Some of my correspondence regarding the Justification

[Tulkas]

Shawn to Pastor Bruce

After much searching I have finally found a statement from Piper (one that is not taken out of context, that is) that might indicate a problem. The following quote comes from an article, that is still posted on Piper's website, entitled "What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism":


"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/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html



Piper seems (and I do stress the word 'seems') to be saying that the initial act of God's making the pronouncement to the Christian that they are not guilty is based upon the foreknown, intrinsic, personal righteousness of that Christian. For, in this quote, being "justified on the basis of our first act of faith" is the declaration of not only our faith in what Christ did extrinsically to the Christian, but a declaration of what the Christian will be intrinsically one day (albeit, because of that work of Christ, but it is an intrinsic righteousness nonetheless). In other words, we are set right with God on the basis of the fact that we will one day be transformed into the image of Christ―not on the basis of the obedience that Christ lived on our behalf.



Whereas traditionally it is said that there are two halves that together make up our right standing before God; this construction of Piper's seems to make a different recipe for justification. Traditionally, one half is Christ's expiation of our guilt by suffering the wrath of God while on the cross, and the second half is the imputation of Christ's perfect obedience to our account. Piper's statement seems to make Christ's perfect obedience the grounds by which our past sins can be eradicated on the cross (one half of our justification), and the grounds by which our eventual righteousness is ensured (the other half). But this construction makes that eventual righteousness the cause of God declaring us just. It is because we will be righteous that we are now only declared righteous.



Now, because of what Piper has more recently said, I am utterly confidant that Piper was simply unclear here and he really is saying something completely different, and therefore D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, A.A. Hoekema, Norman L. Geisler, John Robbins, and I are reading him wrongly. Another option is that he has changed his view (it is here that I wish you to form the mental picture of Roger Nicole sternly looking at John and saying, "No, I do not confuse justification and sanctification"). Either way it is unfair of anyone to make this statement to be his only official statement on justification and to, on the basis of this statement and in complete disregard of his more recent statements, write him off as heterodox.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor Bruce to Shawn

Shawn,

I want to work through this slowly and carefully, but here are a couple of questions that come to mind that I will be wrestling with.


Piper says:

"Nevertheless, we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith."

What happens if we say this statement is wrong, and try to negate it? Would we be forced to say something like:

"Our final salvation is not contingent on any ongoing evidences of faith or obedience."

If we say this, we open the door to the more radical teachings of 1980's dispensationalism, where Zane Hodge's claimed there was such a thing as an "unbelieving believer."

Traditionally we hear something like, "Ongoing obedience is the necessary and inevitable evidence that the first act of faith was genuine, and therefore 'saving.'"

I think perhaps the issue turns on how we understand "contingent." Does Piper mean that we are not really justified until we prove, through a life of faithful obedience, that our first faith was genuine? I doubt it.



I think he is more likely trying to honor the texts that ask, "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say?" Or, "He who endures to the end will be saved." Or, "You will know them by their fruits."

How do we do honor to the texts that warn of people that made a good start and yet fell away? Do we only view those after the fact, to explain what happened? Or do we preach "up front" that only the soil that sustains a plant and produces fruit is "justified" soil?

Would it be wrong to say that the necessary evidence of imputation is impartation? I don't think so. If we are not infused with the righteousness of Christ, then neither was His righteousness "imputed" to us.

Again, "contingent" is the key phrase. Is it a fair way to
paraphrase, "He who endures to the end will be saved?"

How would you understand Paul in this verse, written to the believers at Corinth?

2 Corinthians 7:10 For the sorrow that is according to the
will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation; but the sorrow of the world produces death.

The context is that they had become sloppy with church discipline and holiness, and they have repented from this. This is a repentance without regret, leading to salvation. What does this mean, seeing as how it is written to Christians?



Grace,

Bruce





---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shawn Dumas to Pastor Bruce

Please know two things; firstly, I am convinced that, despite this quote, Piper has a correct view of the distinction between justification and sanctification. And secondly, I am just as convinced that all that follows is simply a matter of review for you. You have no need to be taught this by me and only are in need of a simple reminder.


The concept of "salvation" and the concept of "justification" are not interchangeable and conclusions based on this substitution mislead. Of course, when one substitutes the broader term "salvation" for "justification," then it is wrong to assert that the one condition of justification is faith alone and not our works of any kind. A person's "salvation" includes a broader spectrum of concepts than those included in his "justification." A person's "salvation" involves his calling, his regeneration, his justification, his adoption, his sanctification, his vindication at the last judgment, and his glorification. "Salvation" includes the benefits of Christ's righteousness from both an imputed and an infused perspective. But a person's "justification" is related more narrowly to the imputation of Christ's righteousness which is received by faith alone. And so when Piper says, "we are justified on the basis of our first act of faith because God sees in it […] the embryo of a life of faith" (emphases mine) he rightly calls in to question whether or not he is clear on the distinction between justification and sanctification.



