Posted by: brandon | November 6, 2009

John Piper’s Justification According to Works

I have been thrust into a study of the final judgment. It started when I read a post over at Bring the Books: If You Are Late to the Discussion. It is a summary, taken from Christianity Today, of John Piper and N.T. Wright’s views of justification. My study began when I commented that, given Piper’s view, he was the exact wrong person to be defending justification against Wright – and my comment was met with strong criticism. Here is Piper’s view:

Piper: Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.

I do not believe Piper’s view is biblical. There is no “future” justification in addition to “present” justification. They are the same. In the words of Robert Reymond: “Justification possesses an eschatological dimension, for it amounts to the divine verdict of the Eschaton being brought forward into the present time and rendered here and now concerning the believing sinner.” (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p743).

Piper cannot consistently believe the above statement and also believe that there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1) because he believes our salvation must await validation, determined by our works, on the last day.

Another consequence of Piper’s view is that he must deny justification by faith alone. I understand that he does not believe he denies it and in fact has written a whole book on it, and I thank God for that, but that just means he is inconsistent. Given that “present” justification is different from “future” justification, we can say that “present” justification does not matter because it does not determine who is going to heaven to spend eternity in paradise with God and who is going to hell to burn forever. “Future” justification is what determines our fate, and thus, “future” justification is what matters.

That being said, Piper does not believe that faith alone determines our “future” justification (keep in mind there is actually no difference between “future” and “present” justification). He believes that both our faith and our works determine our “future” justification. Granted, he does not view them equally – he believes in a sort of chain where our works connect us to saving faith which then connects us to Christ’s righteousness. But that means that it is not faith alone that unites us with Christ. Both our faith and our works play a determining role. Thus both our faith and our works are the instrumental causes of our justification.

You may say that’s unfair, that my logic must be wrong, that there’s no way Piper believes that. Well, let me offer some biblical support for Piper’s view. James says: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone(2:24). Clear enough, and if there’s any chance I have any Roman Catholics reading this, I’m sure you’re shouting “I told you so” from the rooftop.

But Brandon, you may object, James is not talking about the same thing as Paul. James is talking about our justification before men, about evidence that we look at to estimate if someone is justified. We can’t look into someone else’s heart to see if their faith is genuine. To us, faith is invisible, so we must look at the fruit of faith. I agree! But Piper does not. Piper does not believe James is talking about how we view each other here and now. No, Piper believes James is talking about the final judgment:

Several times Paul listed certain kinds of deeds and said, “those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). In other words, when these deeds are exposed at the judgment as a person’s way of life, they will be the evidence that their faith is dead and he will not be saved. As James said, “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). That is what will be shown at the judgment. (Future Grace, p366, emphasis added)

He also says:

How then can I say that the judgment of believers will not only be the public declaration of our differing rewards in the kingdom of God, according to our deeds, but will also be the public declaration of our salvation – our entering the kingdom – according to our deeds? The answer is that our deeds will be the public evidence brought forth in Christ’s courtroom to demonstrate that our faith is real. And our deeds will be the public evidence brought fourth to demonstrate the varying measures of our obedience of faith. In other words, salvation is by grace through faith, and rewards are by grace through faith, but the evidence of invisible faith in the judgment hall of Christ will be a transformed life. (Future Grace, p364)

So Piper necessarily denies justification by faith alone, as James makes very, very plain. Yet Paul disagrees: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”

If you disagree with the conclusion, I would honestly love to hear why, because I cannot come to any other conclusion. (If you do comment, please do not simply list quotes of Piper affirming “present” justification through faith alone – please actually demonstrate how the points above do not lead to the necessary conclusion).

Update:

R.S. Clark recently taught on the invalidity of a “two-stage justification.” Expostion of the Nine Points (pt 9)-A Two Stage Justification?

I asked him how his teaching relates to Piper:

As to Piper, he’s just flat wrong and he needs to repudiate this teaching. It’s contrary to the Reformation, to the Reformed confessions, and to the gospel.

For Further Reading:


Responses

  1. Free Grace: 1
    Piper: 0

    thank you Brandon

  2. I’m sorry, I don’t have much time now so this will have to be quick.

    I really don’t think Piper is saying salvation is determined by more than just faith alone. I have heard him affirm this strongly at least dozens of times (I attend his church).

    On the other hand, I think he IS saying that some fruit of our faith is inevitable in our Christian life. To what extent the fruit shows and what that looks like only God knows — I am thinking for example of the thief that was saved at Jesus’ crucifixion with little time to show a changed life.

