John Piper--Fishy Statement

Status
Not open for further replies.
terry72

terry72

Puritan Board Freshman
Hey guys, I just resently found this statement on John Pipers website, I wanted to know what you guys thought about it.

[quote:c71f621989]God justifies us on the first genuine act of saving faith, but in doing so he has a view to all subsequent acts of faith contained, as it were, like a seed in that first act.

What we are trying to do here is own up to the teaching of Romans 5:l, for example, that teaches that we are already justified before God. God does not wait to the end of our lives in order to declare us righteous. In fact, we would not be able to have the assurance and freedom in order to live out the radical demands of Christ unless we could be confident that because of our faith we already stand righteous before him.

Nevertheless, we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith. The way these two truths fit together is that we are justified on the basis of our first act of faith because God sees in it (like he can see the tree in an acorn) the embryo of a life of faith. This is why those who do not lead a life of faith with its inevitable obedience simply bear witness to the fact that their first act of faith was not genuine.

The textual support for this is that Romans 4:3 cites Genesis 15:6 as the point where Abraham was justified by God. This is a reference to an act of faith early in Abraham's career. Romans 4:l9-22, however, refers to an experience of Abraham many years later (when he was 100 years old, see Genesis 2l:5,l2) and says that because of the faith of this experience Abraham was reckoned righteous. In other words, it seems that the faith which justified Abraham is not merely his first act of faith but the faith which gave rise to acts of obedience later in his life. (The same thing could be shown from James 2:2l-24 in its reference to a still later act in Abraham's life, namely, the offering of his son, Isaac, in Genesis 22.) The way we put together these crucial threads of Biblical truth is by saying that we are indeed justified on the basis of our first act of faith but not without reference to all the subsequent acts of faith which give rise to the obedience that God demands.[/quote:c71f621989]

By the way, I have always like Piper, so I don't want you guys to think I'm one of those "out to find heresy in Piper" people...:)

I just found this statement "interesting" to say the least.

Here is the link for those interested, http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html

Blessings,
Terry :)
 
I read it, and reread it. I would completely disagree with him. Justification is not something God looks at our whole life of faith on and declares us just based on the embryo of faith and all subsequent acts of faith that are good. Rather, God justifies us based on the active and passive obedience of Jesus Christ imputed to us as if we have perfectly kept the law wich is then sparked in us by faith through regeneration. Justification by faith is based on regeneration, and faith stemming from that work and being applied to us by the Holy Spirit.
 
[i:7491337a7c]Originally posted by terry72[/i:7491337a7c]
Hey guys, I just resently found this statement on John Pipers website, I wanted to know what you guys thought about it.

[quote:7491337a7c]God justifies us on the first genuine act of saving faith, but in doing so he has a view to all subsequent acts of faith contained, as it were, like a seed in that first act.

What we are trying to do here is own up to the teaching of Romans 5:l, for example, that teaches that we are already justified before God. God does not wait to the end of our lives in order to declare us righteous. In fact, we would not be able to have the assurance and freedom in order to live out the radical demands of Christ unless we could be confident that because of our faith we already stand righteous before him.
[/quote:7491337a7c]

That appears to negate NT Wright and the Auburn Four.

[quote:7491337a7c]

The textual support for this is that Romans 4:3 cites Genesis 15:6 as the point where Abraham was justified by God. This is a reference to an act of faith early in Abraham's career. Romans 4:l9-22, however, refers to an experience of Abraham many years later (when he was 100 years old, see Genesis 2l:5,l2) and says that because of the faith of this experience Abraham was reckoned righteous. In other words, it seems that the faith which justified Abraham is not merely his first act of faith but the faith which gave rise to acts of obedience later in his life. (The same thing could be shown from James 2:2l-24 in its reference to a still later act in Abraham's life, namely, the offering of his son, Isaac, in Genesis 22.) The way we put together these crucial threads of Biblical truth is by saying that we are indeed justified on the basis of our first act of faith but not without reference to all the subsequent acts of faith which give rise to the obedience that God demands.[/quote:7491337a7c]

It appears that he is saying "we are justified by faith alone but not faith that is alone." Only, he is saying it in a different manner. On the same note, I don't see Piper playing fast and loose with justification as some in the camp have done.


