Piper Explains Warren Invitation in His Own Words- UPDATED- with video

Hear it here

Full size video after the break

12501 reads

There are 48 Comments

RobWillmann's picture

All,

In his second video he released, I transcribed it and posted it on my site:

[URL=http://www.vibist.com ]http://www.vibist.com[/URL ]

I don't know about you, but I am a visual learner, and it helps me to read something, so I can examine what it says to make sure I am not jumping to conclusions, or not understanding the issue.

Isaiah 40:8 - The grass withers, and flowers fade, but the Word of our Lord abides forever.

Tim Terpstra's picture

Aaron

Not to sidetrack the discussion, but what is the deviant belief on justification that Piper is said to hold? My impression is that he has had a strong grasp of this doctrine and has articulated quite well. Is it the Calvinists emphasis on endurance in sanctification?

Aaron Blumer's picture

Tim Terpstra wrote:
Aaron
Not to sidetrack the discussion, but what is the deviant belief on justification that Piper is said to hold? My impression is that he has had a strong grasp of this doctrine and has articulated quite well. Is it the Calvinists emphasis on endurance in sanctification?

I'm not sure. Alex G. posted it and I think he'd have to explain that one.
I know that some see just about any strong role for repentance as "Lordship salvation" and would object to Piper's view on those grounds. But as far as I know, there is really nothing in his view of justification that should even concern Arminians. Now his view of the why and how of election & predestination would be polls apart from the Arminian view, but justification? I'm just guessing it has to do with the lordship controversy.

dcbii's picture

RobWillmann wrote:
All,

In his second video he released, I transcribed it and posted it on my site:

[URL=http://www.vibist.com ]http://www.vibist.com[/URL ]

I don't know about you, but I am a visual learner, and it helps me to read something, so I can examine what it says to make sure I am not jumping to conclusions, or not understanding the issue.


Thanks. I really appreciate this, as I also would rather read things like this than listen or watch.

Dave Barnhart

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:
Tim Terpstra wrote:
Aaron
Not to sidetrack the discussion, but what is the deviant belief on justification that Piper is said to hold? My impression is that he has had a strong grasp of this doctrine and has articulated quite well. Is it the Calvinists emphasis on endurance in sanctification?

I'm not sure. Alex G. posted it and I think he'd have to explain that one.
I know that some see just about any strong role for repentance as "Lordship salvation" and would object to Piper's view on those grounds. But as far as I know, there is really nothing in his view of justification that should even concern Arminians. Now his view of the why and how of election & predestination would be polls apart from the Arminian view, but justification? I'm just guessing it has to do with the lordship controversy.
I will try to slay several birds here.

First the lesser and that is while many might object to Piper I would consider avoiding polarized or binary language that seems to be postured in the view that if one is not a Calvinist then they are Arminian. Though I have stated this before, it is always useful considering that within the Calvinist community there is a rather strong tendency to reduce those objecting to either Calvinism or Calvinist teachers simply as Arminian when in fact many people reject both theologians and hold to proprietary theology belonging to neither. To me, the largest consideration appears to be in using the term non-Calvinist when describing those rejecting Calvinism. This is not to say there are not Arminians and maybe many but not all non-Calvinists are Arminian, hence the more considerate term, non-Calvinist. Much more can be discussed about the matter but this is not the purpose of the thread and so it is afforded simply this sidebar.

Now to the greater matter, Piper's teaching on justification. While, as Aaron pointed out some might include Lordship salvation when they are approaching Piper's view of justification but I do not. Generally Lordship salvation is preoccupied with the predisposition one allegedly must have and certain views to which they must acquiesce before they can rightly believe on Jesus, the Christ, as their Savior. And though tempting I will forgo addressing the good intentions but ultimate flaws of this view but do note that there is a reasonable connection or trail that one might follow from this location to the location one finds themselves with Piper's expression of justification. In other words one can find a migration of the cause of Lordship salvation to the context of Piper's view of justification. But again, I do not have in view Piper's Lordship salvation though it is both worth combating always and understandable if others, who object to his view on justification, have this in view also.

As to Piper's view of justification:

Here is a link to a discussion that you should read. Here the discussion begins with the Piper commenting on a Tornado and the ELCA but moved into the topic of Piper's view on justification at post #27 where Bob T stated:

Bob T. wrote:
This statement by John Piper attracted attention because some consider him an authority worth listening to. Perhaps they should reconsider that. John Piper is wrong on Justification. He holds to a dual Justification declaration theory. First, we are justified before God when saved. Second, there is a final Justification when we stand before God when our works are examined to determine the genuineness of our Justification. This is very serious error and should make one examine closely anything that John Piper teaches..

