Piper Sermon on Justification
50 comments | Permalink
The manuscript (and the audio) of John Piper's sermon on justification, delivered this past Sunday upon his return from Cambridge, is now available online. An excerpt:
"Do you see why I would spend weeks of my sabbatical laboring to understand why so many teachers in the church today are replacing the righteousness that Christ has in himself with the righteousness that Christ creates in us as the basis for our justification? People who trust in the righteousness that God has worked in them for the basis of their acceptance and acquittal and justification do not go down to their house justified. People who really believe that the righteousness that God helps them do in this life is a sufficient basis for their justification, Jesus says, will not be justified. Bethlehem, this is serious. We are not justified by the righteousness that Christ works in us, but by the righteousness that Christ is for us."
"Do you see why I would spend weeks of my sabbatical laboring to understand why so many teachers in the church today are replacing the righteousness that Christ has in himself with the righteousness that Christ creates in us as the basis for our justification? People who trust in the righteousness that God has worked in them for the basis of their acceptance and acquittal and justification do not go down to their house justified. People who really believe that the righteousness that God helps them do in this life is a sufficient basis for their justification, Jesus says, will not be justified. Bethlehem, this is serious. We are not justified by the righteousness that Christ works in us, but by the righteousness that Christ is for us."
posted by JT at Tuesday, August 08, 2006
50 Comments:
Amen.
and amen.
Justin,
Thanks for posting this. It's good to have Piper back preaching, he is simply the best.
I think I totally agree with his main point that we shouldn't rely "in what God has worked in us (sanctification) as the basis for justification"
But do you know what Piper means by the word "basis"? I know he is trying to emphasize Christ's objective accomplishment, but where does our subjectivity (regeneration/sanctification) fit into justification? Therefore I think it's important to know what he means with the word "basis"?
Is Piper then referring to Wright's view of justification being dangerous because he teaches people to rely only on their God-given sanctification for justification? This apparent accusation seems foreign to Wright's view of justification and pastoral framework.
Wright states: The 'faith' in question is faith in 'the God who raised Jesus from the dead'. It comes about through the announcement of God's word, the gospel, which works powerfully in the hearts of hearers, 'calling' them to believe, or indeed (as Paul often puts it) to 'obey' the gospel (Rom. 1.16f.; 1 Thess. 1.3f., 2.13; 2 Thess. 1.8). This faith looks backwards to what God has done in Christ, by means of his own obedient faithfulness to God's purpose (Rom. 5.19; Phil. 2.6), relying on that rather than on anything that is true of oneself. For Paul, this meant refusing to regard the badges of Jewish law-observance ('the works of the law') as the decisive factor (Phil. 3.2-11). And it looks forward to the final day: because this faith is the first sign of new God-given life, it is the appropriate anticipation of the final verdict, which is guaranteed by the same Spirit who inspired faith (2 Cor. 1.22; Phil. 1.6).”
I have some more of Wright's quotes involving this issue on my blog, which was posted before i heard and read piper's sermon. Before than i kept thinking piper thought wright was teaching some form of merit theology.
Blessings,
Dan
this sermon is flippin awesome. i'm burning a bunch of copies and handing them out to my hollywood buddies.
While I tend to agree with Piper's view of justification--with a few tweaks here and there--I probably wouldn't go as far as him as to say that those who believe that "God has worked in them for the basis of their acceptance and acquittal and justification do not go down to their house justified."
As best I can tell, he seems to believe that, regardless of the fact that you hold that God is the one doing all the justifying and not yourself, if you have a wrong conception of how God's justification comes about and in what order, then you're not saved. That effectively excludes all Roman Catholics--even those who have taken a step away from Trent--from salvation. In fact, it exclude most Christians who have ever lived. I'm not sure he has a basis for such a claim, even if he holds the right view.
