John Piper - Future Grace Recantation?

[cupotea]

I think that I heard from someone that John Piper has changed his view on the relationship between justification/sanctification as presented in Future Grace.

Two Questions:
1) What was Piper's view on faith/works?
2) How has his view changed, and where could I find that information?

 

[SolaScriptura]

[quote:f6971f9596][i:f6971f9596]Originally posted by JesusFan[/i:f6971f9596]
I think that I heard from someone that John Piper has changed his view on the relationship between justification/sanctification as presented in Future Grace.

Two Questions:
1) What was Piper's view on faith/works?
2) How has his view changed, and where could I find that information? [/quote:f6971f9596]

Why take our word for it? Go straight to the horses mouth...
Try emailing him or the staff at Desiring God ministries.

 

[heartoflesh]

Does he have this posted somewhere? Something stating that he has officially "changed his position"? Or must everyone email him to find out?

 

[SolaScriptura]

As far as I know he hasn't posted anything.

But then again, I don't think his position in Future Grace is wrong. :shocked:
I think the obviousness of his thesis is beyond refute... :wr51:

But then again... what would you expect from someone who attends the seminary that is the highest rated and #1 most recommended by John Piper?

[Edited on 3-19-2004 by SolaScriptura]

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:b3d3acfc0b][i:b3d3acfc0b]Originally posted by SolaScriptura[/i:b3d3acfc0b]
As far as I know he hasn't posted anything.

But then again, I don't think his position in Future Grace is wrong. :shocked:
I think the obviousness of his thesis is beyond refute... :wr51:

But then again... what would you expect from someone who attends the seminary that is the highest rated and #1 most recommended by John Piper?

[Edited on 3-19-2004 by SolaScriptura] [/quote:b3d3acfc0b]

A new edition of Future Grace is coming out in which Piper will move away from his wrong position of denying (or at least militating against) the covenant of works. Piper saw the light that such a position eventually leads to works righteousness. He has fully embraced the covenant of works/covenant of grace schemata in his much better book, [u:b3d3acfc0b]Counted Righteous in Christ[/u:b3d3acfc0b]

 

[heartoflesh]

[quote:659b7cf906][i:659b7cf906]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:659b7cf906]

A new edition of Future Grace is coming out in which Piper will move away from his wrong position of denying (or at least militating against) the covenant of works.... [/quote:659b7cf906]

Fred, just curious, where did you hear this?

~Rick

 

[fredtgreco]

From Ligon Duncan. I must confess that I have not read Future Grace, but I have read Counted Righteous. It is stellar. Piper has done the church a great service in writing that book. I am very grateful.

 

[Pete Richert]

I emailed DGM to ask a similar question. While Piper is obviously in the traditional camp on imputation, his early sermons on the law were identical to the view held by his teacher Fuller and I wondered if he still held the same law/gospel contrast of those early sermons (and if not, I wondered if he had any correcting exegesis as his handling of the texts was quite convincing). I only got a generetic email from the DGM staff that didn't begin to answer the question but only posted links to a few "concerned about Fuller" articles I had already read.

Anyway, just a question. How does denying that God ever asked you to earn or merit your salvation lead into salvation by earning it or meriting it?

Actually, I have lots of question on the law while I am at it. Why did God give the law and say do this when it was already to late, everybody who was hearing it had already sinned and couln't be perfect? Any why did God offer forgivness to Israel if they would turn back to His law? It doesn't sound like the new testament, forget the law and believe in Christ for forgiveness.

I think the relationship of the law in Theology is the most difficult concept to understand. Check out the book "5 views on law and gospel" to see the mess of ideas modern evengelicalism has.

 

[heartoflesh]

[quote:a19378c331][i:a19378c331]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:a19378c331]
From Ligon Duncan. I must confess that I have not read Future Grace, but I have read Counted Righteous. It is stellar. Piper has done the church a great service in writing that book. I am very grateful. [/quote:a19378c331]

I agree.

For those who haven't read "Counted Righteous", or are wondering what Piper's position is on justification, the following article puts it in a nutshell.

http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID559376|CIID1617004,00.html

 

[cupotea]

Most Grateful

I am most grateful for John Piper and the obvious markings of sanctification in his life and ministry. As one strives to keep their eyes on Jesus, enevitable growth in Christ will result. So it is observed in brother. Piper.

