Comments on "Piper and Justification"
One reader, Dustin Curlee, has already sent in a response to today's article on Piper. I will reproduce a condensed version of our correspondence below.
Curlee:
I just read your blog on Robbins, Piper, and justification. I thought you might be interested in reading this short interview where Piper explains his view on justification. Unless I am missing something, I don't see him amiss.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library
/topics/justification/cb_interview.htmlPlease let me know your thoughts on Piper's comments.
Cheung:
I skimmed through the page you sent me, and as far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with what Piper says there. But the interview does not get into what Robbins considers problematic.
On the page that Robbins cited, Piper says:
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 5:1, 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.htmlI wish the language is more clear here, but I hope you can see why Robbins finds it problematic.
Also, if you have not yet done so, you might want to read the article "Pied Piper" by Robbins, in which he provides additional examples.
I am not a follower nor an opposer of Piper; it just happens that he has no prominent place in my life or theology. So I am not interested in Piper the person so much as I am interested in the doctrine itself, and what formulation best reflects the biblical data.
My position is that my summary to Robbins is the biblical view of justification. If Piper deviates from it, then he is wrong; if not, then he is right.
Scripure DOES teach that a real faith (assent to truth) will produce a life of good works, and if sanctification does not follow justification, there was never justification in the first place.
HOWEVER, even though this is true (that works follows faith), we are STILL not justified on the basis of these good works that genuine faith produces; rather, from the beginning to the end, we are justified only by the works of Christ imputed to us.
I will add our correspondence to the blog to encourage readers to give Piper a fair hearing.
Curlee:
You say:
Scripture DOES teach that a real faith (assent to truth) will produce a life of good works, and if sanctification does not follow justification, there was never justification in the first place.
HOWEVER, even though this is true (that works follows faith), we are STILL not justified on the basis of these good works that genuine faith produces; rather, from the beginning to the end, we are justified only by the works of Christ imputed to us.
I agree wholeheartedly, Mr. Cheung. And as best I can tell, so does Piper.
Here is another short piece by Piper on the topic of justification AND works.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/99/082299.htmlYes, the wording was ambiguous and I can see how someone might take it wrongly. Maybe Piper should have been a bit more clear. However, and again, I've never heard him promote anything like what Robbins was insinuating.
Here is a succinct (3 bullet points) outline of Piper's view of justification. It explains the "seed" analogy he used. What are your thoughts of this?
http://www.desiringgod.org/library
/theological_qa/justification/justification.html
Cheung:
I agree with the three points, and if this is what Piper CONSISTENTLY affirms, then I would have no problem with him.
Robbins is accusing Piper of denying the second point. I am not an expert on Piper, so I can't tell you whether Piper is always consistent. So far, I can certainly fault him for sometimes being ambiguous, though.
Curlee:
Yes, ambiguity may have been his only error. As I said, I've never heard Piper teach anything inconsistent with those 3 points. Then again, I've not been everywhere all at once and in every dispensation of time to know if he has, or has not, been consistent. So I guess the possibility is there.
Cheung:
I will encourage the readers to be cautious but fair.
If you are a follower of Piper's ministry, please pay attention to his doctrine of justification and make sure that it is in line with biblical teaching.
But while we must zealously affirm and guard the truth, we must also take care to avoid the sin of slander.
April 12 2005 | Theology