# Is John Piper leaning towards a Federal Vision type of theology?



## totorodaisuki (Sep 5, 2022)

Referencing this article: https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/will-we-be-finally-saved-by-faith-alone

Piper seems to say that our justification (grounding) is delayed until we die and face a final judgment; whereby we are judged by our faithfulness (good works). He doesn't use the exact same terminology that many FV adherents use, yet he seems to be articulating the same concepts. I believe FV is an egregious heresy. It is closer to Papist theology than historic Reformed theology. Can you imagine John Owen reading these FV statements? He would be absolutely appalled, as should we! I would break fellowship over someone holding to FV. It is another false gospel.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Sep 5, 2022)

Scott Clark from Westminster California has been making this point for a few years now. In 2020 I responded to Clark on my blog. Simply put, I do not think Piper is a federal visionist, and much less a Papist.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 5, 2022)

Zach, I think the key distinction that Piper is making here is between justification and salvation. These terms are not identical. Justification is one of the salvation benefits. It is a key part of salvation (the main hinge, as Calvin would put it), but not equal to all of salvation. Regeneration, adoption, sanctification, and glorification are all part of salvation more broadly considered. The Bible uses the term "salvation" (and its attending verbs) in more than one way. The Philippian jailor asked "What must I do to be saved?" This is the more commonly used biblical definition: the moment when we pass from condemnation to justification by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone. However, there is a broader definition of salvation that includes all the other benefits of salvation as well. In this regard, read Turretin on the necessity of works. They are necessary in a consequent way, not in a causative way. I use this analogy: if a cannon fires, does it make a noise? Of course it does. An explosion makes a noise. Does the noise cause the cannon to fire? Of course not. It is the _inevitable result_ of the explosion, not the cause of it. Similarly, works are the inevitable result of justification, and in this way only are works necessary. We obtain eternal life in heaven not _because of_ our works, but also _not without_ our works. We hear the word "necessary" and automatically run to the idea of causation. We need to resist doing that. If our works play no part at all in this broader definition of salvation, then we run the very real risk of antinomianism. 

Even in sanctification, God's grace comes first, but in sanctification it is an enabling grace that makes good works inevitable. So God's grace works differently in sanctification as opposed to justification. God's justifying grace is declarative. God's grace in sanctification is enabling. 

The key point with regard to FV theology is that they mix up the attendant qualities of justifying faith with some kind of causation. The definitional problems hinge around the nature of faith. They will tend to say things like "we are justified by faith/faithfulness." Or they will say that we are justified because of faith's aliveness. That is where they go off the rails. We are justified _because of_ Christ, or _on the grounds of_ Christ's obedience active and passive. It is Christ's righteousness that causes our justification, and/or is the ground of our justification. Faith is instrumental, not causative. Piper very carefully guarded against these errors in the clip by excluding all our works from justification, period. Conclusion: at least in this clip, Piper is not even playing footsie with FV. I might ask a question of him as to the relationship between union with Christ and justification. He seemed to be saying that union is part of justification, a statement I would not agree with. But he is hardly FV here.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 5, 2022)

Piper is interesting. He isn't FV but, his latest work, I am told, puts love in faith as opposed to the traditional definition of knowledge, assent, and trust. He will say good things and bizarre things. I tend to shy away from him.


----------



## Tychicus (Sep 5, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Zach, I think the key distinction that Piper is making here is between justification and salvation.....


Excellent post. Thank you.

If I'm not mistaken, I think Dr. Richard Gaffin's view is not too dissimilar from Piper, and from what you've said here.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 5, 2022)

arapahoepark said:


> Piper is interesting. He isn't FV but, his latest work, I am told, puts love in faith as opposed to the traditional definition of knowledge, assent, and trust. He will say good things and bizarre things. I tend to shy away from him.


I haven’t read Piper on this, but I immediately think of passages such as the parable of the Pearl of Great Price, and I wonder why on earth anyone would want to omit the affective domain from a definition of true faith… if one doesn’t treasure Christ how on earth can one be rightly relating to Christ? 

