to understand. I know that Wright has essentially argued that evangelicals have missed the boat in our understanding of justification since the Reformation. Catholics misunderstood it before the Reformation and we Protestants have misunderstood it since the Reformation.
Without question, justification is a vitally important issue and there has been much debate surrounding it today. Since N.T. Wright presents a formidable challenge to the traditional understanding of justification, it is important for pastors and teachers to interact with his work and be able to point out areas where he strays from a biblical understanding of justification.
John Piper has recently written a book entitled The Future of Justification in which he interacts with the work of N.T. Wright on justification. This volume will prove to be an invaluable resource to understand the basic thrust of Wright’s views and deal with them biblically. Reading this book is like sitting in a seminary class with John Piper and hearing him graciously and masterfully deal with the major issues surrounding the New Pauline Perspective.
It is worth the price of the book just to get Piper’s section entitled “On Controversy”. This section comes before chapter one and is only six or seven pages long, but in it Piper explains how he views controversy and the reasoning behind writing a polemical book. He begins by saying, “I am a Pastor First. Polemics are secondary and serve that” (p. 27). With the blog world as influential as it is today, many pastors need to hear the steadfast words of John Piper. While he certainly understands that a portion of the duty of the pastor is to guard the sheep against unbiblical ideas, Piper is clear that attacking the ideas of others is not the foundation which holds up the rest of the house. Polemics serve a specific purpose and that purpose should be remembered within the context of pastoral ministry. The tone with which Piper interacts with the works of Wright is also extremely instructive. He is fair and gracious, but unyielding with the truth of Scripture.
While this entire book is illuminating, there are a couple of crucial ideas which I found to be particularly clearly expounded. One of the most important texts for N.T. Wright’s understanding of justification is Romans 2:13. Because of the way in which he understands this text, he sees a final justification at the last day based on the entire life which a person lives. Since this text is so important to Wright’s misunderstanding of justification, Piper spends several pages explaining the context and proper interpretation of the phrase, “but the doers of the law will be justified”. After dealing carefully with this text at length, Piper goes on to explain the proper relationship between works and justification.
Another idea which is key to Wright’s understanding of justification is the nature of Second Temple Judaism. Basically, Wright believes we have all misunderstood the background of the books of Galatians and Romans. He thinks the Galatians were not battling against legalism. In other words, the Judaizers which Paul attacked in Galatia were not promoting salvation by good deeds and keeping the Mosaic law. Instead, they were promoting an ethnocentrism which said these “works of the law” would serve as a badge to show who would be justified on the last day. Piper explains Wright’s position this way: “Paul’s problem with this was not that these Jewish people were trying to earn God’s favor by their own self wrought righteousness, but rather that they failed to see their calling to reach the nations and instead used their “badge” to exclude Gentiles from the covenant” (p. 133). This seems to be a foundational understanding in the theology of N.T. Wright. Piper does a masterful job of explaining exactly what is meant by works of the law. He also points out the proper way to understand the background of Galatians and exactly what the Judaizers believed about salvation.
Overall I think most pastors will find this a helpful book for a couple of reasons. This book is an understandable, yet in-depth look at the work of N.T. Wright regarding justification. It will make one aware of the issues and the particular nuances of what Wright teaches about salvation. More importantly, it will equip pastors in their own understanding of justification and in their ability to defend the sound doctrine of Scripture.
I’ve said this elsewhere, but it might be worth a chuckle or two to repeat it.
I’ve always found it kind of funny that N.T. Wright is wrong about the NT. It’s almost a palindrome.
But on a more serious note, I do appreciate your review here, because, as you say, Wright’s NPP is becoming more and more popular in “evangelicalism,” whatever that is. I also really appreciate Piper’s work, and would also recommend “The Justification of God,” his exegetical study through Romans 9.
Nathan:
Have you actually read Wright? Or have you read only “about” Wright?
And when I say “read Wright,” I am referring to his three volumes he has published in the Christian Origins and the Question of God series (i.e., The New Testament and the People of God, Jesus and the Victory of God, and The Resurrection of the Son of God).
