God speaking to the ELCA in "the whirlwind"?

[Bob T.] I think the answer of the New Testament is both. Our deeds will reveal who enters the age to come, and our deeds will reveal the measure of our reward in the age to come. I will show you in just a moment why I think this, but let me mention the biggest problem for many Christians in saying this. It sounds to many like a contradiction of salvation by grace through faith. Ephesians 2:8 says, “By grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God—not of works lest anyone should boast.” Salvation is not “of works.” That is, works do not earn salvation. Works do not put God in our debt so that he must pay wages. That would contradict grace. “The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 6:23). Grace gives salvation as a free gift to be received by faith, not earned by works.

How then can I say that the judgment of believers will not only be the public declaration of the measure of our reward in the kingdom of God according to our deeds, but will also be the public declaration of our salvation—our entering the kingdom—according to our deeds?

The answer in a couple sentences is that our deeds will be the public evidence brought forth in Christ’s courtroom to demonstrate that our faith is real. And our deeds will be the public evidence brought forth to demonstrate the varying measures of our obedience of faith (cf. Romans 12:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11). In other words, salvation is by faith, and rewards are by faith, but the evidence of invisible faith in the judgment hall of Christ will be a transformed life. Our deeds are not the basis of our salvation, they are the evidence of our salvation. They are not foundation, they are demonstration. “

Biblically, to be Justified is to be declared without guilt or penalty before God. God knows the beginning and the end at the time we are Justified. He needs no future verification of His declaration based on deeds. Our sin has been dealt with. We have the umbrella of God’s declaration that shields us from His wrath. We are to then live under this shield and allow God to deal with the practicality of our sin and service. The issue in this judgment is stewardship not Justification or verification of our faith which God verified when we were initially saved and united to Christ.

In a Christianity Today article that compared the views of N.T. Wright and John Piper regarding Justification, Piper was very clear on his view. They stated:

“Future Justification
Piper: Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.

…John Piper also makes a statement on Justification and works in his book “The Future of Justification,” Crossway Books, 2007, at page 110. He makes it clear that obedience is not the basis of our Justification. However, he sees it as evidence and confirmation of Justification. He then relates this to the final judgment on p. 120 as “not based on our works but in accordance with our works.”

I still don’t understand what the problem is; Piper makes it abundantly clear what he’s talking about in the section I bolded. To put it succinctly, Christians are saved for service. That’s what Piper is pointing out, and John, James and Paul both teach that if someone claims to be a Christian and does not manifest either right works as a result of their salvation or does not keep to Biblical teaching and admonition, then they are not saved.

If you disagree with Lordship salvation, then of course you’re going to disagree with Piper and MacArthur. But you cannot read that fairly and argue that Piper believes in two justifications.

[SHoward] http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/june/29.34.html?start=2

The above link is the second page of a comparison of Piper and N.T. Wright’s views. Scroll down to future justification for a quick synopsis. I am sure he probably expands on this elsewhere.

A couple more points on this double justification idea.

First, Bob T. and others are taking the article from CT as if it is quoting Piper. It isn’t. It is a summary of what the author of the article claims is Piper’s view. Do we have proof somewhere that Piper actually holds that the works produced to vindicate our faith at the judgment is actually a future justification?

Second, Bob T. used Piper’s sermon on the judgment seat of Christ as if Piper was saying this is justification. The quote didn’t use justification that way. When I brought up the interplay between faith and works, Bob sees that as off-topic and beside the point, because I’m not using “justification” terminology. But what was Piper’s sermon he quoted about other than works and faith? It wasn’t specifically about justification.

So this whole double justification idea is being pulled from a CT article assessing Piper’s view. We have yet to have definitive proof given that Piper teaches such a doctrine.

Now, I’ve been a member at Piper’s church since early 2005, I have sat through his ministry and heard hundreds of his sermons. He doesn’t come across as unorthodox. I’m amazed (or should I really be?) at how quick the ax falls around here.

[rogercarlson]

[Bob T.]