I for one am 100% fine with modifying the sterile, clinical, and cerebral formulation of faith as being “knowledge assent and trust” if treasuring/love is not reckoned in those terms… and if it be so reckoned, why not make it explicit?


----------



## Tychicus (Sep 5, 2022)

We had a similar discussion on Piper a few months back. Went over 200 replies, and touched all sorts of subjects, some completely unrelated. It was a nice discussion.


----------



## Tychicus (Sep 5, 2022)

I would also add, that classifying Piper into a Papist would strip the term Papist of any value (same for FV) for identifying heretical views of justification.

They are egregious errors and it would only normalise them if Piper is included in that fold.

I'm sure neither side wants this.


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 5, 2022)

SolaScriptura said:


> I haven’t read Piper on this, but I immediately think of passages such as the parable of the Pearl of Great Price, and I wonder why on earth anyone would want to omit the affective domain from a definition of true faith… if one doesn’t treasure Christ how on earth can one be rightly relating to Christ?
> 
> I for one am 100% fine with modifying the sterile, clinical, and cerebral formulation of faith as being “knowledge assent and trust” if treasuring/love is not reckoned in those terms… and if it be so reckoned, why not make it explicit?


Then what is trust if not affective?
I prefer @Alan D. Strange's assessment:


> Augustine and Aquinas saw faith consisting of knowledge and assent as unformed faith. What faith needed to be formed (and thus properly saving, albeit as part of the "process of justification"), they said, was caritas: love. The Reformers differed with this, seeing the formative element as being fiducia: trust. Luther and Calvin (as well as the other Reformers) were in agreement on this.
> 
> As was the Westminster Standards. WLC 73 is quite helpful here:
> *Q. 73. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
> ...

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 5, 2022)

Regardless of whatever rhetorical and theological tap dancing someone may do, there is absolutely nothing *inherently* affective about trust. But if in this case we really do mean to include it, I think we could do a whole lot better about explaining that.

This is an apropos analogy since so many Christians functionally view salvation as “fire insurance…”

I have USAA for my various insurance needs. I have a very good knowledge of the plans they offer (a much greater knowledge than is required simply to purchase one), and I give my assent to what they have communicated - that the things they have outlined and explained are true. Further, I trust them: I give them my business, and I have absolute confidence that they’ll pay if (for example) I die. Frankly, I have greater trust that they will do the right thing than I do that my denomination will.

Yet I don’t love them at all, and I would jump to another provider in a heart beat if it meets my felt needs as well, at a lower cost. (Or, to put it another way: I’d abandon them in a heartbeat if there was perceived benefit to me in doing so.)

It is possible to have “knowledge, assent, and trust” and still in one’s heart be entirely mercenary.

And if one chooses to simply double down and say, “that just means you don’t really understand what’s meant by knowledge, ascent, and trust” is both a dodge and reflects a gross naiveté about how reality works.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 5, 2022)

Here's my problem with putting "affection" in the definition of faith. What if I am just having a low day and my affections aren't high? That seems to be the very time I would need to trust God more, yet I can't do that because I have low affections.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Here's my problem with putting "affection" in the definition of faith. What if I am just having a low day and my affections aren't high? That seems to be the very time I would need to trust God more, yet I can't do that because I have low affections.


The same could be said of “knowledge” “assent” or “trust”. Indeed, I have personally talked to thousands of people whose trust in God is shaken by some form of ordeal.

With so much the Scriptures, especially in the teaching of Jesus, about loving him more than life itself - and in most cases it is clear that he’s referring to “valuing” - it’s beyond incredible that this has been omitted from our lexicon of what faith includes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tychicus (Sep 5, 2022)

@RamistThomist, not related to the post. Why Francis Bacon?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 5, 2022)

SolaScriptura said:


> The same could be said of “knowledge” “assent” or “trust”. Indeed, I have personally talked to thousands of people whose trust in God is shaken by some form of ordeal.
> 
> With so much the Scriptures, especially in the teaching of Jesus, about loving him more than life itself - and in most cases it is clear that he’s referring to “valuing” - it’s beyond incredible that this has been omitted from our lexicon of what faith includes.



I get that. I'm pushing back against "affections" as "feelings." If my feelings aren't intense enough, I'm not justified.

