John Piper: Salvation Not 'A Decision'

[James K] 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.

Perhaps there are some Calvinists who would say this about the compatibilist viewpoint. So long as charity is not vacated in the discussion, I have no quips with it other than a strong disagreement. That is, a strong disagreement with such a characterization. My disagreement with the incompatibilist view remains sensitive. As to your question, I will provide you with the work of the Westminster Divines for they are far more capable than I in providing an answer to your most sincere inquiry. Enjoy!

1. God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, (Heb. 1:3) direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, (Dan. 4:34–35, Ps. 135:6, Acts 17:25–26,28) from the greatest even to the least, (Matt. 10:29–31) by His most wise and holy providence, (Prov. 15:3, Ps. 104:24, Ps. 145:17) according to His infallible foreknowledge, (Acts 15:18, Ps. 94:8–11) and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, (Eph. 1:11) to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy. (Isa. 63:14, Eph. 3:10, Rom. 9:17, Gen. 45:7, Ps. 145:7)
2. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; (Acts 2:23) yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. (Gen. 8:22, Jer. 31:35, Exod. 21:13, Deut. 19:5, I Kings 22:28, 34, Isa. 10:6–7)
3. God, in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means, (Acts 27:31, 44, Isa. 55:10–11) yet is free to work without, (Hos. 1:7, Matt. 4:4, Job 34:10) above, (Rom. 9:19–21) and against them, (2 Kings 6:6, Dan. 3:27) at His pleasure.
4. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; (Rom. 11:32–34, 2 Sam. 24:1, 1 Chron. 21:1, 1 Kings 22:22–23, 1 Chron. 10:4, 13–14, 2 Sam. 16:10, Acts 2:23) and that not by a bare permission, (Acts 14:16) but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, (Ps. 76:10, 2 Kings 19:28) and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; (Gen. 50:20, Isa. 10:6–7, 12) yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin. (James 1:13–14, 17, 1 John 2:16, Ps. 50:21)
5. The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave, for a season, His own children to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; (2 Chron. 32:25–26, 31, 2 Sam. 24:1) and, to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon Himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends. (2 Cor. 12:7–9, Ps. 73, Ps. 77:1, 10, 12, Mark 14:66–72, John 21:15–17)
6. As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous Judge, for former sins, doth blind and harden, (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28, Rom. 11:7–8) from them He not only withholdeth His grace whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts; (Deut. 29:4) but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which they had, (Matt. 13:12, Matt. 25:29) and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption make occasion of sin; (Deut. 2:30, 2 Kings 8:12–13) and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, (Ps. 81:11–12, 2 Thess. 2:10–12) whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softening of others. (Exod. 7:3, Exod. 8:15, 32, 2 Cor. 2:15–16, Isa. 8:14, 1 Pet. 2:7–8, Isa. 6:9–10, Acts 28:26–27)
7. As the providence of God doth, in general, reach to all creatures; so,after a most special manner, it taketh care of His Church, and disposeth all things to the good thereof. (1 Tim. 4:10, Amos 9:8–9, Rom. 8:28, Isa. 43:3–5, 14) The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

I hope this helps.

edingess, earlier you were willing to call a contrary view heresy and have inadequately represented classical arminianism (again which I am not). I ask a simple question that you ducked and instead posted the WCF. I simply do not care what the WCF says on this issue. Nowhere in all that was an answer given to my question. If you don’t know the answer to such a simple question, how is it you are so able to condemn others?

[edingess]

[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)

My contention is only with the use of the passage being used as a proof text regarding who makes what choice in salvation and that this passage, being a context of Christ choosing Apostleship does not qualify to speak to the issue of de isions and salvation since that is not its context. But as to the larger question I do not have time at this point to address it.

[edingess]

[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)

My contention is only with the use of the passage being used as a proof text regarding who makes what choice in salvation and that this passage, being a context of Christ choosing Apostleship does not qualify to speak to the issue of de isions and salvation since that is not its context. But as to the larger question I do not have time at this point to address it. But I will add that the Apostolic office does not pressume salvation and such a presumption must be proven though it may be assumed.

