John Piper: Salvation Not 'A Decision'

[Jay C.]

[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 .

I never said I was going to “stop posting” I said I felt unsafe interacting with you, there is a distinction. But I believe this volatile and/or mercurial post by you illustrates just why I have determined that you are not a safe participant for me. I have made no personal comments about anyone here and that accusation requires evidence which you did not cite.

Now, let’s move back to the topic please and any remaining concerns you have about me I am requesting you place them in a PM so as to respect the intent of the thread and the needs of other participants who do not give a lick about this and would rather stay on topic. Thanks.

You continue to misunderstand the purpose of PMs.

My point was that it’s pretty hypocritical for you to complain about ‘unsafe posting environments’ and then attack others in your very next post. If you have a problem with me or my posts, talk to Aaron or Jim…I’ll even flag them for you.

I don’t have a problem with you Jay, I simply find you unsafe on this thread, end of story. The problem is solved by not dialoging with you on this thread, hopefully other threads will not produce the same results. This reply out of courtesy in addressing your misunderstanding. Nevertheless, all the best to you.

[Alex Guggenheim] I don’t have a problem with you Jay, I simply find you unsafe on this thread, end of story. The problem is solved by not dialoging with you on this thread, hopefully other threads will not produce the same results. This reply out of courtesy in addressing your misunderstanding. Nevertheless, all the best to you.

“Unsafe”? What does that even mean? Your physical safety is threatened by Jay’s post?

[Ed Vasicek] Alex said:

this is a prime example of one of John Piper’s characteristics, taking what is plain and confabulating it. We do make a decision when we believe the gospel and to say other wise is simply an attack on the prima facie of Scripture. No, our decision is not all that is involved but we still do make a decision and Mr. Piper is wrong, once again.

I think you have a point, Alex. We do make a decision, but God coaxes us and enables us to make that decision.

The statement below, though, is a better example of making the simple confusing. Instead of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (a simple idea), he complicates it with a sort of emotional, nebulous, unmeasurable idea. Did I really find satisfaction in all that Jesus is when I turned to him in faith? Or did I merely sense my guilt and lostness before a holy God, understand that Jesus died and rose for me, and was drawn to trust in him alone and to turn away from my sin to him? That’s how I describe it. Simple. Piper does confuse (and emotionalize) the simple.

“Believing in Jesus is a soul coming to Jesus to be satisfied in all that he is. That is my definition of faith on the basis of John 6:35. This is not…a decision,” he said.

Piper gave his definition of salvation, explaining one concept in three different ways. He said that saving faith is “Seeing and savoring Jesus, being satisfied with all that God is for us in Jesus, and trusting Jesus,” and that those three things are “equivalent realities.”

Although the Psalms and other portions talk about finding satisfaction in God, that is not the crux of salvation.

It is not in making the Gospel more complex that we can prevent tares from growing around the wheat. The tares ARE going to be there. Let’s expect what Jesus said rather than trying to preclude it.

Good grief, I know people who are fruitful strong Christians, tried and true, who were saved with the defective “ask Jesus into your heart” message. If it is even close, the elect will make the transaction.

Let’s ask Jesus if it is true that we decide to follow Him, that is to say, if it is true that we actually CHOSE Him?

John 15:16 “You did NOT choose Me, but I chose you.”
John 15:19 “I chose you out of this world.”
Eph. 1:4 “He chose US in Him before the foundation of the world.”

Not one of the texts mentioned in the quote actually teaches explicity or even implicity that we chose or decide for God. The question here regards the determining factor in salvation. Is that determining factor the result of a “Decision for Jesus,” or is God choosing the antecedent to man’s decision. The decision for Christ is nothing more than the outward and visible sign that God has performed the work of regeneration in a person’s heart, assuming the decision is real. Decision is righlty placed under conversion. Yet, that decision cannot be verified, except over time. For many will come to Him and claim they know Him, but they lie. The gospel does not call upon men to make a decision for Jesus. How could an unregenerate, God-hating mind, filled with iniquity and blind to the truth ever arrive at a decision to adhere to that which it hates? I’m just saying.

After reading/watching JohnBrian’s suggested links, and digesting the above post by the good doctor edingess, I have come to a conclusion. Actually, to state things more accurately, I should say that I have come to a realization.

Decisionalism is Calvin-speak for anything that does not absolutely affirm pre-conversion regeneration.

I’m liking it! It simplifies things. You are either a Calvinist, or you are a decisionalist. And since decisionalism is equivalent to baptismal regeneration, which is equivalent to Judaism, which is equivalent to heresy, you are either a Calvinist or a heretic.

Being an anti-decisionalist Calvinist allows you to say the most inane things and pass them off as the Gospel, such as “Believing in Jesus is a soul coming to Jesus to be satisfied in all that he is. That is my definition of faith on the basis of John 6:35. This is not…a decision…[saving faith is] Seeing and savoring Jesus, being satisfied with all that God is for us in Jesus, and trusting Jesus…[those three things are] equivalent realities…,” and not be saddled with the heretic label.

But, if you confront one to wash away their sins by calling on the name of the Lord right now, as Ananias did with Saul/Paul (Acts 22:16) or implore one to immediately believe as Paul did with Agrippa (Acts 26:27-29) then you are labeled decisionalist.

Just think how much time and bandwidth we would have saved if someone had just stated immediately to my question (post #41) with “if you are not a Calvinist you are a decisionalist.” And it sounds so much better than Ariminian, Pelagian, or, heaven forbid, Synergist.

