197a-piedpiper

7/29/2019 197a-PiedPiper

1/8

THETRINITYREVIEWFor though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare

[are] not fleshly but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every highthing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedienceof Christ. And they will be ready to punish all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

June, July 2002Copyright 2003 John W. Robbins Post Office Box 68, Unicoi, Tennessee 37692

Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/ Telephone: 423.743.0199 Fax: 423.743.2005

Pied PiperJohn W. Robbins

Who would have thought, 20 years ago,that Biblical Christianity would have virtuallydisappeared from many so-called Presbyterianand Reformed churches in the United Statesby the end of the millennium, and that in The

Year of Our Lord 2002 the major theologicalbattlefront in those churches would be theGospelthe doctrine of justification by faith

alone? Yet that is exactly what has happened.

This movement is, in principle, a redis-covery of the Roman Catholic doctrine ofsalvation.

The ill wind of Neolegalism is blowing away manyelders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA),the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), and themicro-Presbyterian denominations. This Neolegalistwind is blowing from the general direction of Rome,and it carries the stench of the Roman Catholicdoctrine of salvation.

Rather than claiming to be Roman, however, thisNeolegalist movement claims to be covenantal,Reformedeven Calvinist. It has already swept someseminary graduates back to RomeScott Hahn is oneof the more famousbut now it is being brazenlypropagated by teachers and preachers who do nothave the courage (and perhaps not even the integrity)of Hahn, and so do not intend to leave their positions

of income and influence in order to enter the RomanChurch-State. To all appearances, the proponents ofthis Neolegalist theology intend to stay in Protestantchurches and, in effect, transform them intotheological colonies of Rome.

To all appearances, the proponents of thisNeolegalist theology intend to stay in Pro-testant churches and, in effect, transformthem into theological colonies of Rome.

Of course they deny that they are doing any suchthing, and assert they are rediscovering a richtradition that the Reformation, or the usuainterpretation of the Reformation, has obscured. Oneof their tactics is to reinterpret the Reformers, so thatthey said something different from the Romanistsbut not much different. We, the Neolegalists tell ushave misunderstood the Reformers, and even theApostle Paul himself.

In Reformed circles this movement is associated

with names such as Norman Shepherd (ChristianReformed), formerly on the faculty of WestminsterSeminary; Richard Gaffin (OPC), presently on thefaculty of Westminster Seminary; John Frame (PCA)formerly on the faculty of Westminster Seminarynow on the faculty of Reformed Seminary; PeterLeithart (PCA), currently on the faculty of New StAndrews College in Moscow, Idaho; Peter Lillback(PCA), currently on the faculties of Reformed Epis-


2/8

The Trinity Review / June, July 2002

copal Seminary and Westminster Seminary; and manyothers.

This movement is a confluence of several winds ofdoctrine that The Trinity Reviewhas been warning ourreaders about for decades: the Reconstructionism-Theonomy of Rushdoony, North, Bahnsen, and their

disciples; the Theology of Paradox of Van Til and hisdisciples; the Neo-Orthodoxy of Barth and his disci-ples; and also the Redemptive-Historical hermeneuticof Vos and his disciples.

These winds of doctrine have combined into abitter Noreaster of Neolegalism that

Denies or renders insignificant individualelection to salvation (and zealouslycondemns individualism);

Denies that faith is assent to understood

propositions (and belittles or deniespropositional and literal truth);

Denies that faith alone justifies;

Denies that knowledge is necessary for salvation(and condemns those who insiston knowledge as gnostics);

Denies the covenant of works;

Denies the meritorious work of Christ;

Denies the imputation of the activerighteousness of Christ to believers;

Asserts that water baptism regenerates, washes

away sins, and is necessary for salvation; Asserts that believers can lose their justification

and salvation;

Asserts that the final justification of believersdepends on their performance;

Asserts that God accepts less than perfectobedience for fulfilling the conditions ofsalvation;

Asserts that persons who are neither elect norbelievers of the Gospel are neverthelessmembers of the covenant;

Asserts infant communion;

Asserts that good works are necessaryconditions to obtain or retain salvation;

Asserts that chronological theology is superiorto systematic theology;

Asserts that eschatology is soteriology.

