Well, considering the several examples where Christ forgave people of their sins on the spot, such as thief on the cross, to whom he said, "Today, you will join me in paradise," or where, on the spot, he told the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven," that might throw a wrench into his interpretation. Are we to take from these statements some implied justification at a future date, when no indication is given in the text?

Perhaps he conflates justification with regeneration. And perhaps he disregards the regenerative role of the Spirit in leading a person to Christ and the Spirit's role at the moment of conversion.

Simply applying Occam's Razor, it sounds like he's unnecessarily complicating the process and creating a salvation on lay-away. And he says he's following Paul very closely, but there's the little problem of diverging from a traditional view on Paul, held by many wise and studied theologians before him. While that's not a sufficient argument in and of itself, it should give one pause.

Really, he's likely over-reading into the text and playing a similarly dangerous game as the Open Theists (though I wouldn't necessarily call his view heretical, like theirs), attempting to correct some point of theology by dismantling the whole framework.

I vote (c), all of the above.

I like Trevin Wax's take, which is that Piper's view is a film scene focusing on the foreground and Wright's is focusing on the background. Together, you get a big picture.

It doesn't help that Piper's team accuses Wright of things he doesn't believe and Wright himself accuses of Piper of things that aren't true (that he ignores "whole creation" redemption, etc).

Wright's not a universalist either. He has a unique take on hell in his book Surprised by Hope, but he acknowledges that it exists and that people wind up there.

Also:
Wright insists justification and salvation are not synonymous (although he maintains the latter necessitates the former). Piper's team has a laser-like focus on justification. Conflicts then arise.

Jared, have you read Surprised by Hope? I almost bought it with the Amazon money Bill gave me for Christmas, but I bought a magic trick instead.

My thought is that we are justified by faith, period. While that faith will result in a regenerated life, ala James 2, the life of the believer is not the basis of future justification, the life of Jesus is. So I disagree with Wright here, but he's still a brilliant man who loves Jesus and has a cool accent.

I have no idea. These theological debates (such as "imputed" verses "inferred" or whatever it is) go right over me. That's a problem with me, by the way, not the theological debates.

What I've read of Wright usually leaves me thinking that he's over-thinking things a bit. But I believe both Wright and Piper are legit.

I'm really looking forward to reading Surprised by Hope which Jared gave me at Moot.

Bill, I didn't give you that, I don't think. I gave you Jesus-Driven Ministry by Ajith Fernando.

But, yes, Bird, I've read it, and it's great. Had the opportunity to hear Wright speak on it here in Nashville last year. Great night. I "reviewed" it here.

You gave him two books. I was there.

I'm not sure if I agree totally with his statement on future justification-I'd have to get complete context and Scriptural basis for it to see exactly where he's coming from. I don't, however, agree with the guy who called him a universalist; that's just ridiculous.

One significant thing Wright misses (or, at least, doesn't emphasize) -- and it's an easy miss once you opt out of Reformational theology -- is that even our good works are Christ's works.

John 14-15 makes it all one big stew: life in Christ, obedience, bearing fruit. I in you and you in me and the Father in me and the Father in you and etc etc. Boggles the mind.

"We are his workmanship created for good works that he prepared for us beforehand that we might walk in them."

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God who works in you."

Even our works aren't our works.

I can sign on for James' "justification by works" b/c it is not divorced from justification by faith and it is not the justification by works of Pharisaical legalism.

Faith alone, but not faith that is alone. Stuff like that.

We are justified by our faith in Christ and his work, which is imputed to us and results in the fruitfulness of good works.

The Bible is crazy smart, isn't it? :-)

Jared - now I'm confused (and not a bit embarrassed) - you gave me Jesus Driven Ministry and (I thought) Surprised by Hope. Blo gave me an excellent book of daily devotions (I use every day) - and maybe HE gave me Surprised by Hope. Bird gave me Thomas A Kempis Imitation of Christ and a Bobby Fischer Chess book.

So now I'm thinking that I thought you gave me Surprised by Hope rather than Blo mainly because it sounded more like something you would have given me. But I suppose I could be wrong on that.

D'oh . . .

99% sure I only gave you one book. JDM by Fernando.

Blo gave me more than one, so Hope is prolly from him.

I magically made Bill's Surprised by Hope disappear because I wanted to read it.

I'm in the middle of "Surprised by Hope" - its a slow read for me, it makes me feel "not very smart"........what's the difference between Wright's future view of justification and Wesley's progressive sanctification?......they seem to more alike than Piper and Wright.

I really like Todd Friel and don't think he's arrogant or annoying. I've listened to him patiently and humbly witness for hours to white trash-type folk who can barely speak they're so dumb. He never comes off as condescending or makes fools of them, and is incredibly respectful and kind. I've many times also heard him advise people to not judge and split over things like the gifts, baptisms, modes of dress, or drinking and smoking.
Where he bares his teeth and gets pushy is in defending the essential doctrines like that of justification, diety of Christ, etc.

I really like Todd Friel and don't think he's arrogant or annoying. I've listened to him patiently and humbly witness for hours to white trash-type folk who can barely speak they're so dumb. He never comes off as condescending or makes fools of them, and is incredibly respectful and kind. I've many times also heard him advise people to not judge and split over things like the gifts, baptisms, modes of dress, or drinking and smoking.
Where he bares his teeth and gets pushy is in defending the essential doctrines like that of justification, diety of Christ, etc.

Michele, I'm glad, truly, that you get something beneficial from him. Personally, I don't care for his radio ministry.

Peace.

IMHO, the main difference here is that Wright's mixing up justification and sanctification a bit, kind of conflating and confusing his terms. Substantially, I'm not sure there's any truly significant difference between them, except on definitions. I think the biggest problem is that Wright doesn't actually understand what Piper's trying to say.

Well, that and I think Wright's wrong to buy into the "new perspective"; he's great on the gospels, but I find him questionable in the Pauline epistles.