John Piper: Salvation Not 'A Decision'

[JohnBrian]

[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)

And with the new simplicity abounding I had an almost unconquerable urge to go through edingess’s last post and correct his identifications of Arminian, Pelagian, and synergist with a strike-through and put in “decisionalist” just so we could stay on topic.

But I truly love you guys—you’re as predictable as sunrise.

[James K]

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.

Are you acquainted with the Jesuits and Dominicans controversy over this very issue which resulted in the heresy of molinism? A heresy brought on by an attempt on the part of committed Arminians to harmonize divine foreknowledge with the most cherished doctrine of free will. William Lane Craig has made this false notion very popular today. Van Til often said that Arminians very often DO better than they believe. I think he was right.

I hold to a compatibilist view of freedom, which is the standard Calvinist position. This view harmonizes God’s foreknowledge with human freedom. Based on the totality of what Scripture teaches about God, man, sin, reality, Christ, and the atonement, I see no other plausible alternatives. The intense desire to preserve libertarian freedom has produced a plethora of false doctrine, open theism and process theology among them. At any rate, no Arminian I know has ever been able to exegete all thet texts that teach a total depravity of the human person. William Lane Craig goes so far as to doubt there is such a thing as the sensus divinitatis. How could a scholar like Craig read Romans 1 and doubt such a clear doctrine of Scripture? Could it be because Craig’s entire empire and reputation are threatened by the truth of such a doctrine? Perhaps. That unregenerate men know that God is and that they all suppress this knowledge because of their depraved condition is undeniable in my opinion. This makes synergism or any form of salvation other than monergism ipso facto false. Unbelievers do not make a decision to be a follower of Christ. By the time we decide to be a follower, we are already possessed by God’s gracious gift of faith, having been regenerated by His glorious power.

Although I understand what 5pt calvinism tries to accomplish, John Bunyan was much more than just another 5pter. I like John MacArthur as well. Bunyan’s writings demonstrate that New Covenant theology isn’t some new movement, but what Christians have been preaching since the apostolic times. I affirm NCT with pretrib/premill eschatology.

True. John Bunyan was much more than a five-pointer. True again, so is MacArthur. But both are five point Calvinists. Any Calvinist who is a serious Bible student/teacher is much, much more than a five-pointer. But that in no way diminishes their embrace of the Doctrines of Grace.

If men like Bunyan believed and taught them, why the disrespect for those on this thread who believe them? (“you guys are so predictacle” etc.) It seems strange that you would identify yourself with a Five point Calvinist like Bunyan, and yet disrespect those who believe and teach today what he taught in his day. Just saying.

GN Barkman, you will not find where I make any remarks of Calvinism on this thread that are negative. Further, I do not put 5pt calvinism as a theological priority as to whether or not a person is worth listening to. John Bunyan, a calvinist, also suffered at the hands of those who embraced calvinism.

edingess,

Are you acquainted with the Jesuits and Dominicans controversy over this very issue which resulted in the heresy of molinism? A heresy brought on by an attempt on the part of committed Arminians to harmonize divine foreknowledge with the most cherished doctrine of free will. William Lane Craig has made this false notion very popular today. Van Til often said that Arminians very often DO better than they believe. I think he was right.

Strangely enough, I don’t care what catholics argue about and what they determine is heresy. I further find it odd when evangelicals do care.

I don’t know William Lane Craig. I have never met him. I have read his apologetics book (because it was a school textbook) and recently the 4 perspectives book that deals with sovereignty.

In addition, Van Til concluded that double predestination was biblical. Is that what you believe? I doubt it because you are a self described compatibilist. So you actually reject both Craig and Van Til. Yet you quote Van Til as an authority over against Arminians, which again, I am not and reject.

I hold to a compatibilist view of freedom, which is the standard Calvinist position.

I have a lot of respect for compatibilists. In fact, the vast majority of theologians I like are that. It is not the standard calvinist position though. If you read the Van Til types, you will see them say that people like you are essentially arminian. Strange huh? Calvinist crime: saying or doing anything that might lead someone to think you are arminian. Calvinist on calvinist crime is what it is.

This view harmonizes God’s foreknowledge with human freedom.

Well, it makes attempts at it. How do you explain the origin of sin? Be careful on this, cuz I got a quote from a very influential, “standard” calvinists who admit he doesn’t know the answer.

Unfortunately, many who are taught compatibilism simply assume that everyone else must be some form of quack or heretic because truth must be found singularly in compatibilism. This is not meant to insult compatibilism, but its attempts to harmonize Sovereignty and responsibility are good, but need to do more work.

