Gospel of Christ vs Gospel of John Piper

IfbReformer,

1. I believe you are misrepresenting Dr. Piper.

2. Here's a quote that should clarify things:

John Piper holds to the historic, Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, which can be summarized in the following four points:

1) The sole ground of our justification is the righteousness of God, expressed in the alien, imputed, active obedience of Christ, climaxing in his sin-bearing, substitutionary death.

2) Faith alone is the sole means of justification. In other words, it is faith only, and not our deeds in any way (whether the external manifestation or the internal God-glorifying motive behind them), that connect us savingly to Jesus Christ.

3) Faith is distinct from its fruit, the obedience of faith, yet faith is of such a nature that it must and will produce love for people and a life of genuine, though imperfect, holiness in this world. Therefore, as the Westminster Confession of Faith (11.2) says, the faith that alone justifies (as the instrument which unites us to Christ, not as the ground or content of our justifying righteousness) is never alone;

4) Therefore, this reality of forensic righteousness, which is imputed to us on the first act of saving faith (as the seed of subsequent persevering faith), is different from transformative sanctification, which is imparted by the work of the Holy Spirit through faith in future grace.

3. Pick on someone else.

 

IFBReformer,
I didn't read your link that you posted, though I will try to do that. However, you posted Piper's conclusion without posting the argument that leads him to it. So...without having read your argument extensively or Piper's I will have to say, based upon what you posted of Piper's, that I agree with what he is saying. Surely the person who is truly saved will evidence the new birth in the way that they live. That way will certainly be different after salvation than before. This is not perfection at all, for all believers sin, nevertheless, if there is absolutely no change in a person's life and if there are absolutely no good works produced as a result of conversion then no conversion has actually occurred.

 

It sounds like he is in the Lordship Salvation camp along with the likes of John Macarthur. I'll have to read this in more depth when I get the chance tonight.

 

I think you are misreading Piper, too. Notice two things in the quote from him that you've posted:

1. He says that "this righteousness ... is required... as an evidence of our being truly justified children of God." In other words, this righteousness is not something that stands beside justification by which we are saved, but rather, it is the fruit of justification. The presence of this fruit is the proof of justification. It is required as an evidence because all truly justified children will show their justification by this sort of righteousness. If this fruit is not there, then the justification is not there.
2. He says: Our deeds will reveal who enters who enters the age to come, and our deeds will reveal the measure of our reward in the age to come. Notice that our deeds simply reveal who enters the age to come; they are not the grounds or reason for our entrance in the age to come. The deeds are descriptive of the ones entering, not prescriptive.

Based on this, I'd respond to your summary this way.

I'm not sure what you mean by saved by justification alone. Justification brings with it all the subsequent steps in the salvation process, but there are more things in the salvation process besides justification. Like adoption. Like santification. Like glorification.

He doesn't say they are used in God's courtroom to determine whether we enter heaven or hell. He says they are used to reveal whether we enter heaven or hell.

 

Isn't this basically what is spoken of in James about faith without works being a dead faith?

 

I believe that Scripture goes along the lines of...

"A car without a battery is dead".

It still remains a car...but it is not "running".

 

From your linked review:

I certainly would not want to be teaching and preaching that concept to anyone.
I don't see it as helpful or wise.
You claim that Piper is adding to the conditions for salvation by making habitual obedience a "co-condition" for salvation.
And you quote this of Piper:

It seems like Piper is stating what Micah 6:8 teaches.

I think of Phil. 2:12,13

What's all the "fear and trembling" for?
If Jesus caused a fig tree to wither for having leaves despite it being the wrong season and no fruit, then I would be more careful of disassociating a profession from obedience and fruit.

Why would any Christian want to advocate your position?
I don't understand how it encourages us to strive for holiness.

Now I think you're being downright dishonest about Piper's views.

And why should one be assured just because of a profession?
Can the heart not be deceived?


I think you're barking up the wrong tree attacking Piper like this. Not because I think Piper is untouchable, but because he is not saying what you need or want him to say.

I won't be arguing about it with you though.

 

Wait, is this already "Bash John Piper" week? I have trouble keeping up with who we're supposed to be bashing each week. Could someone post a calendar of bash events? It would make our lives a lot easier.

 

I believe I have to be added to that calender too, TC. :laugh:

 

James 2:14-26 addresses your concerns.

 

IFBReformer, it seems to me that habitual obedience is the proper answer to the question "How much fruit". Habitual obedience is not "no fruit" and it is not perfection. Abraham is the example. Abraham, the spiritual father of all who live by faith, did not exhibit "no friut". Nor did he exhibit perfection, but ultimately, though he failed many times in many of his choices, God worked in his life so that when he faced the major test (willingness to sacrifice his son) he passed it. Obedience was the increasing pattern of his life and obedience was the defining moment of his life. It seems to be that Piper is arguing that salvation cannot merely be theological, it must be practical and it must have a practical result in the life.

 

And it seems to me you are correct, swaimj.

 

I will second that. :thumbs: