N.T. Wright Responds to John Piper 9

[akoNoonamo101]

Eventhough NT Wright is a scholar,he cant outweigh John Piper's knowledge on theology.

logan

[BritneyAddicted4EVA]

Piper is right. I haven't heard more Biblical preacher than writer and I thank God for his ministry. You guys should stop shooting at him. He is very conservative pastor but all he wants is to lead people to Jesus and stick to the Bible very seriously.

[landsdown44]

Piper is basically so tied up in fundamentalist knots that he cannot see God in action including the wonderful works of Bell and BcLaren.

[Strefanasha]

Piper is a screaming fanatic. I don't think extremely highly of Wright, but he is better than that screaming fanatic Piper.

[DevinAdint]

78-88' 300 Scholars met and signed articles of interpretation several stating the denial that the text of scripture is so tied to the culture out of which it came that translation is in inadequate to convey God's message and understanding impossible. This is an under-realized theopneustos or breath of God. Jesus said my Kingdom is not of this world, countering the mindset of Judaism at the time.

[DanPrinMan]

NT Wright is an overall well-rounded scholar. It seems Piper is definitely first and primarily a Calvinists and secondly a Bible believing Christian. But he attempts to reassure himself and others that he holds to "Sola Scriptura", as if to justify his incorrect application of Calvinism onto scripture. ElasticGiraffe said it right when he/she said "he needs to take his Calvinist glasses off"

[TheFunkyTheist]

NT wRight is the greatest scholar of the past half century. He is not only full of knowledge and excellent intellectuality, but he is also able to present it in a way that everyone can grasp it.

By the way, Piper just got his ass handed to him. In a very respectful way.

[TheFantasticCorndog]

People just listen to this guy and think he's smart because he has a british accent. Piper rulz

[atestring100]

Piper has taken some time offf amd evaluate things may he will quit ranting to hear his head rattle

[brhodes625]

To be fair to Dr. Piper, his meaning is a warning against hyper-parallelism, that is, finding historical 'connections' where they might not actually exist. It's the danger that comes from the reality that we probably know more about 1st Century Judaism than most 1st Century Jews did. That creates a danger just as problematic as ignoring historical context altogether (which is not Piper's advice).

[homealpha101]

@brhodes625 Instead Piper wants to read all of human history through the lens of the Reformers... Come on bro, the Canon even seems to become second fiddle to guys like Calvin in reformed circles...

[brhodes625]

@homealpha101 I mean, that's a pretty uncharitable reading of Piper, not unlike Wright's paraphrasing of Piper here is a bit misleading. Piper is a Reformed Baptist, and so to understand scripture through that lens is his tradition, as Wright himself works through some Anglican filters. Pretending otherwise would be silly. I don't know which Reformed circles you're talking about (there are several) and who those people are, so I can't comment further.

[brhodes625]

@homealpha101 For what it's worth, I'd be careful about questioning commitment to the Canon, Given Piper's rather erudite defenses of expository preaching, and his 26+ years of careful verse-by-verse exposition in his church. As a man who saturates himself in the text, and then calls others to do that (and only that), I'd just want to be slow to suggest that he puts someone before the Canon. Unless we're also saying Wright puts his 1st Cen studies before the Canon. But that's not really helpful.

[homealpha101]

@brhodes625 Couple of points bro (sorry for the multiple posts but it will probably save a long discourse if I say these things now): @brhodes625 thanks for your super quick responses. Piper does see biblical interpretative history (I should have used this phrase rather than 'human history' in my last post) through a Reformed lens. I do think Piper and other of my Reformed brethren mean well by doing so as well...

[homealpha101]

@homealpha101 ...That does not make it right though. the problem seems to arise from the way he has developed his overall theology. As Osborne declares an individual's theology should develop through three processes within this framework: exegesis-biblical theology (the bridge discipline)-systematic theology ('The Hermeneutical Spiral' 2006)...

