John Piper

[John 6-37]

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=113

Comments?


"...
This may not be the central error of Piper’s book, but it comes close. The focus of saving faith is not what God has promised to do for us in the future, but what God has already done for us in Christ. Chris-tians preach and trust only Christ crucified, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Christ cruci-fied is the sole focus of Biblical, saving, faith; it is the focus of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, by which we remember the Lord’s death; and it is the focus of worship in Heaven (see Revelation 5), with endless future ages before it. Piper wants to change that focus, from Christ crucified to something else. In attempting to change the focus of our faith, he avoids discussing, although he grudgingly admits, that all the benefits Christians receive from God are because of what Christ has already done on their behalf and in their place.(11 (http://www.trinitylectures.org/catalog/#11foot)) Piper’s admission is grudging, for he wants to argue that our future happiness, benefits, and final salvation depend upon our meeting condi-tions that God has established for receiving those blessings. In Piper’s Plan of Salvation, despite what Christ said on the cross, "It is not finished." The be-liever must complete the work of salvation that Christ began. Future grace is conditional, and it is we, not Christ, who must meet those conditions.

Because Piper’s focus is on benefits we may receive in the future, this long and repetitive book omits any discussion of the Satisfaction by Christ of the justice of the Father (although Piper has a great deal to say about our being satisfied); it fails to discuss either Christ’s active or passive obedience; it omits any serious discussion of the imputation of sin and righteousness (imputation is mentioned in passing); it omits any discussion of the law of God; it omits discussion of the covenant of works; it fails to mention Adam and Christ as our legal represen-tatives; and it depreciates the law and justice of God.

Piper opens the book with an attack on thanksgiving—he calls it gratitude—as a proper motive for Christian obedience. Thanksgiving is backward looking; it is not future-oriented. It is op-posed to and conflicts with faith in future grace. Nevertheless, thanksgiving is taught in Scripture as a proper motive for obedience, and Piper grudgingly admits it. But he devalues thanksgiving because it involves what he disparagingly calls the "debtors’ ethic." Debt, merit, and justice belong to another theological universe, not Piper’s. Rather than thanksgiving, it is "faith in future grace" that properly motivates obedience, and Piper quotes verses that are silent on the point in an attempt to support his claim. "

[Robert R. Higby]

You've got it exactly right. We had a long discussion before on the matter of Piper's soteriology of paradox and synthesis. He doesn't believe that God's verdict of justification in the present is sufficient to guarantee our salvation in the final judgment; final justification is conditional upon a sufficient level of character transformation. Yet he professedly denies belief in the 'new perspective' on Paul--which makes no logical sense.

[Brandan Kraft]

See this thread: http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=1472

Piper is an out and out heretic in my opinion.

[Skeuos Eleos]

Whilst I agree with the thrust of Robbins' article I disagree with his stand on the 'Covenant of Works' where he says:

One consequence of this denial of the covenant of works is that if Adam was not a party to the covenant of works, as these men assert, then neither was Christ, the Second and Last Adam. Therefore, Christ could not, did not, and was not supposed to pay the debts of, and earn salvation for, his people. As the Second and Last Adam, Christ did not by his active and passive obedience fulfill the Law of God, pay the debts of his people, and merit their salvation. Thus the denial of the covenant of works is an attack on the justice of God: on the imputation of Adam’s sin to his children, on the active obedience and work of Christ, on the imputation of Christ’s active obedience and righteousness to believers. By denying that Adam and Christ, as federal heads of their respective races, were subject to the covenant of works before the court of God’s justice, not his grace, each Adam being required to fulfill the terms of the covenant, one failing miserably, and the other succeeding perfectly, the Neolegalists put all believers on probation, and make their salvation depend on their own evangelical obedience. It seems to me to be nothing more than the application of logic. Unfortunately these points didn't come up when we discussed the Covenant of Works (http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=1487). Is there anyone 'out there' who agrees with Robbins on this and is willing to discuss it?

Martin

[Robert R. Higby]

I agree with you, Martin, that Robbins has gone too far in this comparison. He is defending the view known as the 'immediate imputation' of Adam's sin. The notion: Adam, as a sinless man, could have merited eternal life for himself and all his posterity had he kept the covenant of works. Because he failed to do this, Christ had to step in and do the identical thing instead (by keeping the covenant of works that Adam failed to obey).

We have talked before about which aspects of a 'covenant of works' teaching are legitimate and which aspects are in error. Adam, like all mankind, was obligated to obey God perfectly. So he was accountable to the commandments of God as are all eternal souls. The penalty of his failure to obey is clearly stated (as it is for all of us). But affirming this aspect of a works-type covenant is not the same thing as affirming that Adam, being in a unique situation as a sinless man, could MERIT eternal life through obedience. The Bible only states that CONTINUED life in the garden was forfeited through disobedience.

Adam was predestined to sin, in order to pave the way for redemption in the merits of Christ--the true representative and substitute of mankind. Scripture does not speak in terms of 'what if': IF Adam had only not eaten the fruit, etc. God's will and plan is unitary. Christ was slain from before the foundation of the world; the transgression of Adam is after the foundation of the world.