[Edited on 7-6-2004 by Finn McCool]
Click to expand...
 
[quote:8bcb24b614][i:8bcb24b614]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:8bcb24b614]
In our day, Piper is the King of trying to be novel in his wording and books. [/quote:8bcb24b614]

Granted, he does do that alot. I guess I am predisposed to Piper because he was the first reformed writer I read. Furthermore, several of his sermons on Romans 9 were means God used to confirm my faith during trials of "un-reason" ("insanity" would be too strong a word). Nevertheless, after reading a little of Wright, some of those statements by Piper (faith...contingent...etc.) did not sound exact enough. My

:wr50:
 
I think he would do much better as a plagiarist. He should simply say again what has already been said in contemporary language (as he has done with some of Edwards' stuff). He would stay safe that way.
 
[quote:4e1a1e9a9a]
God justifies us on the first genuine act of saving faith, but in doing so he has a view to all subsequent acts of faith contained, as it were, like a seed in that first act.
[/quote:4e1a1e9a9a]

It sounds like the way evangelical arminians talk. They would, I believe, agree with piper here, because they would see this first "act" of faith something within their power of freewill to muster up, and that must produce further acts if it is a legitimate first act. Other wise after stumbling they would seek to "rededicate" themselves, which is like a "do over".

And as was said,... if our last (or first for that matter) salvation is made contingent upon anything to do with any form of obedience, then I see too much law mixed in with this faith. For Christ has satisfied the Laws loud thunder.

I would plead with Piper in this case (as humbly as i could) to reread Galations 3:15-25

Peace and Grace in Christ!
John
 
IX...

An Arminian may very well talk that way but the conclusions that Arminian would draw from such remarks are significantly different than those Piper would draw.

Since he's definitely NOT an Arminian...

In the same way, and this may take us off topic, sometimes we Calvinists get so particular about our language that we make things like the simple Gospel call an abstruse statement of theological principle. I know I have done it...the perennial debate about how we evangelize, how can we present the Gospel to unbelievers as though they might all be saved? Therefore, we have to be 'careful' in our presentation. And, honestly, being careful is better than [i:3bec3f1d8e]not[/i:3bec3f1d8e] being careful in any theological endeavor...but sometimes we take it too far.

I'm not bringing it up to start a new discussion and I don't even know if I've done an adequate job of relating the problem; but to 'nutshellize' it, I think we strict monergists tend to get so caught up in proper formulation that we tend to be rather more critical of the formulations of our brethren than we ought.

I didn't see anything wrong with Piper's formulation and if we can find here a critique of NPP and the Shepherdites, all the better, John Piper would be a valuable asset to have in that particular debate.
 
I admit that I'm not the Piper fan I once was. I guess I got tired of reading the same thing over and over in his books, though many of his books are very helpful and good. But it seems that his more recent books have been the most disappointing. For example, in his book [u:4b41981226]Brothers, We Are Not Professionals[/u:4b41981226], a book where he, "pleads with fellow pastors to abandon the secularization of the pastorate and pursue the prophetic call of the Bible for radical ministry", he dedicated an entire chapter to a defense of believer's baptism. Now, what in the world does believer's baptism have to do with de-secularizing modern ministry? His chapter on focusing on the essence of worship and not the form was disappointing as well in that particular book.

I think that [u:4b41981226]Counted Righteous in Christ[/u:4b41981226] is probably the best book he has written in recent years.
 
[quote:800f4e814d][i:800f4e814d]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:800f4e814d]
I admit that I'm not the Piper fan I once was. I guess I got tired of reading the same thing over and over in his books, though many of his books are very helpful and good.

I think that [u:800f4e814d]Counted Righteous in Christ[/u:800f4e814d] is probably the best book he has written in recent years. [/quote:800f4e814d]

I would agree with Craig here on both counts. When I was a new Calvinist (and coming from a very emotion-driven background) I thought Piper was incredible. But, as he sometimes admits, he says the same thing over and over. After that, I decided to move on to meatier matters, although I still retain an appreciation for what he has done. Personally, I would rather listen to his sermons than read his books.
 