[homealpha101]

@brhodes625 ...That does not make it right though. the problem seems to arise from the way he has developed his overall theology. As Osborne declares an individual's theology should develop through three processes within this framework: exegesis-biblical theology (the bridge discipline)-systematic theology ('The Hermeneutical Spiral' 2006). I would posit that Piper sees it the other way around and allows others to interpret the Bible for him...

[homealpha101]

@brhodes625 ...I would posit that Piper sees it the other way around and allows others to interpret the Bible for him. His exegesis is pretty much always framed within his 'pin up' theologian's views. I have rarely heard him differ with Calvin or his Reformed Baptist views...

[homealpha101]

@brhodes625 ...I think Piper & Wright are different fish altogether. Wright has in many ways transcended his denomination with Dunn. I personally think all decent theologians do. Fee is another fellow I highly esteem and has been quite critical of his own denomination's (AOG) views on Spiritual gifts and eschatology..."

[homealpha101]

@brhodes625 ...I think your point on Wright's paraphrasing in this clip is without merit as he has welcomed the criticism Piper has made upon his take on 'justification' (I also pretty much agree with Piper's sentiments) but, nails him on this point. I think you should listen to the clip again brother as he has not simply stated the entirety of Piper's book ;O) God bless my friend

[Strefanasha]

I dont think i needed to understand ancient judaism to know that the kingdom of Heaven or God meant the personal rule of God the Spirit here and now , all I needed to do was read the Bible in context.

Mind you I do not like Piper any more than I like Wright.

But then Wright refuse to take literally "the stars shall fall from heaven the moon turn to blood"

so he has nothing to say to me.

and neither has john "do something risky for God" Piper,

fundies and liberals complement each other

[brendos444]

"Commit massive anachronisms all down the line". Great point there by NT Wright. The Reform movement in the US seems to be more concerned about creating a society and a Christianity that looks like the white south in the 1950s that they grew up in. With all of its hypocracies attached. Perhaps this is why they are so skeptical of any social change based on biblical convictions. The Kingdom of God is, as Wright says, the rule of God on earth. Mercy, Justice and faithfulness...

[brendos444]

@brendos444 The Reform guys preach Christology, atonement and the need for repentence with power and truth. But when it comes to the necessary implication of these things in society, like justice and mercy, most of them don't really care. And some are hostile to any notion that there is a Christian obligation to care for the poor. A lot of the Reformed guys pick up on Libertarian philosophy which tries to blame the poor for their condition. Rather than biblical explanations such as oppression...

[brendos444]

and injustice. And contrary to libertarian thought, the Kingdom of God demands Christians to intervene on behalf of the poor and others who are suffering whether it be emotionally, economically or spirtually. There is a moral obligation to do so. To them holiness is the same old hyprocritical formula of don't do this and don't do that. Not the Biblical teaching of Christ where holiness is positive action to reflect the Kingdom of God in the world e.g like being the good Samaritan, loving enemies

[brendos444]

So good on the Reform guys for preaching Christ and opposing other US Christian folly such as the prosperity gospel. But what about the practical implications of being Christ's followers? The sermon on the mount, loving thy enemies, loving thy neighbour etc. Instead many of the Reformed only seem to be interested in demonising gays and abortions, whilst, hypocritically, endorsing capital punishment and guns. Instead of helping young single mothers who see no future for their unborn babies...

[brendos444]

they blame them and poor scorn upon them. Such ppl are what ppl called hypocrites. There's a reason why the Tennessee of John Piper's youth is not a desirable society for those who aren't white protestants. It's because the hypocritical Christianity found in many of its professors was self evidently false. And anyone who reads scripture wud see this. NT Wright is right. Yes Jesus died to redeem a lost ppl. But those who truly believe must make a difference in the world for the glory of God....

[brendos444]

... Christians do not simply follow simple rules of holiness and wait then wait for their reward in heaven. No. Jesus clearly taught the Kingdom of God was to brought into the world by and through His ppl. The Lord's prayer is a prime example of this. I'm so grateful there a men like NT Wright. American Christianity is full of extremes. In reacting to the excesses of the charismatics and the prosperity gospel, the Reformed evangelicals have gone too far the other way. What a pity.

