John Piper: Salvation Not 'A Decision'

[Lee] “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.

I agree that Piper’s language in this is not the best. However, these two statements are not as far from equivalent as they may seem.
The reason is that the heart of a “child of wrath” is “alienated” and “hostile” toward God (I think it’s Col 1.21 for the last two terms and Eph.2 somewhere for the first one).
So “seeing and savoring Jesus” is quite impossible for a person who is not a believer.

… which brings us back to the regeneration question. I’ve been reading the thread and thinking that the old “regeneration before or after faith” kerfuffle was irrelevant. And it partly is. But partly isn’t because, if someone believes—as Piper does, I assume—that regeneration is logically prior to faith (and maybe sometimes chronologically prior as well?), then he would naturally see a fundamental change in affections and will (if those are even distinct) as a fundamental part of regeneration. In that POV on things, “seeing and savoring” would be manifestations of a new heart… inseparable from the newness (a new heart must be one that sees and savors and a heart that sees and savors must be new).
If that’s a good analysis of how Piper sees it, the remaining problem is not so much with what he said but with the practical results: likely misunderstandings. If this thread is any indication, misunderstandings are indeed likely!

But to put my “don’t like it” hat back on, I would never preach the gospel in those terms because it takes what God does in the heart of a dead sinner (regeneration) and makes it part of what we are appealing to the sinner to do. In Scripture, the “response” part is always expressed in terms of faith and repentance, not “savoring” or even “loving.”

Though we have the command to love God w/all our being exalted above all other commands (Matt.22.37 etc.), the context is not a proclamation of the gospel to the lost there. Whenever apostles et. al. are confronting hearers with the gospel, the verbiage is repent, believe—not love or anything else.

[Aaron Blumer]…I agree that Piper’s language in this is not the best. However, these two statements are not as far from equivalent as they may seem.
The reason is that the heart of a “child of wrath” is “alienated” and “hostile” toward God (I think it’s Col 1.21 for the last two terms and Eph.2 somewhere for the first one).
So “seeing and savoring Jesus” is quite impossible for a person who is not a believer.

… which brings us back to the regeneration question. I’ve been reading the thread and thinking that the old “regeneration before or after faith” kerfuffle was irrelevant. And it partly is. But partly isn’t because, IF someone believes—as Piper does, I assume—that regeneration is logically prior to faith (and maybe sometimes chronologically prior as well?), then he would naturally see a fundamental change in affections and will (IF those are even distinct) as a fundamental part of regeneration. In that POV on things, “seeing and savoring” would be manifestations of a new heart… inseparable from the newness (a new heart must be one that sees and savors and a heart that sees and savors must be new).
IF that’s a good analysis of how Piper sees it, the remaining problem is not so much with what he said but with the practical results: likely misunderstandings. IF this thread is any indication, misunderstandings are indeed likely!

OK, my honest 1st reaction as I read through this, as you might have already surmised from my added emphases, was “IF a grasshopper had a machine gun the bird wouldn’t eat him.”

This seems overly defensive for a scenario which is in no wise text driven. One of the foundation stones of SI and the whole current emphasis on Biblical exposition that is so reactive to some of the atrocities of previous decades is to clearly apply the text. 136 posts on this thread and no one yet knows what he actually was saying, where he got it, or how it truly applies.

I think Larry, way back in post #39, had the best synopsis: “My guess is that…Piper is arguing against decisionism, not making a decision per se. And IF that is true, then he is right, and that is a good thing. IF that is not true, then I am not sure what he is saying.”

[Aaron Blumer] But to put my “don’t like it” hat back on, I would never preach the gospel in those terms because it takes what God does in the heart of a dead sinner (regeneration) and makes it part of what we are appealing to the sinner to do. In Scripture, the “response” part is always expressed in terms of faith and repentance, not “savoring” or even “loving.”

Though we have the command to love God w/all our being exalted above all other commands (Matt.22.37 etc.), the context is not a proclamation of the gospel to the lost there. Whenever apostles et. al. are confronting hearers with the gospel, the verbiage is repent, believe—not love or anything else.

And I would “never preach the Gospel in those terms” either. But I would take it a step further—I would not allow (if it were in my authority to do so) for someone to come into my sphere and “preach the Gospel in those terms.” It’s a confusion that I doubt God is the author of.

[James K] 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.

Have you read Augustine’s or Calvin’s or Turretin’s or Dabney’s or Hodge’s or Bavinck’s treatment of this issue? If you have, perhaps you would like to start a new threat and provide your refutation of thier position on the matter. Otherwise, you and I will not only go round in circles, we will hi-jack this thread which is not something I want to do. Inform me of your intentions and I will be happy to dialogue on the matters. BTW: I did answer your question and you know what that answer is. Secondly, I am most interested in hearing about your definition of sovereignty and how it is you can defend Divine essence and being given you implied views on theology proper.

[James K] 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?

Did I condemn someone? Or am I guilty of criticizing or disagreeing with someone?

As far as your question goes, I will answer your question regarding how the very first sin happened if you can explain to me, in detail, how the Truine God and the Hypostatic union are to be completely and totally comprehended by the human mind.

