John Piper begins and ends his Introduction with the observation that he has been too long in the service of the gospel to amuse himself by playing games of disputation. He graciously assumes the same for N.T. Wright, and then makes the central appeal that we should always make — to the law and to the testimony.
He outlines eight concerns that he has with Wright’s doctrine, merely introducing them. Detailed treatment is to come in the subsequent pages. Out of the eight my initial sympathies are with Piper on six of them, and with Wright on two of them. I say “initial sympathies” because there well may be points requiring adjustment as we go through the book.
Piper is just giving an introductory overview, and I will also make just a few comments about each point as well, saving the detailed exposition for later.
First, Wright maintains “the gospel is not about how to get saved” (p. 18). Piper cites Wright in multiple places making precisely this claim. “‘The gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is . . . the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ.” Right. Which, when believed, gets people saved. Now Wright is correct if he is saying that the gospel concerns the objective realities of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, which is quite different from the subjective realities of transformation that occur when someone believes the objective gospel. But to say that the gospel is “not about how to get saved” on the basis of this is like saying that years of medical training and sharp knives are “not about” removing tumors. It is a curiously blinkered view.
Second, “justification is not how you become a Christian” (p. 19). Wright says, “Justification is not how someone becomes a Christian. It is the declaration that they have become a Christian.” This is one of Wright’s more exasperating points, and exhibits the mentality of an illegal alien who does not want to talk about how and when he crossed the border into America, but rather wants to emphasize that he is in America. If God makes a declaration that someone has become a Christian, presumably there is a point before which He was not making that declaration, and after which He was. Asking about the border crossing is not an irrelevancy.
Third, “justification is not the gospel” (p. 19). This is one that will require more detailed treatment later. Wright is technically correct if all he means is that the gospel is objective and outside of us, while justification is an important teleological result of believing that gospel. But Piper appropriately quotes Acts 13:38-39 — the objective gospel clearly aims at the justification of individuals as one of its central goals. The difference here appears to be that Wright holds that individual justification is a downstream result of the proclamation of the gospel, while Piper points to places like Acts 13 that indicate that it is an immediate and intended result of preaching the gospel.
Fourth, “we are not justified by believing in justification” (p. 20). I am with Wright on this one, but curiously, so is Piper. Just a few pages later, Piper quotes Jonathan Edwards and John Owen, both of them to the effect that men can be justified by a grace which they misunderstand and misrepresent. Piper makes this point in order to show that while he holds that Wright is muddled on the subject of justification, it does not follow from this that he is not himself justified. But earlier, Piper says this, “If we hear that part of the gospel and cast ourselves on God for this divine gift, we are saved. If we hear that part of the gospel and reject it, while trying to embrace Christ on other terms, we will not be saved” (pp. 20-21). But I am justified, not by my perfections or achievments in anything, but by Christ’s. He understands justification perfectly, and we can rest in that because His perfections are ours — by faith alone. There will be more on this later, but for know I see a real tension in what Piper is arguing for here.
Fifth, “the imputation of God’s own righteousness makes no sense at all” (p. 21). This is an area where Wright is frankly muddled about what imputation is. He acts like it is some form of infusion, as though righteousness can be passed substantively “across the courtroom” as though it were a substance, object or gas, and he rightly rejects that. But he also affirms that the “accomplishment of Jesus Christ is reckoned to all those who are ‘in him.'” But the accomplishments of Jesus are not a substance, object or gas either. Why can I have the accomplishments of Jesus reckoned as mine, but I can’t have the righteous accomplishments of Jesus imputed to me? This is an area where Wright is really confused.
Sixth, “justification is on the basis of the complete life lived” (p. 22). Here, if I understand him, I am in sympathy with Wright. This is not the same thing as affirming justification by works, and is fully consistent with sola fide. Wright is here attempting to do justice to Romans 1 and 2. Remember, Paul says some remarkable things in the introduction of his great treatise on the subject.
Seventh, “first-century Judaism had nothing of the alleged self-righteous and boastful legalism” (p. 22). Although Wright is his own man on many New Perspective issues, on this one he regards the point as settled. But it is not settled at all, and I regard it as beyond curious that someone like Wright, who consistently argues against decontextualized “timeless truths,” has somehow found in Second Temple Judaism a timeless Jew. Wright says “the Jew keeps the law of out gratitude.” Oh, he does, does “he?” What is this timeless Jew’s name? Caiphas? Zechariah? Mary? Joseph? Judas? Annas? Saul? Wright is just flat wrong on this point, and the problem is that he is functioning as a scholar here, not as a pastor. The legalistic heart can manufacture a point of personal pride out of absolutely anything. I have known Calvinists who wrapped themselves three times around with the doctrines of free grace — but who were still unable to keep the legalism from sloshing out their ears.
Eight, “God’s righteousness is the same as His covenant faithfulness” (p. 23). As Piper notes, the central text that Wright has to deal with on this point would 2 Cor. 5:21. And he attempts it, in what Piper describes as “one of the most eccentric articles in all his work” (p. 24).
That should do for now.