The question "what does a man have to do to be saved?" is answered by saying, "A person does not have to do anything, he simply must believe." This may seem to be in error but it is perfectly legitimate to say that a person simply must believe to be saved, if the term "saved" is being interchanged for "justified". Nothing but faith is required for the imputation of Christ's righteousness. A man is justified by faith alone. By implying that a person must do something other than believe in order to be justified we confuse sanctification (the final state of the believer) with justification.



We also confuse by defining faith as "a life of faith" rather than "believing which issue in doing". The result of the former definition of faith is that faith cannot be distinguished from the works it produces. If we identify faith with the works it produces we can, ultimately, affirm that a person is justified by works (or as Piper has seemed to do, a whole life of works) just as well as we can affirm that a person is justified by faith. Wherever we say, "a person is justified by obedient faith," it is possible to substitute the idea that a person is justified by "faithful obedience." Instead of affirming that a man is justified by a faith (that always has accompanying graces that necessarily result in works), we erroneously affirm that man is justified by a faith that always works.



This particular equation of "faith with works" explains a great deal of the ambiguity in some of the more incorrect formulations. On the one hand, it appears to offer a significant service to the current scene by emphasizing that true saving faith must be a living faith. But on the other hand, this merging of faith with works has the effect of promoting the idea that a person is justified by the inwrought righteousness of Christ as well as by the imputed righteousness of Christ. Indeed works must be present if one is justified, but works are required for justification only in the sense that these actions are fruits and evidences of justification. Yet Piper's treatment seems to imply that they are required essentially in the same sense in which faith is required for justification. Describing the works characterizing the life of the believer as requirement for justification misleads.



Now, to say, "If faith is receiving Christ it is also obeying His commands," is to speak the truth; indeed, from one perspective faith may be regarded as an act of obedience, or as a "work" itself. But "faith" cannot be defined as the works it produces, how can the thing produced be the thing that produced it? To say the same thing, even though faith is the instrument of justification, so also faith is the instrument of good works, but faith is never to be identified (as in ascertained or made to be the same) with the good works it produces.



Actually, I would go so far as to say that faith is never, ever, to be identified with justification either! Faith is what we do; justification is because of what Christ has done. Our faith is not the grounds of our justification but merely our association with the work Christ has done both in his passive obedience of the cross and in his active obedience in a life lived in perfect accordance with the law. Our statement of faith has it this way:



Those whom, God effectually calls he also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.



Justification is not by anything intrinsic to us, not even our faith (that is here called an evangelical obedience); our right standing before God is on account of something wholly extrinsic and outside of us, namely the death and life of Jesus.

[Tulkas]

I read the email from Mr. Taylor to Mr. Gill (of this forum) that was meant to be a clarification regarding the troubling quote I sent to my Pastor. I'll quote it again here for convenience:

“Thanks for your note to John Piper. I appreciate your gracious spirit, and your desire for clarification.



John believes we are justified by grace through faith alone, on the basis of Christ’s imputed righteousness alone. He also believes that “salvation” is a larger concept that “justification,” and that Scripture teaches that entrance into heaven or final salvation is indeed contingent upon the obedience of faith [emphasis Mr. Gill's]. This does NOT mean that entrance into the covenant of grace is conditional, or that we are justified through the obedience of faith. This formulation tries to take seriously verses like Heb 12:14: without holiness no one will see the Lord. The role of the obedience of faith is evidential, not instrumental. In this sense, Piper’s formulation is in line with WCF 11.2.



I hope this helps. If you’d like to dialogue further, please let me know.



For the supremacy of God in Christ,



Justin Taylor”



Mr. Taylor’s explanation is unhelpful to me in that it has left me with more confusion then I had prior to reading it. I used to think that the troubling quote that I passed on to my Pastor, Bruce, was an anomaly in regards to its lack of clarity and precision but this latest response seems to indicate that some confusion still remains. I fear that Piper is perhaps saying just what he seems to say in that troubling quote and that the reason it still remains on his website is because he still believes it to this day.



Piper seems to believe that the obedience of faith will be a necessary “contingent” for a supposed “final salvation” at the judgment. But what does this language of “contingent” mean? It could mean that it is not those who are righteous by imputation alone that shall escape the wrath and curse of God, but that it is those that posses a holiness of their own who will be saved. This is troubling, if I am reading him rightly than Piper has departed from the concept that the only righteousness that shall stand in the Day of Judgment is the imputed righteousness of Christ, for he seems to suggest that our infused righteousness is a (the?) requirement for entrance into heaven. His use of the verses in Hebrews makes this interpretation at least possible, maybe even likely.



