Bethel University and Christian Zen

I agree. The relativistic connotations of "our faith tradition" are clear, and almost always intentional. It's basically an admission of defeat, of spiritual death.

Also, I wouldn't be so quick to lump all of Anglicanism in with the Romanists and EOs (the conservative evangelical/Reformed Anglican groups deserve much more respect than that)... not that anyone converts to Anglicanism out of theological conviction, anyway...

I found the sermon. It is titled What Happens When You Die? All Appear Before the Judgment Seat of Christ. Piper IS preaching "Grace alone, by faith alone, through Christ alone."

Clearly Piper is showing that the test of whether a person is truly saved is if their deeds correspond to their professed faith.

C'mon, now. The point of Piper's message here is just that, although God knows with certainty who is truly saved (because God personally declared every saved person justified, when those persons put their faith in Christ alone), and the individual person knows whether he is saved or not, we have a harder time discerning who is truly saved regarding the people around us. We do not possess God's perfect knowledge, nor can we peer into the heart of an individual to verify their actual spiritual status. What we do have to go on, though, is their ('external') behavior. Is their behavior the Christian behavior of a saved person? Are the producing the fruits of someone who is truly saved? The answers to these questions should be able to tell us something about a person, for the works of the truly saved should (naturally) be different than the works of the unregenerate.

This is uncontroversial.

Naive but well meaning defenders of those who attack the gospel have existed in every generation. They were there in the 1900s to 1920s to affirm that the liberals really didn't say what they said. I will always remember what Doc Clearwaters said about the battles of Fundamentalism against liberalism. He went through the battles. He stated that the liberals won, not because they outnumbered the Fundamentalists, but because many who were not liberal would not fight against them. Many Gospel believing pastors endeavored to find common ground with the liberals Some did so in the name of "Christian unity." Others naively accepted the double speak of the liberals and failed to recognize the path the liberals wanted to take them on. We are continually seeing the same trend among Evangelicals today. Some Fundamentalists also fail to see the insidious bad theology some who claim to be conservative are declaring.

The quotes of John Piper, as posted, expressly prove the case of a wrong view of Justification in relation to faith and works as espoused by John Piper. There is no time in which God holds us accountable for sin after having declared our Justification. To do so would be declare the death of Christ as not finishing the work of salvation. Works or deeds are not an evidence of our Justification toward God. Works are a evidence of our Justification before men. Justification occurs when we are united to Christ. By that union we are declared to have Christ's full righteousness and He is declared to have born all our sin. Sins are forgiven and cast as far as the east is from the west ( have not found a device able to measure that). Any and all sin committed after the declaration is pleaded by Christ before God on the basis of His having redeemed us and our union with Him even though sinning, The Justified believer can sin all he or she wants and it is never to be an issue before God. However, at the time of our Justification God also gives of of His Spirit as we are united with Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit instantly regenerates us and creates in us a nature with an aversion to sin. Regeneration produces the evidence that declares to others we have been Justified. We are still all we were before but now also more than we were before. That more (new nature) changes our lives. Regeneration is instantaneous but ongoing (Calvin's view). Justification provides the Holy umbrella under which the believer lives. It guarantees a secure and continuing salvation. We are secure under the umbrella while Regeneration produces change but in the midst of struggle and failure in sin. We shall never be accountable for that sin. When the Justified believer stands before the one who bore the believers sin, Christ Himself at 2 Cor. 5:10, the issue can only be stewardship with regard to the responsibility given and expected by the savior. The "all" in verse 10 has been defined in prior context as those who are absent from thee body and present with the Lord. They are only the saved. Their being there has already depended on their declared Holiness in Christ making them worthy of being there. There are no issues of salvation in view. Piper declares there is. It is true that John Piper makes many statements regarding salvation and Justification that clearly declare it to be by faith alone. However, it is also clear that he makes statements regarding the place of works that takes away the clarity of those statements and stand alone as declaring works as being needful for a final certainty regarding salvation.