Because the various Neolegalists are still workingout the implications of their false and Antichristian

premises, (1) not all Neolegalists have yet arrived at althese conclusions; (2) they disagree with each otheron details; and (3) more conclusions are still beingdeveloped. But enough has been published already torecognize here a virtual rediscovery of the soteriologyof Romanism.

There are many academics who have setforth the foundations of this new gospeover the last 25 years in academic articlesand books.

There are many academics1 who have set forth thefoundations of this new gospel over the last 25 yearsin academic articles and books, and they have beenteaching in the universities and seminaries, inculcatingthese ideas in their students, who now occupy thepulpits and classrooms of nominally Protestantchurches and schools. One of the men who havepropagated significant elements of this Neolegalism inwider circles is John Piper, pastor of BethlehemBaptist Church in Minneapolis. His direct influence isfar greater than most of the men listed above, forPiper is a very popular and prolific speaker andauthor.

According to his biography, John Stephen Piperwas born in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in 1946. Whenhe was young, his family moved to Greenville, SouthCarolina. At Wheaton College (1964-1968), Piper

majored in Literature and minored in PhilosophyStudying Romantic Literature with C. S. Kilby, a C. SLewis scholar, stimulated the poetic side of hisnature, and today Piper regularly writes poems tocelebrate special family occasions as well as com-posing story-poemsfor his congregation during thefour weeks of Advent each year. Following collegePiper completed a Bachelor of Divinity degree atFuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California(1968-1971). While at Fuller, Piper took as manycourses as he could from Daniel Fuller, whom he

describes as the most influential living teacher in his[my] life. Through Fuller, Piper discovered thewritings of Jonathan Edwards, his most influentiadead teacher. Piper did his doctoral work in NewTestament Studies at the University of Munich inWest Germany (1971-1974). Upon completion of hisdoctorate he taught Biblical Studies at Bethel College

1 A few of their names are N. T. Wright, James Dunn,Don Garlington, E. P. Sanders, and Daniel Fuller.

2


3/8


in St. Paul, Minnesota, for six years (1974-80). In1980, sensing an irresistible call of the Lord topreach, Piper became the senior pastor ofBethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, where hehas been ever since. Piper is the author of manybooks, including the subject of this essay, The Purifying

Power of Living by Faith inFuture Grace (Multnomahand InterVarsity, 1995), hereafter Future Grace.

Daniel P. FullerBefore we discuss Piper, however, we need to look

briefly at his main mentor, Daniel Fuller. Fuller, Pro-fessor at Fuller Theological Seminary in California, aliberal institution whose faculty denies the inerrancyof Scripture,2 is one of the most influential propo-nents of Neolegalism. His two books, Gospel and Law:Contrast or Continuum? 3 and The Unity of the Bible: Un-

folding Gods Plan for Humanity,4

have deeply influencedPiper and others. Fuller specially thanks Piper for hishelp in producing The Unity of the Bible,5 and Piperacknowledges his profound debt to Fuller in FutureGrace. In his Foreword to The Unity of the Bible, Piperwrote:

No book besides the Bible has had a greaterinfluence on my life than Daniel Fullers The Unityof the Bible. When I first read it as a classroomsyllabus over twenty years ago, everything began tochange. Gods law stopped being at odds with

the gospel. It stopped being a job description forearning wages under a so-called covenant of works(which I never could find in the Bible).

This inability to see the covenant of works inScripture is a common defect among Neolegalists.They assert that Adam could not have earned ormerited eternal life for his obedience, because Goddoes not deal with men on a works-principle, butsolely by grace. Even in the Garden, before theFall, God dealt with Adam solely on the principle of

grace, not works. Therefore one covenantwhich

they misleadingly call the covenant of graceiswhat forms the unity of the Bible.

