The Uneasy Conscience

Some years ago, Carl Henry challenged the evangelical community, in particular the fundamentalist, to be more active in the world's social concerns in his book entitled “The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism”.

Henry illustrates the need for evangelical to engage with the culture with the following story:

“In a company of more than one hundred representative, evangelical pastors, the writer proposed the following questions: “How many of you,during the past six months, have preached a sermon devoted in large part to a condemnation of such social evils as aggressive warfare,racial hatred and intolerance, the liquor traffic, exploitation of labor or management, erance, or the like-a sermon containing not merely an incidental or illustrative reference, but directed mainly against such evils and proposing the framework in which you think solution is possible?” Not a single hand was raised in response.” [1]

But not only does Henry want evangelical to be active in the societal problems, but he wishes for those action to be grounded in deep biblical reflections. Richard Mouw writes in the foreword:

“Carl Henry’s call to action in the 1940s was not a mere summons to activism. It was an invitation to an evangelical cultural involvement that was based solidly on the kind of profound theological reflection that could only be sustained by a social program that was closely linked to a systematic commitment to the nurturing of the life of the mind. And while the evangelical academy has known much scholarly success in recent decades, there is often a considerable disconnect between grassroots evangelical activism and carefully reasoned theological orthodoxy.” [2]

Finally Henry reminds Christians that only the redemptive power in the gospel can save our society. He writes:

“The evangelical task primarily is the preaching of the Gospel, in the interest of individual regeneration by the supernatural grace of God,in such a way that divine redemption can be recognized as the best solution of our problems, individual and social”. [3]

I highly recommend this book, as a reminder to Christians that we have the only solution to redeem the world. May God give our churches and individuals the wisdom and creativity to use the gospel to solve the problems of the world.


[1] pg. 4

[2] pg. xiii

[3] pg. 89

jesus camp trailer

What do you guys think about this?

Skinny Models Banned from Catwalk

"Madrid's fashion week has turned away underweight models after protests that girls and young women were trying to copy their rail-thin looks and developing eating disorders.

Organizers say they want to project an image of beauty and health, rather than a waif-like, or heroin chic look." [1]

[1] From CNN

Piper's New Book: "What Jesus Demands from the World"

You can read and preview the book online here.





The four Gospels are filled with demands straight from the mouth of Jesus Christ. These demands are Jesus’ way of showing us who he is and what he expects of us. They are not the harsh demands of a taskmaster. For example, the demand that we come to Jesus is like the demand of a father to his child in a burning window, “Jump to me!” Or like the demand of a rich, strong, tender, handsome husband to an unfaithful wife, “Come home!” What Jesus demands from the world can be summed up as: “Trust and treasure me above all.” This is good news!
In What Jesus Demands from the World, John Piper has gathered many of Jesus’ demands from the four Gospels. He begins with an introduction that puts the demands in a redemptive-historical context, then concisely examines each demand. The result is an accessible introduction for thoughtful inquirers and new believers, as well as meditative meat for veteran believers who want to know Jesus better.

“The Christian gospel is more than just a wonderful offer of saving grace; it is a demand for supreme loyalty, for surrender to the lordship of Jesus. We forget this too easily in our contemporary church, besieged as we are by a philosophy of pluralism that rejects ultimate authority and a culture of rights that scorns submissiveness. But John Piper reminds us of the real truth: obedience to Christ’s commands is our absolute duty; yet, paradoxically, in his service is perfect freedom and joy!”William J. U. Philip, Minister, St George’s-Tron Church, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

“John Piper reveals in his ‘Word to Biblical Scholars’ his familiarity with the literature and subject matter of the life and teachings of Jesus, and in his comments on the individual demands of Jesus he applies them to everyday living.”Robert H. Stein, Senior Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

“This is now my favorite book by John Piper. In the best tradition of Adolf Schlatter’s Do We Know Jesus? and his ‘hermeneutic of perception,’ What Jesus Demands from the World has changed my life and will certainly change yours because it is based on the pure words of Jesus as revealed in the four Gospels. A must-read for every true follower of Christ.”Andreas J. Köstenberger, Editor, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Professor of New Testament and Director of Ph.D. Studies, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

