Between Two Worlds: A Mix of Theology, Philosophy, Politics, and Culture



Sunday, August 19, 2007

Carson on Piper's "The Future of Justification"

23 comments | Permalink
"The so-called 'New Perspective on Paul' (NPP) has stirred up enormous controversy, especially, but not exclusively, in the English-speaking world. The issues are so complex that it has taken time to mount a careful evaluation. During the last decade many have undertaken the task, often with helpful contributions. John Piper’s work may not be the last word on the subject, but it brings to Christian leaders everywhere five enormous strengths: (1) By focusing on N. T. Wright, by far the most influential writer of the NPP, Piper brings to bear a badly needed focus. (2) Despite the interlocking complexities of the debate—Tom Wright has an amazing capacity to move theological and exegetical pieces around, creating such a new tableau that words have shifted in meaning and theological notions their conceptual location—Piper has written with admirable clarity. (3) Better yet, John has engaged Tom with simultaneous depth and courtesy. That is a rare but wholly admirable combination. (4) Certain parts of John Piper’s book have quietly broken new ground—not least his handling of “righteousness” and “justification,” their connection with the “gospel,” and his careful insistence that making the words mean different things for the Judge in God’s law-court and for the defendant in that law-court really cannot be sustained in the light of Scripture. (5) John Piper sees the moral and spiritual implications of what he is seeking to explain. Are men and women saved, on the last day, on the basis of the whole life lived? But if not, what is the nature of the connection between justification and good works? The issues are not secondary, and, pastor that he is, John Piper will not allow believers to put their trust in anyone or anything other than the crucified and resurrected Savior."

D. A. Carson
Research Professor of New Testament
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL

23 Comments:

Anonymous dan erickson said...

With each review, the anticipation of being able to read the book keeps growing. I have a hunch that God may use this book in a significant way.

8/19/2007 10:29:00 PM  
Blogger Bryce said...

what a glowing review. i am looking forward to the book.

8/19/2007 10:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Alex Chediak said...

Sweet!!!

8/19/2007 11:41:00 PM  
Blogger Alex S. Leung said...

Wow... I want to pre-order!

I am very much looking forward to this, as well as "Pierced for Our Transgressions", to be finally released in the US :)

8/20/2007 01:21:00 AM  
Blogger Bryan L said...

Didn't both Carson and O'Brien edit a couple of books against the NPP? I'd like to see a favorable review from someone who isn't already anti-NPP. That would peak my interest in Piper's book.

Blessings,
Bryan L

8/20/2007 08:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am looking forward to the grace and compassion of Dr. Piper's argument with N.T. Wright on this issue. As a pastor I am able to hear much truth spoken in the church but too often it is not in love. The initial things I have heard and read about "The future of Justification" is that Dr. Piper's book will give us a lesson on how to disagree about important doctrine using grace and truth.

8/20/2007 09:42:00 AM  
Blogger Daniel said...

Brian,

Bock gave the book a decent review. He seemed to be pretty cautious about it. He endorsed the conversation. It didn't sound like he had picked a side.

8/20/2007 09:59:00 AM  
Blogger Bryan L said...

Daniel,
I guess I'm talking more about a review from someone who isn't already anti-NPP, that says the Piper's book is convincing or something like that. I'd like to see some people outside of Piper's camp endorsing more than just the conversation or the graciousness of the book.

Blessings,
Bryan L

8/20/2007 10:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brian L
What do you think the Bock endorsement is then? He is far from being in "Piper's camp." Sounds like you won't be happy unless N.T. Wright himself comes out and endorses it. Most N.T. Wright books on the subject are endorsed by those in the NPP camp. Might be best to just stop thinking that everyone has built in agendas and just give the book a chance, in short read it for yourself when it comes out.
cheers,
ryan

8/20/2007 11:25:00 AM  
Blogger Bryan L said...

Defensive much Ryan?

I just said I wanted to see an actual endorsement from someone that thinks the book is convincing and isn't already anti-NPP (Bock's endorsement just endorsed the conversation). What's so bad about wanting that? Sorry if I don't feel like reading a book that seems only to convince people you would expect it to convince (one that's preaching to the choir). I don't think anyone has built in agendas, I just think they're already convinced by the subject and so it's not surprising to see their name endorsing the book.

