Theological Terminology of Justification by Faith by John Piper and N.T. Wright - Thesis Proposal Example

A Comparative Analysis of the Theological Terminology of Justification by Faith by John Piper and N.T. Wright Dissertation Proposal I. Introduction A. Background of the problem The study of justification is considered the cornerstone of biblical teaching by many Evangelical theologists. The debate turns on the basis of how people are justified under God – if Christians need to earn their salvation by being good, or if salvation is earned by the very fact that they profess their faith in Jesus Christ. A great number of the faithful have held that one should lead a virtuous life in order to be declared justified before God, because such has been the conventional wisdom. The alternative view, however, is that people’s works, i.e. the degree to which people live virtuous lives, should not count in their justification, otherwise the death of Christ as their substitute would have no effect on earning their salvation for them. This alternative view reasons that it is only by having faith in Christ, and thereby acknowledging Christ’s sacrifice for our sins, that people are justified. Understandably, advocates of the earlier view that works count point out that it does not make sense for those who live sinful lives, but only profess faith in Christ’s teachings, to be justified along with those who make the effort to embody Christian virtues in their lives. B. Problem statement: The problem to be resolved is the theological difference between John Piper’s and N.T Wright’s views on justification as imputation or union with Christ. Both Piper and Wright are preoccupied with the significance of the doctrine of Justification and yet they reached radically divergent conclusions. Both theories have their strong points as well as their inconsistencies, and both need to be thoroughly defined and analyzed. C. Research questions (proposed) 1. What is the Doctrine of Justification by Faith, and how did it develop? 2. What is the theological terminology of justification by John Piper? 3. What is the theological terminology of justification by N.T. Wright? 4. What are the similarities and differences between Piper’s and Wright’s views? D. Purpose of the research The aim of the paper is to compare and contrast the similarities and differences between theological terminologies of John Piper (a Lutheran scholar) and N. T. Wright (an Anglican scholar) on the subject of justification, and to show how each contributes to the fullness of justification theology. The objective of the research is to deepen the understanding of the implications of justification on both sides of the debate, in order for the faithful scholars to obtain a more decisive grasp of their perspectives, and to see whether the two theories complement each other, and how they could be unified and reconciled. E. Brief description of methodology The methodology to be used will adopt the Christological approach, specifically salvific-historical hermeneutics on the theories of Wright and Piper. These two perspectives shall be compared and contrasted by conducting a search for original text and analysis of the terminologies or linguistics employed (also called a diachronic study) for each of the perspectives. The study shall also seek to resolve the current debate by reconciling the hermeneutics of the opinions of both Wright and Piper with each other. In order to support the interpretation of original texts, opinions and studies of authorities on justification and specifically of the debate shall be relied upon, with consensus among the various opinions sought to arrive at a relevant resolution to the debate. F. Scope and delimitation of the research The scope of the research is envisioned to include the following: (1) The original writings of John Piper and N.T. Wright, specifically their seminal works: The Future of Justification by John Piper, and Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision by N.T. Wright, and other supporting works by these two scholars; (2) Discussions written by other scholars that challenge and debate the issues set forth in these works; and (3) The context and background of the doctrine of justification shall be summarily discussed and the history and development of the important issues explained, in order to more thoroughly examine the theories of justification of Wright and Piper and the controversy involving them. G. Justification for the Research Over the years, the debate on justification as envisioned by Piper vis-à-vis justification as envisioned by Wright has caused a debate among the followers and advocates of these two brilliant theologians. A theoretical split, while causing a controversy, is a useful and necessary exercise in development of theological theory; as earlier mentioned, the study of justification is considered the cornerstone of biblical teaching by many Evangelical theologists. A deeper understanding of the source and mechanism of justification will enable evangelicals and other serious students of theology to agree on the broader salvation doctrine. This research hopes to advance this development of the justification doctrine. II. Development of the Doctrine of Justification A. History of the Doctrine of Justification 1. The Old Testament 2. The times of the Fathers and Scholastic Divines 3. Era of the Reformation 4. A subject of controversy among Protestants