John Piper: Salvation Not 'A Decision'

[Jay C.]

So Piper’s points are twofold-

1. People love stuff more than Jesus. That’s idolatry.
2. Christians who love stuff more than Jesus need to check their priorities.

Is that controversial?

No doubt everyone with objections are all just too stupid to see this is ALL Piper is asserting. Oy vey.

[Lee] Are we purposefully trying to muddy the waters?

The idolatry of Mormonism (faith plus works) is clearly delineated in Scripture.

The idolatry of Emergence (universalism [Rob Bell, et. al.] and other syncretizational tendencies) is clearly condemned in Scripture.

Every instance of true salvation in Scripture is accompanied by a decision of some sort, and the presentation of salvation calls for a decision of some sort—repent, believe, call, etc.

So what is your point?

My point is you are requiring the opponents of decisionalism to meet a burden you do not hold yourself to even in your response to me. Mormonism itself is not outlined, nor is emergence outlined. You require decisionalism to be outlined?

The objections of the opponents of decisionaliwm would parallel your statements above: Scripture clearly condemns the error(s) of decisionalism. James is a good place to start.

I do admit that this is somewhat peripheral to Piper’s specific statements in these articles, but I didn’t bring it up.

[Alex Guggenheim] No doubt everyone with objections are all just too stupid to see this is ALL Piper is asserting. Oy vey.

Alex,

This will probably be my last comment directed to you on this thread.

That article is a very, very basic summary of Piper’s Christian Hedonism; he is saying that we should seek to prioritize God above all things and then giving advice to other Christians on how to confront idolaters. That’s Scriptural. I’m not sure why you insist that he’s teaching some kind of aberrant doctrine, and was hoping that providing a very simple example would be helpful to you and the others here. It appears as though you’re more interested in attacking Piper than understanding what he’s saying, so there’s no point in weighing your criticism that Piper is “drifting further and further from the ranch.”

Lee,

The term decisionalism is another point of contention in the larger discussion regarding Calvanism and Arminianism. The issue comes down to control. This is the point John Brian was trying to make earlier. This is why monergists speak of irresistable grace and are more likely to refer to someone’s receiving Christ than accepting Christ.

[Chip Van Emmerik] Lee,

The term decisionalism is another point of contention in the larger discussion regarding Calvanism and Arminianism. The issue comes down to control. This is the point John Brian was trying to make earlier. This is why monergists speak of irresistable grace and are more likely to refer to someone’s receiving Christ than accepting Christ.

Is there an “official” definition of decisionalism or is it one of those things that means whatever you want it to mean whenever you are on the stump about something (like Pharisaism, legalism, and other)?

In reference to DavidO: My concern is definition. I must not have made that clear.

Mormonism is clearly defined so its antagonism to Scripture is clear to anyone who wishes to see.

Emergence is defined, though somewhat loosely, and its antagonism to Scripture is very discernible.

Not sure what the word games on these are about in comparison with decisionalism, which, to date, I’ve heard no cogent definition of. How would I expect to determine its agreement to Scripture or antagonism to Scripture if, when you ask 10 people for a definition you receive 11 possible answers?

Piper is against decisionalism and waxes eloquent on it (we think), and we have to spend 50 posts discussing it with nobody being sure what he is trying to communicate yet. Do you see my concern for a clear definition?

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Jay C.]
So Piper’s points are twofold-
1. People love stuff more than Jesus. That’s idolatry.
2. Christians who love stuff more than Jesus need to check their priorities.

Is that controversial?

No doubt everyone with objections are all just too stupid to see this is ALL Piper is asserting. Oy vey.

How about just answering the question? It’s a pretty good one.
In any case, it’s a real argument, and “I guess we’re all stupid, Oy vey” is not a real counterargument.

Personally, I think Jay’s observation speaks to the “shallow decision” sense of what Piper may have meant. I don’t see much point in speculating about what exactly he meant, though. The terms he used are regrettable, but who doesn’t overstate his/her own point once in a while? Sometimes we use hyperbole to emphasize differences between things and the hyperbolic statement doesn’t stand well on it’s own… only side by side with the thing it is responding to.

Some of Jesus’ statements are pretty odd if we take them out of context… (hate your father and mother, for example).

(I anticipate someone blowing a gasket… What? Now you’re comparing Piper to Jesus?! Of course. Every Christian ought to be very comparable to Jesus.)

