Comments on: More Thoughts On N. T. Wright’s Justification

By: Henry M Imler

Henry M Imler — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:36:14 +0000

Well, now that you have Grecko-Roman sources out of the way, just grab an LXX, the Mishnah, some Targumim…okay a little harder than I thought, never mind.

Yeah, it never ends, does it?

So, I have a question for you. I will likely read only one book on the subject by Piper this summer – which one would you recommend?

By: Hank

Hank — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:51:40 +0000

I have always thought Wright has made some great points, along with Dunn and Sanders (two others in the NPP debate). E.P. Sanders said scholars need to read first century Jewish sources, not fourth or fifth century, to understand Pauline theology. It would be like studying the Puritans in their prime by reading literature from today, kinda anachronistic isn’t it? Wright has an emphasis on union with Christ that I like. I think it will be a good read if you get Piper’s “Future of Justification” and Wrights’ “Justification.”

Well, now that you have Grecko-Roman sources out of the way, just grab an LXX, the Mishnah, some Targumim…okay a little harder than I thought, never mind.

By: Honzo

Honzo — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:23:43 +0000

while i have not done the extensive work on this (obviously), as I have said before, my project after the cracking of christian fundamentalism is to rebuild my scholarship. I feel as though I now have the tools to work texts and a good feel for accurate christian history and roman history (I, admittedly, am lacking on Jewish history). So I just now have to tools to evaluate and check up on doctrines.

My next project will be to rebuild my Christian theology.

With that said, Wright, in the interview I linked to, makes a whole lot of sense and if he represents piper correctly, then I think he has some very good points.

Anyway, just some more late night thoughts.

By: Hank

Hank — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:50:54 +0000

I haven’t read the whole interview, so my comments are based upon what I know Wright has said and what little you have quoted. I think Doug Wilson, cited above, really gets to the point. Tom Wright does say some correct things that I think the traditionally Reformed folk like my self need to hear. But while denying some areas of Reformed justification he then affirms them in other ways or creates situations that what he denies is the only thing that fits. At the same time, I think Piper has been extremely soft on the centrality of “union with Christ” in soteriology. That does elevate ecclesiology some, but not make it more about ecclesiology. This will manage to put Jesus more at the center of salvation than Piper already does–and it’s hard for me to see how he fails to do that enough.

I am glad that you are trying to take an interest in justification. It is one of the most important themes in the Bible and in church history. It’s also something I’d like to hear JR comment about after some of his more recent reflections on sin and the atonement because I’m not sure what it means for him when God imputes righteousness to a person while at the same time not imputing sin.

By: Honzo

Honzo — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:43:32 +0000

This precise nuancing of justification I find very intriguing and exciting to ponder. I just don’t have the background in it yet to deal with the subject well. (I hope to remedy that this summer, however.)

By: Honzo

Honzo — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:40:48 +0000

so what are you thoughts on the whole deal in light of this interview?

(http://trevinwax.com/2009/01/13/interview-with-nt-wright-responding-to-piper-on-justification/)