B. Exposition of the Doctrine 1. Scriptural meaning 2. Relation to the Law and Justice of God 3. Relation to the Mediatorial Work of Christ 4. The Imputed Righteousness of Christ 5. Relation to Grace and Works 6. Connection of Justification with Faith 7. Relation to the Work of the Holy Spirit III. The View of Justification by John Piper A. Basis of Justification B. Results of Justification C. Biblical bases IV. The View of Justification by N.T. Wright A. Basis of Justification B. Results of Justification C. Biblical bases V. Comparison and reconciliation of Piper’s and Wright’s theories1 A. Their perception of the justification dilemma The justification problem is perceived by John Piper in the sense that the world God created was good, but that it was bound to succumb to futility because the first human beings were sinful and treasonous in choosing to offend God’s glory. Because of this unfortunate choice, humans have alienated themselves from God their Creator, for which reason they should justly be condemned for their sins. Similarly, N.T. Wright avers that the world God created is good, and which He had entrusted to humans, whom He made in His image, to oversee and steward, to serve His intended purpose. God’s grand design for the world, however, was thwarted by the sinfulness of man, and because of this the world must be restored to the path God had originally intended for it. It is therefore necessary for humans to also returned to the right path in order for them to bring the world back to God’s plan. B. Their vision of God’s law Piper views the Law as the instrument through which God reveals himself. The Law has its end and goal in Christ, and it mandates man’s complete obedience to God that can only come through faith. But because humans had not lived according to the righteousness of God’s Law and the obedience it required, they have lost their standing before the Law and need a substitute to restore them to the right. Wright’s concept of what transpired between God and man is that of a covenant, which God had struck with Abraham for the purpose of setting in motion the redemption of the world. Abraham’s family became instrumental in conveying to the world God’s Torah, His holy Law, as a way to guide the Israelites from straying until the arrival of the Messiah. Israel’s purpose was to remain steadfast in obedience to the Law as an example to the world, but it failed in the attainment of this purpose. C. God’s righteousness revealed According to Piper, the substance of Divine righteousness is God’s steadfast faithfulness which cannot be contained in a single act such as a covenant, but in all He does. Similarly, the substance of human righteousness is our faithfulness to uphold the glory of God in all that we do. However, humans are unable to maintain this unwavering faithfulness because of their shortcomings, and therefore nobody is righteous. Wright believed that the righteousness of God pertains to His faithfulness to the covenant between Him and Abraham, a covenant which Israel, however, was unfaithful to. In order for the sin of the world to be expunged to pave the way for Abraham’s family to spread worldwide, one faithful Israelite must atone for the sin and show faithfulness to the covenant in the place of the entire nation. D. Concept of first-century Judaism Piper believed that Jews (exemplified by the Pharisees referred to in the Gospel) who lived in the time of Jesus did not perceive the need for a substitute to restore their relationship with God, but instead attempted to establish their own righteousness by what they called the works (or acts) required by the Law. Examples of these are not committing adultery or keeping the Sabbath holy, and the early Jews believed that observance of these acts specified in the Law (the “works of the Law”) provided the grounds by which one re-established his own rightful status with God. The tendency of people to rely on their own acts, whether ceremonial or moral, is a universal inclination even today, apart from God’s grace. The covenant remains the center of Wright’s perception about the early Israelites; the Jews were perceived to regard the Law as commandments by God given to them relative to their covenant with Him. The Law was therefore not seen as the instrument that aided the people in earning God’s favour, but rather a consequence or indication of the covenant which already existed between God and His people. The “works of the Law” did not so much serve the purpose of earning one’s righteousness with God, but acted as “badges of covenant identity” that distinguishes those who are in the covenant from those who are not (i.e., the Jews from the Gentiles). Keeping the Sabbath and the act of circumcision are just two such badges or markers of the covenant that identified them exclusively as the people of God, and this exclusivism was seen by Wright as preventing the promise of God from flowing from Israel to the nations. E. The Gospel According to Piper, the centre of the gospel is the good news of Christ’s death and resurrection. As our substitute, Christ died for our sins, and in three days he rose from the dead. This is the good news because Christ’s death has attained complete and perfect righteousness with God as well as suffered a perfect condemnation before Him. Both the righteousness and condemnation are attained in the name of humankind solely through faith, earning for us eternal life with God. Wright