Followed by these inquiries:

Jay C. wrote:
JohnBrian wrote:
Bob T. wrote:
John Piper is wrong on Justification. He holds to a dual Justification declaration theory. First, we are justified before God when saved. Second, there is a final Justification when we stand before God when our works are examined to determine the genuineness of our Justification. This is very serious error and should make one examine closely anything that John Piper teaches.
Bob,

Can you provide a link to any information that would show this? I have not heard this about Piper and am interested in researching it.


I'd be stunned if this were true. I've read several books of his and listened to quite a few sermons, but I've never heard him teach anything about a second justification at the Throne of God.

A few reponses:

Bob T. wrote:
Biblically, to be Justified is to be declared without guilt or penalty before God. God knows the beginning and the end at the time we are Justified. He needs no future verification of His declaration based on deeds. Our sin has been dealt with. We have the umbrella of God's declaration that shields us from His wrath. We are to then live under this shield and allow God to deal with the practicality of our sin and service. The issue in this judgment is stewardship not Justification or verification of our faith which God verified when we were initially saved and united to Christ.

In a Christianity Today article that compared the views of N.T. Wright and John Piper regarding Justification, Piper was very clear on his view. They stated:

"Future Justification
Piper: Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.

Wright: Present justification is the announcement issued on the basis of faith and faith alone of who is part of the covenant family of God. The present verdict gives the assurance that the verdict announced on the Last Day will match it; the Holy Spirit gives the power through which that future verdict, when given, will be seen to be in accordance with the life that the believer has then lived."
Christianity today online 6/26/2009. See the link provided by SHoward above in post # 33.

Who is more right, Wright or Piper?

John Piper also makes a statement on Justification and works in his book "The Future of Justification," Crossway Books, 2007, at page 110. He makes it clear that obedience is not the basis of our Justification. However, he sees it as evidence and confirmation of Justification. He then relates this to the final judgment on p. 120 as "not based on our works but in accordance with our works."

Biblically, obedience is an evidence before men of our faith and therefore of our Justification. Piper's problem is that he makes it as an evidence and confirmation before God. How can this be? It is God that Justifies and who knows those who are His. Obedience pleases him but is not a future confirmation of our Justification that He has already declared in finality.. The logical conclusion to a future confirmation is that we can have no assurance until then. This was the position of many Puritans who died hoping to be received by God, but without assurance in this life. As one Reformed radio preacher recently stated; "all we can say is God be merciful to me a sinner because to say I know I am saved is to exercise faith which is a work and I would be claiming salvation on the basis of works." (Harold Camping on the Family Radio Network answer time). While this is not the conclusion of many Reformed today it was a conclusion of some Puritans. It is also the implication of Piper's Puritan theology. Pipers theological outlook is often complex and expressed in an appealing manner. However, it has some major flaws including his view of God and His works. I would encourage one to study and compare. A good understanding of some of the aspects of historical theology is helpful but of course the standard is sola scriptura.

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
Here is a rather stunningly naked assertion by Piper in presenting his doctrine of future justification in quoting Daniel Fuller, his mentor, in his book, The Purifying Power of Living by Faith in…Future Grace.

Source: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/197a-PiedPiper.pdf

Quote:
A faith that only looks back to Christ’s death and resurrection is not sufficient…. Forgiveness for the Christian also depends on having…a futuristic faith in God’s promises. Thus we cannot regard justifying faith as sufficient if it honors only the past fact of Christ’s death and resurrection but does not honor the future promises of God… (206-207)
This just plain "theobabble" and simply unacceptable. There is no such language or concept, direct, implied or properly extrapolated or observed in the Bible that amounts to justifying faith being insufficient if it honors only the past fact of Christ's death and resurrection but not does not honor the future. It is PRECISELY this, the past work of Christ in his death and resurrection, upon which our justification rests! If I did not believe my eyes I would swear this is coming from nothing less than the heretic Benny Hinn or some other TBN theological cowboy. Piper is astoundingly unaware of the implications of his assertion.

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
And to his credit, John Piper can be found here, echoing his doctrine of future justification or "final salvation" (whatever that is, I have one salvation, not one now and another final one)(bold mine)

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1985/1487_Wha...

