Piper's Future Grace

[Von]

I've posted this in the Pietistic Piper Thread, but thought I should ask this in a new thread, since it was slightly off-topic:

Faith is something that we excercise in the present: We have faith in God. We have faith in the atoning work on the cross (even though this is something that happened long ago, we have faith in the present truth of it - that it is effective today.)
But for the future - the resurrection, etc - we have HOPE (not faith?)

Now when Piper talks about faith in future grace - is this not just the same as HOPE?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

By "hope" Piper means not the uncertainty that the word conveys to modern ears, but the confidence in that which we have been promised will come to fruition:

"Ordinarily, when we express hope, we are expressing uncertainty. But this is not the distinctive biblical meaning of hope. And the main thing I want to do this morning is show you from Scripture that biblical hope is not just a desire for something good in the future, but rather, biblical hope is a confident expectation and desire for something good in the future."
Src: http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/what-is-hope

 

[Von]

biblical hope is a confident expectation and desire for something good in the future."

I agree with that.
Is he then replacing the word "hope" with the term "faith in future grace" in his book?
Previously he did the same with "Christian Hedonism". One of the reasons he gives for recasting Christian joy is as follows: "Most of us are virtually impervious to the radical implications of familiar language." (Desiring God, Appx 4)
The reason I'm asking is that whenever I've tried to read Future Grace is always feels as if Piper tries to make a theological category ("future grace"), where there is none (somewhere between faith and hope).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have not read the book in question, so without more insights from it I cannot offer much of an opinion. I will say that I have found Piper to be a wee bit over the top at times when it comes to taking the perspicuity of Scripture on various matters to lofty heights. While this may achieve the attention sought for his works, it costs him by making him appear almost Pentecostal (second blessings, etc.).

 

[Timotheos]

I agree with that.
Is he then replacing the word "hope" with the term "faith in future grace" in his book?
Previously he did the same with "Christian Hedonism". One of the reasons he gives for recasting Christian joy is as follows: "Most of us are virtually impervious to the radical implications of familiar language." (Desiring God, Appx 4)
The reason I'm asking is that whenever I've tried to read Future Grace is always feels as if Piper tries to make a theological category ("future grace"), where there is none (somewhere between faith and hope).

I believe he is giving a helpful category for people in regards to sanctification. Since justification is by grace through faith, he is attempting (I believe) to make a similar case for sanctification by grace through faith. But faith in what kind of grace? He mentions that part of the grace we trust in for sanctification is the past grace of God purchasing our faith and making justification & sanctification. But one's faith must also look forward to the future of what God's grace has in store for the believer, or the "hope" as you would have it.

 

[Jack K]

I thought Future Grace was a helpful reminder not to neglect the still-to-come aspects of the gospel, especially as they encourage us to live for God today. The publisher went well over-the-top in touting this as groundbreaking theology, but much of the "gospel-centered" talk over the past decade or so has given little attention to what Christ has yet to do for us, so the book was timely.

I'm with you in that I think Piper often uses "future grace" in a way that's very much like the biblical understanding of "hope." But today the word "hope" suffers not only from being used to denote uncertainty, but also from being one of those Christianese words that long ago lost much impact when read by believers. Throwing around a new phrase can help with that.

In my own writing, I often take a word or phrase with a solid theological pedigree or even biblical origins, and I replace it with something less familiar-sounding that means the same thing. Instead of "gospel" I like to write "good news." Instead of "union with Christ" I like to write "joined to Jesus." Instead of "mediator" I like to use "go-between." Sometimes, this practice has made theologically-minded people wonder if maybe I'm trying to create new doctrine, and they get suspicious because my terms are not the familiar ones. Okay, I understand the benefit of having everyone speak the same theological language. But there is also great benefit in using fresh terms that readers will notice and ponder rather than skim past and forget.

 

[Von]

Thank you, Jack!