Two theologians of considerable prominence today have opposing viewpoints which have
led to discussion and disagreement in theological circles. Because of their opposing views, it is
necessary to examine them, critique them, and find either a viable alternative or a mediating
point. In order to do this, five points of contention between them are examined. The first is their
relationship with ancient literature. The second is their respective emphasis on the ordo salutis
(order of salvation for the individual) for Piper and on the historia salutis (salvation history for
the people of God) for Wright. The third point is on the meaning of “the righteousness of God”
for both Piper and Wright. The fourth point is on the issue of imputation, where Piper sees the
view as a forensic accounting and Wright lumps that job into the realm of union with Christ. The
fifth point of contention is how faith, works, and the final judgment work together. The
conclusion of the article is that neither Piper nor Wright should be wholly accepted nor wholly
rejected, but that both have strengths and weaknesses and should be read critically.
II. Article Analysis
The purpose of this article is to study the gap between John Piper and NT Wright.
Especially relevant to this task is the issue of hermeneutics and their positions on justification.
The general thesis of the article is that both Piper and Wright have merits to their views and both
have deficiencies, so neither should be uncritically embraced but something of a mediating
viewpoint should be found where both are fairly judged and read. The general theory that
informs the view is that “It may be the case that on any given issue one author has it over the
other in terms of the soundness of their argumentation. There again, on some topics, the biblical
truth may lie somewhere between Piper and Wright.”1 so then, stated in other terms, the general
theory is that there could be a possibility of both imperfection and value in the thought of Piper
1 Bird, Michael F. "what is there between Minneapolis and St. Andrews? a Third Way in the Piper-Wright Debate."
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54, no. 2 (2011): 299.
and Wright at the same time, with both having good things to say and even a possibility that both
could be wrong on some issues.
The research method used in this article is qualitative. Qualitative research typically uses
an emergent design, which can be revised as the study progresses.2 The conclusion of the article
is that both Piper and Wright have strengths and weaknesses, so it may be possible to find a
mediating Reformed perspective which makes the best of both. Not many limitations were
mentioned buy the author, but it should be said that 11 pages is not quite enough to give a more
detailed examination of both theologians discussed. Many theologians feel as if they can hardly
sign their name with that length, and Bird has written much longer works. The author does not
make suggestions for future research; however an article of this nature does leave room for his
position to be critiqued, modified, or strengthened by other writers, and even invites the reader
into this discussion.
III. Conclusion
The sciences article and the humanities article differ in some notable ways. The sciences
article primarily deals with numbers and statistics while the humanities deals with ideas and
writings. The humanities article is focused on a deeper analysis of individuals ideas rather than
an analysis of a larger number of test results. Because of this another difference might be that the
sciences tend to deal with facts while the conclusions of the humanities article might leave room
for some interpretation on the part of the reader. Additionally, the humanities article feels like he
is bringing two people into dialogue with one another so that the reader can hear and understand
the discussion, while the sciences article is understood through background information, prior
research, and an analysis of the test results. The sciences article feels disconnected from normal
2 Hark, Kristen. Research across the Disciplines: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, 2019, 106-
107.
life with nameless subjects, but when the humanities article focuses on named individuals
advocating for ideas that can be rejected or embraced, it does more to bring the reader into the
discussion. Conclusions in the humanities article leave more action for the typical reader, as the
author gives encouragement to do something with the information while in the sciences article
more suggestions are made for future research. The reader feels like he can go pick up a Piper
book at the store or watch a lecture from Wright, and the conclusion leaves more room for
disagreement and development. The sciences article feels as though it may not intend room for
discussion outside of researchers who want to further the research.
Bibliography
Bird, Michael F. "what is there between Minneapolis and St. Andrews? a Third Way in the
Piper-Wright Debate." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54, no. 2
(2011): 299.
Hark, Kristen. Research across the Disciplines: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall
Hunt, 2019, 106-107.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
