I think this will be my final post on The Future of Justification: a Response to N.T. Wright by John Piper. I think it is more of an assessment than a response. Piper does a good job of laying out N.T. Wright’s distinctive views on these issues, and then weighing them. Piper does more than assess them by his own views, he tries to examine if they fit the evidence of Wright’s secondary sources, and (more importantly) the biblical texts. He also weighs Wright’s criticisms of evangelical theology on this matter (which have some merit) as well as these proposed solution (not so much merit there).
Piper avoids the common traps of polemical theology. He affirms where N.T. Wright is correct. He does not demonize him or attack him personally. In all this I think Piper writes a book that is clear, fair and convincing. If disciples of N.T. Wright want to hear a fair case of the other side- this is it. They might not be convinced that Wright is going in unhelpful ways in this matter, but allegiances can work that way. And then my question becomes, are there areas in which you disagree with him? If not, then you probably aren’t thinking. I disagree with John Piper on a few issues, but not here.
Anyway… in chapter 10 Piper assesses the implications of ethnic badges and self-help moralism. Wright sees “the works of the law” “as an ethnic badge worn to show that a person is in the covenant rather than deeds done to show they deserve God’s favor.” Wright points to Romans 3:26-30.
There Paul argues that God justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Justification by faith excludes boasting because “works of the law” are excluded. Paul declares that we have no contribution to justification. Paul then mentions that God saves Gentiles too, not just the circumcised. This is part of why Wright thinks “works of the law” = “ethnic badges”. As a result, he limits them to things like circumcision which he sees as the badge of the Old Testament (why he doesn’t really bring baptism into this discussion is beyond me), but faith as the badge of the New Testament (despite the fact that Paul roots his argument in Romans 4 in the Old Testament showing a consistency between covenants). The problem in Romans and Galatians is supposed to be one of exclusivism.
Piper, on the other hand, argues that the “oneness of God implies oneness in the way he justifies Jew and Gentile”- faith. This is set up by the rhetorial question of verse 29. He is not a tribal deity. Yes, Paul is excluding ethnocentrism, but even more he is excluding any form of self-righteousness, or legalism.
What Piper does next is show that N.T. Wright’s understanding of legalism is limited. Wright only sees legalism as “hard legalism” earning God’s favor by works to get into the covenant. He sees this as a function of Pelagianism. But there is also a “soft legalism” that his just as deadly, remaining in God’s favor by works. Those works can even be grace-oriented. The problem is we are relying on our works, not Jesus Himself, and create room to boast, however little it may appear. Wright fails to see that his view is essentially that of “soft legalism” and therefore legalism. Galatians 3 is helpful to illustrate this- it is always by faith, not just the initial step.
In addition to that, Piper goes on to show that Paul does not look upon his days as a Pharisee fondly. He does not see Christianity and Pharisaism as similar but diametrically opposed. This is where Martin Luther is so helpful- there is a religious fanatic in each of us wanting to gain something to boast over. Wright can’t seem to grasp the continuing power of the flesh and its attempts to establish a righteousness of our own. It affects semi-Pelagians and Calvinists alike, though it may have different forms. In other words, our regeneration is total (touches each aspect of our being) but incomplete) [Thomas Boston handles this well in Human Nature in its Fourfold State]. There is still impurity in us, and one thing that impurity does is seek to establish grounds for boasting whether in our obedience, gifting, accomplishments etc..
Piper sums it up this way:
“The issue was that the Jewish badge itself (circumcision, diet laws, etc.) had become the trust of many Jews (like the Pharisee in the parable of Jesus) and was thus a means of exalting self, not God (even, for some perhaps, while thanking the grace of God), and had therefore led to contempt for others, and was therefore a morally unrighteous form of legalism.”
As a result of this, the root of faith is severed and true Christianity is destroyed. And this is the direction N.T. Wright apparently wants the church to move by putting forth works as the basis for our future justification. If Wright’s views capture the church, I fear there will only be future condemnation for many who thought themselves to “be in the covenant” precisely because they are relying on themselves & Jesus, rather than wholly on Jesus. That is why Piper’s assesement is important reading for pastors and lay leaders charged with shepherding the sheep.
Cavman Considers 
Leave a Reply