[rogercarlson] I think some on this thread would disagree with Piper if he said the the sky were blue, simply because John Piper said it. :)

Incredible. Absolutely incredible! The factual evidence of serious error on the part of a popular writer and Pastor is offered from his own words and multiple sources and all one has to say is to attack the credibility of those exposing it and accuse them of some sort of blind prejudice? This is indifference to truth and toleration of serious error. Why? Because of some distant loyalty to a man?

I have not used the word heresy here. However, the doctrine of examination of works after death to verify Justification ( salvation) is similar to the “investigative Judgment” doctrine of the Seventh Day Adventist church. This was based on the revelation of founder Ellen White. She stated that all believers would stand before Christ for an examination of their works for a final determination of the genuineness of their salvation faith. This has always been rejected as heresy by all Evangelical and/or Orthodox churches. In the early 1980s there were three professors at Seventh day Adventist schools and some Seventh Day Pastors who set forth the orthodox Christian doctrine of Justification by faith alone and stated this excluded the Investigative Judgment. Some thought this may be the beginning of a change for the better for Seventh Day Adventist doctrine. However, after much controversy the church counsel met and affirmed the Investigative Judgment and defrocked the dissenters. This was well covered in Christianity Today and other publications.

Now we appear to have some who post on SI who seem to claim to be Fundamentalists (or Evangelicals) who are indifferent to a similar doctrine being set forth by a popular teacher. Perhaps one of their favorite teachers? Absolutely incredible!! Have we really come to this?

Bob,

I was referring more to Alex than you. But seeing how you responded, let me give a couple of observations and comments:

First of all, I am by no means a Piper loyalist. I have often said when Piper is on he is on and when he is off he is REALLY off. I have benefited from some of his stuff and discarded other things.

Secondly, on the topic of this thread, I agree with Bryan Bice, Larry and others. Maybe I am reading it wrongly but I think they were spot on in there analysis of his treatment of last week’s tornado. It seems to me Alex (and you) are nitpicking here.

Thirdly, there have been times you have been harsh on Piper. On the old SI you went as far as to minimize his cancer because you didn’t like how he was handling the problem of suffering. While I am not as experienced or as educated as you are the Lord has given me a little insight into death and suffering. I lost both of my parents to cancer before I was 30. The Lord has given me the privilege of preaching over 150 funerals in 10 years as a pastor. When I was a hospice chaplain, I saw countless people die. As a fire chaplain and part time fire fighter, I see countless people suffer and die. I see suffering more than most people, let alone most pastors. I found Piper’s Suffering and the Sovereignty of God to be very helpful - whether his cancer was as bad as it should have been in your opinion or not. That was the first comments of yours reguarding Piper that I remember and have always led me to take what you say about him with a grain of salt.

Fourthly, you seem willing to give others a pass who have errors as bad, if not worse than Piper’s (i.e. Zane Hodges). You dismissed Lou M’s research very flppantly if I recall correctly

Now reguarding his view on justification. I haven’t studied it out yet. My comment had nothing to do with that post. I did not look at SI all day and was getting caught up. I hadn’t read your comments yet. But I have breifly stated how, on at least one occassion, you were too hard on Piper. Some food for thought

Roger, Thanks for your reply and memory.

1. I will take your word that you are not a blind follower of Piper.

2. The context and whole article was written with the ELCA in mind. SusanR crossed out the objectionable part in her post. Piper’s approach was wrong. Many others so posted on his website.

3. Yes I made a reply to John Piper regarding his statements made after his diagnosis with early stage fully curable prostate cancer. Why? Because his handling of the situation was wrong and possibly harmful. I am a two time Cancer survivor. The first diagnosis was for Colon Cancer in 1998. It was stage 3 (out of 4). I went through surgery where they removed part of my Colon and then 1 (one) year of weekly Chemotherapy. In Chemo you report to the Cancer center and they take you into a room where there are people sitting in a large circle in large easy chairs. They are hooked up to IVs. Some Chemo is much harsher than others, depending on the type of Cancer. Some of the harshest is for Lymphoma Cancer and Breast Cancer. People become extremely ill and nauseous. Many lose weight and have other severe symptoms. It is not a good experience. Some younger patients just break down and cry through the weekly experience. My Chemo had several side effects but non overly harsh. During this time I had one of the best witnessing experiences of my life. Some came to Christ. I had a three hour session each week and could tactfully help many spiritually. But wisdom and tact were needed. It was important to not be preachy, overbearing or insensitive. When my final session ended, after one year, I was told it was all over. I was actually disappointed. If I could have I would have volunteered for more Chemo (but only the type already received).