Piper does doctrine well, but in my view, he tends to get counterproductive when he leaves no room for disagreement and makes all of salvation hinge upon agreement with him. Can two Christians have different views of the process of justification and still both be saved?
keith,
I don't think the issue is "Can two Christians have different views of the process of justification and still both be saved?" Rather, can a person believe justification is different than what the Word of God says it is and still be saved. Yes, Piper did deliver the message, but is it what the Word of God teaches clearly? Thats the issue.
Piper doesn't leave room for oppisition when he feels that the point is a clear Biblical truth. I think thats awesome. Thats courage. He needs to be careful, but never back down from what Scripture is saying. Thats why Piper is so effective. Its not him, its Scripture.
"Yes, Piper did deliver the message, but is it what the Word of God teaches clearly? Thats the issue." Exactly!! And, guess what?, all the Reformed people on the blogosphere are going to say "It's the Word of God, plain and simple!!", and all the non-Reformed people are going to say "It's clearly only Piper's interpretation of the Word of God!!" And on and on it goes, forever and ever...
First of all, I think it's important to point out that many (and I think this is Wright's view as well) don't think justification guarantees any outcome at final judgment. But of course, if you're a Calvinist, you can't drive a wedge between those two. So what we have here is a clash of worldviews. I submit that as far as final judgment is concerned... God isn't a stickler. He's not anal. He's not going to send Wright, and Catholics, and all non-Piperite-Reformed people to hell because they hadn't thought through justification correctly. Not to say it isn't an important conversation... but people, what's your picture of God???
Cheers,
-Daniel-
I really don't get Piper's concern about Tom Wright. Yes, he states the doctrine of justification differently to the classic Reformation position. Yet what Wright is certainly NOT saying (and he emphasises this in almost everything he writes on justification) is that we are not accepted by God on the basis of our works, or of our good deeds, but solely on the basis of the work of Jesus Christ alone. Unless I'm missing something here, I don't see how people can constantly take Wright to teach salvation by works or some sort of merit theology and especially someone of Piper's intellect.
Chris,
Thanks for the response to my comment. I'm not willing to absolve Piper of my critique because he believes that he is just being faithful to the scriptures. To tack on to Daniel's point: N.T. Wright has studied the scriptures just as extensively and also thinks that he's being faithful to them and so do Roman Catholics. Of the three, I tend to agree more with Piper. But I wonder if it is possible for Piper, Wright, and Roman Catholics to agree broadly on justification (that God is the one doing the justifying) but disagree on precisely how and in what order God justifies? Must salvation hinge on one's own particular interpretation of the process of justification?
It seems like Piper thinks that it does hinge on precisely that--and in doing so he excludes everyone who doesn't agree with him on this doctrinal matter from salvation. I'm just not sure he's in a position to do that, theologically or pastorally. I think that's a view which has the potential to do more damage to the church than it good.
Can you sometimes be faithful to the Bible but not faithful to the God of the Bible?
Daniel,
Wright believes that faith from present justification guarantees future justification. I think it's pretty standard view of the "perseverance of the saints".
Wright said:
"And it (faith) looks forward to the final day: because this faith is the first sign of new God-given life, it is the appropriate anticipation of the final verdict, which is guaranteed by the same Spirit who inspired faith (2 Cor. 1.22; Phil. 1.6).”
Blessing,
Dan
What I see with the way Piper is going about doing what he's doing, is that it is soaked with Scripture. On most of the quotes put up about what Wright teaches, there seems to not be as much (I don't think I saw any, i could be wrong). Though, I admit I haven't read any of his stuff or listened to him. I just know this: Almost all the points that Piper makes are directly from Scripture. That's huge. He then usually backs it up with more Scripture too. I'm just very tired of man's wisdom when it comes to this issue and many others. Its groundless. I can't trust what any man says, regardless of their credentials or name. So, then I pay attention to what is their source, what are they pulling from. His view of justification is formed FROM (not just supported by) scripture. This whole discussion will also show itself not to be merely a discussion of justification, but also "where the heck do I go so I can know what is what?"
p.s. Its very possible I'm wasting both my and your time if Wright is also as Biblically grounded as Piper (not just that he knows it, but he FUNCTIONS by it and from it). So, my apologies if this is true.
Daniel,
You said, "God isn't a stickler. He's not anal."
Really? If he is not a stickler then what should it matter what Piper or anyone else says on...well anything. Why get worked up on theology or God even. If he isn't a stickler or anal then why debate? Why should anyone including Wright say anything about God? I cannot even imagine why anyone would care about someone else's picture of God if God, himself is not a stickler...or anal even.
Is he not a stickler on some things? Say, keeping the earth in motion? Or maybe, redemption through the cross at the painful cost of his Son? Is he a stickler on his people showing mercy to others, including the poor? Is God anal about his glory?
Call me anal but it seems to me that Justification is pretty important. I would not be surprised that God would be a stickler for our grasping it and loving it.
wow, i was rereading your comment daniel, and this is quite a quote:
"I think it's important to point out that many (and I think this is Wright's view as well) don't think justification guarantees any outcome at final judgment. "
wow. gaurentees nothing? at all? that's a bold place to be. and personally, i would be scared out of my mind if i believed that to be true.
Chris,
I am totally on board with you on the need for scripture as we do theology, and that's one of the things I admire about John Piper. Just so you know, N.T. Wright is a New Testament scholar, and his major books are not only soaked with scripture, they basically are extended expositions of scripture. I personally find it hard to think of any author in any discipline who has engaged with scripture more thoroughly and seriously in the last decade than N.T. Wright. And he reads and uses scripture in the right way--he doesn't cherry-pick verses, but examines and interprets scripture within its broader context. Specifically, when he lays out his views of justification, he does so by a thorough and careful treatment of Paul's writings.
In other words, both Wright and Piper are trying their best to be faithful to the scriptures. They just disagree about what the scriptures mean on certain points--although I'd argue that they have far more agreements than disagreements. That's why I think it's unnecessary to use the kind of language Piper does to describe these views, or to imply that those who disagree with him on this issue (at least those he's presently targeting) are basically offering a false gospel.
Call me anal but it seems to me that Justification is pretty important. I would not be surprised that God would be a stickler for our grasping it and loving it.
MB, I tend to agree with you about God not letting just everything go. But, to key off Piper's comments, if God truly is a stickler on this issue in the way that Piper implies in his sermon, then the majority of Christians who have ever lived aren't going to be justified because they were unknowing victims of doctrinal error. For example, consider a 13th century Catholic monk who devoted his entire life to the service and delight of God, but who also believed that, while he was justified by God alone, "the righteousness that God has worked" in him was the basis of his acceptance and acquittal. Based on this sermon, John Piper says that this man will not be justified. That kind of view seems more in line with the ones expressed by the opponents of Jesus than Jesus himself.
Imagine if these kind of distinctions become the basis for our relations with our fellow believers in the coming years: who's in, who's out, who we need to fight against, etc. The unity of the body of Christ will be shattered. Piper carries the kind of respect and influence among Christians to start a movement like that. That's why, in my view, statements like these are serious matters.
Doctrine is important, to be sure, but how perfect does our doctrine have to be to be saved? Can we agree that this person is a Christian, even if we disagree with how he construes his doctrine of justification? Or can we disagree under the umbrella of the church and work out our differences (which are real and valid) without declaring that those who disagree with us are on the road to hell?
Chris. Thanks for latching on to my 'controversial' claim. I was hoping I'd get to say a little more about it.
I essentially said that justification (in my view which--I think, though dan disagrees--is close to Wright's) doesn't guarantee a certain outcome at the final judgment. Chris responded: "guarantees nothing? at all? that's a bold place to be. and personally, i would be scared out of my mind if i believed that to be true."
