Comments on: Future of Justification 7: Defining "Righteousness" http://trevinwax.com/2007/12/06/future-of-justification-7-defining-righteousness/ Living on Earth as Citizens of Heaven Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:30:10 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: danielhttp://trevinwax.com/2007/12/06/future-of-justification-7-defining-righteousness/comment-page-1/#comment-5137 daniel Mon, 21 Sep 2009 04:41:05 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/2007/12/06/future-of-justification-7-defining-righteousness/#comment-5137 I don't understand how Piper's definition of God's righteousness is more "robust" and "glorious" than NT Wright's.Piper's definition comes across to me as though God is primarily concerned with God. However, when Wright unpacks his definition and explains that God's faithfulness to the covenant with Israel ripples beyond Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Daniel and out into the whole of creation, I get the impression that God is concerned with others more than he is with himself.I think God's glory is served by His self-giving (not self-serving) love and commitment to his total creation. I don’t understand how Piper’s definition of God’s righteousness is more “robust” and “glorious” than NT Wright’s.

Piper’s definition comes across to me as though God is primarily concerned with God. However, when Wright unpacks his definition and explains that God’s faithfulness to the covenant with Israel ripples beyond Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Daniel and out into the whole of creation, I get the impression that God is concerned with others more than he is with himself.

I think God’s glory is served by His self-giving (not self-serving) love and commitment to his total creation.

]]> By: Love and Blunder · Piper vs. Wright: Righteousness and gloryhttp://trevinwax.com/2007/12/06/future-of-justification-7-defining-righteousness/comment-page-1/#comment-1196 Love and Blunder · Piper vs. Wright: Righteousness and glory Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:17:40 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/2007/12/06/future-of-justification-7-defining-righteousness/#comment-1196 [...] at the BHT recently link to this post, which discusses John Piper’s critique of N.T.  Wright’s definition of righteousness. [...] [...] at the BHT recently link to this post, which discusses John Piper’s critique of N.T.  Wright’s definition of righteousness. [...]

]]> By: Stephenhttp://trevinwax.com/2007/12/06/future-of-justification-7-defining-righteousness/comment-page-1/#comment-1198 Stephen Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:11:09 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/2007/12/06/future-of-justification-7-defining-righteousness/#comment-1198 I think it is important to remember that for Bishop Wright it is important to stay with the text and understand the words in that text, whatever that word, in its contextual relationship, both in the immediate text and at large in the entire corpus and canon. This requires or results in a concrete-ness that is set against abstractions of these words. I believe his understanding of righteousness in the text is a necessary one to understand the picture(a more concrete than abstract thing) that is being presented. I do not think that he is being reductionistic but rather he is the one that he is using a "laser beam" to pinpoint exactly what "righteous" means in the context of law court, what it could probably only mean in St. Paul's understanding, so that he is not being reductionistic but is limiting how we can understand righteousness to understand the picture. Obviously there is something in God's nature that makes him "righteous" but I do not know that it helps our understanding, which God condescends to, by saying that God being righteous is his unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of his name. Rather I think it is better to understand God's being righteous not by some abstract proposition, but rather by these concrete examples which we can relate to. As for going "deeper", this can be good and bad. I think of what C.S. Lewis said in his The Abolition of Man "You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see" To see through to what righteousness is, is in a sense not to see righteousness. I think it is important to remember that for Bishop Wright it is important to stay with the text and understand the words in that text, whatever that word, in its contextual relationship, both in the immediate text and at large in the entire corpus and canon. This requires or results in a concrete-ness that is set against abstractions of these words. I believe his understanding of righteousness in the text is a necessary one to understand the picture(a more concrete than abstract thing) that is being presented. I do not think that he is being reductionistic but rather he is the one that he is using a “laser beam” to pinpoint exactly what “righteous” means in the context of law court, what it could probably only mean in St. Paul’s understanding, so that he is not being reductionistic but is limiting how we can understand righteousness to understand the picture. Obviously there is something in God’s nature that makes him “righteous” but I do not know that it helps our understanding, which God condescends to, by saying that God being righteous is his unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of his name. Rather I think it is better to understand God’s being righteous not by some abstract proposition, but rather by these concrete examples which we can relate to. As for going “deeper”, this can be good and bad. I think of what C.S. Lewis said in his The Abolition of Man “You cannot go on ’seeing through’ things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. To ’see through’ all things is the same as not to see”
To see through to what righteousness is, is in a sense not to see righteousness.

]]> By: The Boar’s Head Tavern »http://trevinwax.com/2007/12/06/future-of-justification-7-defining-righteousness/comment-page-1/#comment-1197 The Boar’s Head Tavern » Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:20:38 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/2007/12/06/future-of-justification-7-defining-righteousness/#comment-1197 [...] What do you think of Piper’s definition of righteousness? (Quoted by Trevin Wax in his review of Piper’s Anti-Wright book) [...] [...] What do you think of Piper’s definition of righteousness? (Quoted by Trevin Wax in his review of Piper’s Anti-Wright book) [...]

]]>