Three years later I was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer. It was more severe in the final PSA markers than John Piper’s diagnosis. It had the same Gleason score as Piper’s after Biopsy. When the Physician told me of the diagnosis he said; ” The bad news is you have Prostate Cancer. The good news is that if treated it is curable and you will most likely die of something else. I chose radiation seed implant treatment over surgery. Piper chose surgery. I sent him an email telling him of my Prostate Cancer experience and suggesting he get second opinions as he was opting for radical normal surgery when for his stage other treatments had just as good an outcome at 5 and 10 year followup. Also, the City of Hope does all Prostate surgery using the Laparoscopic method which minimizes the cutting of nerves and incisions. your in and out the same day. Playing tennis on day three. However, I received no reply and he evidently went ahead with the planned normal surgical method.

My objection to Piper’s statements he made during this time were that they were inconsiderate of the severity of treatment experienced by many Cancer patients. One that he made was ’ a person should be thankful for their Cancer.” Since we are to be thankful in all things, that it not an unbiblical statement. I saw the blessings of opportunity and did come to thank God for my Cancers. However, it is not a truth you state for another. They must have God work and bring them to see blessing amidst severe prolonged suffering. My younger sister died of Breast Cancer at age 50. From diagnosis to death was 10 years. It involved times of severe Chemo. At one point the Chemo disabled her and she could not walk. After a year of therapy she could again walk. But the Cancer was relentless and eventually she died a very slow and agonizing death. Piper’s approach was without wisdom. He first viewed his diagnosis with shock. That is understandable as the “C” word is scary. But he certainly was advised of the fully curable nature of his early, slow growing Prostate Cancer. Then Piper started telling others how to handle Cancer. All preachers often must speak beyond their own experience. But his approach and words were not with the best of wisdom and were, IMHO. trite and insensitive. He then came out on with a book on suffering. One chapter, written by a Paraplegic, was very good. The chapter by Piper appeared to indicate a man of little suffering experience trying to tell others all about it.. In his many statements during this time Piper made some very good points. He may have helped some. It is often the case even when we are wrong. However, I did attempt to call attention to Piper.s wrong emphasis and wrong approach. I viewd it as a guy who had stubbed his toe trying to relate to one who had lost his legs and telling him to be thankful for his loss. I could say much more on this but will refrain.

Of course, like you I have conducted many funerals and been involved with the suffering of others. May I say that once you go through severe sickness or suffering it all becomes different. Pastors are spectators to suffering. When something puts you down a whole new dimension comes when ministering to others. However, we should probably always approach such ministry with great humility and be ready to listen a lot and speak less. The spiritual cliches, even when based on biblical truth, are often not helpful. We can tell a lot about a person in how they handle their own suffering and how they approach the suffering of others. It is not a time to parse verbs and do theology.

John Piper has made several such missteps on various subjects.When one is well known and listened to this becomes a problem.

4. I did oppose the approach and postings of Lou Martuneac because he exaggerated and misunderstood Much of what he was against. I gave no one a free pass but only ask fairness. My statements here regarding John Piper are based on his own position. While some on here may seem to want to deny that Piper’s position is what I say. Piper himself acknowledges such a position. He does not deny this. He approved the CT article. So I believe I am being fair.

[Bob Hayton]

[SHoward] http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/june/29.34.html?start=2

The above link is the second page of a comparison of Piper and N.T. Wright’s views. Scroll down to future justification for a quick synopsis. I am sure he probably expands on this elsewhere.

A couple more points on this double justification idea.

First, Bob T. and others are taking the article from CT as if it is quoting Piper. It isn’t. It is a summary of what the author of the article claims is Piper’s view. Do we have proof somewhere that Piper actually holds that the works produced to vindicate our faith at the judgment is actually a future justification?

