John Piper: Salvation Not 'A Decision'

[G. N. Barkman] 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.

And I will respond in like manner as I did with Aaron—this seems overly defensive for statements concerning the Gospel that are cloudy in their very best light, and glaringly not text driven. We are now 150 posts into this discussion and we’re still not sure what he is trying to communicate.

And if his point really is to provide “a warning to those who erroneously considered themselves Christians…,” and he was emphasizing “the MARKS of true conversion” there is plenty of text to fall back on without having to create a whole new nomenclature such as “seeing…and savoring Jesus….”

One of my personal favorites is:
II Peter 1:5-11 “And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”

Lot’s of good preach in there that will address in no uncertain terms what we think Piper probably was addressing.

You don’t remind me of a man who wants a fuzzy Gospel presented from his pulpit in any context. This is fuzzy by anyone’s rational standard.

I’ve been in vocational ministry for a long time now and have heard some particularly atrocious preaching (I probably sit through 500-700 messages in any given year). Some by well-known preachers, some youngsters full of zeal but woefully short on knowledge. The occasion has risen from time to time that the message was so muddy or so wrongly presented that some words of correction were in order (privately, of course, as much as possible) and public clarifications requested. Of all the messages on all the topics, however, there is one absolute that will come into play in regards to clarity—they have to be clear on the Gospel.

Anyone who has been in ministry a long time like you and I have has been guilty of getting a burr under our saddle that drives us to see everything in relation to that burr. Therefore, we tend to see things that are not there. Doesn’t excuse us, but we understand it.

From my perspective, Piper has a burr, and it is driving his perception. I have no doubt that Piper is a sincere man. But sincerity does not supersede error. Piper’s statements here are basically unintelligible, but they are bringing in something into the Gospel message that the text does not support. He needs to stop his horse and remove the burr; then we won’t have necessity of spending 2 weeks wondering what cliff he might be headed toward.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[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.

I find no such dichotomy in Scripture. Why does Jesus Himself say, “Why do you call me Lord, and do not the things I say?” And in another place, “Many will call me Lord and I will deny them.” In addition, “If anyone wants to be my disciple, let him deny himself.” To acknowledge Christ as Lord is the clear meaning of my comments. Of course we do not “make” Him Lord no more than we make Him divine. The point is that one cannot be a disciple without a master. The word for master is “kurios” which, as you know, is the Greek word for Lord. Of its 717 occurences in the NT, 50 times it is translated master. My point is that the Master choses the disciple, not the disciple his master. A disciple is a follower of Christ, a convert if you will. There is no such thing as a born-again “non-disciple” so to speak. This, again, is a pernicious and odious teaching that is foriegn to Scripture. Preaching the gospel produces “disciples.” The first disciples were chosen by Christ no less than the very last one will be. The first ones did not choose, those following them do not choose, and those following us will not choose. Anyways, we are not going to agree on this point. I think John 15 accord with other texts of Scripture which clearly teach that God has chosen men for salvation from the beginning and that this choosing is based on His own good pleasure. The doctrine that teaches that men can choose God prior to regeneration even with the help of grace is nothing more than cloaked Roman Catholicism and much of it is Pelagian even though those holding it would deny any association with Pelagius. The proper place for this discussion is under the rubric of anthropology. What is the nature of man unfallen and fallen? What are the effects of sin on the nature of man, specifically, his intellect and how is this reflected in the will? I think of open theism, process theology, the seeker-sensitive church, the emergent movement, the denial of salvation through Christ alone, and lately, the downgrading of the doctrine of hell, the revival of molinism, and the overly optimistic view of natural theology as the many errors spawned by Arminian Theology. When reason is brought to bear against the Arminian position, these are all areas to which they retreat because of the incoherence in the system. I do not accuse you of holding to any of these. So please do not take me wrong. I am arguing that these conclusions naturally result when Arminian theology is pressed.

ed,

I understand you are arguing your case and you certainly did not reflect any intention of personal comments, nor, in fact, made any so I do take it just as it is presented, simply you arguing your case. BTW, I appreciate your understanding of the threshold between case arguments, general references and personal references.

As far as associations with Arminianism or Roman Catholicism, my not being of either school makes those irrelevant with respect to any vested interest in defending those schools.

Now, if either school holds to something true, I cannot see that their simply being associated with these schools of theology a fault in itself which seems to be what you are suggesting to some degree. For example, Roman Catholicism has some theological expressions which pre-date Reformed Theology and one can easily say of certain Reformed Theology that it points to Rome’s expressions. If something be true my hope is every school is guilty of holding to it.

As to man choosing, I am confident the Scriptures, via exegesis and theological constructs, provide great evidence of the volitional capacity in sinful humans to respond to gospel enlightenment via God the Holy Spirit’s ministry of illuminating the spiritually dead since they are, at that point, in need of this very act of grace by God to understand the spiritual truth of the gospel.

I don’t believe that going further on this point will serve the OP/Thread’s primary purpose so I will stop there and maybe at another time in a more appropriate thread we can have a longer and detailed discussion on the topic but for now, whatever guilt my view assigns to me in anyone’s mind’s is something I will happily accept seeing that my views are not born of exegetical or theological neglect or is a result of some kind of theological sycophanticism where I have blindly accepted one school or simply reacted to another. Thanks for the interaction, again.

[James K]

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.

God has also revealed Himself to be absolutely SOVEREIGN! Therefore, God is the ultimate cause of all that happens, though not the immediate cause. Secondly, there is no hesitation on my part to answer your question. Perhaps you should consult the meaning of ultimate cause and sovereignty. Soveregnty and Ultimate Cause are interchangable. You are arguing that an event can exist that ultimately God did not bring about! Scripture knows nothing of this god. In your attempt to preserve human freedom, you have compromised the divine!

God predetermind that Judas would betray Christ. (ultimate cause)
Satan entered Judas, leading him to betray Christ. (intermediate)
Judas betrayed Christ. (subordinate)

Who was the ulimate cause of Judas’ betrayal of Christ? God, Satan, or Judas?

Ever heard of a se? “God is independent, all sufficient in himself, and the only source of all existence and life. [Bavinck] God depends on nothing. You are implying that God depends on the cooperation of libertarian freedom in creatures in order to accomplish His purpose. A frustrated deity is no deity. In your efforts to protect God from your own false conclusion that Calvinism impugns Him, you end up robbing Him of His sovereignty. You employ a strategy for this error by repainting the aseity of God as the mere product of human logic rather than the result of revelation. Your view appears to introduce passive potency into God’s knowledge. This makes God less than independent. As one theologian put it, God is either determining or determined; there is no alternative. W.L. Craig admits that this thinking compromises God’s pure actuality, but thinks nothing of it. Since all the divine perfections are included in aseity, if it be compromised or downgraded, it necessarily takes God with it. How much of God’s absoluteness can we give up before He stops being God? My answer is NONE! How far can man move from the divine revelation of God’s absoluteness before His god is clearly NOT the God of revelation?

If you wish to continue this discussion, it probably deserves its own thread.

Ed, a couple of thoughts here:

1. Who is guilty of murder, the hitman or the person who hired him? Both right? Saying God caused sin but kept his hands clean is a weak attempt to harmonize sovereignty and holiness. Therefore you have to make it a mystery. It isn’t a mystery, and your view impugns God’s holiness.

2. I have not given you my view, simply that I do not agree with the doublespeak of compatibilism. I have posted the thoughts of RC Sproul Jr and Sr on this issue. Sr says he doesn’t know, and Jr blames God.

