John Piper: Salvation Not 'A Decision'

[James K] I thought I did in Post #19.

So, following your illustration, a guy who decides to go to the store, but doesn’t go to the store, is likely to think that he went to the store?

Or, if a guy decides to quit smoking but doesn’t stop smoking he will likely be confused for the rest of his life thinking he has actually quit smoking?

Personally, I’m not thinking there is a lot of this going on.

I can’t help but assume that my above proffered illustrations have totally missed the thrust of decisionalism. But I obviously can’t see the forest for the trees, so work with me here in providing a concise definition so I can apply it properly theologically and in any other appropriate manner.

Lee, I was merely stating that deciding to do something is not alone proof that it actually happened. The person who decided to believe in Christ 10 years ago may or may not have actually. The decision is not proof of conversion. That is what Piper is rightly critical of.

What is proof of life, that you were born or that you are breathing?

Deciding to sign a card, walk an isle, or lots of other religiosity does not prove life.

[James K] Lee, I was merely stating that deciding to do something is not alone proof that it actually happened. The person who decided to believe in Christ 10 years ago may or may not have actually. The decision is not proof of conversion. That is what Piper is rightly critical of.

What is proof of life, that you were born or that you are breathing?

Deciding to sign a card, walk an isle, or lots of other religiosity does not prove life.

So noted.

But that does not seem to be the matter of discussion. I don’t know a single minister in any camp that would assume that because a person filled out a decision card that they were automatically saved.

The term being bandied about is decisionalism, and it is being referenced much in the same way that Judaism or some other heretical Gospel-plus concept is referenced.

Obviously it is a hot button issue. Enough so that many are willing for a theologian in a high-profile position such as Piper to bring in a whole new nomenclature regarding the Gospel of salvation, terminology and identification which no one on this forum has ever considered as clearly communicated Gospel truth, and give it a free pass because it is supposedly expressive against this heretical decisionalism.

I want to be against heresy, and if decisionalism is heresy I want to know what it is so I can be against it. So again I ask—definition please!

http://youtu.be/Y4EsRuVFKO4] Decisional Regeneration on YouTube - 9 minutes

http://www.eternalsecurity.us/decisional_regeneration.htm Decisional Regeneration by Jeff Paton - an article

http://timmybrister.com/2007/10/25/the-pelagian-system-of-decisional-re…] The Pelagian System of Decisional Regeneration Detrimental to Evangelism, Says Packer from Timmy Brister’s blog

Lee - I think the ‘decisionalism’ thing is simply a way of saying that some preachers push for ‘decisions’ for Jesus without adequately explaining salvation. Those people who make decisions for Jesus may not actually be saved, simply because it’s some kind of logical agreement that “Jesus is Lord” without a change of heart/repentance. Think of Jack Hyles’ claim that 10,000 people were ‘saved’ through the ministry of FBC Hammond with little people actually coming to their church.

Am I explaining that correctly, James?

@Matthew Richards - where’s the video of Piper’s preaching? I’d like to see it if I can.

@Alex - I’m not sure why conversing with me is ‘unsafe’, but OK. Let me know if/when you would like to resume the discussion.

Jay

I thank you for the clarity so I believe it is safe for me to continue with you and look forward to the challenges.

[Jay C.] Lee - I think the ‘decisionalism’ thing is simply a way of saying that some preachers push for ‘decisions’ for Jesus without adequately explaining salvation….

So help me out with some for-instances……

For instance, if a minister makes a simple Gospel presentation (10 min. or so) and concludes with an invitation (“Would anyone like to come to Jesus now?”) would he be guilty of promoting the heretical decisionalism?

Or, for instance, a person meets the evangelist at the door following the Gospel message and informs him that they have decided to follow Christ, and the evangelist responds with “Have you called upon Christ for salvation [Rom. 10:13]?” or something similar, and upon affirmation welcomes that person to the household of faith, that evangelist is guilty of heretical decisionalism?

Obviously, I am still vague on the application.

[Lee]

[James K] Lee, I was merely stating that deciding to do something is not alone proof that it actually happened. The person who decided to believe in Christ 10 years ago may or may not have actually. The decision is not proof of conversion. That is what Piper is rightly critical of.

