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.

I’ve been re-reading Rich Lusk’s excellent essay from the “Knox Seminary Colloquium” where he brings the resources of Biblical theology in explainng and defending the basics of Protestant soteriology, nailing it down from explicit Scriptural teaching. (OK, I admit I have a quibble I was thinking of blogging about; but it is a minor one that I’ll mention at some point). One thing I had forgotten is that he uses some of my material, which means I get to feel flattered all over again.

However, I also had one of those “how-could-I-miss-that?” experiences at precisely a point where Rich is invoking my writings. In fact, I have been teaching a Bible study and completely missed an opportunity to drive this point home because I was incognizant of it. We were covering this passage:

And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first” (ESV)

Now, I have always wondered at the fact that Jesus responded so positively to Peter’s bluster. I never mentioned this because I didn’t know what to do with it, but it has bothered me.

Here is what Rich wrote:

The story of the rich young ruler also presents an interesting slant on the keep-ability of the law. Jesus did not give commands to the young man as a hypothetical “covenant of works” to show him he was really a law breaker. Rather, Jesus is outlining the way of discipleship for this man, which at this particular juncture in redemptive history would have included selling all his possessions and journeying with Jesus to Jerusalem. We know this is the way the story should be read because immediately afterwards, Peter indicates that he and the other disciples have done precisely what the young man refused to do (Matthew 19:27). Jesus does not correct Peter’s claim; in fact he agrees with it, and then goes on to remind the disciples that they should not feel self-pity over the sacrifices they have made for the kingdom because it will all be paid back to them many times over (19:28ff). See Mark Horne online at Correcting 2 Mistakes in the Law/Gospel Hermeneutic and Did Jesus Preach Law or Gospel to the Rich Young Ruler?

The part that I had completely missed and forgotten was: “…and then goes on to remind the disciples that they should not feel self-pity over the sacrifices they have made for the kingdom because it will be paid back to them many times over.”

Peter and the rest had made real sacrifices–the same sort that the rich young ruler had refused to make. Yet, if they really believed in Jesus, they could not really regard these as acts of moral heroism. If someone were to offer a tenant in a hovel a free mansion to live in at no cost, then the disruption and expense of moving would be real. But no one would ever say that the family had “made a great sacrifice” to acquire the mansion.

Faith simply doesn’t allow for us to make a great deal of the sacrifices we have made for God. If we really trust God to care for us and to give us what he has promised, then what he calls us to leave behind, however hard it may be to do so, cannot be seen as some great sacrifice. When Jesus responded by assuring Peter of how much he would get back, he was rebuking any thoughts of grandness in Peter’s statement. The problem with the rich young ruler was not that he was unable to live up to the demands of great moral heroics. The problem with the rich young ruler was that he didn’t trust Jesus.

Thinking about this brings to mind Jesus’ promises of rewards in the Sermon on the Mount and his warning about doing good works in order to be seen by men because they you have already received your reward. The point is that you are supposed to really believe that God watches over you and cares for you. You are supposed to trust him. You don’t need the paltry rewards of human praise when God offers you His own praise.

And this an essential feature of saving faith. As the Apostle Paul writes, “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.” Caring about praise from God rather than man is, in my opinion, the most challenging ideal–one that proves to anyone who is honest that the flesh is always at war against the Spirit. Love God with all my mind, heart, soul, and strength? Please! Let me just spend a day (or even just a moment of a day) when I care more about God’s praise than man’s flattery.

Thank God that, no matter how sin obstructs us, if we trust him at all we are valuing his praise and his promises, and we are acceptable in his sight through the righteousness of Jesus Christ our Lord. The more we become self-conscious of what it is that God promises, the more we will realize that our efforts never amount to any real sacrifice. God accepts our offerings, but they are no real sacrifice for us.

By the way, if you haven’t listened to Rich’s sermons you are missing something great. Also, my question about Rich and imputation will have to wait for some other day when I have the time. In the meantime, those of you who have read his excellent work might be able to figure out my basic concern here.

The LORD said to Moses, “Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. Be ready by the morning, and come up in the morning to Mount Sinai, and present yourself there to me on the top of the mountain. No one shall come up with you, and let no one be seen throughout all the mountain. Let no flocks or herds graze opposite that mountain.” So Moses cut two tablets of stone like the first. And he rose early in the morning and went up on Mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand two tablets of stone. The lORD descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God never merciful and gracious, quick to wrath, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands of generations of those who perfectly, personally, and perpetually obey my Law, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” And Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth and worshiped. And he said, “I now realize that I and all your people are doomed O Lord, because you demand perfection.”

via Passage: Exodus 34 (ESV Bible Online).

