If You Haven’t Read This Yet

Then you should. And you can’t beat the price right now. It is a particularly good defense of the normal Protestant doctrine of justification, and even more importantly, it is a model of how theological controversy should be handled. I don’t agree with everything in the book, but it is a very fine treatment of the issues all the same.


  1. Mark KIm said,

    May 15, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    I read the whole book too. Even if I don’t agree with everything, as you have said for yourself, I think it is one of the top books out there today dealing with the NPP/Wrightian heresy and as a cogent defense of the historic Reformation position. It’s just too bad that a lot of times Piper’s works reads like eating dry cardboard (but that is beside the point). In this regard I believe Phil Eveson’s work “The Great Exchange” is one notch above Piper.

    Btw, one of the things I find silly in Wright’s take on this issue (which some have taken him to task on) is that he puts this strong disjunction between Luther and Calvin on the relationship between the law and justification. Even though Luther and Calvin did not see eye-to-eye on every matter regarding the law they stood shoulder-to-shoulder when it came to how a sinner is justified before God (which is by grace alone through faith alone apart from the law as a whole).

    (For anyone interested, I would also encourage readers [despite its outdatedness] to pick up and read James Buchanan’s classic work titled “The Doctrine of Justification.” It’s not a light read and is just over 400 pages in nineteenth century English. But it does provide the basics of what a traditional Reformation view of justification is supposed to look like.)

  2. rcjr said,

    May 16, 2012 at 9:56 am

    A hearty amen to Mark’s suggestion on Buchanan. Would quibble with the term “outdated.” It doesn’t cover modern divergences, which in that sense makes it outdated. It does, however, give a sound, biblical exposition, which makes it timeless

  3. SLIMJIM said,

    May 16, 2012 at 9:09 pm

    I’ve enjoyed that book.

  4. David Reece said,

    May 18, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    Piper publicly supports the Federal Vision. His teaching in “Future Grace” is another Gospel. In this book you recommend he defines his terms in footnotes that refer to “Future Grace” for clarification.

    This book is not helpful. Wright needs to be denounced as anti-christian. He preaches another Gospel. Polemics are called for in disputes over the gospel, not irenics.

    Check out “The Current Justification Controversy” by O. Palmer Robertson and “A Companion to the Current Justification Controversy” by John Robbins.

    NPP, Federal Vision, and Norman Shepherdism must be denounced in the strongest terms.

  5. Mark Kim said,

    May 18, 2012 at 11:07 pm

    David, your claim that Piper supports Federal Visionism is way off the mark. The book that Lane recommends above does not support your contention at all. Sure, sometimes Piper may come off as sounding that our good works play some role in our final justification (as his book “Future Grace” borders on that notion) but to say that he is a supporter of the Federal Vision is irresponsible (considering that he has clarified his position in recent years that more align with the historic Reformed position).

    It is true that Piper was highly influenced by the Daniel P. Fuller in his younger years, but in recent years he has moved away from Fuller’s problematic position more and more. If you took the time to read Piper’s “The Future of Justification” you will see that he is in general agreement with Calvin, the Westminster divines, and other orthodox Reformed writers of the past.

    I agree with you that the NPP, Federal Visionism, Shepherdism, Fullerism, and other deviations of the historic Reformation and biblical position must be denounced without compromise. But we must also be careful that we don’t falsely accuse certain people of denying the orthodox position (like you just did with Piper).

  6. David Reece said,

    May 19, 2012 at 2:15 am

    I have read it. I read it very carefully.

    If you took the time to look at the footnotes where he defines his terms you would know that he still believes what he wrote in “Future Grace.”

    Read the footnotes. Look up the passages and pages he cites in his footnotes.

    Until Piper publicly repents of his teachings in “Future Grace” and elsewhere that justification is through more than simple belief it is the duty of the Christian to treat him as a false teacher. He refuses to repent.

    Proof of my charges against Piper follow. The first link is a few pages, but the rest are very short, less than a page each:

    An analysis of “Future Grace”:

    Piper on Justification in 2005:

    Piper defending Doug Wilson in June of 2009:

    Piper in 2010:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: