John Piper’s foreword to Tom Schreiner’s new book Faith Alone (which looks like an outstanding book, by the way), has been making waves, mainly because he (Piper) wrote:
The stunning Christian answer [to the question, “How can a person be right with God?”] is: sola fide—faith alone. But be sure you hear this carefully and precisely: He says right with God by faith alone, not attain heaven by faith alone. There are other conditions for attaining heaven, but no others for entering a right relationship to God. In fact, one must already be in a right relationship with God by faith alone in order to meet the other conditions.
The main problem, as I see it, is that Piper is using confusing and non-standard language, and this leads to lack of clarity.
The first confusing terminology is his language of “entering a right relationship with God.” From the context, Piper seems to be using this phrase as a gloss for “justification.” But as a gloss for justification it is not very helpful. It leads to confusion and mixing things with justification that are distinct from it. Justification is simply the forgiveness of sins (negative removal of guilt) and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (positive reckoning as righteous). Entering into a right relationship with God is not part of it. Entering into a right relationship with God is a consequence of being forgiven and reckoned as righteous. In traditional terminology, we would speak of this right relationship as our adoption as God’s children and reconciliation with God (or peace with God). Justification is a purely forensic verdict in which we are freed from guilt and are reckoned as righteous before God. To be sure, there is a relational dimension to salvation, but it is the result or consequence of justification, not to be confused with justification itself. Paul made that distinction when he wrote, “Having therefore been justified (dikaiōthentes, aorist participle) by faith, we have peace with God” (Rom 5:1).
The second confusing terminology is his use of the word “conditions.” He wants to say that faith is the sole condition of entering into a right relationship with God. But if we replace “entering into a right relationship with God” with “being justified,” then it is not true that faith is the sole condition, since faith is related to justification not as a condition but as a means. Faith has never been viewed as a condition of justification in Reformed theology or in the Reformed confessions. Paul himself never uses the prepositional phrase dia + accusative, “justified because of faith.” Instead he uses dia + genitive or ek + genitive, “justified by faith.” Faith is not the ground of justification, but the means by which we are justified, by which we rest upon Christ and receive the gift of his imputed righteousness. Faith is a purely passive and receptive instrument. It is an open hand that receives the gift. In this it is the exclusive means or instrument by which we are justified, since we do not receive the righteousness of Christ by works of obedience, even by Spirit-wrought works of obedience. And even faith itself is a sovereign gift of God. So it is simply wrong to say that faith is the condition of justification.
Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (The Westminster Confession of Faith [WCF] XI.1).
Piper goes on to say, “There are other conditions for attaining heaven, but no others for entering a right relationship to God. In fact, one must already be in a right relationship with God by faith alone in order to meet the other conditions.”
This is terribly confusing. If we have been justified by faith, we are righteous in God’s sight and therefore entitled to heaven. Christ’s righteousness is sufficient. We do not need to meet any other conditions for attaining heaven. If we have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, then we are legally righteous in the eyes of God and qualified to attain heaven. “Those whom he justified, he also glorified” (Rom 8:30). If not, then we would be saying that Christ’s righteousness does not merit heaven.
I think what Piper is attempting to say is that faith is the sole instrument of receiving the righteousness of Christ, and if we have true faith, that faith will manifest itself in a changed life as we bring forth fruits of evangelical obedience. If that is what he is trying to say, then I fully agree. The Westminster Confession, again, says it well:
Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love (WCF XI.2).
In this sense, it is true to say that no one who enters heaven will be devoid of good works and evangelical obedience. But these things have no role to play as means or conditions of attaining heaven. They are the fruit and evidence of saving faith. We do not attain heaven by means of or on the condition of producing the fruit of faith. We attain heaven by being reckoned as righteous in Christ by faith. But faith is never alone “in the person” who is justified, “but is ever accompanied” with its fruits.
It is important to be precise and clear when explaining the gospel. I am confident that the intent of what Piper wrote is not far from the doctrine as the Westminster Confession articulates it, but I wish he had been more precise and clear in his terminology.
Very clear, Lee. I do hope that Piper's confusing terminology is simply that - something that is poorly written. But it leaves one to wonder...