“This book is a special gift from the pen of John Piper. How long has it been since you carefully reflected upon the authoritative commands of Christ? Through these pages you will encounter the Savior and experience the transforming effects of the gospel. Few endeavors are more worthy of your time.”C. J. Mahaney, Sovereign Grace Ministries

“Scholars, popularists, and now even novelists are falling over each other today in a blind passion to discover an alternative Jesus to the One so magnificently portrayed in the biblical Gospels. In stark and refreshing contrast John Piper clear-sightedly grasps the obvious—the biblical Jesus is worth living for and dying for.”Sinclair Ferguson, Senior Minister, The First Presbyterian Church, Columbia, South Carolina

“This is a peculiar book. It assumes that the four Gospels are true and unified. It assumes that Jesus not only does things for us but also makes demands of us. And it assumes that Jesus has authority over everyone regardless of their religion, gender, race, income, sexuality, nationality, or culture. You will likely not agree with every point. But you will hear from a Jesus who is more than a soft-spoken, effeminate, marginalized, Galilean hippie-peasant in a dress and has the peculiar notion that he alone is Lord.”Mark Driscoll, Pastor, Mars Hill Church, Seattle

Prosperity Theology

This week's issue of Time magazine has an article on the "prosperity theology" - a message that God promises Christian's material wealth if they are faithful to him, entitled "Does God Want You to Be Rich?".

Al Mohler has a good quote on why "prosperity theology" is so popular in America. He writes:

"Prosperity theology is fueled by the combination of Pentecostal teaching and American consumerism. Our culture of material abundance (and consumerist appetites) is fertile ground for the emergence of this distorted and corrupted teaching. Jesus never promised His disciples material security, much less material prosperity. The benefits of the Gospel of Christ are redefined in terms of material and financial blessings."

Justin Taylor has an interesting proposition on how to react against this "prosperity theology":

"What can we do about this? Very few, if any of us, will be able to have personal contact with someone like T.D. Jakes or Joel Osteen. And most boycotts don't work. But why not write a letter or try to meet with the manager of your local Christian bookstore if they sell books like this, seeking to persuade them that selling books like this is a disservice to the body of Christ? It would be a good way to practice being an ambassador of Christ, it would seek to serve the church, and it's something that might actually make a difference."

Samurai - FPC Retreat 2006 Video

John Frame's Warning Against Laziness

When I first got into Reformed theology, I thought that everything the popular and modern Calvinist did was "right", especially in relationship to church activities such as expository preaching, hymns, and worship service style, and if a church did not function like a "reformed" church, they were in "sin". Today, I still value and love the old hymns, and I still believe the best way to preach is expository, but I just don't know if the "Reformed" way is the only "right" way to do things at church. So what has caused me to change my view? Probably the greatest influence in changing my view has been a book by John Frame entitled, "The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God", this book simply humbled me, as I thought I knew what was the "right" way to handle and apply scripture to church and life.

Here's are a few quotes from John Frame's article "The Burden of Change: A Warning Against Laziness and Shortcuts" which will give you a flavor of John Frame's view of how Christians should think about Scripture and tradition in relationship to our present time.

1. Applying Scripture in the Present

Historical change is an important part of our ethical situation. As we apply the law of God, we must understand how it applies to each situation that comes before us. That work never ends. We may not assume that the Reformers or the Puritans, for example, finished the task, no matter how great our respect for these great ministers of the Word. The Puritans did not have to evaluate nuclear warfare, genetic engineering, modern science, or the “new age” from Scripture; but we cannot avoid those tasks in our own time.

2. The Danger of Unhealthy Traditionalism

For example, it is not scriptural to approach ethics with a mere traditionalism, a desire merely to emulate the Christianity of a past age. Whether or not we believe that past ages were “better” than this one, our mandate is not to repristinate or recreate a past situation; it is to apply the scriptures to the situation of today. I fear that some churches seek to be mere museum pieces: historical artifacts where people can go to hear old-fashioned talk and experience older forms of church life; spiritual versions of Colonial Williamsburg. On the contrary, Christian worship is to be contemporary, because it must be intelligible (1 Cor. 14), and the church’s preaching must adapt (insofar as Scripture permits) to the language and habits of the target population (1 Cor. 9).