Tychicus, I was on a 16th century literature kick. I'll probably change it soon.



Tychicus said:


> @RamistThomist, not related to the post. Why Francis Bacon?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 5, 2022)

To be sure, I don't think Piper is teaching FV. I think most of his problems stem from Christian Hedonism.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tychicus (Sep 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Tychicus, I was on a 16th century literature kick. I'll probably change it soon.


Haha....I actually know next to nothing of him, other than a lecture I listened to on his contribution to scientific method (most of which i don't remember). I was intrigued as to whether you decided to try your hand at Bacon's scientific works.

Off-topic. Self-moderating


----------



## totorodaisuki (Sep 5, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Zach, I think the key distinction that Piper is making here is between justification and salvation. These terms are not identical. Justification is one of the salvation benefits. It is a key part of salvation (the main hinge, as Calvin would put it), but not equal to all of salvation. Regeneration, adoption, sanctification, and glorification are all part of salvation more broadly considered. The Bible uses the term "salvation" (and its attending verbs) in more than one way. The Philippian jailor asked "What must I do to be saved?" This is the more commonly used biblical definition: the moment when we pass from condemnation to justification by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone. However, there is a broader definition of salvation that includes all the other benefits of salvation as well. In this regard, read Turretin on the necessity of works. They are necessary in a consequent way, not in a causative way. I use this analogy: if a cannon fires, does it make a noise? Of course it does. An explosion makes a noise. Does the noise cause the cannon to fire? Of course not. It is the _inevitable result_ of the explosion, not the cause of it. Similarly, works are the inevitable result of justification, and in this way only are works necessary. We obtain eternal life in heaven not _because of_ our works, but also _not without_ our works. We hear the word "necessary" and automatically run to the idea of causation. We need to resist doing that. If our works play no part at all in this broader definition of salvation, then we run the very real risk of antinomianism.
> 
> Even in sanctification, God's grace comes first, but in sanctification it is an enabling grace that makes good works inevitable. So God's grace works differently in sanctification as opposed to justification. God's justifying grace is declarative. God's grace in sanctification is enabling.
> 
> The key point with regard to FV theology is that they mix up the attendant qualities of justifying faith with some kind of causation. The definitional problems hinge around the nature of faith. They will tend to say things like "we are justified by faith/faithfulness." Or they will say that we are justified because of faith's aliveness. That is where they go off the rails. We are justified _because of_ Christ, or _on the grounds of_ Christ's obedience active and passive. It is Christ's righteousness that causes our justification, and/or is the ground of our justification. Faith is instrumental, not causative. Piper very carefully guarded against these errors in the clip by excluding all our works from justification, period. Conclusion: at least in this clip, Piper is not even playing footsie with FV. I might ask a question of him as to the relationship between union with Christ and justification. He seemed to be saying that union is part of justification, a statement I would not agree with. But he is hardly FV here.



I see your point. Thanks for explaining. I'll be more careful in reading Piper. Some of his language is confusing. I don't know if that is intentional or not. My theology is about 98% similar to John MacArthur so I'm firmly in the anti-antinomian Lordship Salvation camp!


----------



## totorodaisuki (Sep 5, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Scott Clark from Westminster California has been making this point for a few years now. In 2020 I responded to Clark on my blog. Simply put, I do not think Piper is a federal visionist, and much less a Papist.


I'll check out your blog!


----------



## totorodaisuki (Sep 5, 2022)

arapahoepark said:


> Piper is interesting. He isn't FV but, his latest work, I am told, puts love in faith as opposed to the traditional definition of knowledge, assent, and trust. He will say good things and bizarre things. I tend to shy away from him.


Love as in faith working in love? I would say that love is an action that we do because of faith, not part of faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 5, 2022)

totorodaisuki said:


> Some of his language is confusing





totorodaisuki said:


> I'm firmly in the anti-antinomian Lordship Salvation camp!


Some would argue that the phrase "anti-antinomian Lordship Salvation camp" is as confusing as anything Piper wrote.