After a degree in English literature from Wheaton College, John Piper's evangelical exposure to theology was at Fuller Seminary when it was still somewhat conservative but with doubts about the scriptures inerrancy and a the Neo Orthodoxy of Barth influencing some professors then. I remember this as it happened. Piper embraced the theology of Daniel Fuller. Daniel Fuller, son of Charles Fuller after whom the Seminary was named, was one of the first to express doubts about inerrancy. He also embraced certain historical aspects of theology from the Puritans while himself having an eclectic and changing viewpoint. He was the number one influence on Piper while he was at Fuller. However, Piper does believe in the inerrancy of scripture. Piper then went to Germany and obtained his doctorate from the University of Munich. The present Pope also has his doctorate from there. There Piper was exposed to academic flexibility in theology. He increasingly embraced the prior influence of Daniel Fuller and became passionate about the Puritans. Unfortunately the English Puritans were often confused on faith and works. Many believed that assurance of salvation focused on their works and not on the work of Christ.

John Piper writes with great scholarship, is extremely articulate, and writes using expressions of passion and romanticism regarding God and theology. As a result, he has become widely popular, especially among many conservative Evangelicals. However, his passion and articulate expressions have also produced a theology that twists grace. One can read what he writes and find great expression of truth. However, there is also that which often modifies or takes away from the truth expressed. The result is a theology which is not as clear and unequivocal as it should be.

The real danger to the Gospel may be coming from those who profess to be defending it while diminishing true grace while doing so. I could bring other prominent names into this but will refrain from doing so. I remember all those Fundamentalist who jumped on board the Bill Gothard heresy bandwagon because it appealed to their extra biblical rules view (legalism to some) of Christianity. There appears to be some of that involved in embracing the Lordship commitment and submission Gospel and the new Puritanism being set forth by some leaders today. This is not to say that a false Gospel is declared. It does indicate that some Fundamentalists do not fully embrace the implications of a gospel of grace and the implications of biblical justification. You see this every time a statement of faith includes both repentance from sin and faith as requirements for salvation. Some may hold to differing views and implications of repentance in the Bible. However, one should not see the human work of repentance from sin as a requirement for salvation. If you wish to say that repentance is included with faith, or the result of true faith, you have not added a condition to receiving salvation. However to make both repentance from sin and faith as conditions for salvation adds works to faith. Some fundamentalist churches and groups have accepted this because their works oriented sanctification is influencing their theology of salvation. It may be that some Fundamentalists have a problem with understanding true biblical grace.

The event at Bethel University involving Buddhism was terrible and an affront to God. It will be interesting to see if any of those individuals and churches who are involved with the so called "Converge Worldwide" will let it pass with indifference or will step up and express a passion for God that goes beyond mere literary expression. However, such a clearly heretical event may not be as much a danger as more subtle threats that erode gradually from the true glory and miracle nature of the Gospel of Christ.

John Brian concluded regarding Piper's teaching that:

"Clearly Piper is showing that the test of whether a person is truly saved is if their deeds correspond to their professed faith."

You have well said. And that is what Romanism teaches and is heresy. Faith is contrasted to works and is the only condition of salvation (Rom. 4:4-8; Eph. 2:8-10). We become God's workmanship only after being saved without works. Therefore God's workmanship was not and is not ever an issue with regard to salvation.

Works (or deeds) are never an issue with regard to our salvation. They are not a test of faith. They are in contrast to faith. God does not look at our deeds to confirm our Justification. He looks at our heart. The deeds manifest to men that our faith is genuine. However, they are not an assurance to us or God. Our faith is the substance of things things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen (Heb.11:1). Our assurance rests in Christ not on our works. To other men who cannot see or know our hearts, deeds make our faith visible. However, many with visible deeds have no salvation because like the Jews they professed with their mouth but did not believe with their hearts. At Romans chapter 10 Paul is still on the subject of the Jews and the Gospel as it relates to them. He makes it clear that they and all men must not only confess with their mouth but also believe with their hearts (Rom. 10:9-13).