Piper has stated elsewhere that faith is not an act [b:9c4b855675]we[/b:9c4b855675] do, but one God works in us. So in this statement God is not justifying us because of something we have done. That may help a little. He has recently written a book on justification that many think is quite orthodox, I can't remember the title unfortunately at the moment.

My problem with Piper is the same problem I have with Edwards sometimes, I feel like I'm very slowly getting to know Christ and the spiritual life, but Piper sounds sometimes like he's saying; If you don't completely get it the moment you're saved, you aren't saved. Well, maybe I'm not...
 
[quote:bdac8f4caa]I read it, and reread it. I would completely disagree with him. Justification is not something God looks at our whole life of faith on and declares us just based on the embryo of faith and all subsequent acts of faith that are good. Rather, God justifies us based on the active and passive obedience of Jesus Christ imputed to us as if we have perfectly kept the law wich is then sparked in us by faith through regeneration. Justification by faith is based on regeneration, and faith stemming from that work and being applied to us by the Holy Spirit. [/quote:bdac8f4caa]

Ditto, Matt......

Giving Piper the benefit of the doubt, I think in this case he should seriously consider rewording these statments, because if these statements were taken at face value, without referance to his overall teaching, he would be guilty of some very serious error....:(

He definitly leaves himself open for charges of teaching false doctrine by making such statements...:(

Blessings,
Terry :)
 
I tend agree with many of the comments here suggesting that Piper seems to look for novel ways of saying things and then repeats them -- a lot. But he's been of great service to the church. Although I haven't read it, I understand that his recent book on the imputation of Christ's righteousness is a valuable attempt to fight attacks on the importance of that essential doctrine.

I also have to say that his early book, Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23, is with little doubt perhaps the best exposition of Romans 9 ever written. It's not intended for a "popular" audience, but it's very much worth the effort for anyone willing to work through it. (His work on that book directly lead to his decision to accept a pastorate position and he has said that it is probably the most foundational work for his entire ministry.) In the book, among other things, he powerfully obliterates any suggestion that in Romans 9 Paul is referring to groups, and not , individuals. His discussion of Romans 9:22-23 and surrounding verses is outstanding and will cause you literally to fall on your knees in worship. Every time I think about what those verses are saying, I'm reminded how thankful and blessed I should be that God chose me in His sovereign mercy -- and I'm reminded that I need to take more seriously my responsibilty and privilege to live a life worthy of my calling.
 
[quote:c9c1965cd2]God justifies us on the first genuine act of saving faith, but in doing so he has a view to all subsequent acts of faith contained, as it were, like a seed in that first act.

Nevertheless, we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith. The way these two truths fit together is that we are justified on the basis of our first act of faith because God sees in it (like he can see the tree in an acorn) the embryo of a life of faith.[/quote:c9c1965cd2]

This statement of Piper's is just flat wrong. And it (of course) shouldn't matter who says it - Piper, Calvin, even an angel from heaven. Its just wrong. And we shouldn't be afraid or apologetic to say so. Our salvation is by no means contingent upon subsequent obedience. If it were no one would be "finally saved," to use Piper's terminology. True faith is the necessary antecedent of gospel obedience, and gospel obedience the necessary consequent of true faith - this is to be affirmed. But we are either under the law of works or not. If we are, we stand condemned and we go to hell. If not, than the law cannot condemn us and we go to heaven. God does not save us on the basis of our future enduring faith and obedience, rather, we have future enduring faith and obedience because He saves us, and all those whom Christ saves, He saves forever.
 
Our salvation is contingent upon the work of Jesus. Salvation is a trinitarian effort, and monergistic. To make our salvation conditional by faith, or works. We are not saved because of any work, merit, or act of obedience of our own. Our faith itself is not in its outset an effort or work. The faith we are given is a persuasion, a confidence or trust. The works we commit flow from that faith. Both faith and works are [i:bc7b4522d1]consequences[/i:bc7b4522d1] of salvation. Justification is forensic. It is not based on our works. Piper, like Edwards, makes an error in the noble attempt to synthesize Pauline theology and James' theology.