Our “good” works, tainted with sin as they are, cannot stand the scrutiny of God’s judgment. They are regarded as righteous only because the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them even as it is imputed to us. The “life of faithful obedience” may be required to escape the wrath and curse of God; but it is required only as fruit and evidence of the faith that justifies. If Piper is implying that it is our holiness that allows us entrance into heaven that is in view in Hebrews then it means that only perfectly holy men (which number exactly one) shall escape the wrath and curse of God. In the last judgment our only righteousness shall be the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone. The works of the believer shall be admitted as “good” only because they also have imputed to them the righteousness of Christ. Faith alone in the work of Christ alone ever and always justifies alone. Our good works give evidence of our true faith, and only in that sense are they a “contingent” for “final salvation”. To see it any other way is to depart from the concept that the only righteousness that shall stand in the Day of Judgment is the imputed righteousness of Christ.



It is then said that Piper sees the “role of the obedience of faith is evidential, not instrumental”; not instrumental of what; of Justification or of this so called “final salvation”? The “obedience of faith” is traditionally said to be required to escape the wrath and curse of God because it is required as the fruit and evidence of the faith that justifies. In other words, our “good” works are evidential of our having already received Justification. This is also what is expressly taught in WCF 11.2, which is the very thing invoked just after this statement is made. This leads me to believe that Piper has in mind that our works are only evidential and not instrumental to our Justification, so far so good. But this interpretation, however, stills leaves open the possibility that our works are instrumental to our “final salvation” which is exactly what his use of the term contingent and his reference to Hebrews seem to imply.



I wish they were more forceful in asserting that our works are always evidential and never instrumental. He explicitly excludes works as an instrument for entrance into the convent of grace, and as an instrument for the judicial act of imputation, but leaves open the idea of our works as an instrument of our acquittal on the Day of Judgment. Yes, the works of the believer are introduced into the last judgment, but only as fruit and evidences of the faith that is the lone instrument of our justification which is the lone instrument of our salvation. All the things that follow our justification are the effects of our justification. Our "final salvation” is solely the result of our justification, not our sanctification or our glorification.



Yes, we must be holy in order to see God, but the holiness in view in Hebrews is not the instrument of our final salvation but is only the evidence that the holiness of Jesus has already been attributed to us. In other words, if you have not been sanctified at all then you are not justified at all; if you are not justified you will not be glorified; if you are not glorified you will not dwell with God for He cannot abide with any but the holy. This view does “take seriously verses like Heb 12:14” and yet it does so in a way that holds to the view that works are only a fruit and evidence of the faith that justifies. But it is important that we understand that what is in view in verses like Hebrews is not that we escape the wrath of God based on our holiness. No one is holy apart from Him. If any other person where actually, intrinsically, holy prior to the Day of Judgment then they could stand on that last day, but no one will be standing on that day except Jesus Christ. Our vindication at the last judgment precedes our glorification; no man’s holiness will be a necessary contingency to his escaping the wrath of God.



This reply has caused me more doubt and confusion on the matter. Can any one help me sort this out?

[Brandan Kraft]

There is nothing to sort out. Piper is advocating false doctrine from his website - plain and simple for the whole world to see. Unless he removes it from his website after repeated warnings made by us, the trinity foundation, and even others, I will continue to warn people of Piper's terrible understanding of justification. But these quotes of his now are really not surprising especially when you read the rest of his junk at his website. He is an advocate of common grace, the well-meant offer, duty-faith, and the two wills of God. He knows nothing of the Sovereignty of God in salvation, and while he may have advocated a biblical understanding of justification in some of his more recent works, the fact that he allows his old stuff to stand is an indication of his love for paradox and a lack to present the Gospel in it's biblical clarity.

- Brandan

[Robert R. Higby]

Further Observation:

There is a huge difference between an incidental quote and a systematic presentation of one's beliefs. In the quotations cited, Piper clearly is outlining his core convictions regarding salvation. What we have here is not an anomaly of Piper but a consistently stated doctrine that he holds dear. Unless he renounces it, it is impossible for us to regard him as preaching the true gospel of eternal and unmerited grace in Christ.

[Tulkas]

My current concern is for my own understanding. Have I been unknowingly influenced by Piper? He has been an important person in my development of theological thought. Is my assessment of Piper's stated position on the relation between justification and glorification orthodox? Have I the correct view? Is there anyway to see his statments as saying something other than what I see? Is anyone else feeling as disappointed?

[Brandan Kraft]

Tulkas,

It was through Piper's works - even this very paper - that I was brought to a knowledge of "calvinism". I am thankful for God's use of this man in my life. However, while I may have esteemed him at one time, and while he may have been highly influential in my life, that does not mean I will continue to esteem him when I discover he has so flagrantly perverted the Gospel. Personally, I can see no difference between Piper's understanding of justification in this paper and Roman catholicism.