[heesakkersj]

john piper is a dork

[heesakkersj]

haha. look at his face at 1:55 "just astonishing!" the look says it all. onya tommy



[620Callum]

amazing video, would love to see more like it!

[DanPrinMan]

This guy is brilliant. I really do enjoy everything Wright has to say.

[waukway]

@astronomer747 How can one be justified before God unless his righteousness becomes the righteousness of the one whom has believed unto to him for salvation, via repentance, faith, and baptism.

[blessedwithoutmeasur]

@branblackmon Need to stay in the Word ,and let the holy Spirit be your teacher,

[joncionrom1212]

John Piper was first a scholar before he became a pastor...he is apt in answering N.T. Wright

[blessedwithoutmeasur]

@joncionrom1212 piper isn't perfect stay in the bible

[dzindzichvilli]

Yup, I guess God blew it not being prepared for these new cultures that would arrive and their different forms of communicating, whoops! But good news, if we educate more people to be as smart as Wright maybe we all can understand this bran new hidden message about justification, yeah?

[PAULSAVEDBYGRACE]

ask N.T.wright the question "how must I be saved??" - you would get a lecture around the question.

[teed60]

This is why we pray for discernment,the holy spirit will guide Christians no matter their level of education...Jesus is the truth,read the gospels and be guided by truth and you will find it.

[Mathetes76]

"...massive anachronisms all down the line."

Like Matthew in Matt 2:15 for instance? You can almost hear the scribes & Pharisees chiding Matthew for not having an accurate 'understanding of the world in which Hosea written'. How's that reference of a fulfilled OT prophesy for "context, context, context" as someone has written below.

Background understanding is a useful; however, it is but supplementary. People playing religious games seem to recoil at the notion of the sufficiency of Scripture.

[ElasticGiraffe]

John Piper is one pretentious pastor if he thinks he's equipped to discredit N.T. Wright on Paul's understanding of justification. I suppose Piper considers the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation a more appropriate cultural context for interpreting New Testament scripture than first-century, Second Temple Judaism. I think he needs to take his Calvinist glasses off.

[nmedia123]

@ElasticGiraffe Amen! I couldn't agree with you more. I am about to graduate in December with a B.A. in Biblical Text and if there is one thing that I have learned it is: context, context, context. Many of my Calvinist friends refuse to understand the first-century context and it scares me because of the way that it causes them to use Scripture.

[rbmath]

@ElasticGiraffe... You do know that Second Temple Judaism rejected Jesus?. Mr Wright also says in his book.." .

If and when God does act to vindicate his people, his people will then, metaphorically speaking, have the status of “righteousness.” . . . But the righteousness they have will not be God’s own righteousness. That makes no sense at all..

Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, Page 98

[rbmath]

@ElasticGiraffe .... Part 2...

“If we use the language of the law-court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom.”

Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said,

QUESTION: WHO's righteousness is Mr Wright talking about since it seems he denies God's free gift of Righteousness.

[rbmath]

@ElasticGiraffe Part 3.. There is indeed a status which is reckoned to all God’s people, all those in Christ; and this status is that of dikaiosune, ‘righteousness’,

Wright, “Paul in Different Perspectives: Lecture 1.”

Mr Wright also said:

Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom.”

These statements spoken by Mr Wright contradict each other. Perhaps you clarify them for me if you understand Mr Wright a lot better than I...

[dzindzichvilli]

@rbmath Well said

[theembracedofgod]

@ElasticGiraffe

um I would extremely disagree.

Your claim that Piper's teaching is limited to the "sixteenth-century protestant Reformation" than what the scriptures actually teach is absolutely ludicrous. Perhaps someone needs to take off their Dr Jacobus Arminius's glasses off.

