Does John Piper teach a two-stage doctrine of salvation wherein the initial stage is said to be justification by grace alone (sola gratia), through faith alone (sola fide), on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ but in which final salvation is said to be through good works? Over time I have concluded that, in fact, he does and has for some years. I had trouble seeing it because I assumed things that were not true. Others have had similar difficulties. I have corresponded privately with a few people who have challenged my thesis about Piper’s doctrine of salvation but in my experience my correspondents have done the same thing I did: assumed what must (a priori) be true rather than investigating what is true.
There is a great lot of resources on this controversy, including primary sources, quotations, and analysis of the various claims being made on the HB resource page on this topic.
Recently, I surveyed the evidence for my thesis in Heidelcast episode 149. The guys at the Reformed Brotherhood podcast are among those who, in the past, have taken issue with my thesis regarding what Piper is saying. In their most recent episode, however, Tony discusses how his mind has changed on this issue. Here is the portion of the podcast where he explains:
Here is the entire episode.
“God never taught Adam or his Second Adam to do the Galatians heresy. I learned to say it that way from Dr. Fuller. And I think that’s exactly right. He never commended the Galatian heresy as a wise way to live. Rather, he commanded faith, and faith is seeking to be so satisfied in God that if you have to die in order to get the fullest benefit of God, you’ll die; if you have to die to bring the redeemed into heaven, you’ll die; if I have to die to carry this church to obedience, I’ll die. But I will not sacrifice the joy of the fullest experience of God in that ministry and in that destiny. And so—and that’s my sanctification.” – John Piper 1994 , Sanctification by Faith Alone
“I mean Owen, I was reading him the other night, and he said more clearly than any theologian I’ve ever read, he said Jesus earned our salvation by fulfilling the Covenant of Works and he just said it very, very clearly. And I think the practical implication is that running through my system now is not a meritorious effort on the part of Jesus who fulfilled the covenant that Adam blew by not earning, but rather Jesus becomes a Christian hedonist, in that he knows that God is most glorified in him when he is most satisfied in God.” – (John Piper 1994 , Sanctification by Faith Alone)
HT: Steve White
I fully understand warning people about possible errors in the theology of those that may be an influence, and I also understand that shining light on any darkness of theological heresy is necessary to prevent heresies from taking root. But sometimes it feels more like the attack is directed against John Piper than to the Federal Vision theology itself. True, it is difficult to separate bad theology from those espousing bad theology, but personally, Id like the conversation to be governed by love…..after all, we will be sharing Glory together.
I have to add that in reading several of Piper’s books (The Pleasures of God, Desiring God, Future grace, A Hunger for God, and God Is the Gospel), I’ve never come away with any sense whatsoever that he was attributing salvation to works, but rather that he was emphasizing the importance of works as evidence of salvation, even to the point that a complete lack of works may be an indication of a false salvation. Of course, we all understand the story of the thief on the cross, and believe absent any opportunity to perform works, he was nevertheless saved, as evidenced by Jesus’ response to his request to be remembered.
For those of you that may still be reading and would like more, I feel this excerpt from Desiring God (pages 67-68) may be of value in understanding Piper’s position:
“If salvation refers to new birth, conversion is not a condition of it. New birth comes first and enables the repentance and faith of conversion. Before new birth we are dead, and dead men don’t meet conditions. Regeneration is totally unconditional. It is owing solely to the free grace of God. ‘It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy’ (Romans 9:16). We get no credit. He gets all the glory.
But if salvation refers to justification, there is one clear condition we must meet: faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:28; 4:4-5; 5:1). And if salvation refers to our future deliverance from the wrath of God at judgement and our entrance into eternal life, then not only does the New testament say that we must “believe,” but also that this faith must be so real that it produces the fruit of obedience. There must be faith and the fruit of faith. ‘Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead’ (James 2:17; cf. v.26). ‘In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love’ (Galatians 5:6). ‘Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord’ (Hebrews 12:14).”