[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.

James,
If you want to start a threat on that topic, I would be delighted to discuss it with you or anyone who wants to play.

[Lee]

[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”?

Probably true but dreadfully imprecise. I love Piper, but sometimes….

[James K] 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.

Do you believe that man is the ultimate cause of sin? Perhaps that would be an excellent thread for you to start. I find the propects of interacting with a theological system that holds that man can actually be the ultimate cause of anything, well, tantalizing.

Ed, you wish to relegate the answer into the realm of mystery. That is fine. I thought you were more confidant given the way you so easily condemn views not your own. You also prefer others to think for you on this issue. So given that you neither answered my question and condemn those who differ from you, despite not knowing yourself, I think I have learned what I needed to from you. Thanks.

[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.

Alex, you are making the assumption that Christ has apostleship in view as the type of choosing. The burden is on you to show why that is the case. You have attempted to make your case, and in my view, have come up short. In essence, you are saying Jesus was talking about apostles because they were the only ones in the room. That simply is quite a weak argument. The context has a master with His disciples, a relationship that was much deeper than most of us could imagine in modern western culture. It is that relationship that Jesus has in view, for there is no good reason to think He has any other in view. This is one more Master-disciple interaction, but this is the big one and the Master is preparing His disciples for what is about to come. Jesus said you did not choose me so that you would go and bear fruit, but I chose you so that you would go and bear fruit. Apostleship is nowhere in view. Rather fruit-bearing is the purpose of the calling. What kind of fruit? All the godly kind of fruit, I suppose. Secondly, the words, “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this, the world hates you.” Here Jesus essentially repeates what He has just said. The emphasis is upon His choosing the disciples and he makes that emphasis for a reason! Miss this and you miss the entire purpose of our Master. Jesus is firming up the faith of His disciples as He prepares them for the shocking death that their Master is about to undergo. Make no mistake about it, the best way to understand Jesus’ choosing is to discipleship, not apostleship. Hence, disciples = salvation. The idea that one may make Jesus Savior but not Lord I find to be a pernicious dichotomy resulting from the babble of men whose theological commitments are more precious to them than simple exgesis. This is the same kind of error that leads to open theism, process theology, and now, the revival molinism within evangelical ranks, courtesy of Plantinga, Craig et al.

[James K] Ed, you wish to relegate the answer into the realm of mystery. That is fine. I thought you were more confidant given the way you so easily condemn views not your own. You also prefer others to think for you on this issue. So given that you neither answered my question and condemn those who differ from you, despite not knowing yourself, I think I have learned what I needed to from you. Thanks.

I wonder how quickly you might condemn the view of biblical errancy. Would you, with great confidence fire exegetical bullets at such teaching? Or, perhaps universalism? How confidently would you aim your biblical weapons at such heresy and squeeze the trigger?

Of some things we can be sure. Others remain a mystery. The things certain do not make the things mysterious less mysterious. We have certain revelation of the essence, being, and character of God. Some of these things we know with certainty. Any view that compromises God’s revealed essence, being, character, is a view that deserves criticism and condemnation. God, in His wisdom has provided us with some of the answers. Some answers remain obscure and in the dark. We are better off taking the humble route in such cases and admitting that we simply cannot say for sure how or why some things are the way they are. God is the ultimate cause of all things. God is not the author of sin. These are answers God has clearly revealed in Scripture. Shall we impugn either of them because 1) we don’t like what they imply or 2) we can’t harmonize them as completely as our sinful intellect desires?

I think Aaron has helped us focus on at least part of the problem here. From what I recall of the original Piper account that started this long thread, Piper was talking to a group of professing Christian young people, and warning them that some of them were not truly converted. He believed that many considered themselves Christians because, at some point, they “had made a decision for Christ.” But he also observed that many of them did not savor Christ. Hence his point that salvation is more than a decision. It is coming to the place where (by the work of God’s Spirit), you delight in Christ.

In other words, Piper was dealing with genuine salvation vs. counterfeit salvation, ie., empty professions. He was dealing with Biblical assurance of salvation vs. humanly induced assurance. (“If you’ve ever made a decision for Christ, you are saved, and never doubt it.”)

He was not preaching the gospel to those had never heard it before (like the Apostles in Acts), or even to those who have heard the gospel, but who knew themselves to be unconverted. He was preaching a warning to those who erroneously considered themselves Christians. He was not dealing with the WAY of salvation but rather the MARKS of true conversion.

I don’t think Piper would preach this message to a group of unbelievers. The question that this thread should answer is: Was Piper wrong to preach this way to professing Christians whose lives give little evidence of genuine conversion? I believe Piper was preaching helpfully, given the setting and purpose of his message.

[edingess]
Alex, you are making the assumption that Christ has apostleship in view as the type of choosing. The burden is on you to show why that is the case. You have attempted to make your case, and in my view, have come up short. In essence, you are saying Jesus was talking about apostles because they were the only ones in the room.

