What’s love got to do with it? According to John Piper’s recent book What is Saving Faith?, affectional elements, including one’s love, satisfaction in and treasuring of God, are included in the definition of justifying faith itself—though, this may not come as a surprise to those familiar with Piper’s Edwards-influenced affectional emphasis showcased throughout his career.¹ In a sense, this new book just explicitly crystalizes a conception of faith consistent with his “Christian Hedonism” system already present in previous works.

However internally consistent within the Desiring God framework the publication may be, the concern of this essay lies in its perceived inconsistency with the biblical teaching as summarized by the Reformed confessions and tradition’s theologians. Namely, altering the definition of faith in this way arguably introduces concerning implications that compromise the foundations of Reformational soteriology.²

Harrison Perkins, who already noted concerns on Piper’s definition of faith in his thorough review of Future Grace, has provided an excellent review of the new volume.³ The goal of the present article is not to engage with the book or its exegesis directly as Perkins has taken up, but to help readers continue thinking through the topic using some distinct systematic categories confessed by the Reformed churches and the tradition’s theologians. Think of this as an annotated bibliography, a resource exploring the topic with additional commentary to help one connect the dots, as it were.

So, What is Saving Faith?

First, some grounding: the Reformed churches and systematic theologians have historically defined saving faith has consisting in three aspects: knowledge (notitia), assent (assensus), and trust (fiducia).⁴ This conception was, in substance, present in Luther, but was later expounded upon and codified by Philip Melanchthon in his Loci communes. Though with slightly different emphases, Calvin carried on this tradition, and the threefold elements of saving faith eventually made its way to the primary Reformed confessions and catechisms of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Perhaps chiefly and most clearly, one finds this definition explicated in Heidelberg Catechism (HC) 21, which states,

What is true faith?

True faith is not only a certain knowledge whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word; but also a hearty trust, which the Holy Spirit works in me by the Gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.

However, we particularly note what is not present in the Reformed definition of saving faith: one’s own love for God. This was not accidentally left out or presupposed; rather, love was intentionally and thoughtfully removed from the definition of true faith contra the Roman Catholic conception.⁵ The Roman church taught that, in order for faith to be justifying, it must be joined with love. In other words, love was inherently included in the definition of saving faith itself. Playing with the definition of faith in this way adds further support towards their faith plus works formulation of justification. Sound familiar? A nearly identical pattern was seen in the Federal Vision controversy, and one cannot help but find the silhouette strikingly similar to John Piper’s proposition, despite his attempts to distance himself from those formulations in this book.⁶

So, theologically, why has the Reformed tradition historically kept affectional elements out of the definition of true faith? As an overview, I do not think I could put it any better than a couple of Old Princeton’s greats, Geerhardus Vos and J. Gresham Machen:

There is evidently a difference in principle between believing and loving… The difference is this: that love is an act by which I devote myself to the beloved object, while faith, conversely, resides in an appropriation of the object of my faith for myself. . . love naturally develops as a fruit of faith. In the same way, all the other Christian virtues are resident in faith as in a root. But they do not contribute to the formal perfecting of faith, although in retrospect they can serve as grounds for recognizing the genuineness of faith.⁷

The reason why faith is given such an exclusive place by the New Testament, so far as the attainment of salvation is concerned, over against love and over against anything else in man except things that can be regarded as mere aspects of faith, is that faith means receiving something, not doing something or even being something. To say, therefore, that our faith saves us means that we do not save ourselves even in the slightest measure, but that God saves us. Very different would be the case if our salvation were said to be through love; for then salvation would depend upon a high quality of our own. And that is what the New Testament, above all else, is concerned to deny.⁸

Interestingly, Piper at least acknowledges Machen’s opposition in his book, but in my finding, proceeds to fly by his yield and stop signs. To briefly summarize the primary points quoted above: faith is a passive receiving and resting upon the person and completed work of Christ alone. Love, and one’s obedience therein, is a necessary fruit of genuine faith. Thus, confusing the categories of fruit and root undermines that we are saved Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Soli Deo Gloria.⁹ More specifically, the Reformed doctrines of the law/gospel distinction, covenant theology, and justification (including final salvation) by faith alone in Christ alone, for example, help to provide a framework with guardrails to better understand why an affectional conception of saving faith is problematic.¹⁰