Edingess,

We ran http://sharperiron.org/comment/32683#comment-32683] an article by the Society of Arminians awhile ago that proved to be very helpful in articulating what it is the standard classical Arminian view. I think it would be of interest for you; I have found that their view is the best and most Scriptural view and explanation after several years of studying and reading Calvinist literature.

I find that that a lot of 3 or 4 point Calvinists would actually agree with the classical Arminian view, which is what I believe.

[edingess] 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?

The passage you are referring to comes from a context of the Last Supper where our Lord is with his Apostles. While he is giving them some specific teachings and instructions, the context, again, is Jesus just with the Apostles. This reference, in its context, is a reference to his choosing them to be the Apostles, it is not about salvation, especially in light of Judas’ being present.

Good answer, Alex…thanks for addressing that before I could.

A link to this article on http://www.ligonier.org/blog/john-316/ John 3:16 from R C Sproul showed up in my twitter feed this morning.

The argument used by non-Reformed people is that the text teaches that everybody in the world has it in their power to accept or reject Christ. A careful look at the text reveals, however, that it teaches nothing of the kind. What the text teaches is that everyone who believes in Christ will be saved. Whoever does A (believes) will receive B (everlasting life). The text says nothing, absolutely nothing, about who will ever believe. It says nothing about fallen man’s natural moral ability. Reformed people and non-Reformed people both heartily agree that all who believe will be saved. They heartily disagree about who has the ability to believe.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[edingess] 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?

The passage you are referring to comes from a context of the Last Supper where our Lord is with his Apostles. While he is giving them some specific teachings and instructions, the context, again, is Jesus just with the Apostles. This reference, in its context, is a reference to his choosing them to be the Apostles, it is not about salvation, especially in light of Judas’ being present.

That is an interesting and not uncommon response. So it is your contention that they chose Jesus for salvation and He chose them to be disciples? How does this cohere with free will? Even if your point were correct and I do not think it is, how could Jesus ever say, within the framework of “free-will” theology that the disciples did not choose Him? But He did. Jesus emphatically said, I CHOSE YOU! You did not choose me. In addition, in v. 19 Jesus said I chose you “out of the world.” This is clearly relating to election into the Christian community. Whoever Jesus chose to be disciples, he chose from the beginning. Since this is the case, He must have also chose them to salvation because only those who have been chosen for salvation can be chosen to hold any office in the Church. Your view seems a tad inconsistent. I suppose you could be contending that Jesus’ selection of these men totally depended on their free choice to “make a decision” to follow Jesus. In addition, Jesus DID choose Judas, for He said Himself, have not I chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil? He said this outside of the context of the upper room discourse and squarely in the context of the discourse He gave on why some believe and some don’t. Those who believe are those whom the Father gives to the Son. God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. (John 6)

[James K] GN Barkman, you will not find where I make any remarks of Calvinism on this thread that are negative. Further, I do not put 5pt calvinism as a theological priority as to whether or not a person is worth listening to. John Bunyan, a calvinist, also suffered at the hands of those who embraced calvinism.

The reconciliation of libertarian freedom with divine foreknowledge is not an insignificant issue. A study of the roots of Arminian theology clearly shows it relationship with Catholic theology. Arminian theology has much in common with the Catholic views of the nature of God, man, sin, and salvation. This has been unsuccessfully denied by “evangelical” Arminians repeatedly.
Concerning the order of decrees, I would hold that the decree to create is logically prior to the decree to permit the fall, also known as infralapsarianism.

Concerning compatibilism, I could not disagree with you more. My compatibilist view does not soften my commitment to election-reprobation in the slightest. The difference is that election is unconditional, not based upon any merit in man or his deeds. Reprobation on the other hand is conditioned on demerit. Nevertheless, God elects and reprobates from eternity past. In other words, God’s activity in election is distinct from his activity in reprobation. While God deliberately places a heart of flesh in fallen men when He regenerates them, He did not place a heart of stone in Adam prior to the fall. It is true that not all Calvinists agree that freedom and sovereignty can be harmonized. I remain sympathetic to that view and continue to ponder these wonders as part of God’s glorious mystery.

Dr. Oliphint says, “It should be noted, first, that the notion of free will itself is denied by no orthodox theology.” Of course he goes on to point out that it depends on what one means by “freedom.” Again, Oliphint says, “God’s providence both carries out the details of that decree and establishes the contingency and freedom as secondary causes, that take place in this world according to that decree.” This has been the standard response to Arminian theology for decades. [Reasons for Faith, Chapter on Reformed Freedom] At last check, Dr. Oliphint is a reformed theologian, teaching apologetics at Westminster.