----------



## totorodaisuki (Sep 5, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> I would also add, that classifying Piper into a Papist would strip the term Papist of any value (same for FV) for identifying heretical views of justification.
> 
> They are egregious errors and it would only normalise them if Piper is included in that fold.
> 
> I'm sure neither side wants this.


Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that Piper himself has Papist leanings, I was talking about strictly FV theology. I've read Piper's book on Justification in response to the NPP and NT Wright and found it a marvelous and well-argued book!


----------



## totorodaisuki (Sep 5, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Some would argue that the phrase "anti-antinomian Lordship Salvation camp" is as confusing as anything Piper wrote.


LOL


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 5, 2022)

totorodaisuki said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that Piper himself has Papist leanings, I was talking about strictly FV theology. I've read Piper's book on Justification in response to the NPP and NT Wright and found it a marvelous and well-argued book!


I think Horton's volumes are great against the NPP, far better than Piper's. I don't say that because of things related to the current thread. I just don't think Piper dealt any knock out blows and was more exploratory and probing what Wright believed. His book on imputation was stellar though, although some other works have come out since then.


----------



## totorodaisuki (Sep 6, 2022)

arapahoepark said:


> I think Horton's volumes are great against the NPP, far better than Piper's. I don't say that because of things related to the current thread. I just don't think Piper dealt any knock out blows and was more exploratory and probing what Wright believed. His book on imputation was stellar though, although some other works have come out since then.


What are the titles of Horton's books on NPP?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 6, 2022)

totorodaisuki said:


> What are the titles of Horton's books on NPP?


His two volumes on Justification are gold - not just against FV and NPP but they deal with them conclusively.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 6, 2022)

SolaScriptura said:


> Regardless of whatever rhetorical and theological tap dancing someone may do, there is absolutely nothing *inherently* affective about trust. But if in this case we really do mean to include it, I think we could do a whole lot better about explaining that.
> 
> This is an apropos analogy since so many Christians functionally view salvation as “fire insurance…”
> 
> ...


Well, I love USAA so there's that... 

Beeke's ST has a good discussion on the whole issue of what faith is and I think the fundamental point I like is that this can become sort of a clinical discussion. At the end of the day, faith is something supernatural and related to Christ Himself (it's an evangelical grace). Breaking it up to constituent parts is interesting but doesn't capture the inscrutable nature of the fact that we've been given life to cling to Christ. I can describe the ingredients and process for an awesome chocolate chip cookie but I haven't captured the experience of eating it (or the remorse after eating too many because the first bite has to be followed by many others).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 6, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Justification is one of the salvation benefits. It is a key part of salvation


Well noted. 

One of the hardest parts I have is to get Christians to see "salvation" as attendant to Christ and how He has purchased salvation and our first step to our union with Him is a faith that is even purchased by Him. I can't even envision salvation without seeing myself having been ripped from Adam/death and brought into union with the death and resurrection of Christ. Faith, justification, repentance, adoption, sanctification, good works, glorification - all are evangelical benefits and are part of salvation. I even like to ask candidates: "Does baptism save?" because (inevitably) many think in a single meaning of the word. They divide up doctrines instead of seeing them organically connected to Christ as Mediator. The FV proponent fundamentally alters the relationship of the Mediator to His elect in the CoG and it's like looking at every doctrine with "beer goggles".


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 6, 2022)

SolaScriptura said:


> The same could be said of “knowledge” “assent” or “trust”. Indeed, I have personally talked to thousands of people whose trust in God is shaken by some form of ordeal.
> 
> With so much the Scriptures, especially in the teaching of Jesus, about loving him more than life itself - and in most cases it is clear that he’s referring to “valuing” - it’s beyond incredible that this has been omitted from our lexicon of what faith includes.





Semper Fidelis said:


> Well, I love USAA so there's that...
> 
> Beeke's ST has a good discussion on the whole issue of what faith is and I think the fundamental point I like is that this can become sort of a clinical discussion. At the end of the day, faith is something supernatural and related to Christ Himself (it's an evangelical grace). Breaking it up to constituent parts is interesting but doesn't capture the inscrutable nature of the fact that we've been given life to cling to Christ. I can describe the ingredients and process for an awesome chocolate chip cookie but I haven't captured the experience of eating it (or the remorse after eating too many because the first bite has to be followed by many others).


