Friday, September 11, 2009
Horton vs Wright
In reading the debate between John Piper and N.T. Wright on Justification, though thankful for Piper's work, I have been disappointed with aspects of Piper's approach. Piper leans more "New Covenantal" rather than classical covenantal in his approach to the concept of covenant and imputation, which oddly means that there are times that I agree with Wright over Piper, even though I agree with Piper's conclusion and not Wright's.
Michael Horton, however, has taken up the task of critiquing N.T. Wright's view of justification (which denies a covenant of works and imputation) from a classical covenantal perspective. The series is very helpful:
[UPDATE: Get the entire review in one place here]
Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: Unity of the Covenant in justification
Part 3: Justification and God's People
Part 4: Justification and Eschatology & Imputation
Part 5: Justification and Imputation (cont.)
Part 6: Justification and the Works of the Law
Part 7: Is Wright Biblical or reading in his Systematics in Paul?
Part 8: Justification and Romans
Part 9: Works of the Law: Soteriology and Ecclesiology
Part 10: Conclusion