3. God is never frustrated in my view.

I started a new thread for the origins of evil and will of man discussion that’s taking place between Edingess, James K, myself, and Alex. Link is: http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-origins-of-evil-and-will-of-man

Back to John Piper now :)

[Jay C.] I started a new thread for the origins of evil and will of man discussion that’s taking place between Edingess, James K, myself, and Alex. Link is: http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-origins-of-evil-and-will-of-man

Back to John Piper now :)

Awesome, thanks Jay.

[edingess] 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.

I don’t know if anyone else found your word choice amusing, but I did. At first I thought it was a typo, but then you used it in two different posts… Didn’t you mean “thread”???

[G. N. Barkman] 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.”)

Greg, if you are right about what Piper is saying, the problem with his statement is that there is precious little emphasis in the Bible on savoring/delighting in Christ as a means of assurance or a sign of it. There’s a good deal of Scripture on DOING things, keeping commandments, etc.

So I’d have to agree with Lee that Piper has a “burr” that distorts his whole view of Christian living and gospel preaching. As such, I find him very unreliable and not worth recommending.

[Don Johnson] Piper has a “burr” that distorts his whole view of Christian living and gospel preaching. As such, I find him very unreliable and not worth recommending.

A “bur” is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bur] one of these

A “Burr” is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr] something like this

And brr is Minneapolis

[Don Johnson]

[edingess] 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.

I don’t know if anyone else found your word choice amusing, but I did. At first I thought it was a typo, but then you used it in two different posts… Didn’t you mean “thread”???

I thought I went back and edited that. I did mean thread and one has been started.

[Don Johnson]

[G. N. Barkman] 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.”)

Greg, if you are right about what Piper is saying, the problem with his statement is that there is precious little emphasis in the Bible on savoring/delighting in Christ as a means of assurance or a sign of it. There’s a good deal of Scripture on DOING things, keeping commandments, etc.

So I’d have to agree with Lee that Piper has a “burr” that distorts his whole view of Christian living and gospel preaching. As such, I find him very unreliable and not worth recommending.

Piper’s paradgm is entirely anachronistic in my view. He reads a current emotional emphasis back into a culture that did not place the same value on emotions as we do because, quite frankly, that culture was no where near as individualistic and self-absorbed as ours is. So when Piper reads words that we see from an emotional standpoint from the beginning, he overlays that perspective onto them. I think this is no small error on his part for it has led to an emphasis in his preaching that is marching a little off beat from that of Scripture in my opinion. People wrongly interpret intense emotions for God as “love and devotion” to God. This is very wrong-headed from my standpoint. The Bible talks about what we DO in terms of our relationship with God, not about how we feel. I know people who FEEL they love God and engaged in illicit divorce and ended up excommunicated, all the while maintaining those feelings. Nonsense!

And I will respond in like manner as I did with Aaron—this seems overly defensive for statements concerning the Gospel that are cloudy in their very best light, and glaringly not text driven. We are now 150 posts into this discussion and we’re still not sure what he is trying to communicate.

On the still not sure part, it isn’t necessary to know exactly… though several (including myself) have suggest very likely understandings of what he meant.

As for the first part, the gospel—and especially the response to it and its results—is not described in same way everywhere in Scripture. Sometimes you even have “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.” Other times you have descriptions like this one…

But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God. (Rom 2.5-11

Based on the pattern in Scripture, it is not necessary to express everything about the gospel and salvation with exactly the same emphasis every time.

I explained earlier why the affections are very much wrapped up in both what God does and in our response.
Articulating the gospel in terms that emphasize the affections is not anything like being in the wrong ballpark. It’s just that Scripture calls to sinners to repent and believe…. but it describes what happens in salvation in a variety of ways.

Of overwhelming the thread, I’ll quote from http://cdn.desiringgod.org/pdf/books_bdg/bdg.pdf] Desiring God , p. 70-72, because we’re talking so much about Piper that we aren’t reading what he’s written:

But what is it that holds all these conditions together and gives them unity? And what keeps them from becoming a way of earning salvation by works? One answer is the awesome reality of saving faith—trusting in the pardon of God, the promises of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, not ourselves. This is the unifying key that not only unites us to Christ for justification, but also empowers us for sanctification. Yes, but what is it about saving faith that unifies and changes so much of our lives?