I like Hodge's view of love as attendant and consequent to faith.
Similar to Jacob, what I think is most comforting is know that when I fall (not loving Christ fully if at all in a moment of sin or sinful desire), my trust the size of a mustard seed (which inevitably grows) and going to the throne will clean me when I confess and repent.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## totorodaisuki (Sep 7, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> His two volumes on Justification are gold - not just against FV and NPP but they deal with them conclusively.


Thanks!


----------



## totorodaisuki (Sep 7, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Well, I love USAA so there's that...
> 
> Beeke's ST has a good discussion on the whole issue of what faith is and I think the fundamental point I like is that this can become sort of a clinical discussion. At the end of the day, faith is something supernatural and related to Christ Himself (it's an evangelical grace). Breaking it up to constituent parts is interesting but doesn't capture the inscrutable nature of the fact that we've been given life to cling to Christ. I can describe the ingredients and process for an awesome chocolate chip cookie but I haven't captured the experience of eating it (or the remorse after eating too many because the first bite has to be followed by many others).


Nice analogy. I have a desire to systematize our faith, but if our faith is only one of our intellect, it's not saving faith.


----------



## totorodaisuki (Sep 7, 2022)

arapahoepark said:


> I like Hodge's view of love as attendant and consequent to faith.
> Similar to Jacob, what I think is most comforting is know that when I fall (not loving Christ fully if at all in a moment of sin or sinful desire), my trust the size of a mustard seed (which inevitably grows) and going to the throne will clean me when I confess and repent.


Hallelujah!


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 9, 2022)

Piper's views on this long predate the FV, if by that you mean the "Auburn Avenue" theology and the controversy that sprang up about 20 years ago. But he is friendly with Wilson on some level, and a man from Wilson's college is now heading up Bethlehem Seminary, which Piper founded. So there is some connection there if people are looking to connect dots.

Piper's views are heavily influenced by his mentor, Daniel Fuller, who was his teacher 40-50 years ago or thereabouts. Fuller rejected covenant theology (as well as dispensationalism) and also rejected the law and grace distinction, if I recall correctly.

The book "Fairbairn vs Fairbairn" is well known in certain niche circles. (It is about Patrick Fairbairn's change in opinion on the restoration of Israel.) Maybe somebody could come up with a book or at least an essay entitled "Piper vs Piper" on justification. Or maybe it could be "Would the Real John Piper Please Stand Up?"

Some of his more ardent fans who were also fans of N.T. Wright and who had not without some justification (no pun intended) thought there was some agreement or overlap between them on the subject were shocked or even angered when he went into print against Wright about 15 years ago. In the wake of that Piper revised "Future Grace." In the preface he said this was because others pointed out some statements that did not seem consistent with his recent writing on justification. Then in recent years, I understand that Piper has allegedly made some statements that suggest that he hasn't changed his views at all.

I'm not inclined to reprobate or anathematize John Piper. (Well, at least not today, anyway.  ) But perhaps people should look elsewhere if they want clear teaching on this subject.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 9, 2022)

From the preface to the 2012 edition of _Future Grace:_



> Since publishing the first edition of Future Grace in 1995, I have walked
> through extended controversies surrounding the nature, ground, and
> instrument of justification. These controversies have sharpened my own
> grasp of what the Bible teaches. Some of that sharpening is captured in
> ...



Note that he says "some people have felt tensions." Not "I."


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 9, 2022)

SolaScriptura said:


> Regardless of whatever rhetorical and theological tap dancing someone may do, there is absolutely nothing *inherently* affective about trust. But if in this case we really do mean to include it, I think we could do a whole lot better about explaining that.
> 
> This is an apropos analogy since so many Christians functionally view salvation as “fire insurance…”
> 
> ...



Ahh, but some do indeed have love for USAA. Some will stick with them even if the price is quite a bit higher. I wonder if some might be tempted to say "Though USAA slay me..."

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Tychicus (Sep 9, 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1568207598595280901
Saw this on Twitter just now...

Reactions: Like 1


----------

