Keeping the covenant of God did not mean living perfectly. It meant a life of habitual devotion and trust and love to the Lord, that turned from evil and followed him in his ways. When there was a shortcoming, a covenant-keeping person remembered the words of the covenant on Mt. Sinai (“The Lord [is] merciful and gracious… forgiving iniquity, and transgression and sin,” Exodus 34:6–7) and repented and offered a sacrifice and received forgiveness and restoration.
When the Old Testament says that covenant-keeping is the condition for receiving God’s lovingkindness, that’s what it meant. It did not imply perfection. “The lovingkindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting… to those who keep His covenant” (Psalm 103:17–18).” “All the paths of the Lord are lovingkindness and truth to those who keep His covenant and His testimonies” (Psalm 25:10). All the covenant of God are conditional covenant of grace—both the old covenant and the new covenant. They offer all-sufficient future grace for those who keep the covenant.
This covenant keeping condition of future grace does not mean we lose security or assurance, for God has pledged himself to complete the work he began in the elect (Philippians 1:6). He is at work within us to will and to do his good pleasure (Philippians 2:12–13). He works in us what is pleasing in his sight (Hebrews 13:21) He fulfills the condition of the covenant through us (Ezekiel 36:27). Our security is as secure as God is faithful.
But what it does mean is that almost all future blessings of the Christian life are conditional on our covenant-keeping….
… 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. The New Testament warning that some in the church “shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:21; first Corinthians 6:9) is stunning. It is astonishing to me how many Christians are blasé about this matter. It’s as though salvation were a casual and obvious thing. It’s as though grace were a catch-all for every kind of divine tolerance that anyone can imagine. I hope that the little we have seen sobers you out of those illusions.
John Piper The Purifying Power Of Living By Faith In Future Grace (Multnomah Books, 1995), 248–49.
RESOURCES
- Resources For Those Beginning To Study Covenant Theology
- Resources On The Controversy Over “Final Salvation Through Works”
- Resources on the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant
- New: Resources On The Internal/External Distinction In The Covenant Of Grace
- Resources on the Law/Gospel Distinction
- Resources On The Covenant Of Works
- Resources On The Republication Of The Covenant Of Works
- Subscribe to The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Heidelblog
The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
More by Heidelblog ›
Grace works.
To me, this seems very subversive. I’ll admit that in reading this myself I might not have noticed what other commenters pointed out, namely about the word “conditional”. Could you point out to me exactly where he implies that works help us attain heaven? I am very intrigued as I have many acquaintances who live and die by Piper.
Oliver,
See:
We Attain Heaven Through Faith Alone (Part 1)
Thanks Dr. Clark! God bless
Thank you, Dr. Clark, for the link to the Piper comment. Oh, good heavens! I once attended a Bible Study group that began with Francis Schaeffer and finished with John Piper, about whom they were very enthusiastic. I had moved before the Piper era, but I had already begun to be troubled by what I understood him to say.
And I think I would go further, perhaps, than you might be comfortable to say, but both N.T. and Doug seem to me to offer “another gospel,” that is to say, a false gospel – sort of like offering a stone to one who asked for bread, or an asp when a lamb was desired.
Mr. Piper accuses Christian’s of being “blasé” about the Law, all the while demonstrating he’s never felt the full force of it himself. He thinks the law is achievable, and he thinks he’s achieving it.
I could be mistaken, but this sounds like Doug Wilson.
Just what I thought.
Thanks for your help with this whole issue Angela. I’m in your debt.
It does. The FV also teaches a similar doctrine of congruent merit (justification by covenant on the basis of or through our imperfect good works).
This might explain Piper’s affinity for Wilson. On that see
See It For Yourself: Piper On Wilson, Baptism, And The FV
Back in 95, Wilson and other federal-visionists were not yet recognized as heterodox and their ideas were in free circulation among reformed and reformed-adjacent churches. I wonder if Piper would use this kind of language today in light of the present clarity on the heterdoxy of the federal vision.
Evan,
He does. See:
We Attain Heaven Through Faith Alone (Part 1)
Some years back, when he was in San Diego for ETS, I was invited to a small gathering and during the discussion I asked him how his doctrine of justification had changed and he asserted that it had not changed and this was after he had published his volume on imputation. Daniel Fuller thought it had changed and expressed his displeasure but on the doctrines essential to Future Grace he has not changed.
See also:
In 2017 he wrote:
You’re not alone in struggling to accept that Piper really says these things. A faith HB reader, Angela Werner, sent me a letter that opened my eyes.
Here’s a podcast ep where The Reformed Brotherhood discuss their reluctance to admit what Piper says about final salvation through works:
The Reformed Brotherhood: Overcoming Confirmation Bias On Piper And Final Salvation Through Works
Check out the resource page for more on this.
I see. Thank you Dr. Clark. That does sound almost identical to the way Doug Wilson articulates his theory of final salvation/justification through faith/faithfulness.
So would it be correct to say, after reading Piper’s use of the word “conditional”, that we would be both saved by grace AND works? Now I’m not one for name dropping but not once, in that section of his book, did the name “Jesus” appear. To say that that section is blatantly contradictory would be a rather large understatement. If it is Mr. Piper’s premise to convey that perfection was not required of Israel in the OT, then all of the NT is now null and void.
Piper asserts a strong distinction between justification and salvation but to say that we attain heaven through works and that we maintain a right standing with God (justification) is to blur the distinction he claims to make. Further, if we maintain a right standing through works then, we denies justification through faith alone. Though there may be said to be a degree of conceptual distinction, it’s impossible (as Piper himself demonstrates) to exclude justification from salvation since justification is a constituent of salvation.