3. Unnecessary Labels

The debate is confused, of course, by words like “conservative,” which are applied both to defenders of scriptural principle and to those who merely defend past ways of doing things without scriptural justification. But defending authentic Biblical principle is one thing; defending the continuance of past applications into our own time is something very different. Both shortcutters and critics of shortcutters need to be more aware of this distinction.

4. Danger of Selfishness

But what masquerades as a battle for Biblical principle is often at bottom a mere rationalization of selfish impulses, a desire to stay comfortable, to avoid having to change familiar patterns. Often, however, Scripture itself is on the side of change! 1 Corinthians 9 is an important text in this respect. Paul was willing to be a Jew among the Jews, a Gentile among the Gentiles, that some might be saved. He did not seek his own comfort, even his own rights. Indeed, he allowed his body to be buffeted, lest while preaching to others he himself should be a castaway. He tried "to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good, but the good of many, that they might be saved" (1 Cor. 10:33). And note: Immediately after this verse, he urges, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” (11:1).

This means that in our evangelistic methodology, indeed in our worship (for that too has an evangelistic element, 14:24f), our goal must not be to please ourselves, but to bend and stretch, to accept discomfort and the trauma of change, in order to speak the Christian Faith into the contemporary world

Got Plans This Weekend?

Reformed Gangstas Rap

Reformed Gangstas Rap


HT: Sacred Journey

USA Basketball and Desiring God

It's 5 am and I just watched the USA basketball loose to Greece, so I am very depressed. But the good news is that Desiring God has unleashed it's new and improved website. You can even get the new weekly sermons on video!!!!!!!!!!

Mark Seifrid: Tolerance in Justification

In Mark Seifrid’s [1] article, “Luther, Melanchton and Paul on the Question of Imputation” [2], he wishes for more tolerance in the divergent opinions in relationship to justification, in particular those who would like to broaden it to include the transformative aspect of God’s divine grace. He argues for this by discussing Luther and Melanchton historical dispute in regards to justification.

Seifrid describes Melanchton view of justification in the period between 1530 and 1534 as somewhat confusing by which he is able to describe justification as a “being made righteous” (transformative) as well as a “being pronounced righteous” (declarative), but later his view appears to change to a “purely forensic terms over against his earlier writings” [3]

Seifrid describes Luther view of justification as both forensic and transformative, by which “the mercy of God effects a “perfect righteousness “which “swallows up wrath, sin, and death”, thus producing a new reality.” [4] This is not to say that Luther believed that justification is grounded by “good works”, but that justification is “no mere declaration, but rather an effective word of God” [5], creating a new creation.

It appears Seifrid attributes Melanchton’s turn from justification being partial “transformative” to strictly “forensic” and his difficulties in understanding Luther’s “transformative” view of justification are due to the radically different perspectives by which they started from. "Melanchton takes the human being as his starting-point, and thinks of justification in terms of human qualities and response. It is surely for this reason that he has such great difficulty to understanding Luther, who views justification first and foremost in terms of the Gospel, the word of God, which, apart from any contribution from the fallen human being, brings the new creature into existence, in whom faith and all its work are present.” [6]

Seifird writes that even though Luther and Melanchton differ in their view of justification, they were tolerant of each other. He writes: “Surely the outcome of their debate is instructive for us. Although they maintained their differences, Luther and Melanchton accepted one another’s teaching on justification…Don’t the Reformers, therefore, set a precedent for us to follow? Isn’t it sufficient to agree that God’s justifying work in Christ is a forensic act, by which in the Word and faith we are granted an alien, extrinsic righteousness, which is final and unconditioned? On this point, I would very much like to woo all parties to the various disputes on justification.” [7]

[1] New Testament Professor at Southern Seminary

[2] Article found in the book, “What’s at Stake in the Current Debates Justification” pg. 137-152

[3] pg. 142

[4] pg. 141

[5] pg. 145

[6] pg. 143

[7] pg. 150

FPC and The Pearland Overture

One of my elders(Elder Wei) at my church gave this speak below to the members of the New Covenant presbytery, during which the Pearland Overture (which basically guards against homosexual ordination in my presbytery) was passed. I am glad to see my little Taiwanese Church take a stance on this important issue. Good job guys!!!

"Mr. Moderator,

My name is Y.T. Wei.

