John Piper on "Future Justification"

alex,

from what i can gather, I know piper is worried about wright's view of works and future justification? Do you think Piper would be as critical to the views of Seifrid's/Gathercole's as he is with Wright's?

Also, do you think Piper's book builds upon his "Counted Righteous" book or do you think it's pretty much the same thing?

Blessings,

Dan

Dan,

I do not believe this new book is "pretty much the same thing" as Counted Righteous in Christ.

I am hesitant to answer your other question, as I'd be merely speculating in a public forum.

Thanks for the comment.

Alex

alex,

thanks for your thoughts. I guess I have been rather confused with the whole NPP debate. For if Piper is "right" that one of the main problem of NPPers and Wright are their view of works within future justification, then I am not sure what to think when two of the main opponents of the NPP (Seifrid and Gathercole) advocates views of future justification that are so close to Wright.

Have you read Seifrid's and/or Gathercole's views on final judgment according to works? Can you help me figure out on how their ideas are different from Wright?

blessings,

Dan

Dan,

I have read portions of Seifrid's Christ Our Righteousness. It struck me as traditional protestantism (non-NPP). Seifrid also wrote a lengthy SBJT article that strongly argued for the traditional view (I cannot recall the reference). What have you read by him that sounded like NPP?

As for Gathercole, I've not read him on the issue of works and final justification. I read a great essay of his on Lev. 18:5 (quoted in Rom. 10 and Gal. 3), and how it ought to be interpreted as an (unattainable) requirement for perfect obedience (which, generally, supports the traditional view). Which works of his have you read?

Thanks,
Alex

Alex,

Thanks for the response.

I have also read Seifrid’s Christ Our Righteousness, and after reading it, I got the impression that Seifrid has a “high view” of works in relationship to the final judgment, when he makes statements like “the last judgment will be based on works” (pg 182). I especially get this impression of Seifrid’s “high-view” of works from his last chapter, “Justification in Paul, the New Testament, and witness and beyond” (pg. 171 – 186) and his short selection called, “Justification by faith and judgment according to works” (pg. 147 -150)

I have also read Mark Seifrid’s essay, “Luther, Melanchton and Paul on the Question of Imputation from the book “What’s at Stake in the Current Debates Justification”. From this article, I got the impression that Seifrid see justification in more “transformational” terms. If I remember correctly Seifrid supports Gundry’s idea of faith reckoned as righteousness and warns Piper to be cautious. I posted some of my thoughts here:

http://kunalians.blogspot.com/2006/08/mark-seifrid-tolerance-in.html

For Gathercole, I have read his essays from the book "Justification in Perspectives: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges" edited by Bruce McCormack” and Justification And Variegated Nomism (2 Vol. set)

From the former, I get the impression that Gathercole is expounding a view of final judgment that sounds similar to Wright and Garlington. Please see my blog entry here:

http://kunalians.blogspot.com/2007/07/gathercole-and-justification-part-3.html

Thanks again for having this conversation with me. I have great affection for Piper’s writing/ministry but lately I have learned a lot from Wright. So I hope that they can disagree peacefully IF the gospel is not at stake, which I am trying to figure out.

Blessings,

Dan