RSCH 201
ARTICLE ANALYSIS: HUMANITIES ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Research Purpose and Overview
The article that was chosen for this assignment is “What is There between Minneapolis and St.
Andrews?: A Third Way in the Piper-Wright Debate.”(Bird, 2011) The purpose of this article
was to examine 5 points of dispute between John Piper and N. T. Wright and give a formal
decision with a view on both of their theologies in order to create a modified reformed view that
bridges the gap between the two. Bird in His article discusses five main points by comparing and
contrasting each one of them to create a mid-point that could potentially end up the polarization
of evangelicals that support John Piper’s theology and evangelicals that support N. T. Wright’s
theology. The five main points that the author focuses on are “the use of ancient literature in
exegesis, the ordo salutis vs historia salutis as a dominating framework, the ‘righteousness of
God’, imputation, and faith and works.” (Bird, 2011) When Bird contrasts Piper and Wright, he
explains their respective perspectives and attitudes toward the topics.
Methods and Research
This article is written using a Social Constructionist Paradigm study design and a qualitative
research methodology. According to Hark “it specifically studies how ideas, realities, and
experiences are socially constructed; they recognize that their own presence in a field site in
itself socially constructs its own reality; and they see their writing and reporting as itself a social
construction” (Hark, 2019, pg. 139). Applying this kind of design to the article, Bird uses this
, design to construct an argument and compares Piper’s and Wright’s views using the five points
mentioned before.
The first point of dispute is the use of ancient literature in biblical exegesis. Wright likes to call
himself a “historian” (Bird, 2011) and demonstrating how to think like a historian, this is due to
the fact that Wright discussions involve Paul’s writings and how do they fit into the Judaism of
the first century. While on the other side, Piper is very cautious towards using nonbiblical
sources to illustrate a biblical text. “He thinks that first-century ideas can “distort and silence”
what the NT authors say.” (Bird, 2011) Piper mentions three reasons for his claim: 1-“First, the
sources may be misunderstood because knowledge of extrabiblical literature is often tenuous.”
2-“Second, the first century sources do not speak unanimously and no single source document
can speak for what Jews of antiquity really believed.” 3-“Third, scholars can misapply a first-
century document to a biblical text.” (Bird, 2011) Bird in return, sympathizes with Piper because
of the extrabiblical literature misuses that are known, also, paying too much attention to the
background literature will give the impression that only expertise in the ancient literary sources
can interpret the Bible, and the “application of the meaning of “works of the law” in 4QMMT to
Paul’s letters commits some of the errors against which Piper warns.” (Bird, 2011)
Second point of dispute is the ordo salutis and historia salutis. ordo salutis is “a theologically
constructed order of salvation,” and historia salutis is “a biblically constructed salvation history
of the Bible’s storyline.” (Bird, 2011) It was clear that Wright is leaned toward the historia
salutis approuch, while Piper does prefer the ordo salutis approach. Justification was one of the
main differences and how the two view it. Piper’s approach in centered towards the application
of justification to the person. And Wright on the other hand, prefers the historia salutis approach
since it focuses on the big narrative picture. Wright “regards justification as a post-conversion
declaration that one is a member of the people of God rather describing the process of how one
ARTICLE ANALYSIS: HUMANITIES ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Research Purpose and Overview
The article that was chosen for this assignment is “What is There between Minneapolis and St.
Andrews?: A Third Way in the Piper-Wright Debate.”(Bird, 2011) The purpose of this article
was to examine 5 points of dispute between John Piper and N. T. Wright and give a formal
decision with a view on both of their theologies in order to create a modified reformed view that
bridges the gap between the two. Bird in His article discusses five main points by comparing and
contrasting each one of them to create a mid-point that could potentially end up the polarization
of evangelicals that support John Piper’s theology and evangelicals that support N. T. Wright’s
theology. The five main points that the author focuses on are “the use of ancient literature in
exegesis, the ordo salutis vs historia salutis as a dominating framework, the ‘righteousness of
God’, imputation, and faith and works.” (Bird, 2011) When Bird contrasts Piper and Wright, he
explains their respective perspectives and attitudes toward the topics.
Methods and Research
This article is written using a Social Constructionist Paradigm study design and a qualitative
research methodology. According to Hark “it specifically studies how ideas, realities, and
experiences are socially constructed; they recognize that their own presence in a field site in
itself socially constructs its own reality; and they see their writing and reporting as itself a social
construction” (Hark, 2019, pg. 139). Applying this kind of design to the article, Bird uses this
, design to construct an argument and compares Piper’s and Wright’s views using the five points
mentioned before.
The first point of dispute is the use of ancient literature in biblical exegesis. Wright likes to call
himself a “historian” (Bird, 2011) and demonstrating how to think like a historian, this is due to
the fact that Wright discussions involve Paul’s writings and how do they fit into the Judaism of
the first century. While on the other side, Piper is very cautious towards using nonbiblical
sources to illustrate a biblical text. “He thinks that first-century ideas can “distort and silence”
what the NT authors say.” (Bird, 2011) Piper mentions three reasons for his claim: 1-“First, the
sources may be misunderstood because knowledge of extrabiblical literature is often tenuous.”
2-“Second, the first century sources do not speak unanimously and no single source document
can speak for what Jews of antiquity really believed.” 3-“Third, scholars can misapply a first-
century document to a biblical text.” (Bird, 2011) Bird in return, sympathizes with Piper because
of the extrabiblical literature misuses that are known, also, paying too much attention to the
background literature will give the impression that only expertise in the ancient literary sources
can interpret the Bible, and the “application of the meaning of “works of the law” in 4QMMT to
Paul’s letters commits some of the errors against which Piper warns.” (Bird, 2011)
Second point of dispute is the ordo salutis and historia salutis. ordo salutis is “a theologically
constructed order of salvation,” and historia salutis is “a biblically constructed salvation history
of the Bible’s storyline.” (Bird, 2011) It was clear that Wright is leaned toward the historia
salutis approuch, while Piper does prefer the ordo salutis approach. Justification was one of the
main differences and how the two view it. Piper’s approach in centered towards the application
of justification to the person. And Wright on the other hand, prefers the historia salutis approach
since it focuses on the big narrative picture. Wright “regards justification as a post-conversion
declaration that one is a member of the people of God rather describing the process of how one
