Future of Justification
6 comments | Permalink
Trevin Wax has done an extensive series of posts on Piper's The Future of Justification. Wax also interviewed Wright in November. You can read the full transcript or listen to the podcast.
posted by JT at Thursday, December 20, 2007
6 Comments:
This is a very well done series by Trevin in my opinion. I found it extremely helpful in this necessary debate!
I agree, Andy, Trevin has done us a wonderful service with his even-handed commentary.
The podcast is very helpful. The questions were excellant. Wright seemed pretty orthodox on Justification for anyone familiar with Ridderbos, but I cannot find much sympathy with the comments he made on the atonement. I cannot understand his siding with Steve Chalke against 'Pierced for our transgressions' and from the interview it seems more personality motivated. I think his defense of Chalke is great mistake.
Regards
Alan
I really appreciate Trevin's comments too, but on one point I think I'd disagree. It seems to me that he (and Wright) might be 'under-exegeting' Paul's phrase "for our sins" in his definition/description of the Gospel in 1 Cor. 15. To say it another way, it is not only the news that the 'crucified and risen Jesus is Lord'..., but that the 'crucified-for-our-sins and risen Jesus is Lord.'
Along with passages like Acts 13:38-39 (including, "...through Him everyone who believes if justified from all things, from which you could not be justified through the Law of Moses") and Luke 24:47 ("...repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name..."), it seems that the NT definition/description of the Gospel/Good News includes the new covenant fulfilling aspect of forgiveness/justification. (cp. Jer.31:34).
-- Doug
Spot on, dphill. Under-exegeting indeed.
Amen brother.
Yeah dphill (and mike),
That's my query as well (I commented on the other thread).
Why do we have to limit the gospel the Wright way?
The other passages you mentioned clearly says more than what Wright would want. And you mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, that phrase "for our sins" is there.
And also, how do we explain each key word in that passage? "Christ," "sins," "Scriptures," without going far off the gospel? When we teach what those words means, we're not sharing the gospel anymore? Especially what Christ death and resurrection achieves? When we explain that, it's not gospel anymore?
When Paul was in Athens, he starts "What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you" and he goes on to say God commands all people everywhere to repent, etc. Was the gospel shared then?
Anyway, just thinking things through after reading Trevin's comments and now Wilson's latest blog on the book. Although Wilson is still in Chapter 2 where this "limit" gets a mention but treated more fully in Chapter 5.
God's blessings,
Paulo (1Timothy 1:15-17)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home