What is proof of life, that you were born or that you are breathing?

Deciding to sign a card, walk an isle, or lots of other religiosity does not prove life.

So noted.

But that does not seem to be the matter of discussion. I don’t know a single minister in any camp that would assume that because a person filled out a decision card that they were automatically saved.

Lee, I have known a LOT of pastors and evangelists who suggest that because a person prayed a prayer or walked an aisle or raised a hand, that they ARE saved—no doubts, no questions. Write the date in the front of your Bible, because you are now a child of God. There is no teaching on true biblical evidences of regeneration.

[Greg Long] Lee, I have known a LOT of pastors and evangelists who suggest that because a person prayed a prayer or walked an aisle or raised a hand, that they ARE saved—no doubts, no questions. Write the date in the front of your Bible, because you are now a child of God. There is no teaching on true biblical evidences of regeneration.

Then we obviously run in vastly different circles.

Now, care to jump in with a concise definition so I will recognize this phenomenon when it occurs?

[Greg Long]

[Lee]

[James K] Lee, I was merely stating that deciding to do something is not alone proof that it actually happened. The person who decided to believe in Christ 10 years ago may or may not have actually. The decision is not proof of conversion. That is what Piper is rightly critical of.

What is proof of life, that you were born or that you are breathing?

Deciding to sign a card, walk an isle, or lots of other religiosity does not prove life.

So noted.

But that does not seem to be the matter of discussion. I don’t know a single minister in any camp that would assume that because a person filled out a decision card that they were automatically saved.

Lee, I have known a LOT of pastors and evangelists who suggest that because a person prayed a prayer or walked an aisle or raised a hand, that they ARE saved—no doubts, no questions. Write the date in the front of your Bible, because you are now a child of God. There is no teaching on true biblical evidences of regeneration.

Nor, in these cases, is there ever any follow-up or later confrontation when the life being lived fails to show marks of conversion. The decisions is supposed to be evidence enough - even though this is not the teaching of Scripture.

[Lee]

[Greg Long] Lee, I have known a LOT of pastors and evangelists who suggest that because a person prayed a prayer or walked an aisle or raised a hand, that they ARE saved—no doubts, no questions. Write the date in the front of your Bible, because you are now a child of God. There is no teaching on true biblical evidences of regeneration.

Then we obviously run in vastly different circles.

Now, care to jump in with a concise definition so I will recognize this phenomenon when it occurs?

Lee, you’re a Masters’ Seminary guy, right? If so, then you probably haven’t seen this in your circles.

The emphasis with ‘decisionalism’ is almost completely external - the emphasis is on dates, places, times, people; there’s usually something along the lines of - you trusted Christ, so go put a stake in the ground with the date on it and then when you have doubts you can look at the stake and remember that’s where and when you got saved. (Yes, I have heard that specific line used myself.) You can also look for confusion as to what a person is saved from - decisionist preachers usually want people to be saved from Hell, not from the righteous wrath of God due to sin.

There is very little emphasis in ‘decisionist’ churches on current spiritual condition. Questions like “am I undergoing conviction for sin?” “Do I really love God and His Word and His People?”, “Am I growing in righteousness or manifesting the fruit of the Spirit?”, etc. This is why the Lordship salvation discussion became so huge - there were hundreds of people who were trusting in their decisions and not in Christ.

The book ” http://www.amazon.com/Revival-Revivalism-Iain-H-Murray/dp/0851516602/re…] Revival and Revivalism ” is pretty good, although I haven’t finished it, and that might be helpful to you as well in understanding this topic.

You sound like a very bright guy. While it is impossible to truly interpret a person’s tone in a post, yours do come across as a bit on the arrogant side. If I am wrong I truly apologize. If not, I would suggest:

Philippians 2:3-11
Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. …

A spirit of humility would go a long ways with fellow believers.