Remember, “Be Perfect as your Heavenly Father is Perfect.”

You shall therefore be perfect. This perfection does not mean equality, but relates solely to resemblance. However distant we are from the perfection of God, we are said to be perfect, as he is perfect, when we aim at the same object, which he presents to us in Himself. Should it be thought preferable, we may state it thus. There is no comparison here made between God and us: but the perfection of God means, first, that free and pure kindness, which is not induced by the expectation of gain; — and, secondly, that remarkable goodness, which contends with the malice and ingratitude of men. This appears more clearly from the words of Luke, Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful: for mercy is contrasted with a mercenary regard, which is founded on private advantage.

As faithfully preached

Another dreary Protestant doctrine post, but I was thinking about it and thought I should briefly point out what the universal consensus of Reformed Orthodoxy has been on this matter. Justifying faith consist of three things or elements (to use the Language from Berkhof’s systematic theology). They are:

1. Understanding or knowledge of Christ and his work for us.
2. Assent to Christ’s claims
3. Trust in Christ for salvation (“justification, sanctification, and eternal life”)

The only caveat to this, is that it is just as rooted in the Reformed Tradition (and the Bible) to admit that infants even in the womb can somehow exercise an appropriate level of seed faith or possess an inclination to faith that justifies them before God.

Here is a pretty typical example of the historic Reformed Position on infants and faith:

An objection to infant baptism: Those who do not believe are not to be baptized; for it is said “He that believeth and is baptized,” etc. But infants do not believe. Therefore, they are not to be baptized. Faith is necessarily required for the use of baptism, for he that believeth not shall be damned. But the sign of grace ought not to be given to such as are condemned.

Answer 1: The first proposition is not true, if understood generally; for circumcision was applied to infants, although they were not capable of exercising fait. It must, therefore, be understood of adults only, who are not to be baptized. Neither can our opponents say of adults that they certainly do believe. If infants, therefore, are not to be baptized because they do not believed, then neither are those to be baptized who have arrived to years of understanding, because no one can certainly know whether they have faith or not. Simon Magus was baptized, and yet he was a hypocrite. But, say our opponents, the church ought to be satisfied with a profession of faith. This we admit, and would add, that to be born in the church, is, to infants, the same thing as a profession of faith.

Answer 2: Faith is, indeed, necessary to the use of baptism, with this distinction. Actual faith is required in adults, and an inclination to faith in infants. There are, therefore four terms in this syllogism, or there is a fallacy in understanding that as spoken particularly, which must be understood generally. Those who do not believe, that is, who have no faith at all, neither by profession nor by inclination, are not to be baptized. But infants born to believing parents have faith as to inclination.

Answer 3: We also deny the minor proposition; for infants do believe after their manner, or according to the condition of their age; they have an inclination to faith. Faith is in infants potentially and by inclination, although not actually as in adults. For, as infants born of ungodly parents who are without the church, have no actual wickedness, but only an inclination thereto, so those who are born of godly parents have no actual holiness, but only an inclination to it, not according to nature, but according to the grace of the covenant. And still further: infants have the Holy Ghost and are regenerated by him. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb, and Jeremiah is said to have been sanctified before he came out of the womb (Luke 1.5; Jeremiah 1.5). If infants now have the Holy Ghost, he certainly works in them regeneration, good inclinations, new desires, and such other things as are necessary for their salvation, or he at least supplies them with everything that is requisite for baptism, according to the declaration of Peter, “Can any man forbid water to them who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we.” It is for this reason that Christ enumerates little children amongst those that believe, saying, “Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me.” Inasmuch now as infants are fit subjects for baptism, they do not profane it as the Anabaptists wickedly affirm.

Zacharias Ursinus was the principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism. The above is found on pages 369, 370 of this Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.

For the record, I think Reformed and Protestant Orthodoxy was right that justifying faith in adult believers is a compound of three elements and that regenerated infants also have some kind of faith or inclination to faith which justifies them as well. These doctrines are Biblical, worth recovering, and worth preserving.