Posted by: Jack Miller | 10/09/2015 at 02:21 PM
Hi Lee,
Thanks for this post. I would also take issue with the following statement in Piper's forward:
"And this faith is no mere mental assent, but a heartfelt embrace of Jesus Christ as its all-satisfying treasure. “Justification is by faith alone, for faith finds its joy in Christ alone, seeing him as the pearl of great price, the one who is more desirable than anything or anyone else” (emphasis added)."
I agree that faith is not merely mental assent. However, Piper seems to add more to faith than receiving and resting in Christ and the promises of the gospel. It's through faith (receiving and resting) that Christ becomes the pearl of great price and the all satisfying treasure. In other words, Piper seems to again mix up faith and the fruit of faith.
I would be curious to know your thoughts on this.
Hope you're doing well.
Thanks,
Jon
Posted by: Jon | 10/09/2015 at 06:25 PM
Jon, thanks for the observation. "Faith" for Piper seems to be greatly expanded to include all these extra affections in a way that goes beyond the simplicity of receiving Christ and trusting in him. Like you, I don't want to reduce faith to mental assent the way Gordon Clark did. But front loading all these pious affections is burdensome. The zealous preacher then so passionately describes faith as a work. "You say you have faith, but do you really? Is Christ more desirable to you than anything else? Do you really love him with your whole heart?" Isn't that the law (Deut 6:5)? The ordinary sinner who is "merely" trusting in Christ will conclude they don't have true faith.
Posted by: Lee | 10/09/2015 at 09:29 PM
I find this helpful, and generally agree. But it seems to me that you've overstated the Reformed rejection of the term "condition," given WLC 32: "The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him ..." Is Piper's use of the term in the forward essentially different from this?
Posted by: David Rothstein | 10/10/2015 at 10:32 AM
I don't see where in Larger Catechism #32 it says that faith is the condition of justification. It seems to me to be saying faith is the condition of getting an interest in (i.e., a share in) the benefits of membership in the covenant of grace. I agree that the covenant of grace is conditional upon faith.
Justification, on the other hand, is God's judicial act of pardoning our sins and accepting us as righteous in his sight, on the legal basis of the righteousness of Christ. There are no conditions for being accepted as righteous. If there were, then there would be something in us, something we have to do, to make us qualified or acceptable, other than Christ himself. Justification is a free gift, received by faith. Faith is not a condition of being pardoned and accepted as righteous. It is the means by which we receive the gift of Christ's imputed righteousness. If there is a condition, it is Christ's righteousness, and we are simply hiding in him.
Posted by: Lee | 10/10/2015 at 11:38 AM
"... accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone" (WCF XI.1).
Sounds like a denial of any conditions to me.
Posted by: Lee | 10/10/2015 at 11:44 AM
I completely agree with your explanation of the relationship of faith to justification. But at the same time, if faith is the condition of having a share in the benefits of membership in the covenant of grace (as you agree it is), and one of those benefits is justification, then doesn't it logically follow that faith is the condition of justification?
Posted by: David Rothstein | 10/10/2015 at 12:29 PM
The covenant of grace is a covenant relationship between God and his people, and this relationship includes a lot more than justification. I'm uncomfortable equating the role of faith as a condition of the covenant of grace with the role of faith with respect to justification.
I would also distinguish between the salvific benefits of the covenant of grace (of which justification is one) and the conscious enjoyment of those saving benefits. Berkhof says, "It is only through faith that we can obtain a conscious enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant" (Systematic Theology, p. 280). Faith is a condition of the conscious enjoyment of the benefits of the covenant of grace.
Posted by: Lee | 10/10/2015 at 06:26 PM
Lee, Since I started reading your blog I always value your spot on analysis and likewise your gracious tone. Both matter, for others at the fore of this debate have not recently been so decorous. Thank you.
Posted by: MarkO | 10/14/2015 at 09:25 PM
Lee, you're reading more into "condition" than is necessary or appropriate. It needn't imply ground or cause. It's simply a sine qua non. In this sense, faith is absolutely a condition of justification. You can't have justification without it. It's not the cause or ground or meritorious, but it is necessary (i.e., a condition). That's all condition means. There are likewise numerous conditions to final salvation: faith, repentance, sanctification, holiness, obedience, love, good works, etc. There is no final salvation without these things. None of these are causes or grounds or meritorious. They are Spirit-wrought gifts of grace that must happen. They are conditions that God both requires and meets.
Posted by: Phil Gons | 10/15/2015 at 12:09 AM