 

[Bernard_Marx]

I have a hard time with Piper, not due to his theology but because I have a hard time understanding what he's saying. So while I've read Future Grace I have little idea what else he says.

Could someone point me to some articles about his theology, specifically about how the ideas in Future Grace are wrong??

 

[CyberFish]

Richaerd, here is one for you. "Pied Piper" by John Robbins.

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/reviews/journal.asp?ID=197a.html

 

[cupotea]

New Book

Has any one read or heard of that book by Mark W. Karlberg
The name of the book is "GOSPEL GRACE
The Modern Controversy"
I believe he had articles in their about John Frame, John Piper, Richard Gaffin and I think others.
Who is Mark W. Karlberg is a presbyterian.
Someone told me this book has to do with the Justification and Covenant issue.
What is the real root of the problem?

 

[LawrenceU]

[quote:e7538b84d1]Richaerd, here is one for you. "Pied Piper" by John Robbins[/quote:e7538b84d1]

As has been discussed many times on this site: John Robbins is not a man to go to for insight into other's teachings or character referrals. If you don't agree down the line with HIS interpretation then you must be a heretic. Sad.

 

[pastorway]

All you have to do is read Piper's book [i:075b71ebbe]Counted Righteous[/i:075b71ebbe] and it becomes quite clear that Robbins is a NUT who has completely misrepresented Piper's theology.

Robbins needs to shut up unless he has something edifying to say.

Phillip

 

[The Gentile]

[quote:6474e11680][i:6474e11680]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:6474e11680]
All you have to do is read Piper's book [i:6474e11680]Counted Righteous[/i:6474e11680] and it becomes quite clear that Robbins is a NUT who has completely misrepresented Piper's theology.

Robbins needs to shut up unless he has something edifying to say.

Phillip [/quote:6474e11680]

Absolutley! I've never seen a man so taken out of context.

 

[Pete Richert]

Counted Righteouss

"All you have to do is read Piper's book Counted Righteous and it becomes quite clear that Robbins is a NUT who has completely misrepresented Piper's theology. "

But see that if just the thing. It would appear to many (and not just myself) that Piper has been slowly shifting his view. Even John Armstrong commented to Piper personally that his view has been shifting of late. I don't believe he used to reject the imputation of Christ's active obedience and now he believes it, but better, he didn't realize the implications of his law/gospel contiuum (let's call it the Fuller view), would not gel with that imputation. If the Law itself has built into it forginvess of sins (with the actual ground looking ahead to Christ of course) and the law is kept by faith and repentence for forgivness the law can be kept (did David say he kept it(!), did a Psalmist say that the eyes of the Lord are on those who KEEP his Covenant(!)), and it doesn't take sinless obedience. In the NT, the new covenant didn't change the law but the person, giving him the Spirit so he does trust in God and seek forginvess, and therefor the Covenant is kept. I hope that is a accurate summary of Fuller's view but the point is that if we need not sinless obedience then we need not have this imputed to us. Instead, we need our sins imputed to Christ and the Spirit "imputed" to us so that we do believe. But when Piper hits this in the last five years while teaching Romans, he upholds the tradtional reformed view of imputation, and in doing so seemily jettisons this law/gospel understanding.

Now my question, which I have tried to get DGM to answer, is if indeed he has changed his view on the law/gospel, and whether he knows accepts the tradional Reformed (or perhaps better, Lutheran) understanding of it. And since Future Grace is built upon the cocept that obedience is itself just the outworking of truly trusting in God in actual circumstances in time and space (Fuller again), then perhaps he know longer finds this true. Does Piper still recommend Fuller's "The Unity of the Bible", the book he endorsed as changing his life on the back, or "Contrast and Contiuum", the book that started it all with repsect to Fuller's understanding?

As one who is struggling to understand the relaionship of the Law to the Gospel, imputation, sinless obedience, faith/works, etc, I would be very interested to have Piper spell out his views and highlight any changes, espeically with repsect to the sermons preached in 1983 about the law, and if he has changed, by all means give us a point by point rebuttle of his own rather convicing exegesis from that time.