Lee, I disagree with decisionalism as I and others described it. Those committed to regeneration prior to faith see everything else as some kind of graceless option. Their loss in not understanding reality.

The “born again” experience is either the result of a person’s “decision” or a person’s “decision” is the result of being “born again.” If Jesus did not mean that we have not chosen Him, then what exactly did He mean when he said we have not chosen him?

Decisionalism, in my opinion devalues to work of the atonement, depreciates the nature of God, and exalts man. Oh, almost forgot, it’s view of sin is far too mild.

Yes, edingess, that is pretty standard reformed talk for views not committed to reformed logic.

Salvation is not devoid of God’s choice to save, nor man’s repentance and faith. Trying to wedge the two is weak.

Edingess-

3 Questions for you:

When Jesus asked the disciples to come and follow Him, did He give them any choice in the matter?

And when Jesus refers to Jerusalem as people who would not come to Him, what did He mean?

Anyd how do you interpret the whosoever will may come passages?

[Jay C.] Edingess-

3 Questions for you:

When Jesus asked the disciples to come and follow Him, did He give them any choice in the matter?

And when Jesus refers to Jerusalem as people who would not come to Him, what did He mean?

Anyd how do you interpret the whosoever will may come passages?

Of course they had a choice in the matter. Calvinism repudiates coercion of any kind. Their choice stood logically after God’s, which means that technically and actually, their being disciples was the direct result of the choice of Christ Himself. After all, the Greek in John 15:16,19 is in the emphatic construction. If I were to adopt the Arminian view, it would leave Judas in a position of possibly not betraying Christ and frustrating the plan of God. Such a view is nowhere taught in Scripture and is foreign to historic Christian orthodoxy, regardless of its prevalence in various churches today. Are you implying that the existence of the Church and the fulfillment of various OT prophecies surrounding the eschatological nature of the Christ event depended entirely on the free choice of men? The Scripture nowhere provides a basis for this sort of reasoning. It is entirely alien to the text.

When Jesus referred to Jerusalem as people who would not come to Him, he meant that they would not come to Him. Calvinism does not teach that men do not decide to reject God, choosing rather to worship and serve the creature instead of the Creator. It teaches just the opposite. All unregenerate men, left to themselves would NEVER choose to follow Christ. That choice is only made after God regenerates the heart, opens the eyes, reforms man’s reasoning, and then, and only then, men are converted. Regeneration precedes conversion, which is where the choice to submit to Christ takes place. I hope that makes sense. Men are unwilling and unable to come to God and even cooperate with God in the work of regeneration. They are dead. However, as God regenerates the heart, man’s eyes open, his mind is renewed, and his will follows. As Edwards says, and I paraphrase, the will does what the mind thinks is best.

There are no whosoever will “may” come passages. There are “whosoever will” passages (in the KJV), but none of them imply that which you seem to think they do. It was Pelagius who introduced the wicked error that “ought” implied “ability.” The Church recognize him for the heretic that he was. What exasperates me more than anything is those men who teach the exact same doctrine of Pelagius and Arminius but then take offense when this truth is pointed out to them. You may be very glad to wear the cloak of Arminius and of Pelagius, I do not know. But it is certainly this sort of doctrine you, at a minimum, seem to posit based on your questions.

To be fair, your questions may be mere inquiries and mean nothing more. If that is the case, then I hope my answer was helpful. On the other hand, if your questions are more akin to the challenge/riposte brand, then let us proceed to push the discussion forward.

If I were to adopt the Arminian view, it would leave Judas in a position of possibly not betraying Christ and frustrating the plan of God.

Egingess, I am not arminian, but this is factually incorrect. The classic arminian position affirms the complete foreknowledge of God. Being that they affirm that, then there really was no “chance” that Judas could betray Christ. The future was set. I hope that helps you sort some of this out.

James, I’m just curious. If you reject five-point Calvinism, why do you use a portrait of John Bunyan as your logo? He was, as I’m sure you realize, a strong five point Calvinist.

[Lee in post 81] I’m liking it! It simplifies things. You are either a Calvinist, or you are a decisionalist. And since decisionalism is equivalent to baptismal regeneration, which is equivalent to Judaism, which is equivalent to heresy, you are either a Calvinist or a heretic.

See how easy that was! (do I need to add a smiley or is the exclamation mark enough)

[edginess in post 86] It was Pelagius who introduced the wicked error that “ought” implied “ability.”

And the beloved (by Synergists) Charles G Finney shows his Pelagianism in his sermon http://www.gospeltruth.net/1836SOIS/01sois_sinners_bound.htm Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts

[Finney] It is a dictate of reason, of conscience, of common sense, and of our natural sense of justice, that if God require of us the performance of any duty or act, he is bound in justice to give us power to obey; i.e. he must give us the faculties and strength to perform the act. But if justice require this, why call it a gracious ability. Natural ability to do our duty cannot be a gracious ability. To call it so, is to confound grace and justice as meaning the same thing. The sin of disobedience then must lie, not in his having broken the law of God, but solely in his not having complied with the strivings of the Spirit. Accordingly the definition of sin should be, upon these principles, not that “sin is a transgression of the law,” but that it consists in not yielding to the influence of the Spirit.

[edginess] Regeneration precedes conversion, which is where the choice to submit to Christ takes place.

Here is a http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-regeneration-precedes-faith] Regeneration Precedes Faith thread.