Honestly, this is not surprising when you consider the history of the reformed baptists from Andrew Fuller on down through Spurgeon through modern day baptists. During the period of 1750s - 1900, the baptists continued to shun the high grace predestinarian doctrine of John Gill, and increasingly adopted Andrew Fuller's breed of paradox theology. Today's most predominant form of "calvinism" shares nothing in common with the theology of the calvinistic baptists of yesteryear except in terminology! Words have been given different meanings, new jargon has been created, and contradictory statements are allowed to sit as truth in the minds of "theologians".

If you dig deep enough, you'll see that Piper isn't teaching anything that hasn't been taught before. You'll see that Piper studied under Daniel Fuller, and even wrote the forward to one or two of his books that propagated works based justification. A friend of this forum, (nameless) moved all of his family to Minnesota to be a part of Piper's church, and he told me the teaching was so bad and the lack of doctrinal knowledge amongst the congregation was so great that he left. I believe he also attempted to show Piper his false doctrine to no avail.

For more stuff on the web about the awful teachings of John Piper, see these links:

Peter Masters on Piper: http://smileyguy2.blogspot.com/2002_...2_archive.html

Piper and His Doctrine by Peter Best
http://home.red.net/fpchurch/EbBI/fp...y/article7.htm

Karlberg on Piper
http://www.covopc.org/Karlberg_Cov_Imput.html

Also of interest is John Macarthur's (similar to Piper) understanding on Justification
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=193

[Tulkas]

I will read them ASAP, thanks. As well as you can judge have I the correct view?

[Brandan Kraft]

Concerning Justification:

The correct view is God has always constituted His people as righteous from eternity because of Christ's sacrificial life and death for them. It's that simple.

Faith is the means by which God declares to the consciences of His people what He has done for them. Faith is the evidence of constitutive justification - not the instrument. It is only instrumental in the declarative or experiential aspect of justification.

Concerning Sanctification:

God's people have always been sanctified in Christ from eternity because of their joining to him. Christ sanctified His people at the cross, and the elect experience this sanctification at regeneration. Sanctification is not progressive. Men are not getting more and more holier. The elect are already perfectly Holy in Christ. Men only grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord.

[Behe's SAR Dog]

The pastor of my church is very enamored with John Piper. At least once a year (twice this year) he and our elders take a trip up to Minnesotta to attend one type of conference or other.

Honestly - I too was taken in by Piper after reading his book "Desiring God." This led me to read others and fall in love with his ministry.

That changed however when as a Sunday School teacher I came across some disturbing curriculum put out by his church Bethlehem Baptist. Our church uses it for our own Sunday School kids. It appeared to be teaching a "works-based-salvation."

I too checked out his description of the "Five Points" and was quite disturbed with what I read under the section of "Perseverence of The Saints." Check out the following two quotes and note the subtlety of his doctrine:

"We mean that the saints will and must persevere in the obediance which comes from faith. Election is unconditional, but glorification is not."

also:

"We are left to ourselves and our assurance is very largely rooted in the sovereign love of God to perform that which he as called us to do."

Very largely? Isn't it completely and finally?

There are other examples (some more blatantly obvious) - but this is all I have time for now.

Sooner or later I'm going to be either confronted by our church leadership on this or I will be confronting them - because I am certainly not going to be teaching this to any children.

[ray kikkert]

The pastor of my church is very enamored with John Piper. At least once a year (twice this year) he and our elders take a trip up to Minnesotta to attend one type of conference or other.

Honestly - I too was taken in by Piper after reading his book "Desiring God." This led me to read others and fall in love with his ministry.


Sooner or later I'm going to be either confronted by our church leadership on this or I will be confronting them - because I am certainly not going to be teaching this to any children.

You will find quite a bit on Piper here. The search engine will direct you to the threads, Darth has quite the library on hand here

[Behe's SAR Dog]

Thanks Ray - I see what you mean!

One thought that I had about Piper and the issues that I brought up in this thread is that perhaps Piper's intent is not to lead people away from Reformed theology but just the opposite. I considered that perhaps he put it in language that someone who had never heard of TULIP before could perhaps bettter understand and comprehend - as well as to perhaps soften the blow of the radical ideas that you will find there. I'm not saying its right of him to do that - but it could but what we are seeing in this type of article.

Quite frankly after reading his book "The Justification of God" - I am quite perplexed as to his explanations put forth on the P of the Saints in that article - quite contradictory to what I read in his book actually.

Oh well - I am not yet ready to totally write Piper off - but he is on my "watchdog" list!

Dave