This hit-and-run tweet by Piper (he does that--he throws out something nebulous, meaningless, or worse, unbiblical and doesn't explain himself--he's above having to do so apparently) is a very disturbing twist on James 5:20 because it reeks of Romanism. However this isn't surprising given Piper's damnable error on the doctrine of Justification.
Quote:
Today a friend called our attention to some statements that appear
on Piper's website that demonstrate how far from Biblical Piper's views are:
on Piper's website that demonstrate how far from Biblical Piper's views are:
"God justifies us on the first genuine act of saving faith, but in
doing so he has a view to all subsequent acts of faith contained, as it
were, like a seed in that first act. What we are trying to do here is
own up to the teaching of Romans 5:l, for example, that teaches that we
are already justified before God. God does not wait to the end of our
lives in order to declare us righteous. In fact, we would not be able to
have the assurance and freedom in order to live out the radical demands
of Christ unless we could be confident that because of our faith we
already stand righteous before him.
"Nevertheless, we must also own up to the fact that our final
salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith. The way these two truths fit together is that we are
justified on the basis of our first act of faith because God sees in it
(like he can see the tree in an acorn) the embryo of a life of faith.
This is why those who do not lead a life of faith with its inevitable
obedience simply bear witness to the fact that their first act of faith
was not genuine."
(http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html)
Here are Piper's errors:
1. God does not have in view "all subsequent acts of faith" and
obedience when he justifies us; he has in view only the objective work of
Christ outside of us, his perfect righteousness. If God had in view
our acts of faith and obedience, we would never be justified.
obedience when he justifies us; he has in view only the objective work of
Christ outside of us, his perfect righteousness. If God had in view
our acts of faith and obedience, we would never be justified.
2. It is not "because of our faith that we already stand righteous
before him." It is only because of the active and passive obedience of
our substitute and representative, Jesus Christ, imputed to us freely,
that we stand righteous before God.
before him." It is only because of the active and passive obedience of
our substitute and representative, Jesus Christ, imputed to us freely,
that we stand righteous before God.
3. It is false that "our final salvation is made contingent upon the
subsequent obedience which comes from faith." This is the doctrine of
Rome. Our final salvation is sealed from the moment of first belief.
It is not contingent on anything we do or don't do. The sole ground of
justification is the obedience of Christ extrinsic to us.
subsequent obedience which comes from faith." This is the doctrine of
Rome. Our final salvation is sealed from the moment of first belief.
It is not contingent on anything we do or don't do. The sole ground of
justification is the obedience of Christ extrinsic to us.
4. We are not "justified on the basis of our first act of faith." Piper
turns faith itself into the ground, reason, basis, and cause of our
justification. The ground, reason, basis, and cause of our justification
is wholly outside of us, in Jesus Christ.
turns faith itself into the ground, reason, basis, and cause of our
justification. The ground, reason, basis, and cause of our justification
is wholly outside of us, in Jesus Christ.
5. Piper says that the reason that some are damned is their "ingenuine
faith." He writes: "This is why those who do not lead a life of faith
with its inevitable obedience simply bear witness to the fact that their
first act of faith was not genuine." How ingenuine faith differs from
genuine faith he does not say, probably because he has no clear idea
what faith is. Like so many misinformed Protestants, Piper focuses on
psychology and makes saving faith differ from generic faith, not because
of its object, but because of some alleged difference in psychology, which
is never made clear. That is to miss the Gospel entirely.
faith." He writes: "This is why those who do not lead a life of faith
with its inevitable obedience simply bear witness to the fact that their
first act of faith was not genuine." How ingenuine faith differs from
genuine faith he does not say, probably because he has no clear idea
what faith is. Like so many misinformed Protestants, Piper focuses on
psychology and makes saving faith differ from generic faith, not because
of its object, but because of some alleged difference in psychology, which
is never made clear. That is to miss the Gospel entirely.
In "Pied Piper" Robbins deals with Piper's Future Grace book which deals with justification. After discussing Piper's mentor at Fuller Theological
Quote:
Piper’s focus, as one can tell from the title, is what he calls “future grace.” The phrases “future grace” and “faith in future grace” appear hundreds, if not thousands, of times in the book. It is a clever propaganda device that has been used many times: Repeat a phase so often that the reader cannot get it out of his mind. But what does Piper mean by the phrase? In fact, what does he mean by “faith”? The answers are revealing. Here are his own words: “....the focus of my trust is what God promised to do for me in the future” (6).
Piper wants to change that focus, from Christ crucified to something else. In attempting to change the focus of our faith, he avoids discussing, although he grudgingly admits, that all the benefits Christians receive from God are because of what Christ has already done on their behalf and in their place.(11) Piper’s admission is grudging, for he wants to argue that our future happiness, benefits, and final salvation depend upon our meeting conditions that God has established for receiving those blessings. In Piper’s Plan of Salvation, despite what Christ said on the cross, “It is not finished.” The believer must complete the work of salvation that Christ began. Future grace is conditional, and it is we, not Christ, who must meet those conditions.
Because Piper’s focus is on benefits we may receive in the future, this long and repetitive book omits any discussion of the Satisfaction by Christ of the justice of the Father (although Piper has a great deal to say about our being satisfied); it fails to discuss either Christ’s active or passive obedience; it omits any serious discussion of the imputation of sin and righteousness (imputation is mentioned in passing); it omits any discussion of the law of God; it omits discussion of the covenant of works; it fails to mention Adam and Christ as our legal representatives; and it depreciates the law and justice of God.
Piper opens the book with an attack on thanksgiving-he calls it gratitude-as a proper motive for Christian obedience.... Rather than thanksgiving, it is “faith in future grace” that properly motivates obedience, and Piper quotes verses that are silent on the point in an attempt to support his claim.
End quote.
Robbins also says in part:
It is not faith in the finished and effective work of Christ on the cross, but faith in “future grace,” which Piper has defined as “the power that comes from the Holy Spirit,” that justifies the sinner. Piper approvingly quotes his mentor, Daniel Fuller:
A faith that only looks back to Christ’s death and resurrection is not sufficient..... Forgiveness for the Christian also depends on having....a futuristic faith in God’s promises. Thus we cannot regard justifying faith as sufficient if it honors only the past fact of Christ’s death and resurrection but does not honor the future promises of God.... (206-207)....
“All the covenants of God are conditional covenants of grace,” Piper prevaricates. “They offer all-sufficient future grace for those who keep the covenant” (248). Please note the adjective “all-sufficient,” and please note that this future grace is all-sufficient, not for believers, but “for those who keep the covenant.”
In chapter 19, “How Many Conditions Are There?” Piper actually enumerates 11 conditions we must meet if we want any “future grace”... But the worst is yet to come: There are still more conditions required for obtaining future grace... Now here’s the catch: Unless Piper has provided a complete list of the conditions we must meet in order to “fulfill the covenant” and obtain “our final salvation,” the Piper Plan of Salvation is worthless. To be worth anything, a plan of salvation must be complete. But even with centuries to ponder the question, the Roman Church-State did not come up with a complete list of conditions the sinner must meet to obtain final salvation, and so it invented Purgatory, where all unfulfilled conditions for salvation may be met....
End quote.
For the entire article go here.
(Please note that I do disagree with Robbins on his critique of Piper re: grace. I believe that even in their innocence, Adam and Eve still didn't deserve God's goodness, because by nature they are inferior and imperfect beings (innocence doesn't not equal perfect). So I do believe on that note, Piper is right.)
No comments:
Post a Comment