Second, Bob T. used Piper’s sermon on the judgment seat of Christ as if Piper was saying this is justification. The quote didn’t use justification that way. When I brought up the interplay between faith and works, Bob sees that as off-topic and beside the point, because I’m not using “justification” terminology. But what was Piper’s sermon he quoted about other than works and faith? It wasn’t specifically about justification.

So this whole double justification idea is being pulled from a CT article assessing Piper’s view. We have yet to have definitive proof given that Piper teaches such a doctrine.

Now, I’ve been a member at Piper’s church since early 2005, I have sat through his ministry and heard hundreds of his sermons. He doesn’t come across as unorthodox. I’m amazed (or should I really be?) at how quick the ax falls around here.

Bob Hayton,

The CT article was approved by John Piper as properly representing his position. The same with N.T. Wright.

Please note that I referred to the book “The Future of Justification” by John Piper and give page numbers where one can find the essence of this position. It was the subject source for the CT article. I have read the book. The author of the CT article interpreted Piper’s position as being the same as what I said. John Piper has approved of the article. Piper also alludes to this position in other sermons. We have a duty of being fair when evaluating another persons positions and statements. I believe such fairness has been exercised here. This is not hidden or just innuendo. It is a clear and acknowledged position.

Sorry, Bob T. I overlooked your inclusion of page numbers. I want to look at that section myself, as it is new to me. I think he’s using the idea of future justification to describe his view of the judgment ala Rom. 2, and not necessarily justification per se in the sense we think of in Rom. 5. I may be wrong, and I’ll look into it.

By the way on the deal with the cancer, when you see Piper in person and you see the tears in his eyes when he addresses suffering, it gives the talk a different perspective. He goes out of his way to say he hasn’t really experienced suffering, and in no way is his counseling method or advice to read his 10 points on how to view Cancer to every newly diagnosed cancer pt.

[Jay C]

[Bob T.] I think the answer of the New Testament is both. Our deeds will reveal who enters the age to come, and our deeds will reveal the measure of our reward in the age to come. I will show you in just a moment why I think this, but let me mention the biggest problem for many Christians in saying this. It sounds to many like a contradiction of salvation by grace through faith. Ephesians 2:8 says, “By grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God—not of works lest anyone should boast.” Salvation is not “of works.” That is, works do not earn salvation. Works do not put God in our debt so that he must pay wages. That would contradict grace. “The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 6:23). Grace gives salvation as a free gift to be received by faith, not earned by works.

How then can I say that the judgment of believers will not only be the public declaration of the measure of our reward in the kingdom of God according to our deeds, but will also be the public declaration of our salvation—our entering the kingdom—according to our deeds?

The answer in a couple sentences is that our deeds will be the public evidence brought forth in Christ’s courtroom to demonstrate that our faith is real. And our deeds will be the public evidence brought forth to demonstrate the varying measures of our obedience of faith (cf. Romans 12:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11). In other words, salvation is by faith, and rewards are by faith, but the evidence of invisible faith in the judgment hall of Christ will be a transformed life. Our deeds are not the basis of our salvation, they are the evidence of our salvation. They are not foundation, they are demonstration. “

Biblically, to be Justified is to be declared without guilt or penalty before God. God knows the beginning and the end at the time we are Justified. He needs no future verification of His declaration based on deeds. Our sin has been dealt with. We have the umbrella of God’s declaration that shields us from His wrath. We are to then live under this shield and allow God to deal with the practicality of our sin and service. The issue in this judgment is stewardship not Justification or verification of our faith which God verified when we were initially saved and united to Christ.

In a Christianity Today article that compared the views of N.T. Wright and John Piper regarding Justification, Piper was very clear on his view. They stated:

“Future Justification
Piper: Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.

…John Piper also makes a statement on Justification and works in his book “The Future of Justification,” Crossway Books, 2007, at page 110. He makes it clear that obedience is not the basis of our Justification. However, he sees it as evidence and confirmation of Justification. He then relates this to the final judgment on p. 120 as “not based on our works but in accordance with our works.”

