John Piper has explicitly addressed the question I raised:

When we teach that our right standing with God is attained through the imputation of Christ’s obedience to our account (Romans 5:19; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 4:6, 11; 10:3), does this imply that the work of Christ on the cross—his final suffering and death—is insufficient for our justification?

That is awesome!

But this is his answer:

Is the death of Jesus sufficient to cleanse us from all our sins? Yes, but only as the climax of a sinless life…

So the death of the Son of God is sufficient to cover all our sins as the climax of a sinless life. This is no disparagement to the cross. It is not adding to the cross. The New Testament writers saw the death of Christ as the climax of his life. His whole life was designed to bring him to the cross (Mark 10:45; John 12:27; Hebrews 2:14). That is why he was born, and why he lived. To speak of the saving effect of his death was therefore to speak of his death as the sum and climax of his sinless life…. (read the entire piece).

But who ever denied that?  I don’t think that was ever what the debate was about.  I don’t see how it realy accounts for Dr. Piper’s own language.

I don’t think this would be that big an issue except we are all hearing about some huge Wright refutation that Piper is about to come out with.  Is this really the kind of thing–so confusingly expressed–that is worth going to war over with another Christian teacher?  Piper has written some wonderful books.  Desiring God, The Pleasures of God, and Future Grace all have had great impact on my life.  But it looks to me like he has been changing direction in a way that doesn’t seem to utilize the clarity I have admired in these works.  I wish he would write another big book on his own thinking rather than spending his time publishing shorter tracts and refutations.

Since the last General Assembly approved a revisionist reading of the Westminster Standards that actually contradicts them, Peter Leithart has been pointing this out. Here are the posts in order:

1. Judgment according to works
2. Judgment according to works (again)
3. Hodge on Judgment according to works
4. Adam, Merit, & the Judgment
5. The Gospel & Judgment
6. Trinity & Judgment
7. Jesus the Judge

I have three thoughts. First, I think Peter should include Revelation 2.19-23. Let me ask you this. Suppose you read a letter from Jesus addressed to you as the member of a church He wrote, which said,

I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.

What would you do? Would you think, “Thank God I’m elect and a receiver (by faith alone) of the imputed active and passive obedience of Christ, and don’t need to worry!”? Or would you wet your pants with fear? I sure hope the original members of the church didn’t let some abstract conception of the ordo keep them from the latter reaction. If they did, then the ordo would be a rationalization for unbelief. True faith trembles at the threatenings. True faith means rejoicing normally, but some time the loss of bladder control. (Did true faith keep the Apostle John from falling down like a dead man when this same Jesus met with him to have him write His letter? Most of the material claiming that the Old Covenant was exclusively about fear and trembling falls away in the light–the burning bright light–of Revelation 1).
Secondly, not only do Reformed Theologians (until the recent memory hole) plainly teach judgment according to works, but they use the term “justification” to explain the verdict.

In his capacity as Judge, too, Christ is saving His people to the uttermost: He completes their redemption, justifies them publicly, and removes the last consequences of sin. (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 732, “Doctrine of Last Things,” IV, D.)

THE JUSTIFICATION OF A RIGHTEOUS MAN

[A chapter in Benedict Pictet’s Christian Theology, which follows his chapter entitled “The justification of a sinner”; boldface added]

We have spoken of the justification of man as a sinner; we must now speak of his justification as a righteous man, i.e. that by which he proves that he is justified and that he possesses a true justifying faith. Now this justification is by works, even in the sight of God , as well as of men; and of this James speaks when he declares that “by works a man is justified and not by faith only” (Jam 2:24). To illustrate this, we must remark that there is a twofold accusation against man. First, he is accused before God’s tribunal of the guilt of sin, and this accusation is met and done away by the justification of which we have already treated. Secondly, the man who has been justified may be accused of hypocrisy, false profession and unregeneracy; now he clears himself from this accusation and justifies his faith by his works-this is the second justification; it differs from the first; for in the first a sinner is acquitted from guilt, in the second a godly man is distinguished from an ungodly. In the first God imputes the righteousness of Christ; in the second he pronounces judgment from the gift of holiness bestowed upon us ; both these justifications the believer obtains, and therefore it is true that “by works he is justified and not by faith only.”