[astronomer747]

I am also with N.T Wright here. I respect the reformed tradition and consider myself a part of it as a protestant, but I don't think it's the best reading of the biblical evidence on this theological issue. We must look to the first century Christian understanding of Justification if we want to get it right. I think Wright is correct in arguing that Justification is about obtaining legal right standing before God, not about Christ's righteousness being imputed on the believer.

[tinkandray]

@ElasticGiraffe maybe you need to put your Calvinist glasses ON.....

[GinaToySculptor]

@ElasticGiraffe - Hear Hear ! Thanks for that reply... Sadly, Calvin for the 5point Calvinist is the only interpreter of Scripture and is something like, well, the Papacy. All hail Pope Calvin? shameful.

[ambrosius]

I don't think this has anything to do with Piper being angry because he has "no voice" in modern Christianity. Rather, I think that Piper is concerned with how many will take Wright's new perspective on Paul and run with it to crazy conclusions, i.e. Rob Bell, Brian McClaren, Doug Pagitt

[homealpha101]

@ambrosius Can you give examples of how Wright's views particularly those he manifested in 'Paul: In Fresh Perspective' has made the Emergent crowd jump to crazy perspectives? I am no fan at all when it comes to the Emergent crowd but please enlighten me. Don't you think, if it were piper's intention to have a go at this crowd he would have penned the book's title as 'Romans 9: A Response to the Emergent Crowd'...

[TheLogos1]

I have read N.T. Wright's book on Justification and it is in perfect harmony with the core concepts of Reformed Theology. What N.T. Wright has done is used scholarly studies on the New Testament (in this case, the new perspective of Paul) to bring the historic churches back into union and on common ground. N.T. Wright even considers John Calvin to be the greatest theologian of the Reform, but points out that he does not have the final say on Biblical interpretation.

[pattclan]

Among some of the major figures that are moving the conversation forward are: N.T. Wright, Alister McGrath, Ravi Zacharias, Rob Bell, Phyllis Tickle, Brian McClaren, etc. It seems as if Piper is wining because he can play with the big boys and gals, and he wants to play badly which is why he came up with that book against Wright that was poorly done.

[lzgstv]

@pattclan There is a huge abyss between Ravi Zacharias and Rob Bell.

[pattclan]

Piper is angry because he doesn't have a significant voice in how the Church is rethinking itself as it relates to mission, ministry, and vocation to the world today. Piper is not an authority that has proven himself as a significant and credible individual to have a major voice in the conservation (because he does not transcend his circle).

[brendos444]

@pattclan exactly right. Piper and the Reformed guys in America sometimes resemble a scared cat that is being back into a corner. So the hiss and swipe at everyone who even encroaches on what they hold sacred.

[TelosBudo]

thank you!

[Christisms]

Interpreting first century text without understanding first century thought and culture? Unless it damages the claims of reformed theology, I don't see what Piper is so upset about.

[TheFantasticCorndog]

read piper and you will see

[Christisms]

I have been reading Wright's book on Justification. It doesn't damage the central structure of reformed theology, but it does correct its definition of terminology. Piper is basically like reading Paul's letters based on a Jewish and Old Testament worldviews is bad, but reading Paul's letters based on the Westminster Confessions is good. I understand Piper's biggest fear, that the New Perspective could be so liberal as to harm important Christian teachings (such as a metaphorical resurrection).

[ambrosius]

@Christisms I think that you are accurate in saying that Piper is worried that it will harm key doctrines

[jep643]

feeling the Sailhamer love.

[ebaltrace]

The writer of the gospel of Matthew puts the words "Kingdom of Heaven" 31 times into the mouth of Jesus. The other Gospel writers never use the words "Kingdom of Heaven" but prefer the term "Kingdom of God".

Matthew uses Heaven instead of God, because it is believed that he was writing for a Jewish audience and Jews do not write God or the name of God, preferring to use substitutes such as Heaven.