Quote:
"God justifies us on the first genuine act of saving faith, but in doing so he has a view to all subsequent acts of faith contained, as it were, like a seed in that first act. What we are trying to do here is own up to the teaching of Romans 5:1, for example, that teaches that we are already justified before God. God does not wait to the end of our lives in order to declare us righteous. In fact, we would not be able to have the assurance and freedom in order to live out the radical demands of Christ unless we could be confident that because of our faith we already stand righteous before him.

"Nevertheless, we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith. The way these two truths fit together is that we are justified on the basis of our first act of faith because God sees in it (like he can see the tree in an acorn) the embryo of a life of faith. This is why those who do not lead a life of faith with its inevitable obedience simply bear witness to the fact that their first act of faith was not genuine."

Oh, the old "acorn-embryo-justification" doctrine. I see.

These two quotes can be found at the link, it is a rather lengthy page but if you are a good scroller and reader you can find them rather quickly, toward the bottom.

Now in responding to these, Vincent Cheung who was on Robbins' mailing list while Robbins was with us, received a message regarding some of the problems of Piper's doctrine of justification:

http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/04/12/piper-and-justification/

Here was Robbins' message:

Quote:
Here are Piper's errors:

1. God does not have in view "all subsequent acts of faith" and obedience when he justifies us; he has in view only the objective work of Christ outside of us, his perfect righteousness. If God had in view our acts of faith and obedience, we would never be justified.

2. It is not "because of our faith that we already stand righteous before him." It is only because of the active and passive obedience of our substitute and representative, Jesus Christ, imputed to us freely, that we stand righteous before God.

3. It is false that "our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith." This is the doctrine of Rome. Our final salvation is sealed from the moment of first belief.
It is not contingent on anything we do or don't do. The sole ground of justification is the obedience of Christ extrinsic to us.

4. We are not "justified on the basis of our first act of faith." Piper turns faith itself into the ground, reason, basis, and cause of our justification. The ground, reason, basis, and cause of our justification is wholly outside of us, in Jesus Christ.

5. Piper says that the reason that some are damned is their "ingenuine faith." He writes: "This is why those who do not lead a life of faith with its inevitable obedience simply bear witness to the fact that their first act of faith was not genuine." How ingenuine faith differs from genuine faith he does not say, probably because he has no clear idea what faith is. Like so many misinformed Protestants, Piper focuses on psychology and makes saving faith differ from generic faith, not because of its object, but because of some alleged difference in psychology, which is never made clear. That is to miss the Gospel entirely.

Cheung himself astutely observes the most basic flaw of Piper's theology and its impact is felt all throughout Piper's subsequent teachings:

Quote:
Thus to put it mildly, Piper (following Fuller) has confused the EFFECT of justification with the BASIS of justification.

There is plenty to digest, not only from the dialogue here at SI but from the links that deal extensively with the ends of Piper's error on the doctrine of justification. If after reading the discussion and involved examination and criticisms at the links you have further questions or objections I gladly will respond.

Becky Petersen's picture

Jonathan Charles wrote:
Maybe this has been posted on Sharperiron.org, but to get an idea of how much of a pragmatist Warren is, Saddleback is having Easter services at Dodger stadium Sunday with music provided by the Jonas Brothers. .

According to Wikipedia...

"The Jonases are known for their wholesome, "family-friendly" image,[86 ] and the brothers are all committed Evangelical Christians. Their father is a former Assemblies of God pastor, and they were homeschooled by their mother."

I'd never heard of these people, but apparently they do have a "crystal clear testimony of salvation". Please do not think this is endorsement, but I've not figured out where some of you reading here at SI would draw the line.

Maybe someone would put up a poll...what kind of music is NOT acceptable in a church service for you?

Everyone one has a line somewhere, I suppose. These guys probably have some Christian songs that they sing as well as the pop rock stuff...it's just "pop rock Christian". So called. Just wondering what the problem is. With those of you who have no problem with most of CCM, rock music, etc., why would the Jonas Brothers be a problem?

Bob T.'s picture

Jay C. wrote:
Bob T. wrote:
Perhaps we can get away from the disappointment and understand that Piper...has a less orthodox theology than Robert Warren.

Bob, you lost me as soon as I read this. To disagree with Piper is one thing, but to say that Piper's theology is worse that Warren's? I don't think so. Have you read any of Piper's books or listened to him preach?

