The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Arminian Atonement of John Piper

Kevin,

All of the fruits of 1John 3:1-3 are really a "present perfect" grace, flowing from an event in the definite past. The children of God are so now, but that is not "current grace", it is a present perfect grace, i.e., an abiding result of an event that has caused it in the past. The same goes for our knowledge, our final transformation into His likeness and our present hope and purifying are all effects of the same grand cause: the cross of Christ.

Now I should confess, that it was years ago that I read the Future grace text of Piper and even then, I took a rather sketchy look at it - I was beginning to wean from my former enchantment with Piper. I don't have the text at hand now, so I cannot bring up any specific evidence of his faith-and-works mentality, but you, if you are familiar with Piper's writings will probably recall that methodologically, his hermeneutics were impressed by Dan Fuller's understanding of the "Unity of the Bible", as well as, by the latter's characteristically atomistic approaches to interpretation of Scripture texts. Now Dan Fuller's core idea of the unity of the Bible is that all covenants in Scripture are conditional and that in all dispensations, from Adam into the NT, man lives by faith in NOT in God who justifies the ungodly in Christ Jesus, but by faith in a God who promises things IN RETURN for obedience, produced by that faith. There is the same confusion, the same Norman Shepherdism, as regards the true basis of justification and life of obedience. Piper has imbibed this teaching and slightly modified it into a more Scripture soaked, Puritan-like concept, but the core idea is, IMHO, the same.

The above said, may have very little immediate connection to Piper's heretical confession on the Atonement...He may have been simply "sloppy" in his pronouncements (as some of his sympathizers suggest), but that does not justify him at all! He is a public figure, who has a throng of admirers who are sure, Piper can't be wrong! I personally have no interest in a person, who makes such blunders on fundamentals of the faith!

He may have some points in his writings, that may be worth considering, but, by the same token, one can glean also some food for thought even from Roman authors, but that does not make them orthodox, or a model to follow.

As to your insistence that faith is a condition: it is not. The very term is unscriptural and so is the concept. Faith cannot be viewed as a condition, because faith is not a sine qua non without which the impetrated blessings of Christ's oblation will never be realized / bestowed. NO! Faith is an intrinsic part of the salvation package! 'Believe and thou shalt be saved' is not to be construed as faith being a condition of salvation! The original command, BTW, is given to the penitent Philippian jailer and the same salvation was also promised to his house {a thing frequently ignored by Baptists, but that is an aside point here}(Ac.16:31). Greek connectives in general and "kai" (translated commonly as "and") can be ambiguous, sometimes. In this particular instance, God's Word by no means teaches that "IF you believe you will be saved", but rather, 'Believe, even be thou saved', i.e., 'Believe, that is, be thou saved' for faith IS salvation, a sure evidence of regeneration - "life": And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die(Jn.11:26). Faith is not a cause of finalizing full salvation, but a means of conscious entrance into the union with Christ and all His saving benefits for those, who have been redeemed by His blood.
The MAIN reason, but not the only one, why faith cannot be viewed as a condition unto salvation, is because conditionalism, necessarily implies a deficiency in the Atonement, which deficiency, though supplied by God in the case of the elect, as the Amyraldians assert, yet comes from a different source than the cross. The cross itself, according to conditionalism, does not provide that "condition". The idea inevitably means, that the reprobate, fr instance, IF they fulfilled this condition, hypothetically, should surely have to be saved, but ON WHAT JUST BASIS? There is only ONE basis for any and all remission - the shed blood of Christ. If then, their [reprobates'] salvation be possible, upon this condition [of faith] then that means that there must be a conditional provision of the shed blood of Christ for them also, IF they believe, which means that in a sense, Christ died for all men, conditionally (and if you are an Amyraldian, you will add) and for some men efficiently, by superadding one lacking thing, without which the atonement will remain just a potentiality...

That's in essence my "beef" with John Piper's heretical statements concerning a fundamental article of faith - the meaning of the death of Christ.

Renat