There are plenty of NT Scholars and Theologians out there who aren't pro-NPP or anti-NPP but more neutral on the matter. Mike Bird or Scot McKnight would be great people to get endorsements from for this type of book. Maybe Crossway should try them.

Blessings,
Bryan L

BTW I can understand when other people spell my name with an "i" but your name is "Ryan" with a "y". I figured at least you would be able to spell my name right. ; )

8/20/2007 12:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

brYan L.:
So you just want preaching to the other choir? ;)

I thought Scot McKnight was a Wright guy, FWIW. Don't know Bird.

CBM

8/20/2007 02:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bryan L.

Not defensive at all. I just think your grasping at straws thats all. Could it be you are the one being a bit defensive? I was simply just challenging your notion that someone anti-NPP needed to endorse the book for it to have credibility. Personally, even if just Bock is endorsing the conversation I think that makes it worthwhile to read, especially considering that he is struck by the generous tone of it.

I do not want to get in a tit for tat about this, it honestly is pretty trivial as to who endorses it and does not. As most people know you generally get endorsements from those who your targeted audience would respect. This is why my original point was that just because N.T. Wright himself is not endorsing the book, carries no significance as to its worth or consideration to read.

Oh and sorry for getting your name wrong, good thing I am not an editor.

ryan

8/20/2007 02:38:00 PM  
Blogger Bryan L said...

Cheeeez. I'm just saying I'd like to see what someone a little more neutral on the NPP has to say about the book and how convincing it's arguments are besides commenting on how nice Piper sound when disagreeing with Wright.

I never said someone anti-NPP needed to endorse the book for it to have credibility.

I didn't say anyone had an agenda, and I never implied that I had to see N.T. Wright endorse the book for me to read it.

Never mind.

Blessings,
Bryan L

8/20/2007 03:16:00 PM  
Blogger Glennsp said...

Bryan L,
Are you saying therefore that any endorsement of an N T Wright book is meaningless unless it is from someone who doesn't already agree with him?

8/20/2007 05:33:00 PM  
Blogger Bryan L said...

No I'm not saying that Glenn. I'm sure it means something to some people. I'm sure for those people who are big fans of the endorsers and trust everything they write and agree with them theologically, it probably means a lot to them to see the endorsers give glowing reviews of Pipers book. But for those who are more on the fence, or who are pro-NPP, those endorsements don't mean as much (they still mean more than no endorsements).

Just think about any doctrine you don't agree with. Imagine someone writes a book abut that doctrine and you look on the back to see who's endorsed it. Do you really feel like reading that book on that doctrine that you don't agree with if other proponents of that doctrine are the only ones praising that book? Probably not. But if someone you know is neutral on that doctrine or even anti that doctrine gives the book a really good review then your interest is peaked and you realize that maybe this book is worth reading, that it's different and that it has something new to say. That's where I'm coming from.

Let me give you an example. I recently read the book that just came out by Steven Roy "How Much Does God Foreknow?" based solely on Roger Olson's (an Arminian who is open to Open Theism) endorsement of it. Since all the other books on Open Theism had people endorsing it that you would expect, this one stuck out to me because they had someone completely different endorsing it and even calling it persuasive (oddly enough his endorsement is not listed on IVP's website).

Anyway that's where I'm coming from.

Blessings,
Bryan L

8/20/2007 06:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bryan maybe you should wait and see if there is someone from a pro NPP perspective who is going to or has endorsed it. Your critique might be a bit premature. Besides, I think I may differ from you here, but I regularly enjoy reading books that are vastly different than my theological persusions, regardless of who endorses them. Just some thoughts.
tod

8/20/2007 06:45:00 PM  
Blogger Bryan L said...

I'm surprised people keeping commenting to me concerning this book and my desire to see what those from a different perspective have to say about it.

Interesting.

8/20/2007 06:58:00 PM  
Blogger Trey said...