Alex, you are making a bold assumption and fail to prove what you can only assume. John 15 begins with the metaphor of vine and branches. Are we to assume that only the apostles were in view as the branches? When Jesus said the branches in Him will bear much fruit that he only had the apostles in mind? Do you not preach that Jesus calls us ALL friends, for He said this in the immediate context of the passage in question. Are only the 12 commanded to love one another? Does not the world hate all believers and not just apostles?

Your view that Jesus only had in mind the apostolic office, and not disciple is nowhere supported by the context of John 15. The language for God’s choosing appears repeatedly in the NT and the Calvinist understanding that Jesus is referring to choosing disciples to salvation of course is well supported by immediate context of John, the entire book of John, and the remaining corpus of NT Scripture. Repeatedly the NT says God chose us, called us to salvation in the Son. Nowhere in the NT does a writer discuss the fact that his audience “decided” to follow Jesus. Every time this aspect of salvation is touched upon in the NT, it is always, always seen as God’s activity by calling and choosing.

Your conclusion then is forced, eisegetical, and the direct result of your theological presuppositions. One could never read John 15 and understand Jesus meant apostles rather than general discipleship. Moreover, chosen to discipleship IS chosen to salvation. These cannot be anywhere separated in Scripture as the wicked error of evanglelical antinomianism commits.

E,

There is no assumption that the branches are only the Apostles but when he comes to the direct reference of the Lord choosing them and them not choosing him we have a specific history of the Apostolic choosing in the Gospels and now a context of the sequestered Apostles. I believe that weight gives the context. And again if this is about salvation then are you asserting Judas was saved? But we do know for certain, including Judas, that none of the Apostles chose Jesus as one for whom they would be an Apostle but Jesus chose them all to be Apostles, again including Judas who was present.

Judas had left the room by Jn 15 - he leaves in Jn 13.

On the other hand, Edingess, what do you do with these passages in the next chapter (Jn 16)?

“I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me. But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you.

“I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you…

[Jay C.] Judas had left the room by Jn 15 - he leaves in Jn 13.

On the other hand, Edingess, what do you do with these passages in the next chapter (Jn 16)?

“I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me. But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you.

“I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you…

I am not inferring that everything Jesus said in the Upper Room discourse can be applied to all believers as our Lord’s general command. Some of it can, some of it cannot. The G-H method helps us understand what can and what cannot. Even in the verses you mention we can deduce that this specific persecution must be applied to these men because of how particular the language is. If one reads the discourse normally, it seems rather easy to deduce what is specific and what is general. Secondly, concerning choosing, there is nothing in the text itself to limit Christ’s choice to these men specifically. What I am contending is that the room could have contained the 120 from Pentecost and Christ could make the same statement. The NT clearly treaches that God chose us in Him for salvation from the beginning of creation. Therefore, it is impossible that our “decision” would be relevant at all in God’s choosing us for salvation. The cause of our decision must be located in God’s regeneration of our hearts which has its purpose in God’s plan from the beginning to choose us to eternal life. The idea that unregenerate men can rightly understand a message that God’s own Word tells us they find scandalous and foolish is rediculous in my opinion. Unregerate men are sworn enemies of God in every way. In what sense would such a hostile creature stop being hostile? A radical change is necessary to move this creature from hostile to friendly! The creature itself is dead and cannot make such a change on its own.

[Alex Guggenheim] E,

There is no assumption that the branches are only the Apostles but when he comes to the direct reference of the Lord choosing them and them not choosing him we have a specific history of the Apostolic choosing in the Gospels and now a context of the sequestered Apostles. I believe that weight gives the context. And again if this is about salvation then are you asserting Judas was saved? But we do know for certain, including Judas, that none of the Apostles chose Jesus as one for whom they would be an Apostle but Jesus chose them all to be Apostles, again including Judas who was present.

It is impossible to hold to your view that man chooses God while holding to a biblically correct view of the doctrine of man. Your view of fallen man and of sin is much closer to Rome than it is to classic protestantism. This is unavoidable. Either fallen man is depraved, dead, and an enemy of Christ or he only sick, somewhat affected by sin, but still able to reason rightly about God and is somewhat neutral concerning the gospel. He only has to be shown by reason that the gospel is true and he will decide for Jesus! Rome thinks the latter, classic protestantism as laid down by reformed theology and Scripture asserts the former. What say you?