If you have not, do you think that, perhaps, your viewpoint is not only biased in a certain direction, but also uniformed?
If this issue is so important, would it not necessitate people to take it seriously enough to actually read Wright?
I’m not Nathan, but a point needs to be made about what makes a valid argument and what does not. It is not necessary to read every word a person has written in order to interact with specific things which are clear. I have read enough of Wright to make sure I understand his point on justification in the context in which he intended it.
His view of justification is heretical, and the people in our churches need to be protected from such views in the spirit in which Piper addresses our command to protect the flock.
My suspicion is that Nathan has read much more on the subject than I have (including Wright’s books), but that’s also not the point. If I preach or write heresy in 2% of what I produce, I must be confronted and corrected on it, and no one has to read all of the other 98%. Wright continues to produce things blatantly contrary to sound doctrine and has shown no signs of accepting correction. Let’s stick to the objective facts of what a person has published, treat them fairly, and subject them to the scrutiny of Scripture instead of setting up an artificial standard that nothing can be corrected until we have read everything a person writes.
Nathan can answer for himself, but let’s be fair and gracious instead of accusing someone of being biased and uninformed.
Jim, so well put!
Jeff
Jim, so well put!
Jeff
Jim,
You said, “I have read enough of Wright to make sure I understand his point on justification in the context in which he intended it. His view of justification is heretical.”
If you had read enough of Wright, you would not come to this conclusion. Piper does not even call Wright “heretical.”
Perhaps you should read a bit more.
Again comes the fallacy that if you haven’t read enough of a prolific author’s works, you cannot point out where he differs from Scripture. I have only a portion of Joseph Smith, and I know the doctrine he created is non-Christian.
I would have to check the reference and the page number, but I know Wright says that justification if understood his way is not the doctrine which separates Protestants from Roman Catholics. He says in his book “What Saint Paul Really Said” that it is the doctrine that should unite us (Protestants and Catholics). That’s plenty to put him solidly outside the camp of Protestants, and that statement if not ambiguous. I maintain that to believe something other than the reformation view of justification is to be heretical.
This is also the view of The Master’s Seminary faculty in their lecture series c. 2005.
I do plead ignorance on exactly what Piper says about Wright, and look forward to reading his book.
You can dodge reading Wright by claiming that it is a “fallacy” to assume that one actually has to closely read one’s arguments before one can fully and rightly critique them. That is your choice.
But I see it more as an excuse to either 1) continue being intellectually and academically lazy or 2) continue comfortably in your beliefs without being challenged by other’s insights.
I am not going to understand Paul correctly (or fully) if I only read Philippians. I am not going to understand Torah correctly (or fully) if I only read Leviticus. We must read all of Paul’s work and all of Torah in order to correctly understand each.
So it goes with Wright and other authors.
So if I don’t know everything about everything, I can’t know anything about any one thing? That’s not gonna fly.
If someone says something that is easily identifiable as heretical, why do we have to read the rest of his works to say that one statement is heretical? Context helps, but some statements mean what they say no matter how much clarification comes after. Using the example given, if Wright said that his view of justification is one in which there should be doctrinal unity for Protestants and Catholics, what he’s saying is that Catholicism is orthodox, that it is not apostasy. Calling heresy orthodox is heretical. No?
Maybe what you’re saying is that that one statement isn’t enough to write Wright off as a heretic for good. I may agree with you there. But certainly we can say that if indeed he makes such a statement, it is a heretical statement. And if he is shown his error and does not submit to the Truth, then we can say he’s a heretic. Would you not agree with that, Art?
Mike,
I would not agree with you because the context in which Wright makes the statement that Jim quasi-quoted tells a different story than Jim, and apparently yourself, want it to tell.
In other words, Wright is not saying that Catholocism gets it right, nor does he say that we should all embrace each other without changing our definitions. Rather, Wright is referring to the simple fact that because justification is such a large issue and because it is central to ecumenical orthodoxy, Catholics and Protestants should agree with one another on that issue. He sees his work on Pauline Literature as being a way in which Protestants can tweak their view because they overreacted to Catholicism (which they have) and Catholics can take to heart what the Reformers were trying to say, and change their view.
