The Doctrine of Justification by Faith - Thesis Proposal Example

On the one hand, Piper’s perspective is that imputed righteousness on justification does not consist merely of belief in Christ alone for salvation, but also of submission of every area of one’s life to Christ’s Lordship. Thus, Piper unwittingly affirms both “faith alone” and “faith not alone” referring to justification, which according to Lybrand constitutes the intrinsic incongruence of these assertions in his (i.e., Piper’s) practical interpretations and teachings. This inconsistency could be explained in the way Piper distinguishes justification from sanctification, wherein he proposes that man is given the right to stand with God on account of faith alone. Again, Piper maintains, this is something given. Nevertheless, Piper insists that man must live a life that he considers a deadly battle against sin. How he fights such a battle––according to God’s will––constitutes sanctification. Also important in Piper’s position is the argument that sin has been fought, and won over with the death of Jesus. One might contend that if sin has been won over based on Christ’s sacrifice, Piper would not be able to justify his “faith not alone” portion of his argument. However, he maintains that the right to stand with God is only achieved by eliminating the sin––the one that was already won over on the cross––by way of dying “in Christ". This is central to his righteousness imputation theory and distinguishes his position from that of Wright who proposes, “incorporated righteousness” as a more appropriate method of justification.

The dominant perception of righteousness in the evangelical world interprets Paul’s concept of righteousness in the book of Romans as “incorporated righteousness.”Piper, however, believes that righteousness is based on God’s righteousness––imputed as some form of moral ascendancy achieved by Jesus’ sacrifice. In addition, this is righteousness credited to humankind; something humans do not have but was given because they were regarded as righteous. This is not to say that Adam sinned, that Jesus saved humanity from sin, that in the process God has created a renewed people, and that we became members of his renewed people by faith. Though

Piper’s justification doctrine appears easy and simple for sinners, for Christ’s sacrifice has effectively made them all righteous, but there is still the condition of acceptance. This is to say that the sinner must accept Jesus’ sacrifice, and part of this acceptance is living in Christ. The sinner must crucify his/her old self, which effectively triggers the bestowal of righteousness. Piper gives particular importance to Romans 6:11, “You also must consider yourselves dead in sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.” Unlike incorporated righteousness, Piper’s approach focuses on becoming what man is in Christ. This goal could be translated as becoming a righteous person, one that displays the same imputed righteousness of the Messiah.

On the other hand, Wright relates justification to soteriology and God’s definition of what constitutes his people. He bases his approach on God’s covenant with a man because this is where his saving faithfulness is based. Here, justification is considered eschatological, wherein God’s forgiveness and man’s salvation today, are a part of the Jewish narrative. In short, Wright’s approach articulates a form of justification that defines who is included among God’s people, and not about how human beings should establish and maintain a relationship with God. The question that underpins Wright’s position is not how human beings are forgiven and, therefore, how they must act to achieve salvation. Rather, Wright is concerned with defining what constitutes God’s people: “Who are they?” or “What makes someone a member of God’s covenant family?”. This is why he insists that justification must come as incorporated righteousness.