I still don’t understand what the problem is; Piper makes it abundantly clear what he’s talking about in the section I bolded. To put it succinctly, Christians are saved for service. That’s what Piper is pointing out, and John, James and Paul both teach that if someone claims to be a Christian and does not manifest either right works as a result of their salvation or does not keep to Biblical teaching and admonition, then they are not saved.

If you disagree with Lordship salvation, then of course you’re going to disagree with Piper and MacArthur. But you cannot read that fairly and argue that Piper believes in two justifications.

Jay C. I find this post confusing as you use my name at the beginning as if the whole thing following is my statement. Much is what John Piper said in his sermon. I think you intend to make a distinction but are unclear.

Also, you appear to be seeking to explain away that which is obvious. Piper obviously sees this judgment as involving both an evaluation of deeds for evidence of salvation and an evaluation of deeds (stewardship) for rewards. It is both to him. If the evaluation of deeds is set forth to evidence salvation faith then we have a big problem. All will have a lack of sufficient evidence. That is why salvation is based 100% on the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and our sins imputed to him. For the Christian, such a procedure clouds the issue of the entire basis of our salvation.

The Judgment before Christ is for believers only and salvation faith is not an issue. It cannot be an issue. It was settled on the cross as to payment and accepted by God at a moment in time. It is pleaded as our ed evidence daily by Christ as our intercessor. Stewardship and rewards are the sole issues awaiting us. If evidence of faith or Justification is involved with deeds, works, behaviour, properly observed ritual, or anything else, then we are all in trouble and no one is saved. No one can offer such evidence. Perfect righteousness is required and like the rich young ruler we will be found wanting because we have not given all. Piper’s error is in bringing up salvation or Justification or faith evidence as an issue. You and I have nothing to offer before God. His change in our lives here is of little consequence (non at all ) as evidence before Him. The evidence before God for my salvation is Christ alone. The evidence for my faith in Him before God is that God received me by faith and placed me in Christ at a moment in time. As a result of being placed in union with Christ I was indwelt with the Holy Spirit who also regenerated me. Simultaneously, I was Justified by God by his judicial act before all creation. That declaration also involved the imputing of the righteousness of Christ to me and the imputing of my sin to Christ. It also involves the daily intercessory work of Christ as He is pleading daily to apply the effect of His payment for my sin even as I commit new sin. There will be no sins to deal with when I stand before Christ as seen in 2Cor.5. All accounts have been marked paid. However, there will be an examination of stewardship based on spiritual duty and service, The issues of Justification and salvation are excluded as not relevant. I may lose great reward which will bring temporary sorrow. But I will not need to worry regarding being Kingdom ready as I will go in on Christ’s obedience and death not mine. We must be clear here and not confuse the issue. If anyone confuses the issue or is unclear then we must be wary of their teaching.

Here is a rather stunningly naked assertion by Piper in presenting his doctrine of future justification in quoting Daniel Fuller, his mentor, in his book, The Purifying Power of Living by Faith in…Future Grace.

Source: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/197a-PiedPiper.pdf

A faith that only looks back to Christ’s death and resurrection is not sufficient…. Forgiveness for the Christian also depends on having…a futuristic faith in God’s promises. Thus we cannot regard justifying faith as sufficient if it honors only the past fact of Christ’s death and resurrection but does not honor the future promises of God… (206-207)

This just plain “theobabble” and simply unacceptable. There is no such language or concept, direct, implied or properly extrapolated or observed in the Bible that amounts to justifying faith being insufficient if it honors only the past fact of Christ’s death and resurrection but not does not honor the future. It is PRECISELY this, the past work of Christ in his death and resurrection, upon which our justification rests! If I did not believe my eyes I would swear this is coming from nothing less than the heretic Benny Hinn or some other TBN theological cowboy. Piper is astoundingly unaware of the implications of his assertion.

Alex,

Did you actually read Future Grace? Or are you just quoting from the article?

