Piper's Justification Vs Biblical Justification

Think John Piper is biblical on the doctrine of Justification / Imputation? Think again. His fundamental error is why he can then embrace heretics Doug Wilson (Federal Visionism), Rick Warren, and Rome's "gospel".

Here, John Robbins from The Trinity Foundation did an excellent expose of PIper's grave error contained in his book "Future Grace". Robbins starts at the beginning with Piper's formative days at liberal Fuller Theological Seminary and his mentor there, Daniel Fuller and how Fuller influenced him.

Below are excerpts regarding Piper's "future grace":

"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."

"It turns out that Piper’s “future grace,” which is to be the focus of our faith, is subjective, infused grace. “Future grace” is not an attribute or quality of God; it is not the unmerited favor of God. “Future grace” is “grace” that God will infuse into us; and it is this subjective “grace” that is to be the focus of our faith. Piper writes: “....the heart-strengthening power that comes from the Holy Spirit....is virtually the same as what I mean by future grace” (69). Piper shifts the focus of our faith from the objective, historical Christ to our present, subjective experience; from the meritorious, alien work of Christ outside of us to our own works, done by the power of the Holy Spirit; from the perfect, objective, imputed righteousness of Christ to our imperfect, subjective righteousness; from the life and death of Christ in history to what the Holy Spirit is doing and will do in our lives. “And this faith in future grace,” Piper pontificates, “is the faith through which we are justified” (191)."

In chapter 19, “How Many Conditions Are There?” Piper actually enumerates 11 conditions we must meet if we want any “future grace”: loving God, being humble, drawing near to God, crying out to God from the heart, fearing God, delighting in God, hoping in God, taking refuge in God, waiting for God, trusting in God, and keeping God’s covenant, which he says is the summary of the first 10. Piper proclaims: “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). Consider his words carefully. Piper does not mean that the work of Christ in perfectly fulfilling the covenant on behalf of his people is the most important thing he can think of for our final salvation; he says that we personally, or as he says, “experientially,” fulfill the covenant on our own behalf, and that our fulfillment of the covenant is the most important thing for our final salvation. We ourselves “fulfill the covenant that God has made with us for our final salvation.” Furthermore, keep in mind his description of “future grace”: “the heart-strengthening power that comes from the Holy Spirit....is virtually the same as what I mean by future grace.” Therefore, if we fulfill the conditions required of us, if we obey the covenant, then God will give us “the heart-strengthening power that comes from the Holy Spirit,” and we will be saved. This is not the Gospel. It is a pious fraud. 

- John Robbins, "The Pied Piper", The Trinity Foundation

(For the full treatment of Piper's view of Justification from his foundational days at Fuller Theological Seminary go here to the article.)

The above excerpts dealing with Piper's wrong view of justification explains why Piper says that a works-righteousness can save:

The reason for saying, “when consistently worked out,” is because I think it is possible to inconsistently deny the truth of imputation while embracing other aspects of the gospel (blood bought forgiveness, and propitiation, for example), through which God mercifully saves.

I am thankful that God is willing to save us even when our grasp of the gospel may be partial or defective. None of us has a comprehensive or perfect grasp of it.

~ John Piper  (This was a clarification of his tweet on praying for a new pope.)

Here's what John MacArthur states which is wholly contrary to Piper's view:

The gospel we present has eternal consequences. If it is the true gospel, it can direct men and women into the everlasting kingdom. If it is a corrupted message, it can give unsaved people false hope while consigning them to eternal damnation. This is not a trivial matter for theologians to speculate on. It is an issue every lay person must understand and get right. 

~ John MacArthur

I'll repost an important point MacArthur makes on the doctrine of Justification by faith alone, which is the antithesis of what Piper says in "Future Grace"....

John MacArthur also stated in part in "Jesus' Perspective of Sola Fide" :

Many who have embraced "the New Perspective on Paul" are also proposing a different slant on the doctrine of justification by faith. When the text of Scripture is interpreted in the new light, they say, Pauline support for the principle of sola fide, the doctrine of imputation, and the distinction between law and gospel doesn't seem quite so strong.

We say that's nonsense. We reject the historical and hermeneutical revisionism of the New Perspective, but regardless of how one interprets the apostle Paul, it is quite clear that Jesus taught justification by faith alone. To abandon this truth is to abandon biblical soteriology altogether.

No doctrine is more important to evangelical theology than the doctrine of justification by faith alone--the Reformation principle of sola fide. Martin Luther rightly said that the church stands or falls on this one doctrine.

Historic evangelicalism has therefore always treated justification by faith as a central biblical distinctive--if not the single most important doctrine to get right. This is the doctrine that makes authentic Christianity distinct from every other religion. Christianity is the religion of divine accomplishment--with the emphasis always on Christ's finished work. All others are religions of human achievement. They become preoccupied, inevitably, with the sinner's own efforts to be holy. Abandon the doctrine of justification by faith and you cannot honestly claim to be evangelical.

In other words, those who trust Jesus Christ for justification by faith alone receive a perfect righteousness that is reckoned to them. Those who attempt to establish their own righteousness or mix faith with works only receive the terrible wage that is due all who fall short of perfection. So the individual as well as the church stands or falls with the principle of sola fide. Israel's apostasy was rooted in their abandonment of justification by faith alone: "For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God" (Rom. 10:3).

Paul's key doctrinal epistles--especially Romans and Galatians--then expand on that answer, unfolding the doctrine of justification by faith to show how we are justified by faith alone apart from human works of any kind.

At least, that is the historic evangelical interpretation of Paul. But that's the very thing under attack by the New Perspective.

The tax-gatherer was justified. God declared him righteous, imputing to him the full and perfect righteousness of Christ, forgiving him of all unrighteousness, and delivering him from all condemnation.Forever thereafter he stood before God on the ground of a perfect righteousness that had been reckoned to his account.

That is what justification means. It is the only true gospel. All other points of theology emanate from it.

End quote.

See the entire article here.

Because Federal Visionism/ New Perspective on Paul is acceptable to Piper,  it may account for his tossing it aside as unnecessary to believe. Go here for a treatment on Piper's view of Justification/Federal Visionism(note: I don't accept Robbin's Convenantalism, but he's right on the rest in his critique on Piper). Also note that Piper has had Federal Visionism proponent Doug Wilson at repeated conferences, last year at the  Conference  For Pastors, being the most recent.

What is Justification? As John MacArthur notes:In its theological sense, justification is a forensic, or purely legal, term. It describes what God declares about the believer, not what He does to change the believer. In fact, justification effects no actual change whatsoever in the sinner's nature or character. Justification is a divine judicial edict. It changes our status only, but it carries ramifications that guarantee other changes will follow. Forensic decrees like this are fairly common in everyday life.