But 4 times Matthew's gospel uses the words "Kingdom of God". IMO this is proof of editing. Ebal

[gregormann7]

@ebaltrace But it seems to me you jump right to the wrong inference. I would prefer to think that the stated assumption about Matthew's supposed intention not to offend his Jewish readers is the thing to be doubted. His use of KofG proves THIS, I think. His actual narrative contains plenty that could be an offense to his fellow Jews and their identity assumptions. Synonymous terms can still retain distinct nuances. E.g., 'seek first the KofHvn and HIS rightiousness..." doesn't make sense.

[joseph82069]

The meaning of the scripture is the scripture

[freezingstill]

Actually in the Nt Jesus does speak of the Kingdom as a place being 'entered' on a few occasians-to say it just means rule of God is innaccurate. For me the issue is this, people are arguing 2 extreems, I think it is simple, if we can learn something about the context, why not?

[onjehi]

NT Wright happens to be a faithful Christian who tries to stay true to the faith and scripture and I believe that is what has kept him not studying 1st century Judaism. I have come to the same or nearly the same conclusions as Wright without much aid from outisde the bible canon. The reason for this is that the the scriptures contain many implications that when drawn out lead the reader in a certain path.

[Xianhedonist]

Wright glibly despenses with the real issue in this whole debate, i.e. is the Bible sufficient for understanding the Bible. I agree with people like John Sailhamer who teach that the proper place of history in biblical interpretation is philological. Wright's work is a good example of the fact that people can make the biblical text mean what they want when they interpret it in light of their own hypothetical reconstructions (Sitz im Leben) and ignore the correct interpretive context, the canon.

[chukmaty]

Is not the canon best understood in the context it was written culturally?

I think this goes beyond just philology, but also into symbolism and the prevailing ideas. After all, it is helpful to know that Paul was writing to a church with a specific set of issues so as to understand why Paul said what he did to one church and not another.

I think context needs to be more than philology, especially in the New Testament.

[Xianhedonist]

chukmaty

Thanks for your reply. I agree, if you mean we need to gather a sense of the cultural setting by reading the words on the page of the text. For instance, one can get a great sense of the issues Paul was dealing with in his letters by simply reading the letters. It amazing how the people who reconstruct the background of Paul's letters do so almost exclusively from the material contained in the letters themselves.

[chukmaty]

Easy maybe for you, as you are probably well educated and informed on the subject. But others may need the context, which comes so natural to you, explained. I know that my understanding of Corinthians was greatly enriched in high school Sunday School class when the historical background was shown to me.

Reconstruction is a danger, but I think it is less easy to reconstruct when the Bible is grounded in its context, I think that creates less opportunity for that sort of thing and not more.

[chukmaty]

Also, the historical context can be a source of great encouragement. If a culture that has sexual habits so deviating from God's plan can not only be redeemed but also change their mindset and behavior. It gives a sinner like me real hope in the work Christ is doing. I do not see how an intensive historical study, if possible, can diminish from scripture. Sadly, We can not do this sort of study for Job, we are not even sure were he lived, scripture must stand alone whether we like it or not.

[chukmaty]

Also, for apologetics, it really helps us to understand the oral tradition passing through Abraham unto Moses in its Sumerian context. Abraham was a Sumerian, likely a knowledgeable one. Not only does the oral tradition he passed on contradict Sumerian ideas on religion, they debunk them in the creation story. While our ability to paint a historical context is far less for a patriarch so ancient, the little we have greatly helps us understand the brilliance of scripture.

[chukmaty]

I am also curious about your name, Screwtape Letters reference by any chance?

[Xianhedonist]

I didnt deny the apologetic value of historical background. My issue is hermeneutics. A biblical text is like a painting of the event it refers to. The authors carefully choose what goes in and what is left out--like a Rembrandt with his notorious shadows. I have a real problem hermeneutically with the historian who comes in and paints in the shadows of the Rembrandt. All of a sudden Rembradt's voice, his authorial intent, is perverted and we loose what the author wanted to focus on.

