Is John Piper leaning towards a Federal Vision type of theology?

[totorodaisuki]

I like Hodge's view of love as attendant and consequent to faith.
Similar to Jacob, what I think is most comforting is know that when I fall (not loving Christ fully if at all in a moment of sin or sinful desire), my trust the size of a mustard seed (which inevitably grows) and going to the throne will clean me when I confess and repent.

Hallelujah!

 

[Pilgrim]

Piper's views on this long predate the FV, if by that you mean the "Auburn Avenue" theology and the controversy that sprang up about 20 years ago. But he is friendly with Wilson on some level, and a man from Wilson's college is now heading up Bethlehem Seminary, which Piper founded. So there is some connection there if people are looking to connect dots.

Piper's views are heavily influenced by his mentor, Daniel Fuller, who was his teacher 40-50 years ago or thereabouts. Fuller rejected covenant theology (as well as dispensationalism) and also rejected the law and grace distinction, if I recall correctly.

The book "Fairbairn vs Fairbairn" is well known in certain niche circles. (It is about Patrick Fairbairn's change in opinion on the restoration of Israel.) Maybe somebody could come up with a book or at least an essay entitled "Piper vs Piper" on justification. Or maybe it could be "Would the Real John Piper Please Stand Up?"

Some of his more ardent fans who were also fans of N.T. Wright and who had not without some justification (no pun intended) thought there was some agreement or overlap between them on the subject were shocked or even angered when he went into print against Wright about 15 years ago. In the wake of that Piper revised "Future Grace." In the preface he said this was because others pointed out some statements that did not seem consistent with his recent writing on justification. Then in recent years, I understand that Piper has allegedly made some statements that suggest that he hasn't changed his views at all.

I'm not inclined to reprobate or anathematize John Piper. (Well, at least not today, anyway. ) But perhaps people should look elsewhere if they want clear teaching on this subject.

 

[Pilgrim]

From the preface to the 2012 edition of Future Grace:

Since publishing the first edition of Future Grace in 1995, I have walked
through extended controversies surrounding the nature, ground, and
instrument of justification. These controversies have sharpened my own
grasp of what the Bible teaches. Some of that sharpening is captured in
Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Right-
eousness? (Crossway, 2002), The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T.
Wright (Crossway, 2007), and Finally Alive: What Happens When We Are Born
Again? (Christian Focus, 2009). Some people have felt tensions between the
first edition of Future Grace and the message of those books. I hope that this
revised edition will remove those tensions.

Note that he says "some people have felt tensions." Not "I."

 

[Pilgrim]

Regardless of whatever rhetorical and theological tap dancing someone may do, there is absolutely nothing *inherently* affective about trust. But if in this case we really do mean to include it, I think we could do a whole lot better about explaining that.

This is an apropos analogy since so many Christians functionally view salvation as “fire insurance…”

I have USAA for my various insurance needs. I have a very good knowledge of the plans they offer (a much greater knowledge than is required simply to purchase one), and I give my assent to what they have communicated - that the things they have outlined and explained are true. Further, I trust them: I give them my business, and I have absolute confidence that they’ll pay if (for example) I die. Frankly, I have greater trust that they will do the right thing than I do that my denomination will.

Yet I don’t love them at all, and I would jump to another provider in a heart beat if it meets my felt needs as well, at a lower cost. (Or, to put it another way: I’d abandon them in a heartbeat if there was perceived benefit to me in doing so.)

It is possible to have “knowledge, assent, and trust” and still in one’s heart be entirely mercenary.

And if one chooses to simply double down and say, “that just means you don’t really understand what’s meant by knowledge, ascent, and trust” is both a dodge and reflects a gross naiveté about how reality works.

Ahh, but some do indeed have love for USAA. Some will stick with them even if the price is quite a bit higher. I wonder if some might be tempted to say "Though USAA slay me..."

 

[AT]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1568207598595280901

Saw this on Twitter just now...