Wright’s view is not the view that separated Protestants from Catholics because he does not err too far on either side, like the Reformers and the Catholic counter-Reformers did.
If you read Wright in context you will understand what he is saying. And it’s not what either Jim or yourself is attempting to make him say.
I’m not trying to make him say anything. You’ll notice the “ifs” and “if indeeds” before anything was suggested about what Wright might have said.
I understand better what you were trying to say. It is certainly important to read the context of a particular statement in order to understand that statement. But what I’m saying is that the context doesn’t have to be the author’s complete works.
And, contrary to what seems to be your opinion, I bet it’s not because they don’t understand what Wright’s saying that people don’t like what Wright’s saying. Because if you’ve represented his thoughts impartially in your last post, people don’t like it because it’s not biblical.
Anyway, I wasn’t trying to get into a NPP debate, and I’m not going to. I was just making the point that just because we don’t understand everything doesn’t mean we can’t understand anything.
So we would be able to understand Paul’s theology correctly if we only read Philippians?
If we only read James 2, do you think we would understand the canonical viewpoint of the relationship between faith and works? Or would we have to read all of Scripture in order to understand it?
I understand what you are saying, but it doesn’t hold any water in this case. Until you read and understand what Wright is laying out in The New Testament and the People of God and how he uses that foundation to understand Jesus (Jesus and the Victory of God and The Resurrection of the Son of God) and how all of that is influencing and coloring his understanding of Pauline literature and Paul’s teaching, then you are not understanding Wright correctly, nor are you understanding the reasoning behind his statements.
You can write him off as a heretic if you’d like, but that will be nothing more than your “preference” because you have not argued your case well because you have not dealt with his reasoning, only with his conclusions.
If he is wrong (which I take him to be on certain points), then argue carefully and with integrity instead of simiply reading one of his shorter works and then writing him off.
Theology is important enough to deserve our intellectual and academic rigor. It does not deserve intellectual and academic slothfulness.
“If [Wright] is wrong (which I take him to be on certain points), then argue carefully and with integrity instead of simiply reading one of his shorter works and then writing him off.”
I think John Piper’s work may well do that!
As for Art’s other comment:
“Until you read and understand what Wright is laying out in The New Testament and the People of God and how he uses that foundation to understand Jesus (Jesus and the Victory of God and The Resurrection of the Son of God) and how all of that is influencing and coloring his understanding of Pauline literature and Paul’s teaching, then you are not understanding Wright correctly, nor are you understanding the reasoning behind his statements. You can write him off as a heretic if you’d like, but that will be nothing more than your “preference” because you have not argued your case well because you have not dealt with his reasoning, only with his conclusions.”
Forgive the poor and distasteful comparison that came to mind, but it’s almost as if someone commits a crime and gets convicted because of it, but those who support him decry the sentencing because they feel that the authorities had failed to look into the circumstances that shaped him into the criminal that he is. A crime is a crime, unfortunately, just as an unbiblical thought is an unbiblical thought (no matter how middle-of-the-road it may sound–or, perhaps, especially because it sounds so middle-of-the-road!)
Clarification to my last comment: I meant “middle-of-the-road” in light of the following quote from one of the posts above:
“[Wright] sees his work on Pauline Literature as being a way in which Protestants can tweak their view because they overreacted to Catholicism (which they have) and Catholics can take to heart what the Reformers were trying to say, and change their view.”
That comparison does not hold up to scrutiny.
It would be more like someone who was seen shooting someone else. The witnesses testify and that person is convicted.
But when the entire context of the situation is brought to light, the person is aquitted because the context provided much needed evidence: the person was actually an Allied soldier who shot a Nazi in WWII.
In this case when your read Wright’s body of work instead of a few decontextualized comments then you better see and understand his arguement.
And, IMHO, Piper falls desperately short of a full bodied critique.