[Xianhedonist]

The issue is a matter of "words" and things". Biblical words refer to things in the real world. It is the words of scripture which give meaning to the events/things the words refer to. Not the other way around. The historical-critical hermeneutic is one where the historian investigates the events refered to by Scripture apart from the words of Scripture. Then he assigns meaning to the words of Scripture based on his understanding of the "things" in the real world. The problem is that this is...

[Xianhedonist]

totally against an orthodox view of Scripture which states that the words of the text are the locus of divine revelation. A very helpful discussion of these hermeneutical issues is given by Sailhamer in this article. He traces the issue back to Johann Augustus Ernesti and shows how originally the historical-grammatical method meant that the grammatical meaning was one and the same with the historical meaning. It did not involved grammar AND history. The grammar was the historical part of ...

[Xianhedonist]

interpretation. The name is a reference to John Piper's Christian Hedonism.

[Xianhedonist]

Johann August Ernesti: The role of history in biblical interpretation

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Jun 2001 by Sailhamer, John H

[chukmaty]

You are obviously very well studied in this, I give excessive props to you. While I still am not persuaded, I have obviously need of more study regarding the issues you have brought up. I will let you have the last word if you would like, and look into some of the authors and ideas you mention.

God bless.

[chukmaty]

Thanks.

[chukmaty]

You raise a very real problem, which is why history must be applied dispassionately and completely. I agree that scripture is inspired on its own, but interpretation of what is inspired can be another matter. I believe that producing the most information available deters, not encourages some of the adventurous and ill advices reconstruction of scripture you talk about. A historical context can explain a divinely inspired word. I think just as words need translation, so does context.

[chukmaty]

Secondly, theologically speaking the historical background is not inspired, which is why it is not God's word. Then again, the Bible in the English is not God's word. It is a translation of God's word to an author in another language. Just as a philological translation is required for believers who speak another language, so is a contextual translation and explanation for those who live in a world very alien and strange to many of the eras in which various scriptures were written.

[brucefetter]

Along with Wright, John Meier's works are outstanding in understanding the context of Jesus Christ, along with the Jews of the time. You can find a great lecture on youtube if you search under 'John Meier'. It's over an hour long and is packed with info. So much for a TINY amount of resources.

[Hesed6]

If you study first or second temple Judaism only using text, such as the Bible, then yeah your resources are limited. However, that is not the case when one states, such as Tom Wright, that he has a good understanding of word usages in that culture because the key is using all literature of that particular culture. We do, in fact, have numerous amounts of literature of first and second temple Judaism which then allows scholars to better understand word usages in text like the Bible.

[jgrig2]

judaism are not cultural in nature unless you believe Paul was not intending to write doctrine but rather just moral advice.

[Arminian100]

He wasn't attempting to write moral advice or doctrine.

He was responding to situations in communities, and communicating God's truth to them, and how it applied to their situation.

Way different than "propositional truth claims"

What a boring Bible that would be. Quite useless in their day too.

[jgrig2]

How can one study a culture and know it sufficiently enough to say you have a good understanding of it when it is:

1. gone

2. existed over 2,000 years ago

3. you have only a TINY fraction of primary sources and much diversity within those.

-While theology is always done within cultural systems always it's goal is to make propositional truth claims that are acultural in nature so the arguments Paul makes against

[Arminian100]

That doesn't make any sense.

We've been studying cultures for a long time, and been doing a great job. We also have a wealth of sources.

The goal of writing theology *may* be to make propositional truth claims, though I'm not sure that's ever what the Bible was about. In fact, it's pretty clear it was NEVER about that.

Now, as far as writing to people within a culture, and addressing their need (which Paul was doing) is always cultural. They had questions... that's cultural.

[heymikey802]

I'm pretty sure the assertion's being made that there's now more than a tiny fraction of primary sources for First Century Judaism. The Dead Sea Scrolls do offer a variety of input. And diversity means something -- that Judaism was far more diverse than it is today.

There is a tiny fraction, but not here -- it's texts of the period that are *outside* the Christian movement, but that talk about the Christians or their movement.