Mate, I SO WISH I was there for that discussion. SBC is spoiled for choice to have two of the top evangelical Pauline scholars in Seifrid and Schreiner around and Brian Vickers is no slouch either.

I have several questions for the dynamic trio:

(1) [For Vickers and Seifrid] How does your understanding of imputation differ from that of Piper?

(2) [For Seifrid and Schreiner] Is it possible to maintain that God’s righteousness has a covenantal character or covenantal element without reducing God’s righteousness to his covenant faithfulness?

(3) [For Seifrid and Vickers] If Jesus Christ is justified in his resurrection, and if we participate in that justification by virtue of union with Christ, does that require us to reconfigure our basic understanding of justification as the imputation of the merits of Jesus Christ to us?

(4) [Seifrid and Schreiner] If we are justified by faith at conversion, are we justified by faithfulness (specifically Christ working his works in us) at the final judgment?

PS, the SBC should organize a conference on Galatians in the near future!

First, it is indeed a good thing for the students at the college to be exposed to theological discussions in a chapel forum. There is a real need for more exposure to theological discussion. We sometimes restrict congregational gatherings to a kind of “worship” setting where we encounter the Lord less cognitively and thus, as a result by omission, come to think of our religion and spirituality as somehow above and beyond theological discussions. On the other side however, there is an equivalent temptation and tendency for some academicians and doctrinaire-obsessed pastor-preachers to reduce “worship” to nothing more than lectures on doctrinal summation. All that to say, your forum is a good thing, and I wish I could attend.

Since this is occuring in a chapel setting, is it safe to assume that this will be attended by all the students of the college and not just those already familiar with the particular Wright-Piper confrontations? Will this be the first exposure for some of the chapel attendees to the whole discussion topic? If so, I have the following concerns churning in my brain.

First exposure to a topic can have a formative, lasting and permanent impact on thinking. I still struggle with objectively evaluating certain topics due to my first exposure to them. My first exposure to one particular topic was made by someone I admired and deeply respected for his theological perspectives. For example, my gut reaction to an understanding of Anabaptists has been shaped by a good friend making particular comments about them that I have now come to realize through actual research was stereotyped. By having admirable scholars (and moderator) in the forum evaluate N.T. Wright and John Piper, I wonder how the “naive” “uninformed” audience will evaluate both Wright and Piper. Will this forum give a fair representation to both of them?

Is there enought time in this chapel time to (1) introduce the topic (justification and the current academic debate about it), and (2) objectively introduce the two opposing viewpoints fairly and then (3) evaluate the merits and demerits of each side? Will Wright, in particular, be given a fair shake? (Please note: I have not done enough research in the matter presently to make up my mind who has the better case. My current default position probably sides with Piper, but my ornery skeptical side desires to give Wright a decent hearing.) Can this be done in an (assumed) hour’s time? Is the deck stacked against Wright?

Would this forum be better expanded to three sessions: One to introduce the topic; one to give the differing positions; one to evaluate. I’m thinking about those in the audience who will be exposed for the first time to the whole matter. I sincerely hope that an academic institution, such as Boyce College, would seriously recognize its responsibility to objectively educate its students. Otherwise, if the jury has already decided that Wright is wrong, then Boyce College has restricted its education to pre-decided dogma decided by its pre-approved scholarship. (Please note: I am not saying that this is the case. I don’t know. I’ve never met any of the faculty. I do believe that I have the right as a Southern Baptist pastor to raise the question about the quality of the education offered at any institution that my Cooperative Program dollars support. The question is legitimate. I make that particular point, because I have read and commented on enough Southern Baptist blogs to know that some raise heck when someone dares to raise any question that would dare to question any beloved institution that is run by those with whom they agree. All those who raise questions must be liberals.)

I sincerely make these comments and raise these questions with sincere appreciation that I even have the opportunity to make them. I do enjoy this blog even though I may disagree with some of the perspectives. At least, I have the opportunity to do so. For that I am grateful, and I hope that the forum is a success.

curious that you are questioning how my comment is relevant for NT passages. piper displays a much more calvinistic, double-predestinarian view than wright, and often appeals to the OT verses to demonstrate his view. unfortunately for piper, passages like mal 1:1-5 are not slam dunks for calvinism – that passage and most of the others he cites have so much more to do with covenant than the arguments for individual, double-predestination he tries to prop up with them.

hmmm, now that you’ve called me on it, piper’s probably the more guilty party of running roughshod through the OT.

but, since double-predestination is piper’s bread & butter, and since it’s always a part of his discussions on righteousness and romans, you can see why a proper view of covenant matters, and for that matter so does some hermeneutical skill in OT studies.

What implications does the covenant language of the OT have for the passages of the NT they cite? In other words, what are they missing and what is Paul communicating?