I am an Elder member of this presbytery. I come from Formosan Presbyterian Church. Our Session concurred with the overture from Pearland Presbyterian Church.

So I am speaking in favor of it. We want New Covenant to declare its intention as a presbytery to maintain the ordination requirements of the Book of Order as essentials of our polity.

Most Presbyterian leaders in the Taiwanese community, like our Session at Formosan PC here in Houston, do not understand why the PCUSA seems to be constantly arguing over the possibility of ordaining people who do not see any need to repent of disobeying the 7th commandment.

We believe the Bible clearly teaches that homosexual practice and all other forms of adultery are wrong. It is important for our Christian witness in the Taiwanese community that we belong to a church that takes fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness to be basic and essential standards of Christian morality.

We would prefer not to have to enter into this debate. But the PUP report recommendation #5 which passed at General Assembly makes it necessary for us to speak up. Without giving us a chance to vote on it at the presbytery level, this PUP report seems to have opened up the possibility that the ordination standards we have always counted on as the Biblical witness of the PCUSA are no longer firmly reliable.

Please don't put us in such an awkward position within our community. We believe this overture will help Taiwanese Presbyterian Churches to maintain a faithful Biblical witness and therefore to remain in the PCUSA.

Please vote "Yes" for this overture.

Thank you and God bless you."

Within The Bounds of Orthodoxy

"Within The Bounds of Orthodoxy: An Examination of Both the Federal Vision and the New Perspectives on Paul" by Joseph Minich is probably one of the better treatment of the Federal Vision and the New Perspective I have read. Mr. Minich helpfully goes over the major controversial surrounding both the FV and NPP. I was particularly fascinated in Mr. Minch helpful treatment of N.T. Wright, as he sought to understand Wright on his own terms rather than through "Reformed" categories. I highly recommend reading this article before making any strong judgments in regards to both the FV and NPP, especially for the sake of unity within the church. I also whole heartily concur with Mr. Minich's view of dealing with controversy, especially in the age of technological advances, as he writes :

" The selective reading has been particularly devastating. It is so easy these days to accuse another person of heresy and to have this charge spread nationwide. But should we not take the charge of gospel slander with much more gravity? Should not love believe and hope all things concerning a brother in Christ? Indeed, it seems to me that we should never accuse of heresy unless we have sweated blood in a ferocious attempt to prove that our brothers were not heretics. Until we have spent all our effort trying to read them as charitably as possible, we have no right to speak against them."

John Frame on "Leaving the Church/Denomination"

In Ch. 17 of Frame's book "Evangelical Reunion", he gives us a framework in thinking about leaving a denomination/church. Frame deals briefly with issues such as the sin of creating a new denomination, living up to ordination vows, denomination and property (a hot issue in the PCUSA) and he finally concludes that there is "no circumstances in which one would be forbidden to leave a church or a denomination".

For those in PCUSA, you might want to check this out.

FAKE Interview with John Piper and N.T. Wright Part 2

Interviewer to Piper: To my understanding, you do not believe that Romans 2 is a "hypothetical" statement, so what does works have to do with the last judgment?

Piper: "In the last day there will be a judgment. It will settle finally and publicly who enters eternal life and who doesn't. The verdict, "not guilty," at this judgment will be based on the work of Christ on the cross. The guilt of all true believers was carried by Jesus: "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6). But that verdict will "accord with our deeds" - our daily lives will give evidence that we trusted Christ more than money and that we loved him more than the praise of men. [1]

Interviewer to Wright: If works are the necessary evidences for Christian in the final judgment, where can we find our assurance for salvation?

Wright: As God's true people, they are therefore assured of eternal life. Chapters 5-8 are one long argument for assurance, based on the new covenant blessings of forgiveness and the Spirit. The same Spirit who inspired justifying faith is at work in believers to do 'what the law could not do' (8:3)—to complete, in other words, the renewal of the covenant. He will give life in place of death (8: 1-11), holiness in place of sin (8: 12-13), sonship in place of slavery (8:14-17), the new creation in place of the old, and therefore hope in the midst of sufferings (8:18-27).Chapter 8 thus rounds off the train of thought that began in 2:1-16, and proves that the present verdict of 'righteous' will indeed be reaffirmed on the last day. Christians are those who 'by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality' (they seek for it, even now they do not earn it, those to whom God 'will give eternal life'. [3]

Interviewer to both: If someone is struggling with their salvation, what would you say to them?

