# John Piper The future of justification



## Mayflower (Dec 27, 2007)

Did anyone read already "John Piper The future of justification" ? Any reviews or thoughts ?


----------



## Guido's Brother (Dec 27, 2007)

Yes, I read it last month. I haven't written a review of it, but it is a worthwhile book on the subject. It features the more academic side of John Piper. I think he treats N.T. Wright with charity and Biblical accuracy. The only place I would fault Piper would be at the beginning of the book where he equates covenant with election.


----------



## Dr Mike Kear (Dec 27, 2007)

Here's the review I wrote for Amazon.com last month.

I received this book in the mail on Friday and read it over the weekend. In The Future of Justification, Piper delivers a devastating blow to Bishop N. T. Wright's doctrines of the righteousness of God and the nature of justification. 

Justification, for Wright, is a declaration or affirmation of what we already are by election, thus it is God declaring that we are "within the covenant." However, God's present act of justification, in Wright's teaching, is really only an "anticipation" of his future and final justification, which, in his own words, "occurs in the future, as we have seen, on the basis of the entire life a person has led." Thus not only does Wright attempt to destroy the biblical view of justification, but also of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Final justification is based on grace plus our works. 

Justification, for Piper, is displayed as the sinner standing before the bar of judgment and being declared righteous by God the Judge by means of the imputation of the active and passive obedience of Christ (the imputation of His righteousness) through faith. It is "a definite action that accomplishes something now" (41). "Something decisive and once-for-all happens at justification" (42). 

Thus justification isn't merely an affirmation of covenant membership in anticipation of a life of justifying works which, finally, God will declare in the future. No, it is how we become covenant members, it "is an essential saving act" (43). 

A few other thoughts on this book: 

1. Piper is not a covenant theologian and this shows. I think he would have been even more devastating in his response to Bishop Wright if he were arguing from a consistent covenantal position, rather than from New Covenant Theology. 

2. Piper's writing is extraordinarily understandable. He explains Wright far better than Wright explains himself. And Piper does it with courtesy and kindness. From time to time, I actually became rather intrigued with Wright's ideas in certain areas that I had previously read but not understood as clearly as I did when Piper re-stated them. It almost made me want to go back and re-read Wright. In fact, there are many areas where I agree with Wright in a broad sense, while disagreeing with him in specific theological outcomes. 

3. This book will probably be of little interest to a person who knows nothing of Wright or the New Perspectives on Paul. However, 

4. I was amazed at the similarities between the words of Wright and the parroted words of many proponents of Federal Visionism. The FVers, however, assume only the worst part of Wright's doctrine without his eventual "positive" twists. What you end up with is a distorted view on justification, a near denial of the imputation of Christ's righteousness (his active and passive obedience), and a fearful wondering whether or not we are permanently elect or just temporarily elect At least Wright's teaching gives a basis for the assurance of the final justification of the covenant people through the anticipatory justification (declaration or affirmation) in the present. The outcome is that Bishop N. T. Wright is far more Reformed than those who teach Federal Vision theology. While they say differently, in reality, they destroy the Five Points and gut the Westminster Confession of Faith. A person would be safer to follow Wright alone, than to follow his theology regurgitated through the mouths of Federal Visionists. 

I would highly recommend this book to anyone who has read Wright or any who are studying Federal Visionism. It is also understandable enough to give to knowledgeable laymen who ask about Wright or FV soteriology.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 27, 2007)

Interesting points at the end. When Fred Greco said that he would rather people read Wright than James Jordan I couldn't help agreeing.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Dec 27, 2007)

Dr Mike Kear said:


> 1. Piper is not a covenant theologian and this shows. I think he would have been even more devastating in his response to Bishop Wright if he were arguing from a consistent covenantal position, rather than from New Covenant Theology.



Great review, brother. 

While I agree that Piper is not a strict covenant theologian, he does hold to many of the truths of covenant theology. In fact, he claims to hold to some truths from covenant theology, new covenant theology and dispensationalism. Although, he is farther away from dispensationalism than the other two.

Here is the link to his thoughts on the subject:

What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 27, 2007)

Brother Kear,
Would you consider Piper to be new covenant in his theology? The reason I ask is he is a sabbatarian. I do not know of any NC theologians who are sabbatarian.


----------



## Dr Mike Kear (Dec 27, 2007)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Brother Kear,
> Would you consider Piper to be new covenant in his theology? The reason I ask is he is a sabbatarian. I do not know of any NC theologians who are sabbatarian.



Well, he seems to be a kind of theological hybrid. I remember reading somewhere that he found himself more in the NCT camp than any of the others, but the link that Barnpreacher provided seems to really back up the hybrid position. It's hard to pigeonhole Piper. He is not _consistently_ CT or NCT. And he's certainly not a dispensationalist. In _The Future of Justification_, he _comes across_ more in the NCT camp, in my opinion.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny (Dec 29, 2007)

My wife just aquired the book for me, look forward to the read. Piper was my hero in my early days of reformed discovery. He has lost some ground, but I will forever be indebted to Piper. He kept me on course for quite a few years, and I still find his minstry indispensable.


----------



## timmopussycat (Dec 29, 2007)

Mayflower said:


> Did anyone read already "John Piper The future of justification" ? Any reviews or thoughts ?



Havn't begun this yet but folks may be interested to know that Douglas Wilson is engaging in an extended discussion of the book at BLOG and MABLOG and has some interesting comments, largely on Piper's side (at least in the excepts I have seen).


----------

