John Piper's Perversion of the Gospel

[bgamall]

I really am not familiar with Piper. If he is profiting off the gospel, which I do not know, then I don't like him. However, it is clear that Abraham was justified by faith more than once. There is a continuing aspect to justification.

Piper holds to the 1689 confession. Therefore I cannot support him in key issues. I do not support that confession at all. However, I have seen that Abraham was justified multiple times for over 20 years.

[BBNewton]

Bgamall,

What is your biblical case for concluding that Abraham went through a process of losing his justification and then gaining in back again? Or did he go through varying levels of justification?

The true view of justification is an utmost key issue in the Church. Sanctification is a continuing process; justification occurs once. And a person is either fully justified or fully unjustified--no middle ground.

Ben

[bgamall]

Scripture clearly makes reference to Abraham being justified by faith on three different occasions. It does not mean he lost justification. It does not mean it progressed to a higher level. It simply means that righteousness was imputed to Abraham more than once through faith. Go find the scriptures.

[Brandan Kraft]

I have moved this thread out of "Great Past Discussions" so that we can discuss it some more.

John Robbins recently posted this to his e-mail list...

Dear Friends,

From time to time we receive feedback from fans of John Piper who say that we have misunderstood him on justification and that he is sound as a dollar used to be on that topic.

Today a friend called our attention to some statements that appear on Piper's website that demonstrate how far from Biblical Piper's views are:

"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."
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/t...ace/tulip.html

Here are Piper's errors:

1. God does not have in view "all subsequent acts of faith" and obedience when he justifies us; he has in view only the objective work of Christ outside of us, his perfect righteousness. If God had in view our acts of faith and obedience, we would never be justified.

2. It is not "because of our faith that we already stand righteous before him." It is only because of the active and passive obedience of our substitute and representative, Jesus Christ, imputed to us freely, that we stand righteous before God.

3. It is false that "our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith." This is the doctrine of Rome. Our final salvation is sealed from the moment of first belief. It is not contingent on anything we do or don't do. The sole ground of justification is the obedience of Christ extrinsic to us.

4. We are not "justified on the basis of our first act of faith." Piper turns faith itself into the ground, reason, basis, and cause of our justification. The ground, reason, basis, and cause of our justification is wholly outside of us, in Jesus Christ.

5. Piper says that the reason that some are damned is their "ingenuine faith." He writes: "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." How ingenuine faith differs from genuine faith he does not say, probably because he has no clear idea what faith is. Like so many misinformed Protestants, Piper focuses on psychology and makes saving faith differ from generic faith, not because of its object, but because of some alleged difference in psychology, which is never made clear. That is to miss the Gospel entirely.

For a fuller account of Piper's fatal errors on justification, please read "Pied Piper" at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=113

Cordially,
John Robbins
The Trinity Foundation
April 8, 2005
www.trinityfoundation.org

[Mickey]

It kinda sounds like a confession to me. Whats uip with him saying that "we must own up?" Like he just realized that he believes and teaches heresy? Put that article alongside some of the things he's written about election and grace and the 5 year olds I attend meeting with on Sunday will see and scoff at the folly of it all.

All I can say is that if it weren't for God's grace that would be me!

[samohtwerdna]

Thanks for the post "DG"

Piper is very respected in most reformed communities, probably by those who hold closely to Spurgeon.

Anyway, It seems to me that an Infralapsarian will not have much problem eventually agreeing with or at least allowing such errors. In fact Justification may be the most pivotal doctrine connected to lapsarianism. What else but a skewed since of God's decrees could lead a man to say:

because God sees in it (like he can see the tree in an acorn) the embryo of a life of faith.

OH how we need those great teachers of Superlapsarianism to rise up and instruct. Let's trade "Desiring God" for the works of Beza and friends!

[Robert R. Higby]

The 'evangelical' and Spurgeonist doctrine of common wrath, the counterpart of common grace, would have us believe that unless and until a person responds to the finished atoning work of Jesus Christ by faith--the wrath of God really and truly abides on that person. That means ALL OF US--before and up to our first moment of personal faith. It is only then that God is proposed to respond with the gift of personal justification.

This teaching denies both justification from eternity and justification constituted for all the elect in the event of Christ's atoning sacrifice. Only the DECLARATIVE aspect of justification waits until personal faith occurs. In the event of giving personal faith to one of his elect, God publicly declares a particular soul justified before the universe. However, if eternal and constitutive justification are true, in God's estimation the same soul was ALWAYS justified!

[samohtwerdna]

God publicly declares a particular soul justified before the universe.

I like the addition of public here. Since the elect where eternally decreed to be justified, amongst the trinity, the "declaration" and the "decree" seem indistinguishable. All created being's must experience the eternal decrees because they - being finite - cannot look in upon the infinite - they merely witness (and partake in) it unfolding.

Bob the one thing that is kind of confusing to me is who receives the declaration, and is it audible or beyond words? Scripture puts a heavy emphasis on the "word" and "speaking" - are these always anthropomorphisms? - do you think the "declare" part of justification is an anthropomorphism?

Andrew T. Adcock

[Brandan Kraft]

I believe the public declaration is probably before the saints and angels in heaven, and there also is a private declaration (through divine illumination of the Scriptures) to the justified individual's conscience. Another term for declarative justification would be experiential justification - the point in which the individual receives knowledge that he has been reckoned righteous by decree of God and the atoning work of Christ.

[Jimc]

justification from eternity.... eternal and constitutive justification are true, in God's estimation the same soul was ALWAYS justified!

Hello! This is the first time I am participating in any forums anywhere on the web.

I am a little confused about the phrase "eternal justification". I believe that Election, justification, and regenertion are all distinct events. We are elect from eternity. Declared righteous on the Cross (before the foundation of the world). And then experiencially born in sin, called and regenerated.

We were ALWAYS justified before the foundation of the world but yet still after and distinct from being elected. And we were Elect according to forknowelge which came before that and is also distinct from that.

But whether "The Lamb of God that was slain before the foundation of the world" eternally justified us in the same sense that we were eternally elected I don't know.

Rom 5:12 applied to the Elect at some point in time in some legitimate sense otherwise we would not have needed to be justified at all.

But the above quote does not truly accept "constitutive" justification:

"...justification from eternity.... eternal [and constitutive justification are true,] in God's estimation the same soul was ALWAYS justified!"

In Christ Jesus,
Jim C.

John Piper does endorse "conditional grace" in Future Grace which is contraditory! And he does preach that "prayer" is the condition of how God blesses us. He quotes Pascal who was pelagian and perhaps mentally ill. I also do not C. S. Lewis which he quotes. (Goto Trinityfoundation.org for the article on him.)