The Law Gospel Distinction

The churches birthed out of the Reformation distinguished between two types of God’s speaking in Scripture: law and gospel.¹¹ Law says, “Do this;” gospel says, “It has been done for you.” As it relates to our standing with God (or, as it comes to us as a covenant), the law says, “Do this and you will have life. Fail to do this and you will surely die.” Whereas the gospel, the good news announcement of the objectively completed work of Christ, says, “Christ has accomplished all that is required of right standing with God.”

As it relates to the present topic, note that loving God, treasuring Him or the like, is simply a summary of the first table of the moral law: love the Lord your God with all your faculties.¹² It, quite literally, is “law” speech. This devotion of oneself to God is categorically different than simply receiving the good news of the gospel. True faith is receiving and resting in the person and accomplished work of Christ for salvation; it is decidedly not mixed with our doing of the law.¹³

Covenant Theology

 Central to the Reformed understanding of Scripture is the doctrine of the covenant.¹⁴ From the beginning and throughout history, God has related to man by way of covenant. The covenant of works was that covenant made with Adam, wherein eternal life was held out to him and all humanity he represented, on the condition of perfect obedience.¹⁵ As we very well know, Adam failed to keep the conditions of this covenant and thus brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.

It is important to note that, while our ability to keep the covenant of works was entirely lost in our inherited corruption, the requirement of the covenant and the consequences thereof remained. It is only through Christ’s fulfillment of all requirements of this law-covenant in His perfect obedience, and wrath-satisfying, penalty-paying death on the cross that one can be made right with God and enjoy eternal fellowship with Him. In other words, Jesus Christ, the last Adam, fulfilled the positive and penal requirements of the covenant of works where the original Adam failed.¹⁶

The offer to be counted with Christ and His accomplished work unto everlasting, glorified life with God is offered through a second covenant, the covenant of grace. As indicated in the name, the “conditions” of this covenant are unlike the covenant of works.¹⁷ The covenant of works requires perfect and personal obedience. However, in the covenant of grace, the benefits of Christ’s work are freely given by grace and received through faith alone.

Though this is far from a full treatment of Reformed covenant theology, understanding the basic contours can help us apply its relevance to the topic at hand.¹⁸ In understanding that Christ has completely fulfilled the conditions of the covenant of works, including that one would love and cherish God with all the heart, helps to prevent us from putting believers back under this covenant of works. There is nothing that one can do to add to or improve upon Christ’s perfect obedience. To include love in the definition of faith is to take a condition of the covenant of works and insert it in as a condition of the covenant of grace.

Affectional elements, rightly understood, are consequent conditions of the covenant of grace—which is to say that, having received this good news of the gospel by faith, we “consequently” go on to obey God’s law (love God and love neighbors) out of gratitude. However, to make loving God an antecedent condition of the covenant of grace, or, in other words, to make it a stipulation of entering into the covenant of grace and being a partaker of all of its benefits, is inherently turning the covenant of grace into a covenant of works. This confusion of covenants is the case when one attempts to alter the definition of faith from simply receiving to any other sort of one’s own doing or being. Lack in clarity on the covenant of works, often results in a compromising view of Christ’s fulfillment of that covenant, snowballing into a covenant of grace that is mixed with works.

Justification and Final Salvation by Faith Alone, in Christ Alone

As readers of this blog may be aware, John Piper’s supposed views surrounding Sola Fide have been cause for controversy and confusion. In my finding, there are times when he seems to be affirming and defending the biblical and Reformed understanding that one is saved by faith alone in Christ alone, but other instances (like this) where he seems to be consciously deviating from the Reformed tradition by differentiating that we are justified through faith alone, though we are not finally saved through faith alone. For example, letting Piper speak for himself, in the article referenced above he asserts, “In final salvation at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith… necessary for final salvation is the killing of sin… So faith alone doesn’t mean the same thing when applied to justification, sanctification, and final salvation. [emphasis added]” Then, in setting forth these views, he concludes that we are thus to be “First Biblical, Then Reformed”.¹⁹ Again, especially given Piper’s insistence upon semantic precision on the topic, it is difficult to explain instances like this away as less than an intentional revision of the Reformed formulation.

