A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE OF THE WRITINGS OF JOHN PIPER AND N.T Thesis Proposal - 1

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE OF THE WRITINGS OF JOHN PIPER AND N.T. WRIGHT ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH - Thesis Proposal Example The study of the doctrine of justification5 is considered the cornerstone of Christianity6 by many Christian scholars. It is, according to Luther, the article by which the church stands or falls,7 The challenge between Piper and Wright concerns the implication of their views on imputed or incorporated righteousness on justification8 to Christian faith, especially concerning Soteriology.9 On the one hand, Piper’s perspective is that imputed righteousness on justification does not consist merely of belief in Christ alone for salvation, but also submission of every area of one’s life to Christ’s Lordship.10 Thus, Piper unwittingly affirms both â€Å"faith alone† and â€Å"faith not alone† referring to justification, which according to Lybrand constitutes the intrinsic incongruence of these assertions in his (i.e., Piper’s) practical interpretations and teachings.11 This inconsistency could be explained in the way Piper distinguishes justification from sanctification,12 wherein he proposes that to man is given the right to stand with God on account of faith alone.13 Again, Piper maintains, this is something given. Nevertheless, Piper insists that man must live a life that he considers a deadly battle against sin.14 The manner by which he fights such a battle––according God’s will––constitutes s anctification.15 Also important on Piper’s position is the argument that sin has been fought, and won over with the death of Jesus.16 One might contend that if sin has been won over based on Christ’s sacrifice, Piper would not be able to justify his â€Å"faith not alone† portion of his argument. However, he maintains that the right to stand with God is only achieved by eliminating the sin––the one that was already won over on the cross––by way of dying â€Å"in Christ.†17 This is central to his righteousness imputation theory,18 and distinguishes his position from that of Wright’s who proposes, â€Å"incorporated righteousness† as a more