2 See Harold Lindsells The Battle for the Biblefor details.3 Eerdmans, 1980.4 Zondervan, 1992.5 And very special thanks are due to John Piper, seniorpastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church of Minneapolis.His writing of the Foreword reflects his deep investmentin this work (viii).

If Adam was not a party to the covenant ofworks, as these men assert, then neitherwas Christ, the Second and Last Adam

Therefore, Christ could not, did not, andwas not supposed to pay the debts of, andearn salvation for, his people.

One consequence of this denial of the covenant ofworks is that if Adam was not a party to the covenanof works, as these men assert, then neither was Christthe Second and Last Adam. Therefore, Christ couldnot, did not, and was not supposed to pay the debtsof, and earn salvation for, his people. As the Secondand Last Adam, Christ did not by his active andpassive obedience fulfill the Law of God, pay thedebts of his people, and merit their salvation. Thusthe denial of the covenant of works is an attack onthe justice of God: on the imputation of Adams sinto his children, on the active obedience and work ofChrist, on the imputation of Christs active obedienceand righteousness to believers. By denying that Adamand Christ, as federal heads of their respective raceswere subject to the covenant of works before thecourt of Gods justice, not his grace, each Adambeing required to fulfill the terms of the covenantone failing miserably, and the other succeeding

perfectly, the Neolegalists put all believers onprobation, and make their salvation depend on theirown evangelical obedience.

The Neolegalists put all believers onprobation, and make their salvation dependon their own evangelical obedience.

This theological error may be traced back to Romevia Arminianism and Barthianism.6

Fuller characterizes the justice principle thatinforms the covenant of works as the highest kind ofblasphemy:

Werecovenant theolog[ians] to perceive thatthe obedience of faith is the only kind ofobedience that is ever acceptable to the God who

6 The title of Fullers Gospel and Lawis the same as a 1935work by Barth, whom he quotes with approbation in orderto assert the alleged dangers of Luthers distinctionbetween Law and Gospel.

3


4/8


will not give his glory to another (Isa 42:8), theycould make the blessing Adam was to receive afterpassing his probationary test a work of grace ratherthan the payment of debt, and therefore would notmake themselves vulnerable to the charge that thekind of righteousness Adam and Christ were to

perform was the highest kind of blasphemy.7

Fuller believes the covenant of works involves thehighest kind of blasphemy because it implies thatman can, by fulfilling the covenant of works, putGod in his debt. By using a speculative notion ofGods dealings with man, rather than the actualcovenantal arrangements revealed in Scripture inwhich God commits himself to punish and rewardthe disobedience and obedience of the First and LastAdams as the federal representatives of their races,Fuller eliminates the Bibles doctrine of salvation, fordivine justice disappears. All that remains is Barthsconfused covenant of grace, which includes allmen.

Fuller wrote: I would say that Moses wasjustified by the work, or obedience, offaith. [There are] many passages inScripture in which good works are madethe instrumental cause of justification.

By eliminating the antithesis between Law and

Gospel, Fuller eliminates the Gospel:I then had to accept the very drastic conclusion

that the antithesis between law and gospelestablished by Luther, Calvin, and the covenanttheologians could no longer stand up under thescrutiny of biblical theology.8

Fuller wrote: I would say that Moses was justified bythe work, or obedience, of faith. [There are] manypassages in Scripture in which good works are madethe instrumental cause of justification. 9 Calvin, ac-

cording to Fuller, had to go through exegetical andlogical contortions and to fly in the face of

Scriptures plain language in order to maintain theReformation doctrine of justification by faith alone.10

7 Daniel P. Fuller, A Response on the Subjects of Worksand Grace, Presbuterion: A Journal for the Eldership, VolumeIX, Numbers 1-2, Spring-Fall 1983, 76.8 Fuller, Gospel and Law, xi.9 Fuller, A Response on the Subjects of Works andGrace, 79.

