This is a long quotation from someone else; not me!

Anyone who is a Christian has probably heard of John Piper, Pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minnesota.  No one could possibly challenge his zeal for the Word of God.  I have most certainly been edified by what he has preached, however, I do believe there are ideas of concern in his book, “Future Grace”.  His analysis of faith versus anxiety was very helpful as he showed that they are opposed to each other.  His writing on patience was equally edifying, “the strength of our patience hangs on our capacity to believe that God is up to something good for us in all our delays and detours”(174).  In our battle with sin, Piper shows he understands the limitations of mere commands, “If we try to fight the fire of lust with prohibitions and threats alone—even the terrible warnings of Jesus—we will fail” (336).  But, Piper’s framework seems to distract from the message of the true Gospel.  His idea of Grace is too broad and maybe ambiguous.  He says that Adam and Eve lived under God’s Grace in the Garden of Eden.  In the Garden, Adam and Eve had a duty to perform with subsequent reward/punishment for obeying or disobeying.  God’s Grace should be understood in light of sin, and not God’s goodness with them before they sinned.

In the book, Piper doesn’t like the idea of a covenant of works.  He says, “This is important because it is customary for some theologians to give the erroneous impression that God wanted Adam and Eve to relate to him in terms of meritorious works rather than childlike faith” (76).  God not only dealt with them as judge over right and wrong, but there was a “legal” and “family” relationship.  Stressing the family relationship at the expense of the legal relationship they had with God distorts the meaning of Scripture.  As we know, God dealt severely with them when they broke the commandment.  Piper wrote: “I am hesitant to call Jesus’ obedience in life and death the fulfillment of a “covenant of works.” . . . works implies a relationship with God that is more like an employer receiving earned wages that like a Son trusting a Father’s generosity” (413: footnote 4).  Scripture does however teach a legal relationship between God and man.  This includes the same relationship between Father and Son.  The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).  When Jesus fulfilled all that the Father gave of Him, He earned salvation for His people.  Romans 5:18: Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.  In his high priestly prayer, Jesus began by saying: I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do (John 17:4).

A logical conclusion of Piper’s ideas in his book are that Christians must keep the covenant with God.  He wrote: “Keeping the covenant of God did not mean living perfectly.  It meant a life of habitual devotion and trust to the Lord, that turned from evil and followed him in his ways” (248).  Again, “All the covenants of God are conditional covenants of grace—both the old covenant and the new covenant.  They offer allsufficient future grace for those who keep the covenant” (248).  Finally he says, “But what it does mean is that almost all future blessings of the Christian life are conditional on our covenant-keeping” (248).

We must ask ourselves whether or not we actually keep the covenant.  Must we be perfect or not.  The wages of sin is death.  In one act, all fell in Adam.  Piper shows the connection of obedience and blessing but is unclear in his view on just how much obedience we need.  God, however, tells us that without perfection and full obedience we miss it all.  Galatians 3:11-14 tells us that the “One” who did keep the covenant bore the curse.  Piper actually ends up lowering the God’s standard misses the teaching of Christ’s “meritorious” work in His life and death.

Piper says, “The essence of saving and sanctifying faith is our being satisfied with all that God is for us in Jesus” (236).  Instead of faith looking outside of oneself, he points it back to our “own” satisfaction.  He makes faith our subjective satisfaction in God, instead of confidence in Jesus.  He is attaching conditions to faith.  However, the character of faith should outward looking.

At least, in “Future Grace”, Piper misunderstands Law and Gospel.  He quotes Psalm 103 which has some of the most beautiful verses about God’s forgiveness of sins, but then attributes this to the law (146).  While it is true that God showed Israel some grace, he mainly dealt with them in a covenant or relationship of works.  With the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai and the preface to the 10 commands begins with God’s redemptive work, I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery (Exodus 20:2).  But, if they failed they would be abandoned and exiled.  The law brings only death, the Gospel gives life.  The law only convicts and condemns sinners, and only the Gospel gives life.

Piper ends up attaching conditions to God’s promises.  It is true that there is a relationship between works and rewards.  But, the promises come to us by faith in Jesus and not by works!  Yet, there are also promises with conditions in the Covenant of Grace.  But, he pushes these too far in his zeal for obedience.  He has misses the mark by glossing over the most important aspect of salvation, that Jesus has kept the law for us.  He does not integrate this into the Christian life.

Piper fails to mention Romans 7.  I don’t know if he just didn’t think is relevant to the Christian life or not.  But, Paul gives a Christian much reason to have hope.  The Christian life is a continuous battle with sin.  Without the mention of the verses of Paul, one might be deceived into thinking he can uphold the law on his own and we know that is not the case.  This chapter of Paul puts the Christian life in a proper context and reality.

Piper doesn’t seem to like the idea of gratitude as the motivation for obedience.  He claims that thankfulness is never the motivating factor in Scripture for obedience, but this just isn’t the case.  I understand he wants to avoid the debtors mentality, but with such a replacement of gratitude with our “own” obedience could lead to more despair and disillusionment.

Lastly, Piper ends up arguing for two stages of salvation.  Initial justification and final salvation.  He begins to sound like NPP or Federal Vision in his book.  This is surely dangerous water to be treading on.

Finally, I do like a lot of what Piper writes, however I could not recommend “Future Grace”.  His writing has distorted and misunderstood the covenants.  I understand this book was written in ’95 and his views may have changed?  However, he presently doesn’t see anything wrong with Douglas Wilson’s understanding of justification.  A proper understanding of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ to the believer may clear things up.

Source

There was nothing ever wrong with Piper’s view of imputation. This whole ungodly mess is the fault of incompetent teachers who have turned the robust heritage of the Reformation into a sub-chapter of the Grace Evangelical Theological Society. It is neo-dispensationalism that is being trotted out as the heritage of the Reformation–a donkey in a lion’s skin that can only make the Rome and Byzantium look and sound Kingly in comparison.

This bait and switch is going to have massive consequences for Evangelicals in the next generation.