To which I would respond--have a little more faith in the Spirit, Chris. It is the Spirit who guarantees this. That is why we speak of a 'down-payment'. Insofar as the Spirit is concerned, we are 'as good as' saved, 'as good as' righteous. This is the confidence expressed by Paul in Philippians 1:6. However, what you will also find in the New Testament writers (which you will not find in Piper) is a pragmatic balancing of that along the lines of "don't prove the Spirit wrong! don't quench the Spirit!"--the point is that the Spirit can be thwarted (something Piper's Calvinism won't allow him to say). In which case our justification will have been for nothing. A sad place to be on judgment day.
As for the whole God being anal... all I can say is that if your picture of God requires you to believe that he will cast millions of sanctified Christians into hell because they didn't follow Piper... well, something's wrong.
Doctrine is important, but a few things are more important still.
It just seems to me that this is a very counter-productive pursuit, in the long run. It's like we've all been invited to this giant banquet (sound familiar?), and instead of rushing gleefully in the door and attacking the food, we all gather round the front door having arguments about how we got in! "I was invited before time began." "I chose to accept the invitation." "I think he saw a glimmer of good in me; that's why I was invited." "I'm a worm and have no right to be here." "I came because I was invited." "I came and then got invited." Blah, blah, blah.
People, He's laid a feast out for us. We can spend the rest of our lives on this planet huddled around the front door arguing, and obscessing about how we got here. Or, we can start exploring the Kingdom.
I say, let's explore. Let's find the feast. Let's set about inviting others. Let's see if we can help serve at the feast. Let's do anything other than hyperventilate about the entrance requirements (that we didn't set).
I've read alot of Piper and Wright. I love them both. What a shame and damage to the Kingdom that we are constantly encouraged to focus on this.
Peace, out
Keith said:
"But, to key off Piper's comments, if God truly is a stickler on this issue in the way that Piper implies in his sermon, then the majority of Christians who have ever lived aren't going to be justified because they were unknowing victims of doctrinal error."
Keith, what do you think is Jesus' point in Luke 18? Is Piper saying something that Jesus doesn't?
Matt Reimer
Keith referenced the "13th century Catholic monk who devoted his entire life to the service and delight of God, but who also believed that, while he was justified by God alone, 'the righteousness that God has worked' in him was the basis of his acceptance and acquittal..."
I don't know myself, but I'm curious what Piper would say about what you're questiong here. That is, what about all the Christians through history who have held to a different understanding on justification? We'd probably have to ask him on a case by case basis and look at what they're each doing doctrinally and in practice...
I'm curious how much more was behind Piper's words in his sermon when he spoke with trembling about knowing many people personally who seem to believe as the Pharisee does in this text? Would he nuance his strong statements in the sermon if asked point blank about the justification of Wright or specific friends who have diverged on this point? I'm speculating, but I think he would say his hope is that Wright, as well as this 13th century monk, would hold the correct, fully Christ-glorifying belief in his heart although he fleshes it out inacurately and dangerously in his theology? But that anyone who really believes, and banks their hope for salvation, that God justifies on the basis of internal righteousness, they are damnably mistaken.
Perhaps Piper would echo the spirit of Spurgeon here about a similar, but different, doctrine...
"I hold that there are many savingly called, who do not believe in effectual calling, and that there are a great many who persevere to the end, who do not believe the doctrine of final perseverance. We do hope the hearts of many are a great deal better than their heads. We do not set their fallacies down to any willful opposition to the truth as it is in Jesus but simply to an error in their judgments, which we pray God to correct. We hope that if they think us mistaken too, they will reciprocate the same Christian courtesy; and when we meet around the cross, we hope that we shall ever feel that we are one in Christ Jesus."
??
Brad's comments seem right on to me.
Again? Tom Wright publicly stated a friend of his, Borg I believe, who does not believe in Christ's bodily resurrection, is a Christian. This is horrible teaching. His thinking on the gospel is obviously in error. How does a Christ-follower defend this?
