The Spirit of Accepting the Spirit of “Newness” in the New Perspective on Paul: N.T. Wright and His Interpretation of Justification

For those who know of the ministry of Dr. Piper, we know two things about him:

1. That his overwhelming desire if for the church to recognize that we are to enjoy God for glory of all peoples (his catch phraseology which can be found in Desiring God, his major and fundamental work).
   
2. And that he has a commitment to Reformed doctrines of Grace; that is, he desires to for the church to recognize that Christ is sovereign, and that his rule establishes our joy for the glory of all peoples.
   

With that said, Dr. Piper—and I mention him by doctor for the reason of his polemic work, The Future of Justification—has begun a launch of polemic debate against the Bishop of Durham, Professor N.T. (Nicholas Thomas) Wright. However, Dr. Piper is not disingenuous to Professor Wright. He writes:

    The reason I take up controversy with N.T. Wright and not, say, J.D.G. Dunn or E.P. Sanders (all notable for their relationship to the so-called New Perspective on Paul) is that none of my parishioners has ever brought me a thick copy of a book by Dunn or Sanders, wondering what I thought about them. But Wright is popular and compelling writer as well as a rigorous scholar. Therefore, he exerts significant influence both in academic guild and among the wider public…In addition, Wright loves the apostle Paul and reverences the Christian Scriptures.

Piper recognized that Wright is not just a scholar. He recognizes that Wright has a particular love for Paul, the Resurrection, and the Historical Jesus. Of course, we cannot say it isn't the case with other scholars like, say, Dunn or Sanders. Wright, according to lecturers of the White Horse Inn, is great for topics, such as the resurrection of Christ and historicity of the person of Christ.

So then, what is the view of N.T. Wright in light of the Reformed view of Justification? Wright claims that we have misunderstood Paul in his historical setting. Dr. Wright writes, "It is, I think, a time for exploration and delighted innovation rather than simply for filling in the paradigms left by our predecessors…" He presumes that such an ad fontes appear more tenuous than the sources that led the Reformers to the doctrine of Justification by faith alone. Why not assume the opposite? It appears that Dr. Wright is ambiguous as to why one should be adduced rather than the other. On a similar note, Dr. Piper mentions that it is the case—that the text of the bible alone is just as tenuous as Second Temple Judaism, if not more so tenuous—and that we should not be so blithely candid in receiving the spirit of "newness" over against the established criterion of Scriptural interpretation.