THE CREATION OF A CHRISTIAN HEDONIST
Jesus pointed to the answer in the little parable of Matthew 13:44: “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in [literally, from] his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.”

This parable describes how someone is converted and brought into the kingdom of heaven. A person discovers a treasure and is impelled by joy to sell all that he has in order to have this treasure. The kingdom of heaven is the abode of the King. The longing to be there is not the longing for heavenly real estate, but for camaraderie with the King. The treasure in the field is the fellowship of God in Christ.

I conclude from this parable that we must be deeply converted in order to enter the kingdom of heaven and that we are converted when Christ becomes for us a Treasure Chest of holy joy—a crucified and risen Savior who pardons all our sins, provides all our righteousness, and becomes in His own fellowship our greatest pleasure.

THE CREATION OF A NEW TASTE
How then does this arrival of joy relate to saving faith? The usual answer is that joy is the fruit of faith. And in one sense it is: “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing” (Romans 15:13). It is “in believing” that we are filled with joy. Confidence in the promises of God overcomes anxiety and fills us with peace and joy. Paul even calls it the “joy of faith” (Philippians 1:25, literal translation).

How then does this arrival of joy relate to saving faith? The usual answer is that joy is the fruit of faith. And in one sense it is: “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing” (Romans 15:13). It is “in believing” that we are filled with joy. Confidence in the promises of God overcomes anxiety and fills us with peace and joy. Paul even calls it the “joy of faith” (Philippians 1:25, literal translation).

But there is a different way of looking at the relationship of joy and faith. In Hebrews 11:6 the writer says, “Without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” In other words, the faith that pleases God is a confidence that God will reward us when we come to Him. But surely this does not mean that we are to be motivated by material things. Surely the reward we long for is the glory of God Himself and the perfected companionship of Christ (Hebrews 2:10; 3:6; 10:34; 11:26; 12:22–24; 13:5). We will sell everything to have the treasure of Christ Himself.

So the faith that pleases God is the assurance that when we turn to Him, we will find the all-satisfying Treasure. We will find our heart’s eternal delight. But do you see what this implies? It implies that something has happened in our hearts before the act of faith. It implies that beneath and behind the act of faith that pleases God, a new taste has been created—a taste for the glory of God and the beauty of Christ. Behold, a joy has been born!

Once we had no delight in God, and Christ was just a vague historical figure. What we enjoyed was food and friendships and productivity and investments and vacations and hobbies and games and reading and shopping and sex and sports and art and TV and travel…but not God. He was an idea—even a good one—and a topic for discussion; but He was not a treasure of delight. Then something miraculous happened. It was like the opening of the eyes of the blind during the golden dawn. First the stunned silence before the unspeakable beauty of holiness. Then the shock and terror that we had actually loved the darkness. Then the settling stillness of joy that this is the soul’s end.

WE COME TO CHRIST WHEN WE LOVE THE LIGHT

Is not this the teaching of John 3:18–20?

“Whoever believes in [the Son of God] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.”

The reason people do not come to the light is because they do not love it.

Love for the light is not caused by coming to the light. We come because we love it. Otherwise, our coming is no honor to the light. Could there be any holy motivation to believe in Christ where there is no taste for the beauty of Christ? To be sure, we could be motivated by the desire to escape hell or the desire to have material riches or the desire to rejoin a departed loved one. But how does it honor the light when the only reason we come to the light is to find those things that we loved in the dark?

Is this saving faith?

[Jim Peet]

[Don Johnson] Piper has a “burr” that distorts his whole view of Christian living and gospel preaching. As such, I find him very unreliable and not worth recommending.

A “bur” is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bur] one of these

A “Burr” is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr] something like this

hmm… I think I would stand corrected, except for http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/burr] this