Matt asked: "Keith, what do you think is Jesus' point in Luke 18? Is Piper saying something that Jesus doesn't?
Personally, I think Piper reading his theological opponents--i.e., N.T. Wright and others--into this passage where the passage itself doesn't call for it. Here's what he says about the Pharisee in the passage:
"He is not presented as a legalist—one who tries to earn his salvation. That is not the issue. One thing is the issue: This man was morally upright. He was religiously devout. He believed God had made him so. He gave thanks for it. And that is what he looked to and trusted in for his righteousness before God—for his justification. And he was dead wrong."
I don't think that the parable gives us sufficient or definitive reason to believe that the Pharisee "believed God has made him" righteous. To me, the more obvious reading of the passage presents the Pharisee as basing his righteousness on his own, self-generated moral actions. In other words, contra Piper, I tend to read the passage presenting the Pharisee as a legalist who is secure in his righteousness because of his own good works. That becomes clearer with the passage's positioning of the tax collector directly opposite of him. The tax collect relies on God for righteousness; the Pharisee relies on himself.
Why would Piper want to read the passage like he does? Keep in mind that his theological opponents--Wright and others--believe like Piper that God alone justifies. That's not his disagreement with them. His disagreement with Wright is that Piper thinks Wright believes that God makes the sinner righteous and then bases the sinner's justification on that righteousness which God has given. In other words, while Piper believes that our justification comes by the righteousness which Christ has in himself, Wright believes that our justification comes by our own righteousness which God's has given to us by Christ (that's a subtle but pretty important distinction--heirs of the Reformation tend to lean toward the former view, Roman Catholics the latter).
In any event, Piper basically reads the passage so that the Pharisee holds the same view N.T. Wright holds, and that gives him a way to criticize him in the same way as Jesus criticized the Pharisee. For Piper, the Pharisee believes that God alone justifies and that God bases his salvation on the good acts which God has given enabled him to do. Can you read ithe passage this way? I think so--it's a possible reading of it. But I don't think it's the only or definitive way you can read the passsage. Someone could make a strong case that the Pharisee is trying to emphasize his own merits, not God's. That reading seems just as likely as otherwise.
In any event, I'd be hard pressed to use this passage, since it's not definitively clear, to declare that Wright or others aren't preaching a true justification.
I'm speculating, but I think he would say his hope is that Wright, as well as this 13th century monk, would hold the correct, fully Christ-glorifying belief in his heart although he fleshes it out inacurately and dangerously in his theology? But that anyone who really believes, and banks their hope for salvation, that God justifies on the basis of internal righteousness, they are damnably mistaken.
James, I don't think anyone we're talking about, either Wright or my monk, is banking on their own internal righteousness. That's Pelagian, and Wright isn't Pelagian. They're banking on the fact that (a) God has made them righteous through Christ and that (b) God justifies them on the basis of the righteousness that God has given. The difference with Piper is that he believse that we are justified by the righteousness that Christ has in himself, rather than the righteous that Christ creates in us.
Chase,
Just because Wright maybe wrong in that action doesn't necessary make him wrong in his doctrine of justification.
Blessings,
dan
Dan,
This is true. Wright is not necessarily wrong on one point, simply because he is wrong on another. However, I would not trust someone who gets the necessity of the resurrection wrong, a foundational point, to teach me concerning the finer points of justification.
Keith,
You nailed the matter in the note where you say, "Personally, I think Piper reading his theological opponents--i.e., N.T. Wright and others--into this passage where the passage itself doesn't call for it."
Look here for my comments that match yours.
Keith,
Thanks for clarifying. That's actually what I meant by "internal"...internal as in 'in us' (even if it's given by God) vs. righteousness of Christ himself.
good discussion
grateful for the work of Christ in and for us.
