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

Status
Not open for further replies.
totorodaisuki

totorodaisuki

Puritan Board Freshman
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.

301418180_10227043982941042_8208947820968292772_n.jpg
 
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.
 
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.
 
greenbaggins said:
Zach, I think the key distinction that Piper is making here is between justification and salvation.....
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...
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?
A. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.

WLC 73 makes it clear that faith alone justifies and that such faith is to be distinguished both from the other graces that always accompany it (like repentance) and from that which are the fruits of it: good works. Good works are the evidence and expression of love. So love is not an essential part of saving faith (as is knowledge, assent, and trust) but is an ever-present fruit of it.

Surely some root of charity may be present in trust, but the fruit of it (and Edwards is clear on this) manifests itself in good works, which is love of God and love of neighbor. Love and good works are synonymous. We don't include the fruit of justifying faith in the definition of faith itself for to do so would be to introduce works into our justification, the only proper works wherein are those of Christ, whose righteousness is imputed to us and received by faith alone.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...
 
RamistThomist said:
Tychicus, I was on a 16th century literature kick. I'll probably change it soon.
Click to expand...
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 :)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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 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!
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
What are the titles of Horton's books on NPP?
 
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…”

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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
greenbaggins said:
Justification is one of the salvation benefits. It is a key part of salvation
Click to expand...
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".
 
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.
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
A Federal Vision debate?
2 3
Replies
85
Views
16K
R. Scott Clark
R. Scott Clark
Sovereign Grace
  • Locked
Federal Vision?
Replies
19
Views
3K
jwright82
jwright82
R
  • Locked
Why is it called Federal Vision?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Rufus
R
A
  • Locked
Is this *gasp* Federal Vision talk?
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
austinbrown2
A
Reformed Covenanter
  • Locked
Federal Vision Attack
Replies
22
Views
5K
NaphtaliPress
NaphtaliPress
Back
Top