[ppayette] You sound like a very bright guy. While it is impossible to truly interpret a person’s tone in a post, yours do come across as a bit on the arrogant side. If I am wrong I truly apologize. If not, I would suggest:

Philippians 2:3-11
Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. …

A spirit of humility would go a long ways with fellow believers.

ppayette

Allow me to suggest you stay on topic and not bring personal comments into the thread, that is what PM’s (is the apostrophe correct here?) are for and I am sure you will now respect the protocol of SI and not pollute the thread with needless and unprofitable personal comments. BTW Yes you are wrong but don’t worry, I don’t wear my feelings on my sleeves so you are forgiven. :)

[Jay C.]
Lee, you’re a Masters’ Seminary guy, right? If so, then you probably haven’t seen this in your circles.

SWING!!! And a miss! :p

[Jay C.] The emphasis with ‘decisionalism’ is almost completely external - the emphasis is on dates, places, times, people; there’s usually something along the lines of - you trusted Christ, so go put a stake in the ground with the date on it and then when you have doubts you can look at the stake and remember that’s where and when you got saved. (Yes, I have heard that specific line used myself.) You can also look for confusion as to what a person is saved from - decisionist preachers usually want people to be saved from Hell, not from the righteous wrath of God due to sin.

There is very little emphasis in ‘decisionist’ churches on current spiritual condition. Questions like “am I undergoing conviction for sin?” “Do I really love God and His Word and His People?”, “Am I growing in righteousness or manifesting the fruit of the Spirit?”, etc. This is why the Lordship salvation discussion became so huge - there were hundreds of people who were trusting in their decisions and not in Christ.

The book ” http://www.amazon.com/Revival-Revivalism-Iain-H-Murray/dp/0851516602/re…] Revival and Revivalism ” is pretty good, although I haven’t finished it, and that might be helpful to you as well in understanding this topic.

What you’re providing here is a description of something you’ve observed, and not a definition. I agree that what you have described is unfortunate, and some minister somewhere has dropped the proverbial discipleship ball if it is as you say.

But you have neither defined nor described a heretical doctrine such as is intimated with the term “decisionalism” and is what is being allegedly decried in the most convoluted manner by the likes of Piper.

I think Peter makes a pretty good observation very similar to yours in II Peter 1 and 2.

In Chap 1 Peter describes those who are evidently not “undergoing conviction for sin;…love God and His Word and His people;…growing in righteousness or manifesting the fruit of the Spirit…” as those who are “…blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. “ IOW, this redeemed individual has no recollection of his redemption. Yet this is presented under inspiration without identification as possible heretical teaching. It is simply mentioning an observable, regrettable phenomenon.

In chap 2 Peter further identifies “just Lot” who he also describes as “…that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed [his] righteous soul from day to day with [their] unlawful deeds….” A quick study of Lot throughout Scripture pictures a man without a hint of a redemptive experience, but who was clearly justified and cleansed through faith in Christ at some point of his life.

Point being, Scripture obviously “allows” for the phenomenon you described, though it in no way promotes it. Clearly, one that is not “undergoing conviction for sin;…love God and His Word and His people;…growing in righteousness or manifesting the fruit of the Spirit…” will never have an assurance of relationship and is implored to “…give diligence to make your calling and election sure….” But that does not lessen the fact that the message of the Gospel is still primarily of a decisional nature—“repent ye, and believe the Gospel…[Mark 1:15] “.

[Alex Guggenheim] Allow me to suggest you stay on topic and not bring personal comments into the thread, that is what PM’s (is the apostrophe correct here?) are for and I am sure you will now respect the protocol of SI and not pollute the thread with needless and unprofitable personal comments. BTW Yes you are wrong but don’t worry, I don’t wear my feelings on my sleeves so you are forgiven. :)

That’s pretty rich, coming from a guy that said that he was going to stop posting because http://sharperiron.org/comment/39537#comment-39537] he didn’t feel safe interacting with me on this thread and who has repeatedly made ‘unprofitable personal comments’ on both Piper and several members in this particular thread.

You misunderstand the purpose for PMs. PMs are for private messages, not for complaints about behavior. If someone has a problems with another member or a particular post, they should contact one of the other mods or click on the ‘flag’ icon at the bottom of a post. If a person thinks that a mod or admin is out of line, they should contact Jim Peet or Aaron. If you want to read more on that, you can check out the http://sharperiron.org/sharperiron-forum-comment-policy] comment policy .