Calvin writes, “But what for us seems a contingency, faith recognizes to have been a secret impulse from God. But what God has determined must necessarily so take place, even though it is neither unconditionally, nor of its own peculiar nature, necessary.” [Institutes I.XVI.9]
By original sin I think you mean the event of the fall of Adam. How did it come about that a perfect man fell into sin. Exactly how God brought about the fall remains a mystery. That God had decreed and foreknown the fall cannot be denied. That Adam was not coerced by God or tempted by God to sin in any way whatever cannot be denied. That Adam enjoyed the freedom to choose between good and evil cannot be denied. The way out is seen in a proper understanding of hypothetical necessary. For that you should read Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology. His treatment on the subject probably remains the best. We maintain these truths because they are what Scripture clearly reveals to us.

edingess,

Exactly how God brought about the fall remains a mystery.

You should not have to recommend me a bunch of writers who also do not know. Can we not look into the scriptures themselves? Many compatibilists agree with what you have said here. Let me rephrase the question for the sake of clarity:

1. Is God or man the first cause in the sin of Adam?

The answer is surprisingly easy, but systems tend to frown on those who question their establishment.

As to you being arminianlike, that would be what other calvinists would say to you for being a compatibilist. I do not say that. I just find the calvinism on calvinism crimes rather amusing.

the relevant articles of New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1833 lately?
If not here they are:

Of the Way of Salvation. We believe that the salvation of sinners is wholly of grace[19] , through the mediatorial offices of the Son of God[20]; who by the appointment of the Father, freely took upon him our nature, yet without sin[21]; honored the divine law by his personal obedience[22] , and by his death made a full atonement for our sins[23]; that having risen from the death, he is now enthroned in heaven[24]; and uniting in his wonderful person the tenderest sympathies with divine perfections, he is every way qualified to be a suitable, a compassionate, and an all-sufficient Saviour[25].

Of Justification. We believe that the great gospel blessing which Christ[26] secures to such as believe in him is Justification[27]; that Justification includes the pardon of sin[28] , and the promise of eternal life on principles of righteousness[29]; that it is bestowed, not in consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but solely through faith in the Redeemer’s blood[30]; by virtue of which faith his perfect righteousness is freely imputed to us of God[31]; that it brings us into a state of most blessed peace and favor with God, and secures every other blessing needful for time and eternity[32].

Of the Freeness of Salvation. We believe that the blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel[33]; that it is the immediate duty of all to accept them by a cordial, penitent, and obedient faith[34]; and that nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth but his own inherent depravity and voluntary rejection of the gospel[35]; which rejection involves him in an aggravated condemnation[36].

Of Grace in Regeneration. We believe that, in order to be saved, sinners must be regenerated, or born again[37]; that regeneration consists in giving a holy disposition to the mind[38]; that it is effected in a manner above our comprehension by the power of the Holy Spirit, in connection with divine truth[39] , so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the gospel[40]; and that its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance, and faith, and newness of life[41].

Of Repentance and Faith. We believe that Repentance and Faith are sacred duties, and also inseparable graces, wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God[42]; whereby being deeply convinced of our guilt, danger, and helplessness, and of the way of salvation by Christ[43] , we turn to God with unfeigned contrition, confession, and supplication for mercy[44]; at the same time heartily receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as our Prophet, Priest, and King, and relying on him alone as the only and all-sufficient Saviour[45].

Of God’s Purpose of Grace. We believe that Election is the eternal purpose of God, according to which he graciously regenerates, sanctifies, and saves sinners[46]; that being perfectly consistent with the free agency of man, it comprehends all the means in connection with the end[47]; that it is a most glorious display of God’s sovereign goodness, being infinitely free, wise, holy, and unchangeable[48]; that it utterly excludes boasting, and promotes humility, love, prayer, praise, trust in God, and active imitation of his free mercy[49]; that it encourages the use of means in the highest degree[50]; that it may be ascertained by its effects in all who truly believe the gospel[51]; that it is the foundation of Christian assurance[52]; and that to ascertain it with regard to ourselves demands and deserves the utmost diligence[53].

