# If You Haven't Read This Book Yet



## greenbaggins (May 15, 2012)

Then you should. And you can't beat the price right now. It is a particularly good defense of the normal Protestant doctrine of justification, and even more importantly, it is a model of how theological controversy should be handled. I don't agree with everything in the book, but it is a very fine treatment of the subject all the same.


----------



## moral necessity (May 15, 2012)

I have it on my shelf...but I have only skimmed it for now. 


I really appreciated his little book about imputation, and have given some to several pastors who don't mention the topic much. Amazon.com: Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness? (9781581344479): John Piper: Books 

Amazing that some used copies only cost $.01 + shipping.


Thanks for sharing and blessings!


----------



## Covenant Joel (May 15, 2012)

You can download the PDF for free from Desiring God here. I read it when I was writing a paper on Wright's theology about 2 years ago, and I really enjoyed it.


----------



## jwright82 (May 15, 2012)

Yeah it is a good book. I was thinking about starting a thread to see if his view was orthodox or not. I guess I got my answer. What, if you don't mind, did you disagree with in the book Lane?


----------



## J. Dean (May 15, 2012)

moral necessity said:


> I have it on my shelf...but I have only skimmed it for now.
> 
> 
> I really appreciated his little book about imputation, and have given some to several pastors who don't mention the topic much. Amazon.com: Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness? (9781581344479): John Piper: Books Amazing that some used copies only cost $.01 + shipping.
> ...


This is a good book. I picked up a copy at the Ligonier conference in Florida, 2010. Piper does a VERY good job of dealing with Wrightism.


----------



## greenbaggins (May 15, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> Yeah it is a good book. I was thinking about starting a thread to see if his view was orthodox or not. I guess I got my answer. What, if you don't mind, did you disagree with in the book Lane?



His definition of the righteousness of God is not one that is espoused by any lexicon or commentator of which I am aware. I think it was something like "God's passion for His glory." I can't remember the exact formulation, as I don't have the book here at home. I also think that, on occasion, he gives too much credit, or too much leeway, to N.T. Wright. That being said, those two minor criticisms don't get in the way of his showing pastorally and exegetically why N.T. Wright is wrong.


----------



## Covenant Joel (May 15, 2012)

Here's Piper's definition of God's righteousness: "The righteousness of God consists most basically in God’s unswerving commitment to preserve the honor of his name and display his glory" (66, quoting another of Piper's works).


----------



## jwright82 (May 15, 2012)

For whatever it's worth. 
John Piper on Doug Wilson - YouTube


----------