John PiperPastor Pipers popularity expands with each new

publication he pens. In 1995 he published Th

Purifying Power of Living by Faith inFuture GracePipers pink proseflowery, ambiguous, andsuspiciously piousflows for 400 pages in this bookon sanctification, and its effect is to subvert theReformation.

Fuller explicitly denies justification by faithalone and explicitly asserts justification byfaith and works. Piper, his faithful studentarrives at the same conclusion.

Piper is a disciple of Daniel Fuller. Piper writes:

Daniel Fullers vision of the Christian life as anobedience of faith is the garden in which theplants of my ponderings have grown. Almost threedecades of dialogue on the issues in this book haveleft a deep imprint. If I tried to show it with foot-notes, they would be on almost every page. Hismajor work, The Unity of the Bible, is explanatorybackground to most of what I write (7).

As we have already seen, Fuller explicitly deniesjustification by faith alone and explicitly asserts justi-fication by faith and works. Piper, his faithful studenttrusted friend, and editor, arrives at the same conclu-sion. Piper denies justification by faith alone whileprofessing to accept Biblical soteriologywhichmakes his work all the more dangerous. The mosteffective attack on truth, the most subversive attackon the doctrine of the completeness and efficacy ofthe work of Christ for the salvation of his people, isalways couched in pious language and Biblicaphraseology.

Pipers focus, as one can tell from the title, is what hecalls future grace. The phrases future grace andfaith in future grace appear hundreds, if notthousands, of times in the book. It is a cleverpropaganda device that has been used many timesRepeat a phase so often that the reader cannot get itout of his mind. But what does Piper mean by the

10 Fuller, A Response on the Subjects of Works andGrace, 79.

4


5/8


phrase? In fact, what does he mean by faith? Theanswers are revealing. Here are his own words:the focus of my trust is what God promised to dofor me in the future (6).

This may not be the central error of Pipers book,but it comes close. The focus of saving faith is not

what God has promised to do for us in the future, butwhat God has already done for us in Christ. Chris-tians preach and trust only Christ crucified, the Lambslain from the foundation of the world. Christ cruci-fied is the sole focus of Biblical, saving, faith; it is thefocus of Baptism and the Lords Supper, by which weremember the Lords death; and it is the focus ofworship in Heaven (see Revelation 5), with endlessfuture ages before it. Piper wants to change thatfocus, from Christ crucified to something else. Inattempting to change the focus of our faith, he avoids

discussing, although he grudgingly admits, that all thebenefits Christians receive from God are because ofwhat Christ has already done on their behalf and intheir place.11 Pipers admission is grudging, for hewants to argue that our future happiness, benefits,and final salvation depend upon our meeting condi-tions that God has established for receiving thoseblessings. In Pipers Plan of Salvation, despite whatChrist said on the cross, It is notfinished. The be-liever must complete the work of salvation that Christbegan. Future grace is conditional, and it is we, notChrist, who must meet those conditions.

Because Pipers focus is on benefits we mayreceive in the future, this long and repetitive bookomits any discussion of the Satisfaction by Christ ofthe justice of the Father (although Piper has a greatdeal to say about ourbeing satisfied); it fails to discusseither Christs active or passive obedience; it omitsany serious discussion of the imputation of sin andrighteousness (imputation is mentioned in passing); itomits any discussion of the law of God; it omitsdiscussion of the covenant of works; it fails tomention Adam and Christ as our legal represen-

tatives; and it depreciates the law and justice of God.Piper opens the book with an attack on

thanksgivinghe calls it gratitudeas a propermotive for Christian obedience. Thanksgiving isbackward looking; it is not future-oriented. It is op-

posed to and conflicts with faith in future graceNevertheless, thanksgiving is taught in Scripture as aproper motive for obedience, and Piper grudginglyadmits it. But he devalues thanksgiving because itinvolves what he disparagingly calls the debtorsethic. Debt, merit, and justice belong to another

theological universe, not Pipers. Rather thanthanksgiving, it is faith in future grace that properlymotivates obedience, and Piper quotes verses that aresilent on the point in an attempt to support his claim.