I ask this question: what is the greater good? Decision to submit to Christ as a disciple or the decision not to commit adultery or fornication? Decision to submit to Christ as a disciple or the decision not to lie? Decision to submit to Christ as a disciple or the dicision not to murder?

If the unregenerate CAN decide to submit to Christ as His disciple and WILL so, then Paul was wrong in Romans 8:6-8 when he said unregenerate men CAN’T and WON’T do anything that pleases God.

In addition, if men can perform the greatest good while in their unregenerate, sinful state, then they can certainly perform all the lessor goods of avoiding sexual immorality, lying, murder, etc. If this is true, in what sense are unregenerate men held in bondage to sin, dead, and blind, having their minds darkened by the god of this world?

In this theology, the difference between the regenerate and the unregenerate is flattened to nothing. The reduction of salvation to that of a decision detroys the miracle that is the new birth, for if men can do those things without the new birth, then what exactly does the new birth accomplish? Since salvation is nothing more than a decision, it cannot be accurately stated that there is something within the nature of man that must change. What must change in man’s nature? Since he can decide for Christ, his nature is adequately suited to the attainment of salvation. Decision is not a matter of will, but first a matter of intellect. And intellect is a matter of nature. If one can decide for Christ, then their intellect can be for Christ which means their nature can be for Christ even if not “born again.” Hence “born again” becomes flattened into nothing miraculous and merely a matter of human reason. This is not the gospel! This is something else!

Hi Ed (do you mind if I shorten it to Ed?)-

I don’t think that anyone here is arguing that the unregenerate can and will submit to Christ voluntarily and willingly without some kind of Divine enablement. That’s heresy, and it’s specifically covered in the site’s http://sharperiron.org/doctrinal-statement] doctrinal statement . I do think, as someone else mentioned here, that the issue is the ordo salutis - how do all the steps line up? That’s where the root of the issues lie in the Calvinist/Arminian debate.

From what I know and the ability that God gives to me to understand, the Arminian view that I mentioned before is the best and most workable system that I see. I mentioned the SEA article earlier, and this is what they said:

Total Depravity
Both Calvinists and Arminians believe in total depravity—the idea that fallen man requires God’s grace through the beginning, middle and end of the salvation process. Adam’s fall left us unable, of our own strength, to repent and believe or live a life pleasing to God. But total depravity is not utter depravity; the lost don’t commit the worst sins possible on every occasion. Still without God’s grace, sin impacts every aspect of life and we cannot seek God on our own. Rather, He seeks us and enables us to believe.

Is that helpful to you?

[G. N. Barkman]…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.

I take umbrage at your assessment of my motives. To assign disrespect to a simple observation coupled with a statement of continuing affection? I’m hurt.

If anyone should feel disrespected it should be we, those labeled heretics (in a round-about way) who do not favor the regeneration precedes faith/repentance paradigm. It is not as if we have rejected clear textual assertion, which is where true heresy is found.

But, none-the-less, we have been shunted over into the theological corner in order to make room for Piper’s mumbo-jumbo (see, I can stay on topic) which has zero textual authority. However, since it attacks decisionalism (we think) it gets a walk.

I am not surprised. It is as predictable as sunrise. And I still love you guys. No disrespect intended.

This does not help the Arminian out of their difficulty. For they say that this enablement does not necessarily result in salvation. In other words, men are inabled and the rest is up to them. This begs the question and places the Arminian no closer to the clear teachings of Scripture and classic protestantism. Moreover, it is posited that the enablement paves the road for regeneration. Calvinism would teach that enablement follows logically from regeneration. The nature must be changed first! A changed nature is the necessary antecedent for faith, and decision, (conversion) and salvation. That changed nature is the work of God alone! This is monergism and there is no equivocating between the two natures. One’s doctrine of man is either reformed or Roman. This middle ground is absent from any description Scripture gives of fallen man. Nowhere is man “sort of” the enemy of Christ. He is either for or against. He either is able or not. He is either blind or he sees. Does this make sense?

I prefer Ed.

Ed, I am not sure if you saw my response to your posting of the WCF. If you don’t wish to discuss why man first sinned, that is fine. Most compatibilists avoid the discussion altogether.

Jay,

Curious where Arminians find prevenient grace in Scripture?