--edit--
This is what Michael Horton says about Warren's theology (From [URL=http://www.sharperiron.org/filings/4-1-10/14449 ]another SI Filing[/URL ]):

Quote:

At the same time, I believe that his [Warren's ] message distorts the gospel and that he is contributing to the human-centered pragmatism that is eroding the proper ministry and mission of the church. Judging by The Purpose-Driven Life, Pastor Warren’s theology seems to reflect run-of-the-mill evangelical Arminianism, especially with its emphasis on the new birth as the result of human decision and cooperation with grace. There are also heavy traces of Keswick “higher life” teaching throughout the book. None of this disqualifies him from being an evangelical statesman. After all, much the same can be said of Billy Graham. After pointing out how difficult it is to define an evangelical theologically, historian George Marsden famously surmised that it’s “anyone who likes Billy Graham.” Today, perhaps, it’s anyone who likes Rick Warren.

Obviously, Rick Warren believes that he is simply translating the gospel in terms that the unchurched can understand. However, the radical condition of sin is reduced to negative attitudes and behaviors and the radical redemption secured by Christ’s propitiatory death and resurrection are reduced to general and vague statements about God giving us another chance. His central message seems to be that you were created for a purpose and you just need to fulfill it. Even at Easter he can say, “…And of course, that purpose now becomes greater — and in fact, I think that’s really what the message this week of Easter is, is that God can bring good out of bad. That he turns crucifixions into resurrections. That he takes the mess of our life, and when we give him all the pieces, he can — God can put it together in a new way” (”Larry King Live,” CNN, March 22, 2005). I heard him say on a network morning program last Christmas that Jesus came to give us a mulligan, like in golf—a chance for a “do-over” in life.


That doesn't seem to agree with any point of Reformed theology that I've ever heard of.

Well, the Bible doesn't agree with Reformed theology. Should we make sure it is not present? Smile

First, I agree that Horton is a good scholar and balanced Reformed theologian. On other threads here on SI and elsewhere I have referred to the book "Christ the Lord" edited by Michael Horton. In that book he and other Reformed theologans dismantle John MacArthur's view of the Lordship Gospel as not being according to the Reformers Gospel as he claims and close to the Roman Catholic gospel. Since they are Reformed theologians and MacArthur claims to be in their traditional soteriological camp, this was, and is, evidence from within their camp giving light regarding the subject. However, some of the criticisms that Horton lambasts Rick Warren with are the traditional criticisms of the Reformed against all non Reformed evangelicals that present a simple gospel and ask for a decision. But some are criticisms I may agree with.

Second, as I said in a prior post, I do disagree with the main theme and gospel presentation of RW's book "The Purpose Driven Life." I have criticized the book heavily in the past. I do not defend it at all.

Third, in spite of the book, I have altered my viewpoint on RW's over all ministry, especially in his church. I have listened to four of his sermons and found each one has a strong clear gospel message regarding the true unadulterated gospel. They were presented in a contemporary context of solutions to present problems such as finances, foreclosure, family difficulties, in which he also referred to practical and spiritual answers for Christians, But then he transitioned to a clear gospel and believing as the first step. He gave enough time to handle sin and salvation. His is not an expository teaching pulpit. However, it does have teaching for the Christian as well as the true gospel. Anyone who makes a decision gets a good immediate follow up session and is then followed up to get them to new beginners classes. Beyond this there are solid doctrinal and apologetics training to produce stable and knowledgeable Christians. It is the best followup for new decisions that I am aware of. This is no Jack Hyles or IFBX easy decision and numbers count church. Do they have some easy decisions? Or course. Many people profess but do not really believe. That is the reason for Rom. 10:9-10. However, they are leading a remarkable number of people to true belief and regeneration. Yes, they believe that faith precedes regeneration so this would make them unacceptable to Reformed people. However, I like the way they find so may of the elect better than the Reformed don't do it.

Fourth, I have commented on here and, even set forth quotes from John Piper, regarding his view of Justification. His view is simply that we wait for the confirmation of our justification at the Bema seat of Christ, He sees this as a general judgment for all believers and unbelievers where the subject is our works, which evidence our justification. He clearly states the subject is our salvation. The examination of our works will evidence whether our past justification really occurred. I will not go into the many problems with this. That this is his true position is evidenced by clear statements. He especially has such theology set forth in the books "Future of Grace," and "What Jesus demands of the World." He also has a clear statement on this in his sermon on 2Cor. 5:10 available online at Desiring God. This doctrine is exactly like the doctrine of "investigatory judgment" set forth as a revelation by Helen White of the Seventh Day Adventists. It became an issue among the Adventists in the eighties. Some or their professors and pastors denied it and claimed that we could be saved by Christ's completed payment for sin on the Cross. Some thought this could turn the Adventists to Orthodoxy. Instead they had a huge meeting and endorsed the investigatory judgment and defrocked those who denied it. So I do feel that John Pipers theology is very wrong and problematic on that issue. It is problematic on other issues also. His passion for God is coupled with a Passion for Puritanism.