11 He also makes conflicting statements, such as this: Alltrue virtue comes from faith in future grace; and all sincomes from lack of faith in future grace (323).

According to Piper, future grace isconditional, and it is we personally, notChrist, who must meet those conditions.

Piper writes: But we do not live in the past. Allof our life will be lived in the future. Therefore whenwe try to make gratitude empower this future

obedience, something goes wrong. Gratitude is pri-marily a response to the past grace of God; itmalfunctions when forced to function as motivationfor the future (47). This is an asinine argumentHis therefore does not indicate a logical inferencefor there is no logical argument, but merely arhetorical flourish. (One is tempted to point out, inkeeping with this silliness, that none of our lives wilbe lived in the future; all of our lives will be lived inthe present.) What Pipers new focus for faith impliesis that we must depreciate the past, which cannot be

changed, and bank on benefits that may never even-tuate for us, since their eventuatingwhich Pipermisleadingly calls future grace is conditioned onour obedience, our works.

It turns out that Pipers future grace, which is tobe the focus of our faith, is subjective, infused graceFuture grace is not an attribute or quality of God; itis not the unmerited favor of God. Future grace isgrace that God will infuse into us; and it is thissubjective grace that is to be the focus of our faithPiper writes: the heart-strengthening power that

comes from the Holy Spiritis virtually the same aswhat I mean by future grace (69). Piper shifts thefocus of our faith from the objective, historical Christto our present, subjective experience; from themeritorious, alien work of Christ outside of us to ourown works, done by the power of the Holy Spiritfrom the perfect, objective, imputed righteousness ofChrist to our imperfect, subjective righteousnessfrom the life and death of Christ in history to what

5


6/8


the Holy Spirit is doing and will do in our lives. Andthis faith in future grace, Piper pontificates, is thefaith through which we are justified (191).

Future grace is grace that God willinfuse into us; and it is this subjective

grace that is to be the focus of our faith.

It is not faith in the finished and effective work ofChrist on the cross, but faith in future grace, whichPiper has defined as the power that comes from theHoly Spirit, that justifies the sinner. Piper approv-ingly quotes his mentor, Daniel Fuller:

A faith that only looks back to Christs deathand resurrection is not sufficient. Forgivenessfor the Christian also depends on havingafuturistic faith in Gods promises. Thus we cannot

regard justifying faith as sufficient if it honors onlythe past fact of Christs death and resurrection butdoes not honor the future promises of God(206-207).

Fuller, of course, attacks a straw man, a figment of hisown imagination. But the effect of this clever attack isto deny that the faith that justifies has the meritoriouswork of Jesus Christ as its sole object.

Piper writes: Before sin entered the world, Adamand Eve experienced Gods goodness not as a re-sponse to their demerit (since they didnt have any)but still without deserving Gods goodness. Soeven before they sinned, Adam and Eve lived ongrace (76). All the covenants of God are condi-tional covenants of grace, Piper prevaricates. Theyoffer all-sufficient future grace for those who keepthe covenant (248). Please note the adjective all-sufficient, and please note that this future grace isall-sufficient, not for believers, but for those whokeep the covenant.

According to Piper, there was no justice in Eden,only grace. There were (at first) no demerits, nor

were there merits. The sinless, obedient Adam andEve did not deserve Gods goodness. The fact thatGod had already given commands and (implicitly)promised reward for obedience (that is what the Treeof Life was for) and (explicitly) threatened punish-ment (death) for disobedience, thus establishing alegal, juridical framework, means nothing to Piper. Itwas all grace. It is important to realize that Piperuses the word grace in an un-Scriptural sense, for in

Pipers theology no one deserves the goodness ofGodnot innocent Adam, not sinless Jesus.12 Pipersgrace forms no contrast with sin, merit, desert, orworks, as it does in Scripture, because there is nomerit in Pipers theology. With the disappearance ofdivine justice from his theology, it no longer remains

Christian. In Pipers theology, God is not, and cannotbe,justand thejustifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

It is important to realize that Piper uses theword grace in an un-Scriptural sense, forin Pipers theology no one deserves thegoodness of Godnot innocent Adam, notsinless Jesus. Pipers grace forms nocontrast with sin, merit, desert, or works asit does in Scripture, because there is nomerit in Pipers theology.