Is it really over-reacting to Catholicism, when the Roman Catholic church says that the gospel we preach makes us anathema? That’s their view of the reformed faith. If the Catholic Church views our respective doctrines of justification as mutually exclusive and contradictory, I have a hard time buying in to statements that we have over-reacted.
I agree that this post is not directly about NPP, and there’s plenty to be read about that subject already. But it is about a critique of Wright, who makes statements that simply are not in bounds of Protestant theology. When he argues that we haven’t really understood Paul all these centuries, he’s WAY out there.
He’s a brilliant man, a remarkable scholar and a prolific and engaging author. He just isn’t within the theological camp represented by Shepherds’ Fellowship.
As for the quasi-quote, Protestants and Catholics cannot possibly agree on justification and remain Protestant and Catholic. Any middle ground would require abandoning the Biblical position of justification by faith alone.
I do apologize for being a “hit-and-run” contributor here. I don’t intend to hide; I just don’t have enough time to maintain a timely interaction. Thanks for your patience. Still haven’t read Piper, either . . .
Art: In your understanding, does N.T. Wright believe it is possible for someone to affirm the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (as set forth in the New Catholic Catechism) and be a genuine Christian? Put another way, does he believe it is possible for someone to be saved by pursuing salvation in the way that the RCC prescribes?
Art: In your understanding, does N.T. Wright believe it is possible for someone to affirm the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (as set forth in the New Catholic Catechism) and be a genuine Christian? Put another way, does he believe it is possible for someone to be saved by pursuing salvation in the way that the RCC prescribes?
Matt: No.
Art: Thank you for the straightforwardness of your response. I am new to N.T. Wright and just read a chapter he wrote entitled “New Perspectives on Paul” (in a book edited by Bruce McCormack). Toward the end of his discussion of justification, where he refers to it as “the original ecumenical doctrine,” Wright addresses the relationship between Catholics and Protestants. Although he is “horrified” at some of the teaching of the RCC, Wright states that his understanding of justification by faith tells him “that if my Roman neighbor believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead, then he or she is a brother or sister, however much I believe my neighbor muddled, even dangerously so, on other matters” (pp. 261-62). Can you help me understand what he means by that?
Earlier in the chapter he affirms that becoming a Christian “is not based on anything that a person has acquired by birth or achieved by merit” (p. 257)–which is good and true–but what does mean in this other statement? Every Roman Catholic I’ve ever met would say he believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead, so what exactly is Wright saying here?
Wright means there what he says explicitly elsewhere in different contexts. Namely: one is justified by faith, not justified by faith in justification by faith. Saying anything more is to say more than Christ himself has said.
On what basis, then, would Wright deny that a true Roman Catholic (that is, one who is pursuing salvation according to the means taught by the RCC) is not a true Christian?
By claiming justification by faith plus works. Wright affirms the 39 Articles as an Anglican Bishop. That makes it clear.
So when Wright refers to the Roman Catholic who “believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead” as being a brother in Christ, he means that this hypothetical Roman Catholic has renounced (at least in his heart) the RCC’s system of salvation by faith plus works?
I’m not sure exactly who Wright has in mind or whether or not that particular person has renounced salvation by works as taught in the RCC.
You’re playing with terms in your questions though. First you asked me about a true Roman Catholic then you asked me about a hypothetical person who renounces the RCC’s teaching.
What is clear, however, is that Wright is not condoning a RCC understanding of justification. This can be seen by even a cursory reading of his articles on faith, justification, or even his shorter works and commentaries.
Again, to say he is “heretical” is go well beyond what the top evangelical scholars are saying, whereas many pastors and Christian colleges are saying otherwise. I fully believe the latter are acting more out of a reactionary tendency than out of scholarship.
Art: If you reread the comment thread, you will find I haven’t called anyone a heretic. I am simply trying to understand what Wright believes about Roman Catholicism and why. If Wright believes that a true Roman Catholic cannot be a true Christian (as you said he does), and if he also believes that at least some Roman Catholics are true brothers in Christ (as he said he does), then I am merely seeking to understand how these two beliefs fit together. In my attempt to be as generous as possible in my interpretation of Wright, I wondered if perhaps he means that Roman Catholics who are saved are not actually “true” Roman Catholics, presumably because they have renounced (at least in their hearts) the RCC’s system of salvation by faith plus works. That was the point of my question above. If this is indeed the case, I wish he wouldn’t confuse the issue by referring to these people as Roman Catholics, but perhaps he has his reasons for doing so.