If you want to see the context of the quote Alex brings up, click this link (to Amazon book search) and search for the following: “Thus we cannot regard justifying”. Then I recommend going backwards 1 page and reading from the subtitle “There is a Joy in Faith and From Faith” all the way through the next 2 pages.

I can understand how this sounds “shocking”. But in context it isn’t quite so shocking. He’s really objecting to a glib faith in a sinner’s prayer or believing in the mere facts of the gospel (i.e. a free grace theology perspective almost). A faith that just treats salvation like a get-out-of-jail-free card, something we secured by faith years ago, is not the kind of faith that likely is a saving faith.

Piper may be wrong. But so also may be our modern reductionistic view of salvation. I encourage you to read my post I linked to earlier about this aspect of salvation. I do see a widespread misunderstanding of a Biblical understanding of perseverance.

[Larry] Alex,

Did you actually read Future Grace? Or are you just quoting from the article?

I don’t see that this is germane to the issue but because I am the happily gracious guy I am, I will still answer it. It does happen that I not only have read it but it was the subject of an adult church education class a few years ago which I attended. It appears Dr. Robbins read the book too! http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked003.gif

[Bob Hayton] Piper may be wrong.

And Bob if he is, it is no small thing to sit under a teacher you consider “may be wrong” on such an issue. It is a serious error that can be injurious to you if you never get beyond never determining whether he is wrong. The fact you utter the possibility of Piper being wrong on this rather fundamental doctrine and its understanding should be setting off alarms. But my best to you friend.

And to his credit, John Piper can be found here, echoing his doctrine of future justification or “final salvation” (whatever that is, I have one salvation, not one now and another final one)(bold mine)

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1985/1487_Wh…

“God justifies us on the first genuine act of saving faith, but in doing so he has a view to all subsequent acts of faith contained, as it were, like a seed in that first act. What we are trying to do here is own up to the teaching of Romans 5:1, for example, that teaches that we are already justified before God. God does not wait to the end of our lives in order to declare us righteous. In fact, we would not be able to have the assurance and freedom in order to live out the radical demands of Christ unless we could be confident that because of our faith we already stand righteous before him.

“Nevertheless, we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith. The way these two truths fit together is that we are justified on the basis of our first act of faith because God sees in it (like he can see the tree in an acorn) the embryo of a life of faith. This is why those who do not lead a life of faith with its inevitable obedience simply bear witness to the fact that their first act of faith was not genuine.”

Oh, the old “acorn-embryo-justification” doctrine. I see.

These two quotes can be found at the link, it is a rather lengthy page but if you are a good scroller and reader you can find them rather quickly, toward the bottom.

Now in responding to these, Vincent Cheung who was on Robbins’ mailing list while Robbins was with us, received a message regarding some of the problems of Piper’s doctrine of justification:

http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/04/12/piper-and-justification/

Here was Robbins’ message:

Here are Piper’s errors:

1. God does not have in view “all subsequent acts of faith” and obedience when he justifies us; he has in view only the objective work of Christ outside of us, his perfect righteousness. If God had in view our acts of faith and obedience, we would never be justified.

2. It is not “because of our faith that we already stand righteous before him.” It is only because of the active and passive obedience of our substitute and representative, Jesus Christ, imputed to us freely, that we stand righteous before God.

3. It is false that “our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith.” This is the doctrine of Rome. Our final salvation is sealed from the moment of first belief.
It is not contingent on anything we do or don’t do. The sole ground of justification is the obedience of Christ extrinsic to us.

4. We are not “justified on the basis of our first act of faith.” Piper turns faith itself into the ground, reason, basis, and cause of our justification. The ground, reason, basis, and cause of our justification is wholly outside of us, in Jesus Christ.

5. Piper says that the reason that some are damned is their “ingenuine faith.” He writes: “This is why those who do not lead a life of faith with its inevitable obedience simply bear witness to the fact that their first act of faith was not genuine.” How ingenuine faith differs from genuine faith he does not say, probably because he has no clear idea what faith is. Like so many misinformed Protestants, Piper focuses on psychology and makes saving faith differ from generic faith, not because of its object, but because of some alleged difference in psychology, which is never made clear. That is to miss the Gospel entirely.