It seems to me that many protestants are getting pretty loose with the distinction between justification and sanctification. Is this not going back to Rome?
Didn't the Reformation occur because the whole system of Catholic theology had been shown to be incapable of producing spiritual life?
The thing I appreciate about Piper is that he sees issues that others are not quick to identify as significant error and he points it out. That is a service to the church and to the unsaved whether appreciated or not
I like to think some Catholics will be in heaven - but I am pretty sure that no Catholics will be in heaven who believe all of Catholic dogma
Jerry M
Paulos, thanks for that link. I think your analysis was pretty accurate: this is an example of a sermon where the preacher's theology was controlling the text rather than the text controlling the preacher's theology. We're all guilty of that sometimes!
James, thanks as well for the discussion. Thinking through this today has been helpful for me.
What this tells us is we have two radically different views of Justification here. One of the Reformation and one that is not.
One doctrine is if we are accepted by God it is b/c of the imputed righteousness of Christ. It is not our righteousness, it is his credited to us.
The other is "our justification comes by our own righteousness which God's(sic) has given to us by Christ."
If I am right about these two distinctions, then we have two very differnt gospels once you get past the "believe in Jesus" level.
Now of course I will be told I do not understand Wright and have not read enough of him and I am taking my theology to the passage. I am prepared to be so unenlightened along with Piper...and Luther, Calvin, Knox, Edwards, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, Bunyan, Machen, et. al.
"My righteousness is in heaven."
Thanks for the link to the sermon, Justin.
We are not justified by faith in Christ plus a 100% correct view of justification. It is faith in Christ alone that Justifies. That brings me great hope. My faith is weak and sometimes I rely on my works to "be saved". We all do this at times. Or maybe I am the only one, but I think often times we believe we are christian because of how good we are doing with our "devotions" or going to church or helping that old lady across the street or how much theology we "know". Or the flip side, we think we can't be God's child because of some sin we committed. So practically our theology is no different than RC theology. Even though we say we reject it we still fall back to it at times. Thank God that we don't have to pass the justification test before we enter the heaven and that God can forgive even our misunderstanding of justification. If you don't agree with that just ask yourself how much you knew about justification when you first trusted Christ. I didn't understand anything except that I was a sinner in need of Christ as my savior.
This is not necessarily a critique of Piper or Wright I just thought it might add to the discussion.
Chase--have you ever read any of Wright's work on the resurrection? He 100% systematically all the time affirms that it is the CORE of Christianity. It's also true that he thinks his friend Borg tries to follow Jesus without believing in it. How he holds the two in tension, I'm not sure--but can't we at least acknowledge that he is a vivacious defender of orthodoxy when it comes to the Resurrection?
Keith and Paulos,
I take issue with your assertion that Piper has read something into the text that is not there. You have both stated, or implied by your agreement, that the Pharisee was not thankful to God for the righteousness given to him, but that he was legalistically self righteous and this is why he was not justified. You then contrast him with the one beating his breast pleading for mercy. It would seem to me that his very plea upends your argument. The contrast in the text is not a person boastful about self created righteousness and one thankful for God given righteousness. The contrast is between one who thinks he has some personal righteousness (we are not specifically told if it is self created or God given, only that he thanks God and therefore appears to think that God has given it to him) and one who thinks is is absolutely devoid of personal righteousness.
It seems that if the sinner held Wright's view of justification, he would thank God for the righteousness given him, not plead for Mercy because of his sinful condition. I just do not think your analysis holds up.
As for the 13th century monk everyone seems to be talking about. I do not know the state of that monk, nor do I know the state of my mother, a devout Catholic who holds to a Wright-ian view of Salvation, but I do know that this is an important topic because while an isolated 13th century monk, or my mother, have only their own souls to care for, a renowned scholar going around teaching things that essentially teach people to look to their own good works, not as evidence of salvation, but as the merit for their salvation is risking the souls of many more people if he is wrong.