Piper tells us that future grace is conditional gracebut meeting these conditions is not meritorious: It ispossible to meet a condition for receiving grace andyet not earn the grace. Conditional grace does notmean earned grace (79). Those acquainted withRomanist theology may recognize here in Pipersconditions something akin to the Romanist doctrineof congruent merit. Meeting conditions is not anexample of condign meritthat is, Real Merit, but itis an example of congruent merit, a merit that isnot really merit.

How does Piper try to evade the charge ofteaching salvation by works? Simple: He redefinesworksThe term works, he asseverates, refers to thewarfare of righteousness unempowered by faithinfuture grace (220). So, by definition, a person whohas faith in future grace cannot do any works. His

12 Piper tells us that it was future grace that awaited him[Jesus] on the other side of the cross (307). But Hebrewand Romans say that the joy Jesus received was a rewardthat had been promised to him by the Father, a rewardthat he had earned by his perfect obedience to the FatherWhen Christ prayed, I have glorified you on the Earth, Ihave finished the work which you have given me to doAnd now, O Father, glorify me together with yourselfwith the glory which I had with you before the world was,he was asking for the reward that he had earned by doingthe work assigned. The transaction is one of pure justicenot grace. He was asking for his wages, for what was his byright.Jesus Christ earned and deserved his reward. To deny themerits of Christ, to deny the justice of God, is to deny thewhole of Christianity.

6


7/8


efforts, his labors, his doings are not works, becausethey are empowered by faith in future grace, andtherefore his salvation is not and cannot beconditioned on works, but on the obedience offaith. Theology is a word game for the Neolegalists.

Pipers propensity to play with words is also

evident in his treatment of faith. Harping on a tire-some theme of the Neolegalists, Piper asserts thatbelief is not merely an agreement with facts in thehead; it is also an appetite for God in the heart (86).

Not only does this statement rest upon an un-Scriptural dichotomy between the head and the heart,but it also obscures a clear and meaningful idea by avague and meaningless phrase. Forty years agoGordon Clark demonstrated through painstakingexegesis that the Bible teaches no head-heartdichotomy, yet contemporary theologians write in

complete ignorance of his work and expect theirreaders to take them seriously. This discloses not onlytheir ignorance of Scripture, but also their poorscholarship. What an appetite for God might be, ifit is not a desire to learn, know, and believe moretruth about himall of which is intellectualpietisticPiper gives no hint.

Piper repeatedly attacks the Scriptural idea thatsaving faith is understanding revealed propositionsand accepting them as true. Many times he writes:Believing that Christ and his promises are trueis anecessary part of faith. But it is not sufficient to turnfaith into saving faith (201). Of course, the HolySpirit and the apostle disagree: Believe on the LordJesus Christ and you shall be saved. Piper acknowl-edges that If we go wrong on the nature of faith,everything in the Christian life will go wrong (209).He is quite correct on this pointin fact, his theologyunintentionally illustrates this point. One of thesubtlest ways to deny justification by faith alone is tochange the definition offaith. Piper presents us withseveral different definitions offaith:

But I want to say a bit more than [Charles]Hodge does. I dont want to say merely that faithin promises produces confidence, joy and hope,but that an essential element in the faith itself isconfidence and joy and hope. [Arent these threeelements?] It is not false to say that faith producesthese things. But that does not contradict the othertruth: that confidence and joy and hope are part ofthe warp and woof of faith. [T]he essence of

saving faith is a spiritual apprehension or tasting ofspiritual beauty, which isdelight (205).