Jonothan Edwards made this same error. He also taught that salvation was contingent upon our works. Piper may actually be following the logical implications of Edward's errors. For more reading on this topic you will find a good article concerning Edward's tragic muddling of the doctrine of Justification in ModernRefomation magazine's recent article on Covenant Confusion.

I feel that the problem is important. The Gospel is undermined by a conditional salvation. Whoseover believes will be saved. Saved by what? From what? These are topics dealt with extensively by our Reformers. We are saved by GRACE through faith. Faith is an instrument of our determined end. The determiner is God, not man. God applies his accomplished redemption, there are no incidents within our output that are not consequences of God's application of redemption. We are justified because of the judicial pronouncement of Christ, because of his offering up of his soul as a priest and as an offering.
 
At the start of this thread, Terry quoted John Piper:

[quote:40816e5567]God justifies us on the first genuine act of saving faith, but in doing so he has a view to all subsequent acts of faith contained, as it were, like a seed in that first act.

What we are trying to do here is own up to the teaching of Romans 5:l, for example, that teaches that we are already justified before God. God does not wait to the end of our lives in order to declare us righteous. In fact, we would not be able to have the assurance and freedom in order to live out the radical demands of Christ unless we could be confident that because of our faith we already stand righteous before him.

Nevertheless, we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith. The way these two truths fit together is that we are justified on the basis of our first act of faith because God sees in it (like he can see the tree in an acorn) the embryo of a life of faith. This is why those who do not lead a life of faith with its inevitable obedience simply bear witness to the fact that their first act of faith was not genuine.

... we are indeed justified on the basis of our first act of faith but not without reference to all the subsequent acts of faith which give rise to the obedience that God demands.[/quote:40816e5567]

Someone quoted the first bit of Piper's note, and said "this seems to negate NT Wright and the Auburn Four." To that, I disagree quite strongly - reason being, if I were to read the quotation, particularly the bit which says "God ... has a view to all subsequent acts of faith contained, as it were, like a seed in that first act", I get a bit squeamish. Listen to what he's saying there:

God justifies on that act, WITH REFERENCE TO (reference to what?) ALL THE SUBSEQUENT ACTS OF FAITH (acts of faith, being, I suppose, works of obedience?). What he says here is creepily like what Schlissel et al have been saying all along, though they're very direct about it and unswervingly commit themselves to the idea that we are justified in part on the basis of our works. Piper is saying that God justifies somehow on the basis of our works of obedience being in "seed form" in our first act of faith. I'm really unhappy with this statement - I believe that Piper is generally orthodox on justification, but statements like this make me worry.

I worry more when I see what Piper has to say in the paragraph following "Nevertheless". He makes our salvation CONTINGENT on OUR ACTS... it can NEVER be this way, sorry boys. NEVER. Are works present in every saved person in some way? YES. Is our salvation CONTINGENT on them? Can't be. That is EXACTLY Auburn's message - that our salvation IS dependent on our performance. That is why Morecraft and others (though hastily, in my book, and perhaps in not the best manner) played the 'heresy' card.

Caveat: You see as I do in the words following the "contingency" statement above, that Piper does back off and say that what works show is the genuineness of faith... this is fine, solid, reformed thought... but his use of contingency is loose and dangerous speech.

Another problem I have with the gist of what Piper says here is that he treats the act of faith as the BASIS for justification, which, as Ian points out, can NEVER be - it's an instrument - the BASIS is Christ's atonement, not our act of anything, faith or otherwise! Another sloppy use of language, and exactly the kind of thing that people come away from a sermon believing (IN ERROR).

Yours in Christ, who IS our Righteousness, in FULL,

Todd
 
[quote:41e49fb201="toddpedlar"]God justifies on that act, WITH REFERENCE TO (reference to what?) ALL THE SUBSEQUENT ACTS OF FAITH [i:41e49fb201](acts of faith, being, I suppose, works of obedience?)[/i:41e49fb201]. What he says here is creepily like what Schlissel et al have been saying all along, though they're very direct about it and unswervingly commit themselves to the idea that we are justified in part on the basis of our works. Piper is saying that God justifies somehow [i:41e49fb201]on the basis of our works of obedience[/i:41e49fb201] being in "seed form" in our first act of faith. [/quote:41e49fb201]

