
Their is a growing debate within Evangelicalism about Paul's teaching of Justification. The two key players are N.T. Wright and John Piper. I am awaiting my copy of N.T. Wright's book on the subject, so hopefully I will be able to share some insights from it later this summer. If you aren't familiar with the debate you can go to Christianity Today's website and see several articles about it. The little bit of reading I have done on the subject leads me to believe that the biggest difference is the starting point for Piper of viewing the death of Christ. Piper is an evangelical who clings unashamedly to the Penal Substitutionary view of the atonement. There is nothing wrong with that view, it is definitely a biblical view, but a surface reading of scripture presents other models or ways that the New Testament writers understood and spoke about the death of Christ. I'm not sure that Wright takes any one position himself. For Piper, everything we understand about the Gospel is rooted in the penal substitutionary death of Christ. I for one cannot deny that that is a view of the New Testament and certainly of the 16th century Reformers, but to speak of Christ's death in only those terms I cannot do and still consider myself being faithful to the complete witness of the New Testament.