Luke 19: 11-27 is a parable teaching the relationship to a King who has come to reign. As Messiah Jesus was offering the promised kingdom. Servants of the king who were waiting for the king to return were rewarded based on their use of the gifts given by the King to be used for Him. They are rewarded according to their use. Those who had rejected the King and were his enemies were not servants to be rewarded but enemies to be judged. The enemies were not subjects of the King. The fact that this parable includes both subjects and none subjects of a King does not imply that both are in view together at one time in future judgment.. 2 Cor. 5:10 is a judgment of servants saved by grace. They are rewarded for their use of gifts. Those not subjects of the king are to be judged at the Great White throne judgment. They will experience the final loss of eternal life with God. From my understanding, John Piper confounds salvation issue and works and rewards of the saved at 2Cor. 5:10 as he is not one who necessarily sees separate judgment times for the saved and non saved. He holds a view of the Kingdom as espoused by George Ladd who popularized a Premillenialism that espoused a now yet future kingdom. It was a theology in reaction to Dispensationalism. While Ladd's biblical theology must be judged on its merits, it must be understand that this very influential theologian was an adult long term incurable alcoholic who died being hated by his family. He was brought up in dispensational Fundamentalist churches and hated such churches perceived legalism and rules. He wrote with scholarship but probably with an agenda against Dispensationalism and conservative churches. He europeanized the gospel interpretations of the ministry of the Messiah to Israel. The result was an eschatology that fit well with the classic european Reformed theology yet allowed for a future hope for Israel. However. many who adopted Ladd's view of the Kingdom Gentilized the Gospels and misapplied some of Jesus teachings. My view is that John Piper is a classic example of this. John MacArthur is also though he claims to be dispensational. MacArthur studied under Robert Saucy at Talbot. He was a Dallas Graduate in process of becoming a Progressive Dispensationalist. This modified his view of the kingdom to be partly present now like George Ladd. Much of what John MacArthur does in seeking to apply the Gospels teaching on salvation to involves the bypassing of the Messianic nature of Jesus teaching. Also, much of what MacArthur teaches about the Lordship Gospel, Dispensationalism, and the weakness of the Gospel of Lewis Sperry Chafer and Dallas Seminary was being taught by Saucy in the 1960s.

There appears to a weakness in the espousing the Lordship submission commitment gospel and the interpreting of the Gospels. Those who are Reformed in their theology of Soteriology such as Piper and MacArthur, often confound the teachings in the Gospels and do not integrate them well with the teaching of the epistles. This may be because they fail to see the jewish viewpoint of the teaching of Jesus the Messiah. The result is a confusion regarding faith, works, repentance from sin, and the basis for Christian assurance. That has resulted in a diminishing of grace. This appears to appeal to many Fundamentalists. Alva J. McClain in his book titled "Grace" said that when they accuse you of antinomianism then you are probably practicing grace (from memory, not an exact quote). Grace is more grace than we can comprehend.

Or was it about Christians meeting with Buddhists and having a civil conversation about how we use our terms differently?

Certainly we must constantly seek to conform our currency, our current usage of words, to the "form of sound words" in Scripture. But as we seek to do so, we must be aware that every generation has been doing so, and that when we attempt to relate the language as we have received it to the language as we see it in Scripture, we are engaging in the building, receiving, transmitting, and modification of "traditions," of just the sort that Paul refers to. This is why he can appeal to what the elders they appointed had preserved of apostolic teaching; this is why he can urge that we "hold fast the form of sound words," that each "take what you have learned from me, and commit it unto faithful men, who are able to teach others also," that we "be followers of me, as I follow Christ." He doesn't want *denominations* to grow (no "I am of Paul; I am of Apollos" and also no "I am of Christ" divisions of the Body), but he clearly expects traditions to grow.

It seems to me that we have to understand how the range of beliefs Christians hold about how Scripture is to be lived can seem very much like the ways other religions respond to basic human concerns. It seems right for a university to hold such a conversation, even to ask the question, though we may all very much agree that the answer was pretty clear from the start.