Wright: [It would depend on the situation, but one of the things I would say is that], "the doctrine of justification by faith is that all this is even now certain for those who believe in the Gospel; the experience of justification by faith is the steadfast looking away from oneself at the objective facts of incarnation and atonement, revealing as they do the unchanging and unshakeable love of God for his people. This is justification: because of the work of the Son and the Spirit, God pronounces in the present the future verdict of 'righteous' over all who believe. Irrespective of moral or racial background, believers are declared to belong for all eternity to the true people of Abraham, the family of the renewed covenant, the people whose sins are forgiven. [3]

Piper: [Firstly], we should look to Christ and the glory of his finished work on the cross for sinners… Justification and eternal life are not earned by our deeds. They are freely given to those who look to Christ in faith. So if we are going to obtain the glory of God and be glorified we must trust Christ. [5]. Secondly, we should continually pray for God to "enlighten the eyes of our hearts" (Ephesians 1:18). Thirdly, we should love each other; because, as John said, "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren." In the end, assurance is a precious gift of God. Let us pray for each other that it will abound among us. [6]

Interviewer to Wright: Why are you against the idea of imputation of Christ's righteousness?

Wright: "There are only two passages which can be invoked in favour of the imputed righteousness being that of God or Christ. The first proves too much, and the second not enough. The first is 1 Corinthians 1.30f., where Paul says that Christ has become for us wisdom from God, and righteousness, sanctification and redemption. Wisdom is the main point he is making, and the other three nouns come in as a way of saying ‘and everything else as well’. ‘Yea, all I need, in thee to find, O Lamb of God, I come’; that line sums it up well. I doubt if this will sustain the normal ‘imputation’ theology, because it would seem to demand equal air time for the imputation of wisdom, sanctification and redemption as well. The second passage is 2 Corinthians 5.21, which as I have argued elsewhere is not, as a matter of good exegesis, a statement of soteriology but of apostolic vocation. The entire passage is about the way in which Paul’s new covenant ministry, through the death and resurrection of Jesus, is in fact God’s appointed means for establishing and maintaining the church. ‘So that we might become God’s righteousness in him’ means that in Christ those who are called to be apostolic preachers actually embody God’s own covenant faithfulness. I do not expect to convince you by this microcomsic summary of the point, but I submit that it deserves careful exegetical consideration, not dismissing with a wave of the hand and a reference to Brother Martin"[4]

Interviewer to Wright: If there's no imputation of Christ's righteous doesn't that open the door for "merit theology/semi-Pelagianism" in relationship to justification?"

Wright: [Again],”that might be so if I intended to denote, with the word ‘justification’, what the tradition has denoted. But I don’t. Paul, I believe, uses vindication/justification to denote God’s declaration about someone, about (more specifically) the person who has been ‘called’.... Vindication is not the same as call.[4]" 'Justification' itself is not God's act of changing the heart or character of the person; that is what Paul means by the 'call', which comes through the word and the Spirit [2]. This is where it is vital to distinguish justification from regeneration. Justification is not how God makes someone a Christian: it is his righteous declaration that someone is already a Christian. [3]

Interviewer to Wright: Are you saying that your view of justification isn't "semi-Pelagianism" because justification is the "declaration about someone" and not "the call” or the processing of making someone a Christian, which comes only through God's gracious act?

Interviewer to Piper: Do you buy this explanation?

Piper: ?????????????? (How will Piper respond??)

[1] John Piper, "No Partiality with God" Part 2

[2] N.T. Wright, “The Shape of Justification”

[3] N.T. Wright, “Justification; “The Biblical Basis and Its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism”

[4] N.T. Wright,’” New Perspectives on Paul”

[5] John Piper, “The Final Divide: Eternal Life or Eternal Wrath Part 3”

[6] John Piper, “The Agonizing Problem of Assurance of Salvation”

Watchout Britney!!

FPC Grad. Banquet

FAKE Interview with John Piper and N.T. Wright Part 1

Here's a FAKE interview with John Piper and N.T. Wright on justification. I am doing this so that people can get a better understanding of Wright's view on justification in comparison to the traditional view of justification (represented by my hero, John Piper).