Fifth, let us be fair and acknowledge John Piper appears as, and is most likely, a good Christian seeking to please God and develop a passion for God. His background is interesting. He rejected the Fundamentalism he was brought up in. He journeyed to Wheaton College that was at the time a classic part of the New Evangelical Movement. There he was exposed to Russell Mixter and a science department seeking to teach the evolutionary theory and merge this with the Genesis creation account. Other professors set forth a moderate evangelicalism. Some were in rebellion against traditional Fundamentalism and Dispensationalism. Instead of resisting, Piper evidently was highly influenced there and went on a further journey to the new hotbed and center of the emerging New Evangelicalism, Fuller Seminary. At that time Fuller was embroiled in the emerging controversy of inerrancy of Scripture and accusations that some professors at Fuller were even teaching Neo Orthodoxy. Daniel Fuller was one of the first professors to write, and openly endorse, the errancy of the Scripture. We acknowledge that Piper does take a strong stand for the full inerrancy of scripture. But Piper's own repeated profession is that Daniel Fuller became his mentor and he took every class he offered. Daniel Fuller was also vehemently rejecting the Dispensationalism he was brought up in. Fuller students in those days ( I knew two) were adrift seeking to retain orthodoxy while experiencing many views that were cutting edge flirting with some non orthodox influences. Piper could not have been taught or mentored in a sound consistent theology or Biblical education at Fuller. He did however embrace a strong view of the inerrancy of scripture. He also became enamored with the Puritans. From there he chose to go for the prestige that was attached to a German doctorate. He Chose the University of Munich. From which the present Pope also has his doctorate. At Munich he received good research methods. He also received an eclectic theology emphasizing Neo Orthodoxy as the present craze. There is no doubt that Piper is an extremely articulate and good writer, He expresses some aspects of theology and salvation with clarity and a popular way. He is especially popular with the younger generations. However, from my observation, his lack of good fundamental (or conservative evangelical) mentoring had possibly left him finding his way without good foundational mentoring. Some of his theology is problematic to me. So, yes I do see more problems with Piper than with JW.

Bob T.'s picture

I commend Alex Guggenheim for his extensive post and answer. My prior post was started earlier in the day and then I went to Walmart leaving my Apple online. I came back and spell checked it and posted it. If I had read his post first I would not have posted such a long reply. Thanks Alex for all your information in such a well organized manner.

Jay's picture

Bob T. wrote:
Well, the Bible doesn't agree with Reformed theology. Should we make sure it is not present? Smile

Bob,

You're throwing a lot at me, so I'll attack in tiny nibbles at a time. Smile

I'm not sure what you mean by "the Bible doesn't agree with Reformed Theology". According to a quick Bing search on the term, there are several distinctives of Reformed theology. I'm not going to list them all, but some of them are:

Quote:
1. Sola Scriptura: The Scripture Alone is the Standard
2. Soli Deo Gloria! For the Glory of God Alone
3. Solo Christo! By Christ's Work Alone are We Saved
4. Sola Gratia: Salvation by Grace Alone
5. Sola Fide: Justification by Faith Alone

Are you joking, then, when you say that Reformed theologians don't agree with the Bible? That seems silly to me. There are Reformed people on this site that are orthodox.

Also, you said:

Quote:
Second, as I said in a prior post, I do disagree with the main theme and gospel presentation of RW's book "The Purpose Driven Life." I have criticized the book heavily in the past. I do not defend it at all.