From these remarks it is plain that James is easily reconciled with Paul, especially if we consider, that Paul had to do with judiciaries, who sought to be justified by the law, i.e. by their own works, but James had to deal with a sort of Epicureans, who, content with a mere profession, neglected good works; it is no wonder then, that Paul should insist upon faith, and James upon works. Moreover, Paul speaks of a lively and efficacious faith, but James of a faith without works. Paul also speaks of the justification of the ungodly or sinner, James of that justification, by which a man as it were justifies his faith and proves himself to be justified . For it is his design to show that it is not enough for a Christian man to glory in the remission of sins, which is unquestionably obtained only by a living faith in Christ, but that he must endeavor to make it manifest by his works that he is truly renewed, that he possesses real faith and righteousness, and lives as becomes a regenerate and justified person. Hence it is plain, that Abraham is properly said to have been justified, when he offered up Isaac, because by this he proved that he had real faith, and cleared himself from every charge of hypocrisy, of which he might have been accused. In this sense that passage is explained: “He that is righteous, let him be righteous still” (Rev 22), i.e. let him show by his works that he is justified…

Francis Turrettin:

16TH TOPIC

EIGHTH QUESTION
Does faith alone justify? We affirm against the Romanists.

III. But that the state of the question may be the more easily understood, we must remark that a twofold trial can be entered into by God with man: either by the law (inasmuch as he is viewed as guilty of violating the law by sin and thus comes under the accusation and condemnation of the law); or by the gospel (inasmuch as he is accused by Satan of having violated the gospel covenant and so is supposed to be an unbeliever and impenitent or a hypocrite, who has not testified by works the faith he has professed with his mouth). Now to this twofold trial a twofold justification ought to answer; not in the Romish sense, but in a very different sense. The first is that by which man is absolved from the guilt of sin on account of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and apprehended by faith; the other is that by which he is freed from the charge of unbelief and hypocrisy and declared to be a true believer and child of God; one who has fulfilled the gospel covenant (if not perfectly as to degree, still sincerely as to parts) and answered to the divine call by the exercise of faith and piety. The first is justifica- tion properly so called; the other is only a declaration of it. That is justification of cause a priori; this is justification of sign or of effect a posteriori, declaratively. In that, faith alone can have a place because it alone apprehends the righteousness of Christ, by whose merit we are freed from the condemnation of the law; in this, works also are requited as the effects and signs of faith, by which its truth and sincerity are declared against the accusation of unbelief and hypocrisy. For as faith justifies a person, so works justify faith.

IV. The question does not concern justification a posteriori and declaratively in the fatherly and gospel trial-whether faith alone without works concurs to it (for we confess that works come in here with faith; yea, that works only are properly regarded because it is concerned with the justification of faith, which can be gathered from no other source more certainly than by works as its effects and indubitable proofs). Rather the question concerns justification a priori, which frees us from the legal trial, which is concerned with the justification of the wicked and the perfect righteousness, which can be opposed to the curse of the law and acquire for us a tight to life-whether works come into consideration here with faith (as the Romanists hold) or whether faith alone (as we maintain).

Finally, justification is a regular law-court word. When Protestant scholars want to prove the forensic meaning of the word, “justify,” and its cognates in Romans 3, the point to the judgment setting in Romans 2. Claiming that there is a “judgment according to works” but not a “final justification” is like saying there is an acquittal but not a verdict, or that there is a declaration that one is found blameless but not found innocent of wrongdoing.

So what is the big deal? The Bible is clear. The Reformed heritage is clear. The Westminster Standards are clear. The grammar is self-evident. Why is this a controversy?