Well when someone claims they are wasting time with me I am not the fool to chase them down I simply honor their attitude. As to the claiming Piper is simply asserting two points is prima facie wrong and needs no rebuttal but the objections already posted are its rebuttals since they rest in the more of what Piper said with which Jay did not interact in any substantial manner. And if these were simply Piper’s points and they can be reduced to these statements then why didn’t he just say this? Because he said much more. Attempting to reduce it avoids the substance of the objections. This is what is called minmizing in order to justify.

Alex, your article starts out with:

In a recent post, I mentioned theological reductionism. Christian hedonism is such an example. It basically reduces biblical teaching for the Christian to the pursuit of joy, which is self-centered and, at the very least, devalues the Biblical imperatives of Christian instruction regarding our training in righteousness. It is a gelded theology.

Dr. Piper is well known for the phrase, ‘God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.’ I’ve recently read a book of his entitled God is the Gospel, which continues the promotion of his ‘Christian’ hedonism.

Piper is very clear that the source of supreme happiness is God, and it is not wrong to seek supreme happiness since God Himself is that most Supreme Being. So “Christian Hedonism” isn’t about selfish desires to value something other than God - it’s a cooperation with God to fulfill His own purpose in Glorifying God. Piper is very clear in Desiring God that this is not a inherently wrong desire since God seeks His own Glory (see Chapter 1 - “The Happiness of God: Foundation for Christian Hedonism” at http://cdn.desiringgod.org/pdf/books_bdg/bdg.pdf)

If that’s wrong, then how does it err? Is Christianity about ‘training ourselves in righteousness’ or is it about God getting the Glory for everything he’s done?

Jay before I allow myself to continue am I to assume you no longer claim you are wasting your time and wish to pursue further dialog? I realize it may seem obvious but I am getting mixed signals and need clarity on the matter.

[Greg Long] I appreciate John Piper’s ministry in so many ways, and I don’t have it out for him nearly as much as Alex does, but I agree that Piper clouds this issue. The clear NT question of “What must I do to be saved?” is Repent and Believe. Sometimes repentance is emphasized (Lk. 5:32; Acts 2:37; 3:19; 5:31; 17:20; Rom. 2:4; 2 Cor. 7:10), sometimes faith/belief is emphasized (Jn. 3:16; Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:9; Eph. 2:8-9), and sometimes both are mentioned (Mk. 1:14-15; Acts 20:21; Heb. 6:1). It is never “Savor Jesus” or “Treasure Jesus” or “Desire Jesus” or any of the other words that he emphasizes so much.

I think Piper is arguing against decisionalism—basing one’s assurance of salvation on a decision made (praying a prayer, walking an aisle) rather than on biblical evidences of regeneration such as found in 1 John—and on that point I agree with him. But I wish he would focus more on biblical terminology when talking about salvation rather than his unique terminology.

Preach it, brother! Right on.

His terminology is not just unique, but so emotional. It is like so much gobbledegook we hear in the world. Sargento has a passion for cheese, etc.

As far as speaking against praying a prayer, etc., here’s the thing. The people who think they are saved and aren’t are very unlikely to examine themselves. The people who are truly saved are the ones most likely to examine themselves, IMO. So I do not think a tirade against easy believism, etc., is going to reach the right people anyway. It’s like Ann Landers said about slobs, “The slobs of this world don’t know they are slobs.” Same thing with the unregenerate who think they are regenerate. I am not saying that we should not warn them, we should. I am saying that warning them will rarely — if ever— correct the problem, IMO.

[Alex Guggenheim] Jay before I allow myself to continue am I to assume you no longer claim you are wasting your time and wish to pursue further dialog? I realize it may seem obvious but I am getting mixed signals and need clarity on the matter.

Kind of. You said that I wasn’t willing to interact (I think that was the term you used - not sure offhand) with the link you posted. I read some of it and found that it wasn’t representing Piper’s argument correctly, so I didn’t see any point in continuing to read it. I may weigh in on this thread some more, though, depending on what happens.

Thanks Jay. Until you are more emphatic in your confidence I will forgo interacting with your posts for the sake of safety on my part as well. I don’ t want to assume anything in this case. But as a courtesy I will say that your post befote this pertaining to CH does not represent the common articulation of the primary objections

Glad I clicked on the new comments here. So much more has been offered to the discussion.

[James K] Glad I clicked on the new comments here. So much more has been offered to the discussion.

Since you’re glad you jumped back in, jump to #50 and provide a concise definition of “decisionalism” for me so I will know what Piper was referencing with his verbal fog.

I thought I did in Post #19.