Third, in spite of the book, I have altered my viewpoint on RW's over all ministry, especially in his church. I have listened to four of his sermons and found each one has a strong clear gospel message regarding the true unadulterated gospel. They were presented in a contemporary context of solutions to present problems such as finances, foreclosure, family difficulties, in which he also referred to practical and spiritual answers for Christians, But then he transitioned to a clear gospel and believing as the first step. He gave enough time to handle sin and salvation. His is not an expository teaching pulpit. However, it does have teaching for the Christian as well as the true gospel. Anyone who makes a decision gets a good immediate follow up session and is then followed up to get them to new beginners classes. Beyond this there are solid doctrinal and apologetics training to produce stable and knowledgeable Christians. It is the best followup for new decisions that I am aware of. This is no Jack Hyles or IFBX easy decision and numbers count church. Do they have some easy decisions? Or course. Many people profess but do not really believe. That is the reason for Rom. 10:9-10. However, they are leading a remarkable number of people to true belief and regeneration. Yes, they believe that faith precedes regeneration so this would make them unacceptable to Reformed people. However, I like the way they find so may of the elect better than the Reformed don't do it.


So you would agree with Warren's [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism ]Pelagian[/URL ] presentation of Salvation as described in PDL:
Quote:

"First believe, believe God loves you and made you for His purposes. Believe God has chosen you to have a relationship with Jesus who died on the cross for you. Believe that no matter what you've done, God wants to forgive you. Second, receive Jesus into your life as your Lord and Savior. Receive His forgiveness for your sins."So I invite you to bow your head and quietly whisper the prayer that will change your eternity. Jesus, I believe in You and I receive You. If you sincerely meant that prayer, congratulations, welcome to the family of God."

I know that you are a non-Lordship person, but Warren's "gospel presentation" leaves much to be desired - like the fact that he never explains why anyone would actually need the forgiveness of sins.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Bob T.'s picture

Jay, why are you asking me questions I just answered?

You said: "So you would agree with Warren's Pelagian presentation of Salvation as described in PDL: "

You also said :"I know that you are a non-Lordship person, but Warren's "gospel presentation" leaves much to be desired - like the fact that he never explains why anyone would actually need the forgiveness of sins."

I have already stated: "Second, as I said in a prior post, I do disagree with the main theme and gospel presentation of RW's book "The Purpose Driven Life." I have criticized the book heavily in the past. I do not defend it at all."

So why am I being asked to defend it ?

You also said that you know I am a "non Lordship person." Actually no, I am not a Jehovah witness or any other form of person who denies Jesus Christ's full deity. I believe in His absolute full Lordship. No person who is saved will deny the Lordship of Christ as he is Lord, Unless he is Lord he would be incapable of dying for all sin even bringing the eventual transformation of the entire universe by lifting the curse. He is Lord of all creation. So I believe the Lordship Gospel. Of course no person is asked to be saved by submitting to His Lordship, nor are they asked to understand His Lordship. No unregenerate man can or will do so. They are asked to be saved by simply believing in Jesus Christ and His death burial and resurrection, which involved payment of their sin and salvation simply by their believing. This biblical believing involves knowledge, assent, and trust. No one can believe something without knowing something and assenting to the truth and then having that which develops as trust (personal application) for themselves. This instantaneously brings justification and regeneration, They are inseparable as they are involved with union in Christ. Faith prior to regeneration is not cooperation but sole reliance of one upon another. This involves conviction by the Spirit. The Spirit gives root before faith and then indwells bringing regeneration after faith. These two were spoken of as such by Calvin but then combined and altered at the Council of Dort. All Gospel believers have believed, and do believe, a Lordship Gospel. However they have received such salvation by grace alone. through faith alone, in Christ alone. They do not add repentance, submission, commitment, or spiritual fruit, as part of that which brings or sustains salvation. Those follow. Though repentance is also used as a call to believe, especially to Israel who was rejecting their promised messiah. So I am not a non Lordship person.

Robert Warren presents a clear and Biblical gospel in his pulpit . His church teaches and builds upon the true biblical gospel. One may reject his book and disagree with much of his associations and endeavors. However, I have come to admire what has done and is doing in the harvesting of souls. He has set a wonderful example in his finances. Gave away most of his income from books. Takes no salary from the church. No expensive car, No big expensive house. He has divested himself of millions. He puts on no airs. He wears no ties (usually). I do not endorse him but I would be careful in criticism of RW.sustains. I find many more faults and unbiblical beliefs and practices among all IFBX churches and pastors (especially KJVO), and some other IFB churches and Pastors.

If the Reformed have so many solas, are they then all solaists? :bigsmile:

Happy Easter everyone. Find those eggs. Catch that Bunny and put him on a Spit over the fire. Nothing like BBQ rabbit for the kiddies. "Here wabbit, wabbit, wabbit!