After rereading the relevant portion of his chapter “New Perspectives on Paul”—particularly the lengthy paragraph that begins on page 261 and ends on page 262—I find myself having a difficult time agreeing with your assessment of Wright’s views on Roman Catholicism. He seems to present Protestants and Catholics as having a “shared faith in Jesus” which gives them “a powerful incentive to work together across denominational barriers.” Rather than dividing Catholics and Protestants over the past 400 years, Wright says that the doctrine of justification should have united the two groups across their cultural divides. This leads to Wright’s concluding statement:
“Not that there are not large and important problems in ecumenical relations. I am horrified at some of the recent Anglican-Roman statements, for instance, and on topics such as the papacy, purgatory, and the cult of saints (especially Mary). I am as Protestant as the next person for (I take it) good Pauline reasons. But justification by faith tells me that if my Roman neighbor believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead, then he or she is a brother or sister, however much I believe my neighbor muddled, even dangerously so, on other matters.”
As I mentioned above, I am new to N.T. Wright, and I have only read this one chapter. For this reason, I am certainly open to the possibility that I am misunderstanding what he is saying. Indeed, I hope that I am.
Matt:
Forgive the lengthy quote, but this might help. It is from an article entitled “The Shape of Justification” by Wright:
“The ‘faith’ in question is faith in ‘the God who raised Jesus from the dead’. It comes about through the announcement of God’s word, the gospel, which works powerfully in the hearts of hearers, ‘calling’ them to believe, or indeed (as Paul often puts it) to ‘obey’ the gospel (Rom. 1.16f.; 1 Thess. 1.3f., 2.13; 2 Thess. 1.8). This faith looks backwards to what God has done in Christ, by means of his own obedient faithfulness to God’s purpose (Rom. 5.19; Phil. 2.6), relying on that rather than on anything that is true of oneself. For Paul, this meant refusing to regard the badges of Jewish law-observance (‘the works of the law’) as the decisive factor (Phil. 3.2-11). And it looks forward to the final day: because this faith is the first sign of new God-given life, it is the appropriate anticipation of the final verdict, which is guaranteed by the same Spirit who inspired faith (2 Cor. 1.22; Phil. 1.6).
By ‘the gospel’ Paul does not mean ‘justification by faith’ itself. He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message, to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord, is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith itself is a second-order doctrine: to believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Rom. 5.1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table-fellowship without distinction with all other believers (Gal. 2.11-21). But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith (this, I think, is what Newman thought Protestants believed), but by believing in Jesus.
‘Justification’ is thus the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone is (a) in the right, that their sins are forgiven, and (b) a true member of the covenant family, the people belonging to Abraham. That is how the word works in Paul’s writings. It doesn’t describe how people get in to God’s forgiven family; it declares that they are in. That may seem a small distinction, but in understanding what Paul is saying it is vital.”
Hopefully that clarifies it for you.
Art: Everything contained in that quotation is also stated clearly in the chapter I read. But it fails to answer my question or alleviate my concerns. Perhaps a blog interaction is not the best forum for resolving these kinds of issues. I look forward to studying this further in the future. Blessings.
Art and Matt. Thank you both for the dialog. I’m the one who introduced the h-word earlier. My own conclusion is that Wright does not believe the Biblical doctrine of salvation, and I think his wording cited above is problematic. If the RCC and Protestantism are contradictory systems, we cannot be brothers in Christ. I’m still there, but it has been helpful to see how the discussion unfolds.
The other issue which seems conclusive for me regarding Wright is his view that we have misunderstood the RCC for centuries. The NPP people I know also think we have misunderstood 1st century Judaism and the doctrine of justification. Is that a fair summary of some of the NPP positions, Art?