I"(tm)m not sure I agree. Piper is not at all saying that God justifies "œon the basis of our works of obedience being in "˜seed form."(tm)" He is making the point that our first act of genuine faith will give rise to subsequent "œacts," or I think a better word would be [i:41e49fb201]instances[/i:41e49fb201], of genuine faith. In other words, contained in the initial instance of saving faith are all the future instances of saving faith wrapped up together in "œseed form." This is why it can be said that justification takes place with respect to [i:41e49fb201]every[/i:41e49fb201] instance of faith in a person"(tm)s life AND that justification is a present possession of the believer. He is focusing on the [i:41e49fb201]instrument[/i:41e49fb201] of justification; faith alone, but not just the first instance of that faith. When he says that our final salvation is "œcontingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith," all I see him saying is that it is impossible to be justified and live the rest of your life without any works. Saving faith necessarily produces works. That said, I do agree that Piper should have been more careful in his choice of words, not only in that statement, but also when he uses "œacts" to refer to two different things in the quote above. The first usage is:

[quote:41e49fb201]In other words, it seems that the faith which justified Abraham is not merely his first act of faith but the faith which gave rise to [b:41e49fb201]acts[/b:41e49fb201] of obedience later in his life.[/quote:41e49fb201]

Here, Piper says, faith [i:41e49fb201]gives rise[/] to these "œacts." Clearly the "œacts" do not refer to instances of faith, but rather to works[/i:41e49fb201]. But even here, notice that he never says that those works are in any way the basis for our justification. Piper is saying that Abraham was not only justified by his first "œact of faith," but also the "œfaith which gave rise to. . ." Here again, I think he has in mind every future [i:41e49fb201]instance[/i:41e49fb201] of faith which are demonstrated by Abraham"(tm)s works, but differentiated from the works themselves. Again, he should have been more careful in his use of the word "œacts." The first time he uses it in this quotation, it is referring to an [i:41e49fb201]act of faith[/i:41e49fb201], but in the same sentence he uses it a second time to refer to an [i:41e49fb201]act of works[/i:41e49fb201]. Even though his word choice is misleading, I think his theological concept is sound. It is brought out even clearer in the following quotation:

[quote:41e49fb201]we are indeed justified on the basis of our first act of faith but not without reference to all the subsequent acts of faith [b:41e49fb201]which give rise to the obedience that God demands.[/b:41e49fb201][/quote:41e49fb201]

First, Piper is not claiming that the basis of our justification is our faith itself. If Piper believes and teaching anything, it is that our justification is based solely and completely on the finished work of Jesus Christ. Secondly, Piper makes sure to differentiate between the "œacts of faith" and the "œ[works of] obedience that God demands." I believe it is a misrepresentation of Piper to claim that he is saying that "œGod justifies somehow [b:41e49fb201]on the basis of our works of obedience[/b:41e49fb201] being in "seed form" in our first act of faith." He is saying that justification is with respect to all instances of faith throughout a person"(tm)s life, not just the first. Those instances of faith give rise to works of obedience which show forth the faith. When you see the work, you in essence, are seeing the faith. I think this is the point Piper is making, but again, the wording can be misleading.


I hope this wasn"(tm)t superfluous to what has already been said . . . .
 
Originally posted by luvroftheWord
I admit that I'm not the Piper fan I once was... For example, in his book [u:4b41981226]Brothers, We Are Not Professionals[/u:4b41981226], a book where he, "pleads with fellow pastors to abandon the secularization of the pastorate and pursue the prophetic call of the Bible for radical ministry", he dedicated an entire chapter to a defense of believer's baptism. Now, what in the world does believer's baptism have to do with de-secularizing modern ministry?
Click to expand...

Actually, that chapter wasn't supposed to go in the book... I heard his wife Noel organizes his books and botched one... That chapter on Believer's Baptism was originally slated for a later forthcoming book, Brothers, We Are Not Presbyterians.

:bigsmile::bigsmile::):bigsmile::bigsmile:
 
Actually, that chapter wasn't supposed to go in the book... I heard his wife Noel organizes his books and botched one... That chapter on Believer's Baptism was originally slated for a later forthcoming book, Brothers, We Are Not Presbyterians.