But especially may you be blessed by the hope of the resurrection!!

Jay's picture

Quote:
If the Reformed have so many solas, are they then all solaists?

Chuckle...I don't think so, but I'm not sure.

I'll take your word for the Lordship issue, although I seemed to recall you disagreeing with MacArthur over this in the past. Maybe I confused you with someone else...sorry for that.

I am still in disagreement with your assessment of Warren's gospel presentation in the book, and I certainly think that it is more Pelagian - note the emphasis on God's love for you and not on their lost condition [Romans 1-3, Eph. 2:1-3 ] - but I'll go back and re-listen to a Warren sermon later on this week. I still think that his presentation of the gospel in PDL was flimsy, at best. We haven't discussed the flawed methodology of church building in Purpose Driven Church, either.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Bob T.'s picture

Jay C.

1. I do not agree with MacArthur,s gospel. His is a submission, commitment, works gospel. Some Reformed theologians accuse him of coming close to the Roman Catholic gospel. The issue is not Lordship, as he claims.

2. Emphasizing the love of God in the presentation of the gospel is not Pelagian. This has been the prominent emphasis by most since D.L, Moody. If John 3:16 is true then this is certainly a biblical emphasis. Perhaps a check of what Pelagius believed is in order.

3. Your definition of Reformed theology by giving the solas is very incomplete. I do not know of a Dispensationalist who does not agree with those. That includes myself.

Dereck's picture

Bob T. wrote:
Jay C.

1. I do not agree with MacArthur,s gospel. His is a submission, commitment, works gospel. Some Reformed theologians accuse him of coming close to the Roman Catholic gospel. The issue is not Lordship, as he claims.

2. Emphasizing the love of God in the presentation of the gospel is not Pelagian. This has been the prominent emphasis by most since D.L, Moody. If John 3:16 is true then this is certainly a biblical emphasis. Perhaps a check of what Pelagius believed is in order.

3. Your definition of Reformed theology by giving the solas is very incomplete. I do not know of a Dispensationalist who does not agree with those. That includes myself.

Bob, I don't post much, so forgive me if my posting etiquette is off here. Referring to your first point, I was not aware that MacArthur had a gospel. After perusing his website, what I saw was his belief in the Gospel found in the Scriptures. The church he pastors has a post on the topic here http://www.gracechurch.org/distinctives/lordship_salvation I must confess that I read this and found no basis for your claim. I have not read all his materials, but those I have read, and the sermons I have heard him preach do not condone a works centered salvation. The only thing close is a paragraph in his book Hard to Believe which was an editorial error and one that was corrected in subsequent editions. He makes note of the correction on his website http://www.gty.org/Resources/Questions/QA508 in the questions and answers section.

I believe your accusation is more than just a little unfounded. Perhaps it is based on too many assumptions. If I were to say, based on your statements here, that I believe Bob T's "gospel" is a fire insurance gospel of convenience. Would that be fair? No, it would not, especially since I have not taken into account the breadth of your ministry or basis for belief. I have read some of your other posts in the past and do appreciate your insight on some of the pertinent topics on the sight. Just wanted to point out what troubled me here.

In His Service

Dereck Muth
John 3:30

Aaron Blumer's picture

Dereck, what you're seeing there is a common overstatement among those who disagree with Mac's view of the role of "Lordship" in the gospel. Of course, it's possible to disagree w/Mac on these points and not characterize "his gospel" as a "works gospel," but it seems that few do! It's always easier to hit your target if you make it larger by inflating it. This is what many of Mac's critics do on this point.
(But we really don't want to get into a debate about "Lordship Salvation" in this thread, I don't think. There are several threads about it in the forums already I hear, and some are not very old. Better to take it there probably.)

Dereck's picture

I agree, Aaron. That is the stereotypical argument regarding the issue from those opposed to it, even though its not very substantial IMHO. I was just addressing the previous posters argument within this post and was not intending to take the subject in a different direction. No rabbit trails were intended. Although, if I did catch a rabbit I know someone who makes a mean rabbit chili that would taste mmm mmm good about now. Wonder why Campbell's hasn't canned that yet? oops, sorry. There I go again. Suppose I should leave that for another thread as well. (this is where the infrequent poster hopes his attempt at humor is obvious)

In His Service...

Dereck Muth
John 3:30

Aaron Blumer's picture

I don't think this conference has happened yet.
T4G was a week or so ago but the DG one is... yet future I believe

Pages