So Fred, is it your opinion that as Dispensationals become more and more sanctified in this life, they will become more and more reformed, and the Reformed community is just a Christians who are more mature in their walk

 

[The Gentile]

Hey Pete,

I believe Piper split from Dan Fuller a while ago, but i don't know if he still endorses that particular book of his. You might be interested in reading his sermons on Romans 7, particularly his series on the "divided man" where i'm sure he addressed these issues.

 

[Rich Barcellos]

Fred said:

A new edition of Future Grace is coming out in which Piper will move away from his wrong position of denying (or at least militating against) the covenant of works. Piper saw the light that such a position eventually leads to works righteousness. He has fully embraced the covenant of works/covenant of grace schemata in his much better book, Counted Righteous in Christ
_________________________________

Though Piper may have "fully embraced the covenant of works/covenant of grace schemata" I did not see it explicitly articulated "in his much better book, Counted Righteous in Christ." In fact, this is one if its glaring weaknesses, in my opinion. A friend of mine wrote a review of it and closed with these words: "I highly recommend the book to every pastor responsible for the care of souls and have also recommended it to the people of my congregation. The book is, however, open to the criticism of not treating the doctrine of imputation in the larger biblical and theological context of the council of redemption, the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, and the covenant headships of Adam and Christ. The exegetical arguments presented are sound and right and prove the point well, but they could have been even stronger if set within the context of the larger biblical themes that form much of the backbone of Reformed Baptist (and Paedobaptist) covenant theology." I was very encouraged by Piper's book and am lead to believe that he will continue down the path that will lead him to a more federal (in the historical sense ) postion concerning Adam and Christ and the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.

 

[Rich Barcellos]

Joshua said: Welcome to the board, Rich!

Thanks. I should have added that I was not attacking Fred at all. I have very much enjoyed many of his posts. Periodically, I would do web searches on various issues and Fred's name would come up. I have found myself agreeing with him on many occasions. Concerning Piper, he may well hold to the CW/CG motif. I just wish he would have been more explicit in his book.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:7d81853c3b][i:7d81853c3b]Originally posted by Rich Barcellos[/i:7d81853c3b]
Joshua said: Welcome to the board, Rich!

Thanks. I should have added that I was not attacking Fred at all. I have very much enjoyed many of his posts. Periodically, I would do web searches on various issues and Fred's name would come up. I have found myself agreeing with him on many occasions. Concerning Piper, he may well hold to the CW/CG motif. I just wish he would have been more explicit in his book. [/quote:7d81853c3b]

Rich,

Please be assured that I did not consider your post to be critical of me. In fact, I agree with you regarding the lack of explicit CoW references in [u:7d81853c3b]Counted Righteous in Christ[/u:7d81853c3b]. I was referring to the implicit reference through the active obedience of Christ (which really means nothing outside of a classical two Covenant (Works/Grace) schemata) and to private conversations that I have had with others who have had private conversations with Piper. (I know that is not the best way to disseminate information, but at least in this case it is to the praise rather than criticism of Piper)

By the way, Rich, are you the same man who wrote the excellent book on the 10 Commandments and NCT? It was excellent, and much needed in our day.

Also, welcome to the board and thank you for your kind words.

 

[Rich Barcellos]

Fred said:

Rich,

Please be assured that I did not consider your post to be critical of me. In fact, I agree with you regarding the lack of explicit CoW references in Counted Righteous in Christ. I was referring to the implicit reference through the active obedience of Christ (which really means nothing outside of a classical two Covenant (Works/Grace) schemata) and to private conversations that I have had with others who have had private conversations with Piper. (I know that is not the best way to disseminate information, but at least in this case it is to the praise rather than criticism of Piper)

By the way, Rich, are you the same man who wrote the excellent book on the 10 Commandments and NCT? It was excellent, and much needed in our day.

Also, welcome to the board and thank you for your kind words.
_________________________________

I agree with your assessment of Piper's book. The book was implicitly correct. Hopefully, he will be more explicit in the days ahead.

And yes, I am the same one who wrote the book. And it is good to be aboard. Thanks. Press on!