1. Piper’s book, “The Future of Justification”, is a great example how to engage in theological debates.
2. Piper’s and Wright’s views of justification differs mainly in that Piper believes in imputation and Wright doesn’t
3. Piper believes Wright's view of justification won't give 1) Christ sufficient glory and 2)provide Christians adequate assurance for salvation (I disagree) .
4. I wished Piper's new book would have engaged more with the thoughts of Don Garlington in order to establish his idea of imputation- the idea that we need more than forgiveness from the cross to satisfy God’s holiness and perfection.
5. Piper is concerned with Wright's view of the final justification because goods works are directly connected to it and not because works are earning our salvation.
6. Wright's view of works and the final justification appears to be close to Simon Gathercole's views although he believes in imputation
7. The exegetical basis for the doctrine of Christ's imputation is very complex (See Simon Gathercole's quote)
With that, I glad to say I am done with this topic. In the end, I think both Piper with his "Christian Hedonism" and Wright with his "creation/Israel/Christ" story approach, are tremendous blessings to the church. So go read and enjoy both of them!!!