It's important to note that I am no expert on Wright or Piper, but I think I know them both well enough to make this at least educational. Also, I tried to use direct quotes from both Piper and Wright in their responses to my fake questions. Please also note that anything that's in a bracket, I have added to their responses in order to make the interview more real.

Interviewer to Wright: Do you believe that justification is forensic and declarative?

Wright: [Yes], “It is God’s declaration that a person is in the right; that is, (a) that their sins have been forgiven, and (b) that they are part of the single covenant family promised to Abraham. Notice that opening phrase: God’s declaration that. Not ‘God’s bringing it about that’, but God’s authoritative declaration of what is in fact the case. This is the point, of course, where some have accused me of semi-Pelagianism. That might be so if I intended to denote, with the word ‘justification’, what the tradition has denoted. But I don’t. Paul, I believe, uses vindication/justification to denote God’s declaration about someone, about (more specifically) the person who has been ‘called’... Vindication is not the same as call. [4]"

Interviewer to Wright: "Forgiveness of sins?", so you don't believe that justification deals with just ecclesiology and not soteriology?

Wright: "This present declaration constitutes all believers as the single people, the one family, promised to Abraham (Gal. 2.14 - 3.29; Rom. 3.27 - 4.17), the people whose sins have been dealt with as part of the fulfilled promise of covenant renewal (Jer. 31.31-34). Membership in this family cannot be played off against forgiveness of sins: the two belong together." [2]

Interviewer to both: What is the ground or the basis for this justification?

Piper: "the righteousness of God, expressed in the alien, imputed, active obedience of Christ, climaxing in his sin-bearing, substitutionary death is the sole ground of our justification, and faith is distinct from its fruit, the obedience of faith, yet faith is of such a nature that it must and will produce love for people and a life of genuine, though imperfect holiness in this world. Therefore, as the Westminster Confession of Faith (11.2) says, the faith that alone justifies (as the instrument which unites us to Christ, not as the ground or content of our justifying righteousness) is never alone; Therefore, this reality of forensic righteousness, which is imputed to us on the first act of saving faith (as the seed of subsequent persevering faith), is different from transformative sanctification, which is imparted by the work of the Holy Spirit through faith in future grace.*

Wright: [First], “this vindication occurs twice. It occurs in the future, as we have seen, on the basis of the entire life a person has led in the power of the Spirit – that is, it occurs on the basis of ‘works’ in Paul’s redefined sense. And, near the heart of Paul’s theology, it occurs in the present as an anticipation of that future verdict, when someone, responding in believing obedience to the ‘call’ of the gospel, believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead" [4]

Interviewer to Wright: Sorry, what I meant with "grounds" or "basis" for justification, I was trying to refer to the idea of whom or what "accomplishes" or "merits" justification.

Wright: [I wouldn't use the word "merit"] ,but "justification is made possible by grace incarnate: sins are dealt with on the cross, the blood of the new covenant is poured out. In biblical terms, the way to deal with sin is to punish it: in Gethsemane, and on the cross itself, Jesus obeys his Father's saving purposes by drinking the cup of the wrath of God, so that his people may not drink it. Justification and atonement are not the same thing: justification presupposes an objective dealing with sin. There can be no present justification if atonement is merely a process within the sinner, or merely a readiness on God's part not to take sin seriously after all. Justification safeguards, because it presupposes the centrality of the cross and resurrection. [3]

Wright: Likewise, secondly, justification presupposes the work of the Spirit, promised in the Old Testament as the one who would write God's law on the hearts of his new covenant people. Justification takes place on the basis of faith because true Christian faith— belief that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead —is the evidence of the work of the Spirit, and hence the evidence that the believer is already within the covenant. If a man believes this Gospel, his religious stance is clear. He can be neither Jew nor Greek, but only Christian. This is where it is vital to distinguish justification from regeneration. Justification is not how God makes someone a Christian: it is his righteous declaration that someone is already a Christian. Faith is not an achievement which earns salvation, but the evidence of saving grace already at work. Only the renewed heart can believe in the resurrection: only the penitent heart can submit to Jesus as Savior and Lord. Because of the work of the Son and the Spirit, God rightly declares that Christian believers are members of the covenant family. The basis of justification is the grace of God freely given to undeserving sinners.