    I think Piper is one who periodically, and thankfully, reacts to bad doctrine common in our American church today. In trying to come across strongly against a wrong doctrine and to wake Christians from their slumber, in this case easy-believism, Piper’s words are sometimes misinterpreted on the other side. I think this has occurred here.

    I think Piper is saying that a changed life, bearing fruit at least to some small degree, is inevitable if one is truly born again. There is no such thing as a Christian whose life is utterly unchanged in love for God, sanctification, love of others, etc.

    Be careful with the logic here. Just because something is inevitable, in this case fruit after faith, does not necessarily make it the cause of something, in this case justification. On the other hand, some fruit for a Christian is such a sure thing that God, who can read the heart behind all the actions and thoughts, can see who is saved based on their fruit or not.

    One verse that comes to mind is John 15:8: “By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.” The bearing of fruit proves they are his disciples but it doesn’t make them his disciples.

    I don’t know if this clarifies or changes your mind on Piper’s view or not. If you are still having some issues I would ask you a question: do you believe there is such a thing as a born again Christian who has trusted Jesus for salvation and yet his whole life is utterly unchanged in love for God, sanctification, and love of others and still will be saved? To me that’s an oxymoron. I think that’s basically all Piper is saying. He would say fruit is inevitable, but has no part in causing justification to occur.

    David

    • Hi David,

      Thank you for your comments. However, I asked that anyone who comment not simply point me to times where Piper has affirmed faith alone. I know he has. My point is that he is inconsistent in doing so.

      He is not simply saying that saving faith will produce fruit. He is saying that that fruit will determine if they go to heaven or hell. There is no way to skirt the fact that this is what Piper teaches. It is the entire point of Future Grace.

      Piper’s views on this are not simply “periodical.” They have been his views for 30 years – his entire ministry. And they are not simply reactionary, they are heavily influenced by his “most influential teacher” Daniel Fuller. If you think I have misinterpreted Piper’s words then you need to demonstrate how. I have extensive quotes from Piper all affirming the same thing. Our works play a determining role in our “final” salvation.

      Here is a sermon from Piper where he teaches that “the doers of the law” in Romans 2:13 are Christians on the final day. That is not me misinterpreting Piper, that is Piper misinterpreting the Bible.
      http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByScripture/10/1068_There_is_No_Partiality_With_God_Part_2/

      The phrase “will be justified” expresses getting right with God….What is the gospel about? It is about future judgment….I think that when Paul says, “doers of the law will be justified,” he means that there really are such people, and they are the only people who will be acquitted at the judgment. This is not a hypothetical statement. It is a statement of actual, experienced fact. When Christ comes into a person’s life by the power of the Holy Spirit through faith in the Gospel, that person becomes a “doer of the law.”

      Be careful with the logic here. Just because something is inevitable, in this case fruit after faith, does not necessarily make it the cause of something, in this case justification.

      I agree. So does John Gill. Read his excellent essay arguing that exact thing (linked above). But that is not what Piper believes. Piper believes the inevitable fruit does determine our justification (though he affirms it is not the ground of our justification).

      On the other hand, some fruit for a Christian is such a sure thing that God, who can read the heart behind all the actions and thoughts, can see who is saved based on their fruit or not.

      Yes, that is what Piper teaches. The problem is that that is not what “justification through faith alone” teaches. God does not judge me by my fruit. He judges me by my faith. To say otherwise is to deny faith alone.

      Now, Piper may be right. We can have that discussion. But my point here is to simply ask for honesty and admit this is what Piper is teaching – either that or prove this is not what Piper teaches. (And I would love to be proven wrong. I would love to believe that my friends and family will not be deceived about the Day of the Lord and their salvation by reading Piper).

      One verse that comes to mind is John 15:8: “By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.” The bearing of fruit proves they are his disciples but it doesn’t make them his disciples.

      The problem is Piper’s unbiblical view of “future justification.” I am justified and the verdict of the final judgment is rendered the moment I believe (before I “prove” myself). My works play absolutely no role.

      do you believe there is such a thing as a born again Christian who has trusted Jesus for salvation and yet his whole life is utterly unchanged in love for God, sanctification, and love of others and still will be saved?

      I sure don’t. But that’s not what the debate is about.

      I think that’s basically all Piper is saying.

      I appreciate your opinion, but no, that is not all Piper is saying.

      He would say fruit is inevitable, but has no part in causing justification to occur.

      That is not what Piper says, as my previous quotes have demonstrated.

    • Hi David, please see “update” in post above.


Leave a response

Your response:

Categories