Bryan L,

I think you are reading a little too much into the reaction. I think the concerns you raise are legitimate as well as the concerns that others have raised; I just think you are looking for disagreements/fencers in the wrong place. You will most likely (I stress most likely because I have not examined every book ever written, but the books that I have examined I have found this to be the case) find that those who are in agreement (to some degree) with the book are the ones who are writing the blurbs on the back of the book. This is why you find emergent people writing blurbs for emergent books, non-emergent people writing blurbs for non-emergent books, as well as any other subject that is written about. You will also have people writing blurbs like Bock dealing with the subject of the book contributing to the conversation.

There will even be disagreements among those who are writing the blurbs though they may not say so in the blurbs, especially regarding the subject of the NP's. So you have Ben Witherington saying (though he didnt write a blurb for the book) saying that there are some parts of the NP that he disagrees with and other areas that he agrees with. You also have Gathercole, Seifreid, Bird, Vickers, Piper, Carson, Hafemann (I hope names were spelled right), all agreeing to some degree with each other, but also disagree at other points.

Wait for the book to come out, interact with it, and tells us why you agree/disagree with it. Read Book reviews/articles from JBL, JETS, WTJ, JNTS, and other major Biblical/Theological Journals to see what those who are sitting on the fence and those who are supporters of the NP have to say regarding the book. That is where you should expect the disagreements to be coming and not on the back of the book.

Thats my two cents,

-Trey

8/21/2007 07:28:00 AM  
Blogger Bryan L said...

"That is where you should expect the disagreements to be coming and not on the back of the book."

I didn't say I expected to see disagreements on the back of a book. Why would anyone put someone's disagreement with a book on the back of it?

"I think you are reading a little too much into the reaction."

I didn't read anything into it. In fact if you go back and read the comments you'll see a lot of people reading into what I said. I just thought the reaction I've gotten was suprising. Why would so many people feel compelled to set me straight on this issue? I didn't even criticize the book in anyway. I just wondered if there were any reviews of the book by people who weren't obviously anti-NPP.

Blessings,
Bryan L

8/21/2007 08:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bryan L,

The comment comes a little too late but I think your request is pretty fair. I also like it when people I respect references it regardless of their position on the issue.

BTW, if you would stop responding so much, people wouldn't swarm you so much ; ).

Jared

8/21/2007 03:24:00 PM  
Blogger Bryan L said...

"BTW, if you would stop responding so much, people wouldn't swarm you so much"

I know Jared. You're right but I can't help responding. It's a curse or something.

Blessings,
Bryan L

8/21/2007 04:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Jeremy Pierce said...

I don't think it's fair to say that Carson's review says nothing because it's just a sign that Piper has convinced someone who was already convinced. That diminishes Carson's role in these discussions considerably. Carson is at the forefront of these discussions at the academic level. Piper is trying to package the scholarly discussion for a popular audience with this book. Carson is absolutely a good person to judge whether Piper has done that clearly, which is what he says Piper has done. He is also a good person to judge whether Piper has made a genuine contribution to the discussion and not just summarized other people's arguments, which is the other substantive thing Carson said Piper has done. He also said it balances other work by focusing on Wright, who is often ignored in other critical discussion of the NPP. Only his fifth point really involves a judgment call on who wins the debate, and even that isn't fully about that. So I think the complaint is rather irrelevant to this particular review, which isn't even close to just cheering Piper for being on the right side. It particularly helps me, because I agree with Carson and Piper in general but want people who are good and are seen to be good by the best people on that side of the debate.

8/22/2007 04:45:00 PM  
Blogger Bryan L said...

"I don't think it's fair to say that Carson's review says nothing because it's just a sign that Piper has convinced someone who was already convinced."

I didn't say Carson's review says nothing. I said I would like to see others views on the book who aren't obviously anti-NPP. Notice all this time I have spoken of what I would like to see. I never made any value judgments on the book or even the review. Just because I've pointed out that Carson and Obrien are anti-NPP that doesn't mean that I think they are disqualified from reviewing the book. I just said for someone like me I would like to see some people who aren't anti-NPP comment on the book. You are happy seeing Carson's review of the book. Great! I'm not so enthused, although I don't think the review is invalid. It's just seeing Carson and OBrien endorse the book doesn't really peak my interest. Now Mike Bird's endorsement does peak my interest and that's why I'm glad JT posted it. I hope he posts some other reviews by some who are more neutral or even pro-NPP.

Blessings,
Bryan L

8/22/2007 07:09:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home