Is it ok to say nice things in biblical language?

Tom Wright has come out swinging, and personally, I think it is about time.

In his new book on justification called, imaginatively, "Justification", Wright takes John Piper to task.
It isn't a gloves off fight, from either side, but you get the feeling that Piper has taken on someone a few weight divisions up, who is faster and hits harder.

Take this gem.
Here's Piper
"Please do not be seduced, by N.T Wright or anyone else, into imagining that you need to read the New Testament within its first-century Jewish context"

Ahem.
Consider me seduced, though not by Wright alone.

Then Wright, working off a Alister McGrath quote, that basically conceeds that the systematic theology term 'justification' has come to mean something entirely different to what Paul meant by ' justification'.

"Does this matter? Is the church free to use words and concepts in fresh ways which do not correspond to their biblical origins, while at least by implication claiming, through the biblical echoes that these words and concepts awaken, that they are thereby authorized by scripture itself? Most systematic theologians of my acquaintance would be quick to reply, Of Course! The church can and must, under the guidance of the holy spirit, develop words, concepts, discourse of all sorts, out beyond the narrow confines of exegesis. This is what happened with Athanasius, holding out for the non-biblical term homoousion to express, against Arius, the radically biblical view of the divinity of Jesus Christ. We cannot reduce the task of theology to that of biblical commentary.
But notice what then happens. The word homoousion was not in scripture, but the word 'justification' was. As the church, within its own life and proclamation, uses a scriptural word or concept but denotes by that word or concept something more than, or even different from, what is meant by the word in its scriptural origin, three effects are almost inevitable. First, it will then misread scripture at that point, imagining that when the Bible uses that word it is talking about the thing which the church normally talks about when it uses that word. And that may well not be the case. Second, such a reading will completely miss the thing that scripture was talking about at that point; it will fail to pay attention to the word of God. Third, it wll imagine itself to have a biblical warrant for its own ideas, when all it has are 'biblical' echoes of its own voice" pp61

We've seen this before people. Think of medieval readings of 'repentance' as 'do penance'

In my experience, I've seen people get hot under the collar when their theological system is challenged by Wright reading scripture. It is good to see Wright get hot under the collar here. The issue is that we blind ourselves to the word of God, we shut our ears to its voice, if we don't humbly and carefully listen to what it ACTUALLY is saying. ie. in the flow of its argument, in its original context, with its worldview
Plenty of people have questioned Wright's orthodoxy because his reading of scripture weakens their traditions. It is about time the tables were turned and some questions were fired at those whose traditions chop up, mangle and discard the scriptures.