He then goes on to list, from the Bible, all the things we must do to be saved such as believe (Acts 16:31), receive (John 1:12), repent (Acts 3:19), obey (Hebrews 5:9). become like children (Matthew 18:3), deny ourselves (Mark 8:34-35), love (Matthew 10:37), and even renounce all that he has (Luke 14:33).
If I may be so bold as to speak for Mr. Piper, my understanding of his view of necessary works are those “things” which are part of every true Christian, and without which we should and must question our OWN salvation.
Granted this is a large subject, and Scott has provided so much background that there are reasons to look deeply into John Piper’s theology as it relates to the topic at hand, but if we spend as much time trying to understand him as we do judging him, I believe we’d be doing him and ourselves a great service, and bringing glory to God, where it belongs.
In short, judge his theology, love him, glorify God in all we do.
Jerry,
Have you listened to the earlier H-cast episode and considered the evidence presented there, in the audio linked above, and on the resource page on the “final salvation” controversy?
No one is attacking John personally but we are trying to understand accurately his public teaching. No one is accusing John of teaching the FV theology. He has supported and endorsed FV teachers (e.g., Doug Wilson) but his doctrine is not quite that of the FV.
You seem to be at the stage where you know before you’ve considered all the evidence what John must be saying because he has helped you.
Give it some time. Consider all the evidence.
What I don’t understand is this:
How is it possible for someone to teach salvation through faith and works and not to be considered as a false teacher?
Theo,
That’s a fair question. To be sure, that judgment, in a formal sense, is something that a church needs to make, but it’s a fair question.
Dr. Clark,
I have found other occurrences of Piper teaching final salvation by works throughout the years, which I thought I would post here, if you are not already aware of them.
From “3 Ways Our Deeds Relate to Our Salvation” (2014) — “We now… ‘work out our salvation,’ bearing ‘the fruit of the Spirit’ in a life of practical righteousness, and we thus confirm our saving faith and our union with Christ, and in this way obtain the inheritance of salvation.”
“How Obedient Christians ‘Produce’ Salvation” from Phil. 2:12-13 (2018). In this lab, Piper argued that we produce our own salvation. He arrived at this conclusion after doing a word study of the Greek verb (katergazaesthe) κατεργάζεσθε and pointed out that in other contexts, this word means to produce, then argued that it should mean the same thing in Philippians 2:12.
“Future Grace” (1995). Page 248: “Both the old covenant and the new covenant are conditional covenants of grace. They offer all sufficient future grace for those who keep the covenant.” Page 249: “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.” Page 332: “the deeds of this life will be the public criteria of judgment at the resurrection….our deeds will reveal who enters the age to come.”
“Hope as the Motivation of Love: 1 Peter 3:9-12” (1979). The essay opens with these words:
“The specific question which this essay tries to answer came from 1 Peter 3:9, ‘Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called that you may obtain a blessing’ (RSV). What does the word “this” refer to? The preceding behaviour of love? Or the following eschatological blessing? The answer one gives to this question significantly reflects how one conceives of the motivation of love in 1 Peter. I will argue later that ‘this’ refers to behaviour and that therefore the motivation given here is that by so behaving one inherits the eschatological blessing of salvation. Loving behaviour is in some sense a condition and means of gaining salvation.”
I’ve also heard Piper argued this in “The Justification of God.” Is that documented?
“I mean Owen, I was reading him the other night, and he said more clearly than any theologian I’ve ever read, he said Jesus earned our salvation by fulfilling the Covenant of Works and he just said it very, very clearly. And I think the practical implication is that running through my system now is not a meritorious effort on the part of Jesus who fulfilled the covenant that Adam blew by not earning, but rather Jesus becomes a Christian hedonist, in that he knows that God is most glorified in him when he is most satisfied in God.” – (John Piper 1994 , Sanctification by Faith Alone)
This is so heart-breaking and wrong-headed! Jesus was a Christian hedonist? What?
Sounds very close to what J. Gresham Machen condemned:
“According to modern liberalism, in other words, Jesus was the founder of Christianity because He was the first Christian, and Christianity consists in maintenance of the religious life which Jesus instituted.” Christianity and Liberalism, p. 73, 2009, Eerdmans.