Cheung himself astutely observes the most basic flaw of Piper’s theology and its impact is felt all throughout Piper’s subsequent teachings:

Thus to put it mildly, Piper (following Fuller) has confused the EFFECT of justification with the BASIS of justification.

I don’t see that this is germane to the issue but because I am the happily gracious guy I am, I will still answer it. It does happen that I not only have read it but it was the subject of an adult church education class a few years ago which I attended. It appears Dr. Robbins read the book too!

It is germane in that you are picking out a quote from secondary citation (in other words, it is a third generation quote), and if you actually read the book, you know that the book has a clearly different feel than the naked quote you gave here.

I am not that familiar with Piper’s ideas as they are presented here. I am not a big fan of Piper, and don’t read much of what he writes. I have been helped by much of what I have read, including Future Grace which, after Pleasures of God, may be the book of his that was most helpful to me personally.

I think Robbins is not all that trustworthy, based on the limited amount I have read from him. I think he tends to lift selective quotes and not deal with them in context.

Having said all that, my question was whether or not you were actually familiar with the book or whether you were just taking someone else’s word for it .

Thanks,

[Larry] It is germane in that you are picking out a quote from secondary citation (in other words, it is a third generation quote), and if you actually read the book, you know that the book has a clearly different feel than the naked quote you gave here.

Well again I did read the book and I didn’t get a different feel, in fact I felt his error through and through.

[Larry] I am not that familiar with Piper’s ideas as they are presented here. I am not a big fan of Piper, and don’t read much of what he writes. I have been helped by much of what I have read, including Future Grace which, after Pleasures of God, may be the book of his that was most helpful to me personally.

Yes, I remember going to a link you posted at the old SI (I believe it was one of two web pages of yours under your member info) where you had at least one Piper so I understand what influences your position.

[Larry] I think Robbins is not all that trustworthy, based on the limited amount I have read from him. I think he tends to lift selective quotes and not deal with them in context.

Your ad hominem attack against the integrity of John Robbins stands as a testimony to your inability to respond to the substance of his argument. Larry, Robbins had unimpeachable credentials, he was a man of thorough integrity and substantial contribution to theology. We was more than respected among his well vetted peers, he was viewed as a leader and an eminent scholar. Your casual dismissal of a man whose work of which you admit you have read a “limited” amount and your willingness to cast him as “not all that trustworthy” is more than disappointing, it’s discrediting. Here is his biography, maybe Larry, you should do some research on Robbins and discuss with men that are familiar with him, his trustworthiness before you feel so bold as to impugn his integrity:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/whoisjwr.php

John William Robbins

Dr. Robbins is a resident of Unicoi County, Tennessee. Born and reared in Pennsylvania, he received his A. B. from Grove City College (Pennsylvania) in 1969, cum laude, with Highest Honors in Political Science. He pursued graduate studies at The Johns Hopkins University (Maryland), earning his Masters in Political Theory (1970) at age 21, and his Doctorate in Philosophy and Political Theory (1973) at age 24.

In 1973 Dr. Robbins became Legislative Assistant to a Member of Congress from Indiana, Earl Landgreve, and subsequently worked, over the next 20 years, in several capacities for several public policy institutions: The Heritage Foundation (Economic Analyst), The Templeton Foundation (Consultant), Western Islands (Editor), Tax Reform Immediately (National Director), The Foundation for Economic Education (Editor of The Freeman), and The Institute for Policy Innovation (President). He served as Legislative Assistant (1976, 1979-1981) and Chief of Staff (1981-1985) to a Member of Congress from Texas, Dr. Ron Paul.

In 1977 Dr. Robbins founded a Christian think tank, The Trinity Foundation, and under his direction The Foundation has published 75 books, 180 lectures, and 275 essays; hosted conferences and seminars in several states; and published a monthly newsletter for 29 years.

Dr. Robbins has written several books, hundreds of essays, and has lectured or taught at several institutions of higher education, including Harvard University, the University of Colorado, the University of Texas, Biola University, College of the Southwest, Western Reformed Seminary, and Chesapeake Seminary. He is a member of two academic societies, the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society.