19. ↑ Eph. 2:5; Matt. 18:11; 1 John 4:10; 1 Cor. 3:5–7; Acts 15:11
20. ↑ John 3:16; 1:1–14; Heb. 4:14; 12:24
21. ↑ Phil. 2:6–7; Heb. 2:9, 14; 2 Cor. 5:21
22. ↑ Isa. 42:21; Phil. 2:8; Gal. 4:4–5; Rom. 3:21
23. ↑ Isa. 53:4–5; Matt. 20:28; Rom. 4:25; 3:21–26; 1 John 4:10; 2:2; 1 Cor. 15:1–3; Heb. 9:13–15
24. ↑ Heb. 1:8, 3; 8:1; Col. 3:1–4
25. ↑ Heb. 7:25; Col. 2:9; Heb. 2:18; 7:26; Psa. 89:19; Psa. 14
26. ↑ John 1:16; Eph. 3:8
27. ↑ Acts 13:39; Isa. 3:11–12; Rom. 8:1
28. ↑ Rom. 5:9; Zech. 13:1; Matt. 9:6; Acts 10:43
29. ↑ Rom. 5:17; Titus 3:5–6; 1 Pet. 3:7; 1 John 2:25; Rom. 5:21
30. ↑ Rom. 4:4–5; 5:21; 6:28; Phil. 3:7–9
31. ↑ Rom. 5:19; 3:24–26; 4:23–25; 1 John 2:12
32. ↑ Rom. 5:1–3, 11; 1 Cor. 1:30–31; Matt. 6:33; 1 Tim. 4:8
33. ↑ Isa. 55:1; Rev. 22:17; Luke 14:17
34. ↑ Rom. 16:26; Mark 1:15; Rom. 1:15–17
35. ↑ John 5:40; Matt. 23:37; Rom. 9:32; Prov. 1:24; Acts 13:46
36. ↑ John 3:19; Matt. 11:20; Luke 19:27; 2 Thess. 1:8
37. ↑ John 3:3, 6–7; 1 Cor. 1:14; Rev. 8:7–9; 21:27
38. ↑ 2 Cor. 5:17; Ezek. 36:26; Deut. 30:6; Rom. 2:28–29; 5:5; 1 John 4:7
39. ↑ Jo1hn 3:8; 1:13; James 1:16–18; 1 Cor. 1:30; Phil. 2:13
40. ↑ 1 Pet. 1:22–25; 1 John 5:1; Eph. 4:20–24; Col. 3:9–11
41. ↑ Eph. 5:9; Rom. 8:9; Gal. 5:16–23; Eph. 3:14–21; Matt. 3:8–10; 7:20; 1 John 5:4, 18
42. ↑ Mark 1:15; Acts 11:18; Eph. 2:8; 1 John 5:1
43. ↑ John 16:8; Acts 2:37–38; 16:30–31
44. ↑ Luke 18:13; 15:18–21; James 4:7–10; 2 Cor. 7:11; Rom. 10:12–13; Psa. 51
45. ↑ Rom. 10:9–11; Acts 3:22–23: Heb. 4:14; Psa. 2:6; Heb. 1:8; 8:25; 2 Tim. 1:12
46. ↑ 2 Tim. 1:8–9; Eph. 1:3–14; 1 Pet. 1:1–2; Rom. 11:5–6; John 15:15; 1 John 4:19; Hos. 12:9
47. ↑ 2 Thess. 2:13–14; Acts 13:48; John 10:16; Matt. 20:16; Acts 15:14
48. ↑ Exod. 33:18–19; Matt. 20:15; Eph. 1:11; Rom. 9:23–24: Jer. 31:3; Rom. 11:28–29; James 1:17–18; 2 Tim. 1:9; Rom. 11:32–36
49. ↑ 1 Cor. 4:7; 1:26–31; Rom. 3:27; 4:16; Col. 3:12; 1 Cor. 3:5–7; 15:10; 1 Pet. 5:10; Acts 1:24; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 2:9; Luke 18:7; John 15:16; Eph. 1:16; 1 Thess. 2:12
50. ↑ 2 Tim. 2:10; 1 Cor. 9:22; Rom. 8:28–30; John 6:37–40; 2 Pet. 1:10
51. ↑ 1 Thess. 1:4–10
52. ↑ Rom. 8:28–30; Isa. 42:16; Rom. 11:29
53. ↑ 2 Pet. 1:10–11; Phil. 3:12; Heb. 6:11

The source:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Baptist_Confession_of_Faith…

Personally, I suggest getting out your Hiscox’s New Directory and taking a look at pages 545 through 553. There are differences between what I’ve found on line and Hiscox.