My guess is that it really has to do with a practical antinomianism (I am not accusing anyone of heresy here, I’m quite willing to live in PCAland with everyone else) that John Gerstner spoke of in his book on dispensationalism. We have inculcated, in comfortable conformity to various revivalistic/baptist practices, a view of saving faith that demands that it never “trembles at the threatenings” in the Word of God. That warnings are only for the evangelization of unbelivers, not for the admonition of professing believers. That the only pastoral way to deal with the possibility of apostasy is to encourage doubts as to whether one is “truly saved.” (And thus, practical antinomianism has a practical legalism edge to it, which is certainly the way Gerstner comes across to me).

As far as I can tell, it all comes down to whether it is Reformed to use the Apostle Paul as a model for pastoral exhortation.

Was John Murray motivated to find a via media between Calvinism and Arminianism? At one time, to engage in such an argumentative strategy was self-marginalizing in mainstream Evangelical and Reformed circles. Now that he’s being called our “drunken uncle” perhaps this form of insinuation is fair game.

The so-called “federal vision” is motivated by a desire to be true to Scripture and a confidence that Reformed covenant theology provides accurate tools for understanding Scripture. Since, Scripture does call for unity in the Church, many “FV men,” just like many other Bible believers, seek to find ways to follow that call to the extent possible.

But “FV formulations” are attempts to do justice to Scripture, not assume that some sort of tertium quid is available if one simply does a synthesis-antithesis process with “Rome” and Protestantism.

In fact, FV’s real “crime” is to simply not care about “Rome.” What is “Rome” after all? A pastiche of stuff and theologies spreading all over the world and ages that is supposedly a unified entity? I don’t believe in “Rome.” No Protestant should believe in “Rome.” Let Roman Catholics think they represent some sort of everlasting empire, but we should know better.

The Roman Catholic Church is a gargantuan organization that contains people who vary as widely in belief as any Puritan ever differed from a Jesuit in the 17th century. The idea that it even makes sense in terms of theological formulation to “oppose” such an amorphous blob defies the limits of language.

There have been times when discussions between some who name themselves as Roman Catholics and some Protestant Calvinists might have been helped by some better exegesis or deeper understanding or Protestant Scholastic theology (which quite plainly allowed that good works were necessary for salvaiton, to name one sticking point). If something from “FV” provides such an aid, that is a bonus, but it is not the motive or the identity of this conversation.

I’ve been accused of “wanting” to be Roman Catholic. God will deal with people who make up accusations of this sort. But, for the record, my only point has been to account for the theology that we actually have in the Westminster Standards (from which, unlike most people I know, I actually learned theology rather than having it summarized for me by an authoritative interpreter). The Westminster Standards plainly say things about baptism, the church (both visible and invisible) and the necessity of obedience, that modern claimants of the Westminster Standards wish they didn’t say.

In fact, these doctrinal standards sound virtually “Romish” compared to the ethos and practical theology of a great many Presbyterians and Presbyterian churches. The FV has exposed this discontinuity and now it must be killed for doing so. It is perhaps the last point of unity in “Presbyterianism” (which is in danger of becoming as illusory as “Rome” in a smaller way), that “FV” = evil and death. The irony is that, within this hysterical situation, “FV” itself becomes just a phantom for scaring people rather than anything that comports with any real phenomenon.

There is no via media. There is Scripture as our authoritative word from God. There is the heritage of the whole Church to help us understand Scripture, including the Reformed heritage which fits quite naturally within that larger scope without any need for an artifical via media.

I remember in the early nineties in Florida hearing about Norman Shepherd and being scandalized. But my source thought he was confessional so I decided to check. Reading through the Confessions and Catechisms, I realized I had a choice. Reject those standards as unbiblical or embrace what they said about baptism and obedience.

I made my choice. It has been central to my identity ever since, as anyone who has ever known me will attest. It was central to my call to ministry, my move to seminary, to everything. Yes, I have been frustrated with Reformed chauvinism as I perceived it. But my commitments have always been and continue to be, distinctly Reformed.

When we sang, “My hope is buil on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness” last Wednesday at the Assembly, I was quite encouraged. Nothing else matters.

Least of all false accusations.