"Justified" A New Book from Modern Reformation

Here's the TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. Engaging N. T. Wright and John Piper
by Michael S. Horton

2. Confusion about the Law in Paul
by T. David Gordon

3. Does Faith Mean Faithfulness?
by Simon Gathercole

4. The Nature of Justifying Faith
by David VanDrunen

5. An American Tragedy: Jonathan Edwards on Justification
by George Hunsinger

6. Not by Faith Alone: The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Justification
An Interview with Robert Sungenis

7. What "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" Ignores
by R. C. Sproul

8. Ten Propositions on Faith and Salvation
Edited by Michael S. Horton

9. The Doctrine of Justification
by J. A. O. Preus III

10. A More Perfect Union? Justification and Union with Christ
by John V. Fesko

11. Christ at the Center: The Legacy of the Reformed Tradition
by Dennis Tamburello

12. The Discomfort of the Justified Life
by Jerry Bridges

13. Holiness: God's Work or Ours?
by Harold L. Senkbeil

14. Conclusion-Does Justification Still Matter?
by Michael S. Horton

To order, Click here 

Here's a review of Mike's presentation on justification given at ETS (on Wednesday).  Mike responds to both N. T. Wright and John Piper.  Horton at ETS

Comments

[Richard]

What's that on his face? A beard? GOATEE? WHAT???

[Kurt]

Why do these reformed folk keep on with this imputed/infused/imparted righteousness as if righteousness was some sort of heavenly gas?

[George]

"...Why do these reformed folk keep on with this imputed/infused/imparted righteousness as if righteousness was some sort of heavenly gas?..."

Perhaps because they are motivated by an uncanny desire to preach the truth. Open your Bible and tell me where you see justification explained differently.

[Kurt]

I'm certainly not an authority on this but it seems like framing the "righteousness of God" as God's own covenant faithfulness is pretty 'covenantal' in spite of what Horton says here about Wright not being covenantal in his characterization of justification. If "the righteousness of God" is his own covenant faithfulness, it makes no sense (in lawcourt setting) to say that the judge is imputing his own righteousness into the defendant (or something like that). It makes more sense that the judge is issuing the verdict over the defendant, that they are in the right, and part of God's covenant people, because they are 'in Messiah' --the one through whom God has been faithful.

Not sure if I articulated that well? But that seems Biblically faithful to me!...

[Howard]

Kurt, if you are correct in your view, then how does that affect your understanding of the doctrine of Original Sin as we are in Adam, the covenantal head of humanity?

To put it another way, outside of Christ, am I guilty by way of imputation or am I just a part of God "issuing the verdict over the defendant, that they are in the [wrong], and part of God's covenant [breaking] people, because they are 'in [Adam]'".

It seems to me that you are making justification merely eccelsiological and not soteriological.

[Kurt]

Well, it's not so much "my view" per se... I was trying to articulate Wright's view - a view that I think deserves some serious consideration. Wright's work on Paul has helped things come together for me, in a way that I never saw before. He helps bring in the first century context and that sets his work apart from others who have been careful/thoughtful exegetes but (I think) may be missing important issues that Paul was attempting to speak to. Specifically, the ecclesiologocal questions seem to be at the forefront rather than (but not instead of) the question of individuals eternal destinies. That being said, I'm not sure the question of salvation is that far removed from the question of the church... There is no salvation outside of Christ and we (the church, Jew + Gentile) are all together "in Christ."

Do you think Adam will be saved? :)

Thanks for your questions. Wheaton College recently had a conference with some very good presentations on Justification. I think you can find them on iTunes.

Blessings,
Kurt

[Kim Riddlebarger]

Kurt:

You write as though Wright's views haven't been fairly nor sufficiently considered by those who reject them.

The point is we've considered his views very carefully. Because we do know what Wright is saying, we have rejected his view as not faithful to, nor fully reflective of Paul's teaching.

I think Schreiner's point that Wright pushes what is central in Paul into the background and takes incidental themes as though they were central, is spot on. I think Horton's point about Wright's mishandling the covenant is also spot on.

Wright has been weighed and found wanting. I reject the NPP because the old perspective on Paul makes much better sense of Paul!

Simple as that.

[Kurt]

Kim,

Thanks for your comments. I recently started following your blog after reading "case for amil." Thanks for your contribution to that conversation. Do you know of any recent work that interacts with more progressive dispensationalism (a la Bock/Blaising)?

"Wright pushes what is central in Paul into the background and takes incidental themes as though they were central"

I think one of the most attractive things about Wright's work is the way that he draws out those 'incidental themes' that are lingering in the background and shows how they give shape to the text.

I think much of what reformed folk are eager to maintain is included WITHIN the Pauline theology that Wright articulates. I just don't get why all the hubbub about "imputed righteousness"... I suppose Wright can't knock over the golden calf of Reformed soteriology without raising a few eyebrows.

[Patrick Yamada]

Kurt,

Hmmm... saying that you don't get why all the hubbub about imputed righteousness is like saying, "I don't get why the hubbub about the tri-unity of God." It is a key doctrine, and thus it is a big deal. To treat it as if it were a side issue would indicate you don't understand its gravity, eh?

SDG