Though, regardless of where one lands on what Piper himself holds or does not hold, this much concerning the present article is clear: if one defines true faith consistent with the Reformed confessions, assuming it is not accompanied with an errant, overt assent to justification by faith and works altogether, there is simply no room for this doctrine of initial justification by faith and final salvation by works. Either a person has received and rested upon the person and finished work of Christ or one has not. In this Reformed definition, the amount of faith has no bearing on one’s salvation; the instrument of genuine faith unites us to Christ, who is the all-sufficient ground of justification. Either one is united to Christ by faith and thus justified, or one is not. As has been noted elsewhere, there is nothing further to “judge” about the person at a later date; rather, that person will simply be vindicated as counted with Christ’s perfect righteousness through the instrument of faith.

If, however, the definition of faith is tweaked to include our subjective doing (albeit inward), that opens the door for there to be further evaluation of one’s doing or being as a case for salvation. It raises the question: how much affection is considered genuine affection unto true faith and justification? Piper may not claim that the amount of one’s faith or affections is an instrumental consideration, but I find the question unavoidable when introducing our own doing into the equation. This is not only vital for the purity of the doctrine of Sola Fide, but also immensely practical even for one’s assurance. At the heart level, it may inevitably lead to the difference between resting in Christ alone, and, on the other hand, believing in Christ, while hoping (most likely on a pendulum of despair and pride) in one’s own affections towards God. On a personal note, I have seen this time and time again in conversation with those that are concerned that their delight in Christ isn’t enough unto true faith and salvation, even in myself as I was initially introduced to this framework as a young person. I find that a shift in focus from simple rest in the external and objective work of Christ to what is internal and subjective presents ambiguity on core doctrines such as salvation Sola Fide, and is comparatively greater positioned to cause detriment to one’s assurance of salvation.

Conclusion

Again, the purpose of this article is not to engage directly with the specific arguments put forth in the book, but to provide food for thought on the topic that it brings up, using a few key distinctions and categories historically confessed by the Reformed churches and its systematic theologians. This is far from all that could be said, but perhaps it may be an introduction for some into a few core distinctives of Reformed theology.

Let it be said that we are far from opposing deep, heartfelt love, satisfaction in and treasuring of God. These are important, necessary— even impossible to be vacant from the experience of genuine believers. At the same time, it is crucial to keep these affections in the category of fruit and evidence, rather than a part of the substance of faith itself, to avoid unwanted soteriological implications.

In closing, while there is clear truth one way or another on the biblical battleground, as it were, it must be acknowledged that there is a sense in which we should not expect John Piper to operate within these categories in the first place. Though he may agree with us on many points of the Reformed confessions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in my understanding, Piper does not claim to confess the Bible’s teaching as summarized in these documents, strictly speaking. In other words, despite holding to some “Calvinistic” commonalities like the doctrines of grace, John Piper is not Reformed in this particular sense; so, to a degree, it is not altogether surprising when he deviates from historical Reformed doctrines. That is not to dismiss the book as inconsequential, but to temper expectations with understanding, given that we may come from different theological paradigms at times.

There is much that we can be thankful for and highly respect about John Piper and his ministry, though that does not negate the need to think carefully and critically about the implications of his proposals that deviate from the summary of biblical doctrine found in the Reformed confessions and tradition, such as in the present case.

©William Edison. All Rights Reserved.