For a more scholarly critique of Wright in the light of historical protestantism check out Sam Waldron's forthcoming work. Also, it is worth noting that all of Wright's forebearers in the New Perspective can only be described as Christians to the same extent as men like Spong.
The quote of the day, from "anonymous": "We are not justified by faith in Christ plus a 100% correct view of justification."
You may continue with your discussion.
Robin,
You stated, The contrast is between one who thinks he has some personal righteousness (we are not specifically told if it is self created or God given, only that he thanks God and therefore appears to think that God has given it to him) and one who thinks is is absolutely devoid of personal righteousness.
You make exactly the same point I have made here.
"You have both stated, or implied by your agreement, that the Pharisee was not thankful to God for the righteousness given to him...
Hi Robin--thanks for the comments on my comments. I wouldn't say that the Pharisee doesn't thank God, since the Pharisee obviously says those words in the passage. However, I do not think his giving thanks clearly indicates that he "appears to think that God has given it [his righteousness] to him." The empahsis of the passage as a whole seems to be that the Pharisee is exalting himself (18:14)--i.e., he is giving himself credit by pointing to his own good works. To me, that indicates that the Pharisee is not putting the emphasis on God's gift to him, but rather on his own self-generated merits.
As I said, it might be possible to read the passage the way that you're arguing for--I don't think it's totally out of bounds to do that. I do think that it's a bit of a stretch, though, because you have to apply theological insights foreign to the passage to come to that interpretation. That's reading one's theology into a passage, and that's not the best way to be faithful to the text. The more direct and obvious reading seems to imply a different interpretation.
In any event, I think using this single passage to make make a definitive case for or against either side of this current debate is to stretch the meaning of the text beyond what it warranted by the text itself. It's asking questions of the passage which the passage itself wasn't intended to address. That, in my view, is bad exegesis, because our interpretation has more to do with our own theological presuppositions than with the truth of the text itself.
I think the reason many of us are having trouble going along with how Piper reads Luke 18 is because the method of interpretation he's using feels unnatural to us and wrong. Remember at the beginning of the sermon he has to convince the congregation of the need to ‘read the gospels backward’. His whole way of interpreting Luke 18 is that not only do you have to read it with the end in mind (crucifixion and resurrection and Pentecost) but you also have to read it with Pauline Theology in mind. His whole reading of Luke 18 hinges on his belief that you read Jesus death and resurrection and the gift of the Spirit plus Paul's statements about justification and righteousness and imputation (Piper’s limited definition of them) into a parable Jesus spoke to the Pharisees because that's how Luke intended you to read his gospel. It doesn't matter that according to this view the Pharisees whom Jesus was talking to and telling this parable to wouldn't have understood what he was saying; Jesus didn’t mean for them to. As long as Luke's readers understood that Jesus was talking about justification by faith and imputation (Piper’s limited definition of them) then that’s all that mattered.
I wonder though in how many other areas Piper would be willing to follow this method of interpretation. How about when Jesus speaks about water (Nicodemus)? Are we supposed to start believing that Jesus was talking about water baptism (some do; I don't have a problem with that I'm just arguing for consistency)? What about when Jesus talks about eating his flesh and drinking his blood? Are we supposed to read that and think Jesus was saying unless you take communion you have no part in me? Some people follow this type of interpretive methods but to me it appears that Piper is just using for his own advantage this to help support his argument and this debate he’s in, and that’s causing him to read into the passage something that’s not really there.
Just sit for a little and think where this kind of hermeneutics can lead us not only in interpreting Jesus’ words but the rest of the New Testament writers and the Old Testament writers as well and then ask if you’re comfortable making this leap.
I mean seriously how many of you would try to steer people away from this type of hermeneutics?
Anyway that's just my thoughts on this issue.
Bryan
I'll stick with Sola Fide - A faith alone that saves and that results in good works.
