John Piper: Salvation Not 'A Decision'

I’m sorry. I must have conflated some of your comments, ascribing those of two different men to one person. Please forgive me.

Also, please forgive me for insulting you. That was not my intention, but seems to have been the result.

I was only endeavoring to stimulate thought. I am often puzzled by those who identify with one or more well-known Calvinists (such as John Bunyan, or Charles Spurgeon), and yet reject their theology. Many years ago, I had an extended exchange with a mission board administrator who wrote a booklet in which he, 1) called five-point Calvinism a heresy, and 2) lauded the ministry of Charles Spurgeon. When I told him that Spurgeon was a five-point Calvinist, he denied it. When I sent him proof, he said something like, “Well, I guess Spurgeon was a heretic.” Sigh.

Perhaps this experience colored my reading of your posts. Again, please forgive me. I do appreciate the open and frank discussions on SI.

11 days, 121 posts—time to make concrete statements!

The OP and thread are about Piper’s statements concerning salvation: “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.”

All the talk of decisionalism, confabulation, regeneration precedes faith, and who has wounded who aside, are these indeed true statements (by true I mean absolute Biblical truth)?

Are they probably true though dreadfully imprecise?

Are they simply horsefeathers?

Are they wrong, but only to the point of the “jury still being out” before a public rebuke is called for or he is cast into outer darkness?

Are they dangerously wrong?

Or are they outright heresy (we’ve thrown that word around a lot so it only seemed appropriate here)?

If there are more options needed, please do not hesitate to include with explanation.

[James K] 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.

I am fine discussing the fall of man. However, I will refrain from empty speculation that has no basis in that which chose to reveal and that which He chose to hide. I believe it a sin to press beyond God’s revelation and am a firm believer that mystery exists by God’s design and rather than attempt to solve all the problems that limitation produces, I take delight in God’s mystery. I wonder if you think you have solved the mystery of the Trinity and the Hypostatic union? Kidding of course.

Ed, you have affirmed that God is the first cause because He is sovereign. The strange thing is that you are left with two options:

1. If God is the first cause of the fall of man, than He is the author of sin, something truly heretical yet strangely enough embraced by many calvinists.

2. God is not the first cause and therefore not sovereign in all things.

You don’t answer the question because you have to backtrack on the entire calvinist structure.

I love John Bunyan. He was a poor man who fixed kitchen utensils. At the same time, he was a man who had a Bible in his hands and time to study. Too often study is done by studying what other men have said.

You spoke about the WCF divines as though they are an authority and that they are smarter than at the very least you. They weren’t smarter than anyone. Somehow the WCF authors did find infant baptism but couldn’t figure how or why man first sinned.

Taking the statement en toto I have to say that any attempt to reduce faith or salvation to a sentence or two is overly ambitious to say the least. There is biblical truth in Piper’s statement to be sure. I would say the statement is above horsefeathers, approaching the status of being biblical since I am being forced to land someplace and since it is late and since I have to catch a flight to Denver in the morning and need my beauty sleep. I would have to scrutinze the statements more closely to provide a more thorough conclusion.

Some One did some ‘decid’n’

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Romans 8:29-30

what the Church of England or its Puritan offspring have to say. (If I say anymore about those sources, some could consider it hitting.) As a Northern Regular Baptist, take me through the London, Philadelphia or New Hampshire Confessions. Please, keep in mind that as a Baptist, I do not consider a given Confession to be regulatory.

[James K] SNIP I simply do not care what the WCF says on this issue. SNIP

I am regularly surprised by those who claim it is better to study the Bible alone, and not be influenced by the writings of men. Those who say this usually teach others. Does that mean that the people should quit listening to them, and just read their Bibles? (That is the inevitable conclusion of this sentiment.) Perhaps it indicates a desire that people listen to you alone, and not to anyone else?

Christ bestowed the gift of teachers to His Church. (Ephesians 4:7-12) Some of those gifted teachers have committed their teaching to writing for wider distribution and preservation after their death. Why is their teaching legimiate when spoken orally, but illigimate or less desirable when committed to the printed page? Just wondering.

GN Barkman, I can only assume you were referring to my statement here:

Too often study is done by studying what other men have said.

Where did I say not to study men? Where did I say to only study the Bible? You earlier asked me why I use Bunyan’s picture. I explained it. If you didn’t mean my statement, then no problem and I hope you aren’t offended.

[James K in post 124] 1. If God is the first cause of the fall of man, than He is the author of sin, something truly heretical yet strangely enough embraced by many calvinists.

Can you provide links to the ‘many Calvinists’ who embrace the notion that God is the author of sin.

The Canons of Dordt and the 1689 London Baptist Confession deny such.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html Canons of Dordt

[The First Main Point of Doctrine - Article 15: Reprobation]
Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election— those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.

http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/Chapter03.htm 1689 London Baptist Confession

[Chapter 3: Of God’s Decree] 1. God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.
( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )

[edingess] Taking the statement en toto I have to say that any attempt to reduce faith or salvation to a sentence or two is overly ambitious to say the least. There is biblical truth in Piper’s statement to be sure. I would say the statement is above horsefeathers, approaching the status of being biblical since I am being forced to land someplace and since it is late and since I have to catch a flight to Denver in the morning and need my beauty sleep. I would have to scrutinze the statements more closely to provide a more thorough conclusion.

Trust you had a nice flight.

Can I put you down for “probably true but dreadfully imprecise” plus?

Or almost “absolute Biblical truth”?

James K,

I apologize again. I assumed you were promoting some variety of that sentiment, since you praised John Bunyan for studying only the Bible, and not the writings of men. I now realize that you did not specifically say that we shouldn’t study the writings of men. My mistake for jumping to a wrong conclusion.

John Bunyan, as you know, was a remarkable man. He did not have many educational opportunities, nor many resources available to aid him in his studies. And yet his writings are rich in Biblical interepretation and theological acumen.

John Owen, perhaps the most outstanding of the Puritan theologians, was once asked why he went to hear Bunyan preach? He replied that he would gladly give up all his learning if he would be enabled to preach like that tinker.

You have good reason to honor Bunyan. I gladly join you in that endeavor.

Sure John, it is those who are hard determinists. Supralapsarians would fall under that category as well. The Canons of Dort and LBC deny it at the cost of their own consistency.

Consider RC Sproul, Jr. and RC Sproul, Sr.

Sr said:

But Adam and Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin nature. They were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. Nor have I found anyone yet who does know.

Very interesting. He would agree with Dort that God is not the author, but at the same time he can’t bring himself to have man as the first cause. Why? Because it undoes a central tenet of reformedspeak. The above quote is found in Chosen by God, page 30.

Jr said:

Of course it’s impossible for God to do evil. He can’t sin.

and

This objection, however, is off the mark. I am not accusing God of sinning; I am suggesting that he created sin.

The quotes of Junior are from Almighty over All, page 54. It is found in a larger discussion of who was the one responsible for sin. In his own words, he calls God “the culprit.”

Papa is an infra and just won’t go there. Junior is a supra and brazenly goes there. They both adhere to the WCF by the way.

Perhaps you would like to anwer the question.

“Seeing and savoring Jesus….” and “trusting Jesus [for salvation]….” are NOT equivalent realities!

Piper has provided a whole new definitive description of salvation which is NOT text driven, but paradigm driven. His penchant against “decisionalism” has clouded the simplicity of the Gospel message.

Is he a heretic? No

Is what he has presented Scripture truth? Not apparently.

I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as far as motive. I’ll classify the statements in question as “horsefeathers” but pointed in the direction of error.

Well stated Lee, in all your responses. Thank you.