Again Piper obscures truth with his pied, pink proseWhat, exactly, does tasting spiritual beauty mean? Isit akin to smelling spiritual loveliness? What good

purpose is there in deliberately obfuscating the natureof faith with such vague and meaningless figures ofspeech? On the next page, It is the embracing ofspiritual beauty that is the essential core of savingfaith. Just a few lines earlier, Piper had told us thatan essential element of faith is a sense of revulsion.

Piper proclaims: I am hard pressed toimagine something more important for ourlives than fulfilling the covenant that Godhas made with us for our final salvation.

In chapter 19, How Many Conditions AreThere? Piper actually enumerates 11 conditions wemust meet if we want any future grace: loving Godbeing humble, drawing near to God, crying out toGod from the heart, fearing God, delighting in Godhoping in God, taking refuge in God, waiting forGod, trusting in God, and keeping Gods covenantwhich he says is the summary of the first 10. Piperproclaims: I am hard pressed to imagine somethingmore important for our lives than fulfilling thecovenant that God has made with us for our final

salvation (249). Consider his words carefully. Piperdoes not mean that the work of Christ in perfectlyfulfilling the covenant on behalf of his people is themost important thing he can think of for our finasalvation; he says that we personally, or as he says,experientially, fulfill the covenant on our ownbehalf, and that our fulfillment of the covenant is themost important thing for our final salvation. Weourselves fulfill the covenant that God has madewith us for our final salvation. Furthermore, keep inmind his description of future grace: the heart-strengthening power that comes from the HolySpiritis virtually the same as what I mean by futuregrace. Therefore, if we fulfill the conditions requiredof us, if we obey the covenant, then God will give usthe heart-strengthening power that comes from theHoly Spirit, and we will be saved. This is not theGospel. It is a pious fraud.

Here is the Gospel, expressed in a poem byAugustus Toplady:

7


8/8


Not the labors of my handsCan fulfill thy laws demands.

Could my zeal no respite know,Could my tears forever flow,All for sin could not atone;

Thou must save and thou alone.13

To return to Pipers various definitions offaith:All these acts of the heart [the 11 conditions he hascited for receiving future grace] are overlappingrealities with saving faith. Faith is not identical withany of them, nor they with faith. But elements of eachare woven into what faith is (252). Keep in mind thatRomanism has only seven theological virtues; Piperhas out-poped the papists.

But the worst is yet to come: There are still moreconditions required for obtaining future grace: doinggood deeds, not practicing the works of the flesh, andloving the brethren, to name three. Now heres thecatch: Unless Piper has provided a complete list ofthe conditions we must meet in order to fulfill thecovenant and obtain our final salvation, the PiperPlan of Salvation is worthless. To be worth anything,a plan of salvation must be complete. But even withcenturies to ponder the question, the Roman Church-State did not come up with a complete list of condi-tions the sinner must meet to obtain final salvation,and so it invented Purgatory, where all unfulfilledconditions for salvation may be met. The sinner may

and usually does endure millions of years of tormentin Purgatory, but at long last the persevering sinnerfulfills the conditions required for final salvation.Perhaps one of Pastor Pipers future publications willbe Piper Proves Purgatory. Then we shall have arediscovery of Romanist eschatology, as theNeolegalists continue to work out the implications oftheir false and Antichristian premises.

There are many more errors in Future Grace, butthis discussion has disclosed some of the mostimportant.

The music is gay; it will lead you astray:Beware the Pied Piper.

13 This poem, of course, is the second verse of Rock ofAges. Poetry need not be vague or mystical, as someincompetent poets tell us. It can be and ought to be usedto teach truth, not error, as Scripture and Toplady use it.

Many essays related to the topics of justi-fication, sanctificationand their relationship to Gods law and covenant may be foundat http://www.trinityfoundation.org/.

8

197a-piedpiper

Documents