Justification - the act whereby God declares the sinner righteous and imputes to Him the righteousness of Christ thru the agency of faith in Him
Sanctification - the spiritual growth and development of righteousness in this life. While a necessary part of salvation - not seen as meriting or earning acceptance with God in any sense.
Paul: 'For I do not nullify the cross of Christ - If Righteousness comes thru the law - Christ died needlessly'
If righteousness comes any other way than the cross - we nullify it
Sproul's book on Faith alone is helpful here - the issue during the reformation was not - 'are we saved by faith in Christ?' - both sides believed that
The issue was sola fide - faith alone
Catholic view: faith plus works = salvation
Reformers: faith = salvation plus works
Jerry M
Jerry M got it right! Sanctification necessarily follows and is a part of justification, but in no way is meritorious. First justification, then sanctification. "...he which hath begun a good work in you WILL, or SHALL perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." Yes, it is faith alone that saves, but faith that saves is not alone. (I know you have heard that a thousand times.)That is the whole point of James 2:14 through the end of the chapter. James was not an arminian, he was in perfect agreement with Paul. "What doth it profit, though a man say he hath faith and have not works? Can faith (that kind of faith that produces no works) save him?" No! because that is not true faith. The true faith that is a gift comes with the gift of sanctification. We will wear this one out before the Lord returns.
Daniel, I would think a defender of the resurrection would call it a necessity.
I don't know how meaningful it is to say that "it is faith alone that saves, but faith that saves is [necessarily] not alone". The difference between that statement and "we are saved by faith and the works that faith necessarily produces" is fairly small. It gets smaller and smaller the less you're willing to separate belief and action. I tend to believe the separation of the two is thoroughly artificial, and so as far as I'm concerned there is no meaningful difference between Piper and Wright's view (in this area).
Chase, Wright calls it a necessity. He may simply have a weak spot for a sanctified old friend of his who is epistemologically incapable of belief in the resurrection. Let's not judge Wright by his friends.
That's all folks. I'm out.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Daniel, I appreciate your gratefulness to Wright as He has written some things that are good for the body. Here is my struggle. He calls it a necessity, then he says it is not a necessity. These are mutually exclusive statements. I hope you are correct that He has a soft spot for a friend who denies the resurrection, thus the truth claims and deity of Jesus. This would be a tragic way to love, but it may be so. That in my mind is the best case scenario for his statement. I certainly wish he would clarify. Thank you for the dialogue- It is apreciated.
Fantastic!
Go Piper. This is the clearest, cleanest, refutation of the NPP I have heard. Praise God for Piper!
I'm blown away...
In 2001, NTW said: "And I hope and pray that those from within the household of faith who want to take issue with me on this or other topics will do me the courtesy, which I promise I shall do to them, of discussing criticisms with me first, so that we can clear up misunderstandings, before going public. I think that, too, is biblical." http://www.thepaulpage.com/Shape.html
I join him in his hope and prayer.
Warren,
I would love to know the Biblical reference for discussing problems with books written for the public personally, before writing or speaking against them. Certainly he is not referring to Matthew's Church Discipline passage, which would not fit here, is he?
Chase & Warren,
N. T. Wright's desire is strictly a desire. It is not an obligation. For comments pertinent to what Wright is quoted as asking for and for John Piper's acknowledgment of imprecise formulation of the doctrine of justification, read this blog entry. Scroll down to Update (8/10/06).
Thanks Paulos
One thing that no one has brought up that I think is interesting about Wright is that, if I understand him correctly, faith is not the instrumental cause of justification. Rather, faith is the badge or sign that a person will be justified by virtue of being in the covenant.
I'm not sure I would even call the justification by faith.
Great discussion. Had this posted on my blog too. Piper is awesome.
If anyone's interested I just posted some quotations from John Owen on my blog in which he seems to have the same take on Luke 18 as Piper
isaiah543.wordpress.com
post is titled "Is there anybody out there"
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home