:bigsmile::bigsmile::):bigsmile::bigsmile:
Click to expand...

:lol: Good one!
 
Originally posted by Ivan
Actually, that chapter wasn't supposed to go in the book... I heard his wife Noel organizes his books and botched one... That chapter on Believer's Baptism was originally slated for a later forthcoming book, Brothers, We Are Not Presbyterians.

:bigsmile::bigsmile::):bigsmile::bigsmile:
Click to expand...

:lol: Good one!
Click to expand...

:ditto:
 
Greetings guys,

I was especially confused by the following quotes from Piper's book Future Grace:
"a faith that only looks back to Christ's death and resurrection is not sufficient...Forgiveness for the Christian also depends on having, like Abraham, a futuristic faith in God's promises. Thus we cannot regard justifying faith as sufficient if it honors only the past fact of Christ's death and resurrection but does not honor the future promises of God..."
(page 206)

"I am hard pressed to imagine something more important for our lives than fulfilling the covenant that God has made with us for our final salvation" (page 249)
On page 248-249 Piper says that the all the covenants are covenants of grace that can be fulfilled by us.??? We cannot keep the covenant, the new testament makes clear. The Old Covenant was not a covenant of grace! It was a legal covenant that said "do this and you shall live." Hence the need for Christ to FULFILL the covenant for us not in us. The blessings of that fulfillment are given to us as a gift. We are not covenant-keepers! Piper also says "our security is as secure as God is faithful" (page. 248), he is saying that God must work IN us ACTUAL righteousness for us to be finally accepted by Him. Actual righteousness will happen in every true believer but it is not what God will look at for our acceptance. Only the alien righteousness of Christ is acceptable, and only Christ's covenant keeping is acceptable.
When I studied the Council of Trent document, the Catholic theologians repeatedly stressed the requirement of actual righteousness in the believer making him righteous; also the believer being MADE holy by this righteousness in order for God to accept us. They say that God could never accept someone who is not actually holy so they come up with a doctrine that teaches that God puts actual righteousness in the believer by infusion and MAKES them righteous so that He can accept their persons. The gospel says that God justifies the ungodly! He does not change them and then accept them, He accepts them on the basis of Christ's IMPUTED righteousness and then changes them.

I was looking at an article by Piper today and again I see this issue that seems to recur in his writings. It is from an article called "The Gospel in the Church for the Obedience of Faith through Spiritual Gifts."
He says "So the gospel of grace (Acts 20:24) is what we preach to unbelievers, and the gospel of grace is what we preach to believers. That is what Paul says in Romans 1:15. "I am eager to preach the gospel to you [believers!] also who are in Rome." Not to get them saved, BUT TO KEEP THEM SAVED THROUGH SANCTIFICATION. Our faith feeds off the good news of the grace of God. And our obedience feeds off of faith. Therefore, to bring about the obedience of faith, we must hear the gospel of grace again and again." (emphasis mine)

Neither the Scripture nor the Reformers taught that we are kept saved through sanctification even when we say that sanctification is by faith. Over and over, salvation is a GIFT. Righteousness is a GIFT. Eternal life is a GIFT. But here, salvation seems to be made contingent on some unknown level of obedience worked by us with the help of grace. Calvin repeatedly says that faith IS the obedience that is referred to in Romans 1:5.(Institutes III.2.6; III.2.8 and in his commentary on Rom.1:5) We must always distinguish between imputed and infused righteousness. Our salvation in every respect, including our "final" salvation is based solely on the perfect imputed righteousness of Christ worked OUTSIDE of us. While the righteous life (that is a necessary result of this) is where God by His Spirit works righteousness INSIDE of us. The work OUTSIDE is never contingent on the work INSIDE! However, sanctification is always contingent on Justification.