Dr. John W. Robbins, 59, of Unicoi, passed away on August 14, 2008, at his residence.

In the meantime your response to his theological argument remains to be offered.

Well again I did read the book and I didn’t get a different feel, in fact I felt his error through and through.

I didn’t. And I have never talked to anyone who did. There are some issues I have with it, as I recall. But by and large, the thesis of the book is good, I think … that we must live according to God’s promises. We fight all sorts of temptations with God’s promises of better satisfaction.

Yes, I remember going to a link you posted at the old SI (I believe it was one of two web pages of yours under your member info) where you had at least one Piper so I understand what influences your position.

Yes, the Pleasures of God was very helpful to me and that was the book that was listed. The Supremacy of God in Preaching was also notable. (I had forgotten that one earlier.) Other than that, not much. I listen to him preach on occasion. I skip most of his blog postings, and haven’t read a book by Piper in quite a while probably since “When the Darkness will Not Lift.”

Your ad hominem attack against the integrity of John Robbins stands as a testimony to your inability to respond to the substance of his argument.

I didn’t make an ad hominem attack against him. And I didn’t even read his argument, much less attempt to respond to it. I don’t care one way or the other. Piper is not a big deal to me, and John Robbins certainly isn’t.

My understand is that Robbins dealt with people like Van Til in a way that was not entirely on the up and up. He cherry picked some quotes and didn’t fairly represent them. That’s not ad hominem. It has nothing to do with his person. It has to do with his method, and my limited understanding of it.

Again, I don’t really care about Robbins or Piper. So I think you are misunderstanding me and reading more into my comments than is there. I simply was not impressed by Robbins, and someone that I talked to about him commented on his tactics being less than upfront. My point was that a third hand quote was not a reliable way to critique something. If you have problems with Future Grace (or anything else) that’s fine with me. I don’t care. I was simply interested if you had actually read it.

Your casual dismissal of a man whose work of which you admit you have read a “limited” amount and your willingness to cast him as “not all that trustworthy” is more than disappointing, it’s discrediting.

It wasn’t intended to get me credit. I said I read a limited amount and was not impressed. If I read more, perhaps I would think differently. But again, I don’t really care. I get the Trinity Foundation newsletter and glance at it, read a bit if it is interesting to me, and then pitch it. I know nothing about it other than that. I said my knowledge was “limited” in order to indicate that I was not making a dogmatic statement based on a lot of research.

Here is his biography, maybe Larry, you should do some research on Robbins and discuss with men that are familiar with him, his trustworthiness before you feel so bold as to impugn his integrity:

Why? I don’t care. It just doesn’t interest me or bother. If someone likes him, fine. If they don’t, fine. I just don’t care.

In the meantime your response to his theological argument remains to be offered.

As it most likely will until Jesus returns. I have no intention to read his theological argument, much less respond to it. Again, because I don’t care. It just isn’t something I am interested in.

Seriously Alex, I could not be less interested in Robbins or Piper’s dual justification theory at this point. It is so far from my radar that were it not for this thread, I would never be thinking about it right now. My point was about your misrepresentation of Piper’s original argument, which is still the point. No where that I can see did he claim any sort of special revelation. And when I asked you to show it, you did not. I pointed out his exact words … that he was venturing an interpretation. If you look up those two words, you will see that “special revelation” does not fit well with either. He also called it a conclusion based on a series of verses. That doesn’t sound to me like a claim of special revelation.

As an aside, you are coming across pretty brusquely to those who disagree with you. I seriuosly am not bothered by it, but perhaps it is something you could consider. Perhaps you don’t intend to, but that is how it comes across. I know from experience how easy that is to do, so I would encourage you to perhaps dial it down a bit before accusing people of not doing things that they never intended to do (i.e., respond to an argument) or offering an opinion about someone that you disagree with (e.g., John Robbins, John Piper). You might be wrong on all of this. I am not sure what your credentials are to be as dogmatic as you are being, but I must confess that I am not persuaded by your arguments.