Notes

1. See R. Scott Clark, “Piper’s New Book Is Edwardsian,” The Heidelblog, May 6, 2022.
2. See Guy Waters, “Faith and Treasuring Christ: A Review Article,” Reformed Faith & Practice: The Journal of Reformed Theological Seminary 8, no. 1 (Summer 2023): 33–42. Waters’ review article highlights this point, noting that to conflate faith and love in this way compromises that one is justified by faith alone, in Christ alone, by his grace alone—however sincere Piper may be in attempting to affirm these claims simultaneously. Waters does a commendable job of maintaining respect for John Piper and his work, while addressing concern where he disagrees.
3. See Harrison Perkins, “John Piper, Future Grace: The Purifying Power of the Promises of God, rev. ed. (New York: Multnomah, 2012)—A Thorough Review,” The Heidelblog, September 13, 2021; Harrison Perkins, “Engaging Piper’s New Book: Are Affections Part of Saving Faith?,” The Gospel Coalition, May 5, 2022.
4. See R. Scott Clark, “What Is True Faith? (pt 1) We Must Know What We Must Know,” The Heidelblog, October 29, 2013.
5. See R. Scott Clark, “What Is True Faith? (3) The Romanist Condemnation Of True Faith,” The Heidelblog, November 13, 2013.
6. See “Resources On The Federal Vision Theology,” The Heidelblog.
7. Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, trans. and ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Volume 4: Soteriology (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 130–131.
8. J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith? (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011), 173.
9. See “Resources On The Reformation Solas,” The Heidelblog.
10. See R. Scott Clark, “Paul Contra Final Salvation Through Works (Romans 5:9–10),” The Heidelblog, May 23, 2022.
11. See “Resources On The Law/Gospel Distinction,” The Heidelblog.
12. See R. Scott Clark, “The Law Of Christ Is The Moral Law,” The Heidelblog, April 27, 2020.
13. See R. Scott Clark, “Imperative And Indicative; Law And Gospel,” The Heidelblog, February 16, 2016, specifically for how the “doing” involved in believing is distinct from the action of obedience to God’s moral law.
14. See “What Is Covenant Theology? Harrison Perkins Explains In 7 Minutes And 43 Seconds,” The Heidelblog, April 22, 2020.
15. See “Resources On The Covenant Of Works,” The Heidelblog.
16. See R. Scott Clark, “How Did Christ Fulfill The Covenant Of Works As The Last Adam?,” The Heidelblog, August 10, 2013.
17. See R. Scott Clark, “Resources On Conditions In The Covenant Of Grace (Updated),” The Heidelblog, September 24, 2015.
18. For further resources on covenant theology, see “Resources: Covenant Theology,” The Heidelblog.
19. John Piper, “Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?,” Desiring God, September 25, 2017.

Resources

• How To Subscribe To Heidelmedia
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button
• Two Podcasters Change Their Minds About Piper After Considering the Evidence
• Piper’s New Book Is Edwardsian
• John Piper, Future Grace: The Purifying Power of the Promises of God, rev. ed. (New York: Multnomah, 2012)—A Thorough Review
• Piper’s Doctrine Of Final Salvation Through Works: The Reformed Brotherhood Understands Your Pain
• Piper’s Sea Shell Sermon Illustrates How Far The YRR Movement Was From The Reformation
• Piper’s Rejection Of The Gratitude Ethic Is A Rejection Of The Reformation
• Resources On The Young, Restless, And Reformed and New Calvinism Movements
• Resources On The Controversy Over “Final Salvation Through Works”
• Paul Contra Final Salvation Through Works (Romans 5:9–10)
• “Edwards Injects Into Faith” In The Act Of Justification The Virtues Of The Christian Life
• Repentance Comes From Faith
• A. A. Hodge: Contra Rome: The Protestants Say That Love Is The Fruit Of Faith
• Warfield On Faith Contra The Edwardsian Definition
• Godfrey, Faith Formed By Love Or Faith Alone? The Instrument Of Justification
• Ursinus: True Faith, In The Act Of Justification, Is Not Formed By Affections Or Love
• Resources On The Doctrine Of Justification
• Resources On The Reformation Solas

Post authored by:

• William Edison

  

  William earned BA at The Ohio State University. He currently at student at Reformed Theological Seminary and lives in Cincinnati, OH with his wife, Sarah.

  More by William Edison ›