This is the gospel: God justifies the ungodly! It is the good news of the GIFT of eternal salvation!
Soli Deo Gloria, Darrin

[Edited on 1-1-2005 by Canadian Baptist]
 
Originally posted by Canadian Baptist
Greetings guys,

I was especially confused by the following quotes from Piper's book Future Grace:
"a faith that only looks back to Christ's death and resurrection is not sufficient...Forgiveness for the Christian also depends on having, like Abraham, a futuristic faith in God's promises. Thus we cannot regard justifying faith as sufficient if it honors only the past fact of Christ's death and resurrection but does not honor the future promises of God..."
(page 206)

"I am hard pressed to imagine something more important for our lives than fulfilling the covenant that God has made with us for our final salvation" (page 249)
On page 248-249 Piper says that the all the covenants are covenants of grace that can be fulfilled by us.??? We cannot keep the covenant, the new testament makes clear. The Old Covenant was not a covenant of grace! It was a legal covenant that said "do this and you shall live." Hence the need for Christ to FULFILL the covenant for us not in us. The blessings of that fulfillment are given to us as a gift. We are not covenant-keepers! Piper also says "our security is as secure as God is faithful" (page. 248), he is saying that God must work IN us ACTUAL righteousness for us to be finally accepted by Him. Actual righteousness will happen in every true believer but it is not what God will look at for our acceptance. Only the alien righteousness of Christ is acceptable, and only Christ's covenant keeping is acceptable.
When I studied the Council of Trent document, the Catholic theologians repeatedly stressed the requirement of actual righteousness in the believer making him righteous; also the believer being MADE holy by this righteousness in order for God to accept us. They say that God could never accept someone who is not actually holy so they come up with a doctrine that teaches that God puts actual righteousness in the believer by infusion and MAKES them righteous so that He can accept their persons. The gospel says that God justifies the ungodly! He does not change them and then accept them, He accepts them on the basis of Christ's IMPUTED righteousness and then changes them.

I was looking at an article by Piper today and again I see this issue that seems to recur in his writings. It is from an article called "The Gospel in the Church for the Obedience of Faith through Spiritual Gifts."
He says "So the gospel of grace (Acts 20:24) is what we preach to unbelievers, and the gospel of grace is what we preach to believers. That is what Paul says in Romans 1:15. "I am eager to preach the gospel to you [believers!] also who are in Rome." Not to get them saved, BUT TO KEEP THEM SAVED THROUGH SANCTIFICATION. Our faith feeds off the good news of the grace of God. And our obedience feeds off of faith. Therefore, to bring about the obedience of faith, we must hear the gospel of grace again and again." (emphasis mine)

Neither the Scripture nor the Reformers taught that we are kept saved through sanctification even when we say that sanctification is by faith. Over and over, salvation is a GIFT. Righteousness is a GIFT. Eternal life is a GIFT. But here, salvation seems to be made contingent on some unknown level of obedience worked by us with the help of grace. Calvin repeatedly says that faith IS the obedience that is referred to in Romans 1:5.(Institutes III.2.6; III.2.8 and in his commentary on Rom.1:5) We must always distinguish between imputed and infused righteousness. Our salvation in every respect, including our "final" salvation is based solely on the perfect imputed righteousness of Christ worked OUTSIDE of us. While the righteous life (that is a necessary result of this) is where God by His Spirit works righteousness INSIDE of us. The work OUTSIDE is never contingent on the work INSIDE! However, sanctification is always contingent on Justification.

This is the gospel: God justifies the ungodly! It is the good news of the GIFT of eternal salvation!
Soli Deo Gloria, Darrin

[Edited on 1-1-2005 by Canadian Baptist]
Click to expand...

Interesting, D. Hunter, very interesting. Something to invetigae and to ponder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Reformed Roman
  • Locked
Beware of..... John Piper???
Replies
3
Views
3K
Southern Presbyterian
Southern Presbyterian
CarsonLAllen
  • Locked
John Piper & Christian Hedonism
2
Replies
57
Views
18K
Dr. Bob Gonzales
Dr. Bob Gonzales
P
  • Locked
John Piper on Justification
Replies
1
Views
2K
Herald
Herald
TheThirdandReformedAdam
  • Locked
John Piper and Penal Substitution
Replies
1
Views
2K
StephenG
StephenG
J
  • Locked
John Piper vs N.T. Wright?
2
Replies
54
Views
21K
CalvinandHodges
CalvinandHodges
Back
Top