At this point – chapter 2 “Covenant & Law-Court”, Piper starts to lay out his case against Wright’s view of Justification – “declaring one to be a member of the family”. “For N. T. Wright, God’s covenant with Israel is the dominant concept for understanding Paul and Justification”.
Piper details 2 reasons why this “declaration” is not consistent with the Scriptures. First, citing 1 Timothy 3:16 and Romans 3:4, the usual interpretation goes beyond a mere declaration, but establishes an actual status of justification. In other words, the regular use of the word “justify” signifies a definite action that accomplishes something now – not a mere declaration (See Romans 5:1).
In speaking of the gospel, Wright is known for the phrase: “the gospel is not a system of how people get saved…it is the proclamation that Jesus is the true Lord”. Wright sees personal salvation as one of the effects of the gospel message and not the proclaimed message. Piper’s response, while not new, does get the to the point:
My 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.
From here, Piper defends Wright that his views represent the death of Christ as both the propitiation of God’s wrath and the expiation of our sins. Yet, at the same time, N. T. wright has been a staunch supporter of Steve Chalke “The Lost Message of Jesus) who equates penal substitution with “cosmic child abuse”. Piper shows that Wright’s own view of penal substitution is very clear and strong.
So why does he confuse matters by supporting Chalke and trying to create room for Chalke’s view of the atonement – that is clearly not Biblical? We can only guess, but from other Wright articles, it is apparent that Wright tends to broader or more inclusive then many mainline reformed thinkers are willing to go.
Next, we will tackle the chapter that deals with imputation.
