About the video:
I don’t think the “Catholics” in the video were taking a shot at the pulpit ministry of John Piper as much as they were his writing ministry. They seemed to take issue with his book Future Grace, calling it, “A Jesuit book…and a masterpiece in Catholic teaching.” Based on the rest of the video, I assume they are taking issue with what they perceived as a confusion, conflation, or even a strict separation of justification and sanctification in Future Grace. After looking into these seemingly outlandish claims for myself, I am a bit troubled by some of the language in chapters 18-20 which begin a part VI of the book: "Unmerited, Conditional Future Grace" (229, emphasis mine). Here are some quotes from that section (below). By the way, we all know John Piper has a way with language that few possess, and it may be that I am simply misreading him. Please feel free to help me further understand what he means by the following statements.
“All the covenants of God are conditional covenants of grace—both the old covenant and the new covenant. They offer all-sufficient future grace for those who keep the covenant” (248, emphasis mine).
Piper adds, “This covenant-keeping condition of future grace does not mean we lose security or assurance, for God has pledged himself to complete the work he began in the elect (Phil. 1:6)…He fulfills the conditions of the covenant through us (Ezek. 36:27) (248, emphasis mine).
After exegeting Psalm 25 to prove his point he concludes with this bomb: “I am hard pressed to imagine something more important for our lives than fulfilling the covenant that God has made with us for our final salvation” (249, emphasis mine).
One comment, at least for now, based on my reading of Piper here:
Piper, by denying the classic understanding of the covenant of works (p.248, 413n.4) leaves believers, those who are in Christ mind you, as the ones who have to fulfill "the covenant God has made with [them] for [their] final salvation" (249). However, he also appears to argue that “[God] fulfills the conditions of the covenant through us” (248, emphasis mine).
Discerning the content of this covenant is where it gets tricky. But I will sum it up in one word faithfulness. In chapters 19 and 20 of Future Grace it’s not the faithfulness of a covenant mediator but the faithfulness—not faith—of the Christian that ultimately assures final salvation.
For Piper the subject of this faithfulness is the believer, and its twofold object is God and neighbor. Rather than the faithfulness of the second Adam (Jesus Christ the object of a believer’s faith) who as the Suffering Servant fulfilled the Law’s demands--under a covenant of works--by perfectly loving God and neighbor, bore its curse through His active and passive obedience, and thus merited for His Church a once for all eternal redemption, the believer is forced to rely on their own covenant keeping rather than Christ’s on their behalf to provide the assurance and ultimately the basis of their salvation.
Finally, there are few men who contend for the Gospel as ardently as Dr. Piper and few men that I am as great a debtor to that John Piper. Perhaps I am misreading the language he uses in an overall edifying book. But based on the way in which Piper argues for a conditional final salvation, the basis of which consists in our own covenant keeping, I cannot, at this time, exonerate his work of Future Grace on the charges of confusing justification and sanctification as they relate to a Christian’s salvation (i.e. Romish tendencies). I will change the title of the post though.
If Piper argues for a conditional final salvation (which can be debated) it is not because he denies the unconditional justfying act of God, rather he is looking at salvation from the progressive sanctification aspect. Rather, when Piper and others point to works/obedience as the condition for final salvation it is because people will not inherit that final salvaiton with out obedience, precisely because works are evidence for geniune faith. That is not a slap towards Christ fulfilling the covenant of works because Christ didnt fulfill it for those whose lives dont match their belief. It is not Romish to say, "Without obedience you ain't getting final salvation." In fact, the writers of scripture often point to works/obedience as a justifiable basis to see if someone is saved. In 1 John, John basically says, "you can say all you want, but if you walk in darkness, you aint saved." We can point to law/works/obedience because without the condition of obedience people will not inherit final salvation. It doesnt deny the finished work of Christ fulfilling the covenant of works, rather it reminds people Who they have surrended their lives to. Moreover, this condition is not merited by us, but given by grace.
ReplyDeleteI dont want to make this long, hit me up if you want.
love you J
Ryan
I think we all know that Piper is quite un-Romish. However, as I read ch.20 I too was disappointed with some statements in there. I think the issue is that Piper's background means he doesn't speak the language of the (uber)-Reformed, leaving him vulnerable to saying things ambiguously or confusingly when he delves into subjects such as covenant theology. To say that our actions fulfill the covenant God made with us is really, really poor! I am confident that if Dr. Piper wasn't so busy being a faithful shepherd, writing other great books, and being SPENT as he proclaims the gospel throughout America, he would have time to clarify these statements in the next edition of FG.
ReplyDeletei'm not sure if anyone is even going to read this since its so old but here's a quite take on what i've read in the posts: i dont believe Piper is stating that our actions fulfill the covenant in the sense that they make the covenant active and recievable by our actions,but rather that our actions fulfill the covenant in the sense that they show and prove that wer are in it.
ReplyDeletethe fact that God is the giver, initiator, and grafter of the covenant and the particpants in it is obvious, but it's more an issue of semantics. of course we don't fulfill the covenant by what we set out to do (works based faith), but we do fulfill it in the sense that our actions are evidence of it (sanctification).