Their being sequestered is not the only reason but the historical fact that Christ had, indeed, directly chosen them. Add to that the presence of Judas who would have to be suggested as one being saved, if this is talking about salvation, which would conflict directly with Reformed/Calvinist soteriological schematics.

Again, it is true Judas was chosen as an Apostle, he fits this description Christ gave to the special group to whom he is speaking. But he does not fit chosen for salvation, if we adhere to the R/C form of soteriology

I do think you are undervaluing the immediate context of the 12 being his audience, though. He is speaking directly to them and this, to me, is not weak at all, even if it stood alone, but it does not. Thanks again.

[edingess] The idea that one may make Jesus Savior but not Lord I find to be a pernicious dichotomy resulting from the babble of men whose theological commitments are more precious to them than simple exgesis. This is the same kind of error that leads to open theism, process theology, and now, the revival molinism within evangelical ranks, courtesy of Plantinga, Craig et al.

I do not believe anyone “makes” Jesus 1. Savior or 2. Lord, they receive “the Lord Jesus Christ” as their means of salvation.

He already is the Lord Jesus Christ. If the gospel is presented, as it should be, the Lord (God/Divinity) Jesus (man) Christ (hypostasis/Messiah) is explained as he is, as the adequate and infinite source of salvation for each person via his life, suffering/death and resurrection. The issue of Christ’s being Lord has to do with his Divinity, his qualification as God to die for our sins just as the issue of his being Jesus has to do with the necessity of his being human. So when we approach the Lord Jesus Christ, the point of him being Lord is not something which you promise to bring yourself under and fully surrender, this property of being Lord is not what is being emphasized in the gospel.

The emphasis of the gospel is forgiveness and God’s promise to us, hence the emphasis on Christ being Lord is on his qualification as God to provide sufficiently, fully and eternally, not on your submission to his control of your life. To receive forgiveness is to receive the control of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is assumed in the Gospel’s forgiveness. Clearly we disagree but I do believe the disagreement is much different on this end than you are describing as “a pernicious dichotomy resulting from the babble of men”. There is no separation of Christ’s Divinity, humanity or hypostasis. In fact, I believe what you describe on your end lends itself to more separation in receiving the gospel that on what I have described.

[edingess] Alex, you are making the assumption that Christ has apostleship in view as the type of choosing. The burden is on you to show why that is the case. You have attempted to make your case, and in my view, have come up short. In essence, you are saying Jesus was talking about apostles because they were the only ones in the room. That simply is quite a weak argument. The context has a master with His disciples, a relationship that was much deeper than most of us could imagine in modern western culture. It is that relationship that Jesus has in view, for there is no good reason to think He has any other in view.

It’s actually not a weak argument when we have :
* Jesus washing the disciples’ feet (John 13:1-19)
* Jesus predicts his betrayal by one of the disciples (John 13:21-30)
* Jesus predicts Peter’s denial (John 13:36-38)
* Jesus comforts His disciples with a promise to return to them and bring them with Him to heaven, including an specific exchange with Thomas (John 14:1-14)
* Jesus promises to send the Holy Spirit to the disciples (John 14:15-31), including another specific exchange with Judas (not Iscariot) and a remark that “let us go hence”
* Compares his relationship with believers to a vine and and promises that they will suffer, reiterating his promise that He will send the Holy Spirit to them for aid (15:26)
et cetera.

Are you a covenant theologian, or are you dispensational?

Of some things we can be sure. Others remain a mystery. The things certain do not make the things mysterious less mysterious. We have certain revelation of the essence, being, and character of God. Some of these things we know with certainty. Any view that compromises God’s revealed essence, being, character, is a view that deserves criticism and condemnation. God, in His wisdom has provided us with some of the answers. Some answers remain obscure and in the dark. We are better off taking the humble route in such cases and admitting that we simply cannot say for sure how or why some things are the way they are. God is the ultimate cause of all things. God is not the author of sin. These are answers God has clearly revealed in Scripture. Shall we impugn either of them because 1) we don’t like what they imply or 2) we can’t harmonize them as completely as our sinful intellect desires?

1. I am glad you agree that we must put God’s revelation above our own thoughts. God has indeed revealed himself to be absolutely holy who cannot sin or even tempt with sin.

If we stop right there, then we can answer my original question: God is not the first cause in Adam’s sin.

2. “God is the ultimate cause of all things. God is not the author of sin.” While you agree they are answers clearly revealed, why the hesitation regarding answering the question? It is because such a view does not conform well to reformedspeak, which has to see God as the first cause in all things or he isn’t really sovereign. Further, if there is one area he isn’t sovereign in, then he isn’t sovereign at all. Systems based in logic do not appreciate thinking outside the box or questioning those super smart WCF authors. Your own answer is doubletalk. God cannot be the ultimate cause of all things and not also be the cause of sin.

When I ask you why Adam sinned, you could simply answer: because God is the ultimate cause of all things.
yet
When I ask you why Adam sinned, you simply say: it is all a mystery.

There is no mystery to God’s character Ed. All you have succeeded in doing is reemphasizing the doublespeak of compatibilism. Your allegiance is to a system.