"Justification" Review

N.T. Wright and the "New Perspectives"
Frankly, I am less interested in age
and more inclined toward accuracy.
A thousand years of Church tradition says one thing,
Modern theologians say another.
Let's find out who's right.
There's comedy in the fact that this debate rages
From the interpretation of a single Greek word.
Pistis Iesou Christou.
The faithfulness of Christ.
Or
The faithfulness in Christ.
Two very distinct understandings of Pauline theology.
Therefore, NT Wright pens "Justification"
to defend his stance (the faithfulness of Christ)
against the aggressive works of John Piper.
Wright does well to acknowledge both Piper's shortcomings
as well as his own potential blunders.
He recognizes that 20% of what he writes could potentially be wrong
(although he knows not what 20% that is).
Wright establishes his understanding of justification in terms of the Abrahamic covenant.
He argues that through God's promise (covenant) with Abraham,
The same promise that eventually establishes Israel as God's people,
The same promise that eventually delivers rebellious Israel into the promised land,
(There may be some allegory in there)
The same promise that produced the lineage of Jesus,
Through that promise, God did not plan to save "humanity from the world,
but to save the entire world."
Or as he simply puts it:
God's-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world
Covenant Theology.
I like that through this interpretation God isn't baffled
by Israel's sin causing him to move to plan B.
Instead, he establishes one plan for humanity.
Wright also describes being "justified" as a status rather than a conditional characteristic
through the imagery of a law court.
Being morally pure or ethically evil has little bearing on our status of justification.
God's declaration transcends morality.
We do not earn justification through morality.
We are simply justified by the Judge.
(Yeah this touches on the faith vs. works debate as well).
All in all, N.T. Wright communicates well his (post-modernism)
understanding of justification. Did he persuade me?
At least, he made me an admirer.
At most, he made me include parts of the "New Perspectives" (gasp)
into my understanding of Pauline Theology.
It was a good read. I recommend it if you want something scholastic.