Available at Monergismbooks.com for purchase or at Desiring God as a pdf download.
Chapter 2 is entitled, “The Relationship Between Covenant and Law-Court Imagery for Justification.” This is a detailed and nuanced chapter, one which deserves a lot of study. In the writings of NT Wright, Piper states that God’s covenant with Israel is the dominant concept for understanding Paul and the doctrine of justification. Wright defines justification as the declaration that a person is in the covenant family. Justification denotes who is in the family, not how one gets in. However, Piper thinks this definition doesn’t stand up to scrutiny for two reasons. One reason is that there are uses of the word “justify” (dikaiovw) in Paul’s writings where the meaning “declaring one as a covenant member” doesn’t make sense or doesn’t work. See Romans 3:4 and 1 Timothy 3:16 as examples. Another reason, according to Piper, is that Paul’s use of the word “regularly signifies a definite action that accomplishes something now. It is not simply a declaration of a person’s covenant membership that came about decisively through another prior action (e.g. God’s effectual call).”
Wright apparently does not come to terms with the fact that “justification” may actually determine or constitute a new relation with God, not just declare it to be so. In Romans 5:1, we have peace with God because we are justified, and this verse seems to indicate that it is justification that has actually accomplished this peace. John Piper notes that NT Wright may not be clear in his understanding of the historic view of justification, and provides a nice, concise, and clear definition:
The historic view is that justification is “by faith,” not the process of coming to faith. Wright does not express an understanding of the historic view-namely, that immediately upon the call of God and the awakening of faith God does something essential to a person’s right standing with God-that is, essential to their acceptance and their membership in the family. He counts them as perfectly fulfilling all his requirements (= righteousness) because by their call-awakened faith they are united to Christ who is their righteousness. This counting as righteous-this justification-is not the event by which a person moves from unbelief to faith. It is the divine act without which a person cannot be a member of God’s family.
Dr. Piper also steps through Romans chapter 4 in detail in order to show that Paul fleshes out the definition of justification with the language of “counting” and “reckoning.” This divine act of reckoning righteousness is not simply a declaration, but it accomplishes something. In a very clear statement of what Dr. Piper views as justification, he states, “This divine act of justification determines or constitutes an essential aspect of the new relationship with God. Without it there would be no saving covenant membership. Therefore, justification is not a declaration that one has become a covenant member by virtue of God’s prior call. Rather, together with the call, justification is an essentially saving act.”
Dr. Piper notes that Wright states that the gospel is not about how people get saved, but only the declaration of the lordship of Jesus Christ. However, Piper finds this confusing on a number of points. Wright apparently wants to stress the difference between the effects of the gospel and the proclamation of the gospel itself. However, Piper’s concern is that “in expressing this the way he does, he confuses people because unless those great gospel announcements do in fact include news about personal salvation, they are not good news. That Jesus died, rose, and reigns as King of the universe may be terrible news in view of my treason, unless that announcement includes some news about how and why I personally will not be destroyed by the risen Christ.” In Wright’s world, the gospel is not as personal as it needs to be to actually be good news.
Wright makes some pretty bold statements about the death of Christ being both the expiation of sins and the propitiation of God’s wrath, yet at the same time appears to endorse a book that denies both. Wright has also commented on a recent work called Pierced for Our Transgressions, in which the authors take great pains to demonstrate the biblical basis of the doctrine of penal substitution. On their website, the authors of this book respond to NT Wright’s criticisms of their work. The point of all of this is that it appears that NT Wright’s commitment to the doctrine of penal substitution is confusing and ambiguous, despite his previous statements that appear to show an unwavering commitment to the doctrine.