Interviewer to Wright: Thanks for clarifying. So justification is "based" on Christ and the Holy Spirit, and it's entirely gracious? But what do you mean when you say that future justification is based" on the entire life of a person, which has been led in the power of the Spirit"? Does mean that we are somehow meriting, earning, or providing the legal grounds for justification?

Wright: "The ‘works’ in accordance with which the Christian will be vindicated on the last day are not the unaided works of the self-help moralist. Nor are they the performance of the ethnically distinctive Jewish boundary-markers (sabbath, food-laws and circumcision). They are the things which show, rather, that one is in Christ; the things which are produced in one’s life as a result of the Spirit’s indwelling and operation [4]"

Interviewer: So the works in final justification are evidences that you are a Christian and not meritorious.

Good Old College Videos: "Danny Gets Jumped"

Video Hosting - Upload Video - Photo Sharing

Piper and Wright on “Future Grace”

One of the greatest truths I have learned from Piper is that saving faith is one that looks to and rest on God’s promises in Christ for salvation, both in the past, present and future.

Piper writes:

“A second assumption is that justifying faith is not only a trusting in the past grace of God, but also a trusting in the future grace of God, secured by the past grace of Christ’s death and resurrection. Justifying faith embraces the finished work of Christ’s atonement, in sense that it rests in all that this atonement means for our past, present and future.” [1]

Also to my amazement, Wright articulates something similar to Piper:

“Romans 8 thus points to the crowning glory of Paul's doctrine of justification. It demonstrates that the assurance which is contained in the doctrine is found not in looking at anything in oneself, not even at one's faith, but in faith itself, which is looking to Christ” [2]

“The doctrine of justification by faith is that all this is even now certain for those who believe in the Gospel; the experience of justification by faith is the steadfast looking away from oneself at the objective facts of incarnation and atonement, revealing as they do the unchanging and unshakeable love of God for his people. This is justification: because of the work of the Son and the Spirit, God pronounces in the present the future verdict of 'righteous' over all who believe. Irrespective of moral or racial background, believers are declared to belong for all eternity to the true people of Abraham, the family of the renewed covenant, the people whose sins are forgiven.” [2]

“The 'faith' in question is faith in 'the God who raised Jesus from the dead'. It comes about through the announcement of God's word, the gospel, which works powerfully in the hearts of hearers, 'calling' them to believe, or indeed (as Paul often puts it) to 'obey' the gospel (Rom. 1.16f.; 1 Thess. 1.3f., 2.13; 2 Thess. 1.8). This faith looks backwards to what God has done in Christ, by means of his own obedient faithfulness to God's purpose (Rom. 5.19; Phil. 2.6), relying on that rather than on anything that is true of oneself. For Paul, this meant refusing to regard the badges of Jewish law-observance ('the works of the law') as the decisive factor (Phil. 3.2-11). And it looks forward to the final day: because this faith is the first sign of new God-given life, it is the appropriate anticipation of the final verdict, which is guaranteed by the same Spirit who inspired faith (2 Cor. 1.22; Phil. 1.6).” [3]

[1] John Piper, “Future Grace”, pg. 27

[2] N.T. Wright, “Justification: The Biblical Basis and its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism”

[3] N.T. Wright, “The Shape of Justification”

Piper and Wright

In Piper's lastest "Fresh Word", he has written some tough comments about Wright's view of justification.

He writes:

"The other book is a response to N. T. Wright on the doctrine of justification. I have no immediate plan to publish it until I get the feedback from critical readers. My motivation in writing it is that I think his understanding of Paul is wrong and his view of justification is harmful to the church and to the human soul. Few things are more precious than the truth of justification by faith alone because of Christ alone. As a shepherd of a flock of God’s blood-bought church, I feel responsible to lead the sheep to life-giving pastures. That is not what the sheep find in Wright’s view of Paul on justification. He is an eloquent and influential writer and is, I believe, misleading many people on the doctrine of justification. I will keep you posted on what becomes of this manuscript." [1]

[HT] Justin Taylor's blog

[1] http://www.desiringgod.org/library/fresh_words/2006/080206.html