saw the Gospel as the ‘royal’ announcement of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, pursuant to the Holy Scriptures, for which he has been ensconced as the Lord of heaven and earth. On each occasion when the Gospel is preached, the people are called by God to salvation, through sheer grace, leading them to repent for their sins and attain faith through the crucified and risen Jesus Christ. F. The workings of Justification According to Piper, it is by faith that men are united with Jesus Christ, and therefore it is when the union is forged that the perfect righteousness and punishment become imputed to us. It is by this means that perfection is afforded to men, the sin is forgiven, divine wrath is eliminated, and God becomes totally for man. For this reason, Christ is the sole basis of man’s justification, and the faith uniting man to Christ is the means or tool for justification. Complete and unconditional trust in Christ as our personal Saviour, Lord, and Supreme Treasure of our lives yields the fruit of love; otherwise, it ceases to thrive, and expires. According to Wright, it is God himself (through the person of Jesus Christ as the faithful Israelite) who comes to rescue man and the world; thus in Christ’s incarnation God shows himself to be all-merciful, since God extended man his full pardon. Aside from being God, the Messiah also represents his own people and takes the stand for them, assuming upon himself the punishment they deserved; thus God is also all-just, since man (Christ) paid the price for God’s forgiveness. Therefore, God declares as righteous (i.e., “justifies”) all those who are “in Christ,” and when Jesus was vindicated in his resurrection so too are all men vindicated. God’s covenant with Abraham is extended to the world, which is made on the basis of faith alone in Jesus Christ, not as a result of the workings of the law which kept Jews and Gentiles separated. G. Their perspective of present and future Justification The view of present justification according to Piper rests upon Christ’s substitution alone, which people partake of in union with him by faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we stand before God without sin, where the final judgment is in accordance with peoples’ works. This is finely distinguished from attributing one’s justification to one’s own works. People’s actions merely confirm and provide evidence of the validating transformation which should take place if people have truly rested their faith in Christ. Wright, on the other hand, views present justification as the pronouncement on the basis of faith, and faith alone, of those people who comprise the covenant family. The verdict at present provides assurance that the verdict in the future, on the Day of Judgment, will be consistent with the present verdict. The power of the Holy Spirit enables the future verdict to be consistent with the manner by which the believer has lived his or her life. VI. Conclusion The expected conclusion shall describe the principal tenets underlying Wright’s and Piper’s theories on justification, the points where they agree and where they disagree, the issues in which they clash, and how, if any, resolution may be reached that reconciles these differences. The final chapter shall likewise suggest possibilities for the further development of the doctrine on justification. Finally, directions for future research on the basis of the findings to be reached in this dissertation shall be recommended to future academic researchers. Preliminary Bibliography Bechtold, John. 2012. "Tom Wright, Justification: Gods Plan and Pauls Vision (London: SPCK, 2009), pp. xii + 244, £10.99, ISBN 0-2810-6090-8 (pbk)." International Journal Of Public Theology 6, no. 2: 259-260. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 9, 2013). Harink, Douglas. 2009. "The Wright way to read Paul.(Justification: Gods Plan and Pauls Vision)(Book review)." The Christian Century no. 24: 31. Academic OneFile, EBSCOhost (accessed October 9, 2013). Oakes, Peter. 2009. "The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T.Wright." Evangelical Quarterly 81, no. 3: 280-281. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 9, 2013). Ribbens, Benjamin J. 2012. "Forensic-Retributive Justification in Romans 3:21-26: Pauls Doctrine of Justification in Dialogue with Hebrews." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74, no. 3: 548-567. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 9, 2013). Stegman, Thomas D. 2011. "Pauls Use Of Dikaio- Terminology: Moving Beyond N. T. Wrights Forensic Interpretation." Theological Studies 72, no. 3: 496-524. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 9, 2013). Wax, Trevin, and Ted Olsen. 2009. "Not an Academic Question." Christianity Today 53, no. 6: 36-37. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 9, 2013). Wenham, David. 2010. "Tom Wright, Justification: Gods Plan and Pauls Vision." Evangelical Review Of Theology 34, no. 3: 258-266. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 9, 2013). Wilkin, Robert N. 2013. "Another Look At The Deserted Island Illustration." Journal Of The Grace Evangelical Society 26, no. 50: 3-20. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 9, 2013). Witt, William G. 2013. "Anglican Reflections on Justification by Faith." Anglican Theological Review 95, no. 1: 57-80. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 9, 2013). Read More