John Piper

I fear that you come terribly close to Lordship Salvation in your theology. Where are all the converts is the same question Jesus asked! "Were there not ten clensed...where are the nine?" In my experience that is a pretty sound number...one will serve for every ten that are saved. Samson, Lot, and most of the host of Israel that left Egypt were saved...but they did not serve God. A heart for God (the servents heart) is not a requirement for salvation...

</font>[/QUOTE]J,

Where did you get the idea that all ten of the lepers were saved? Or that most of the host of OT Israel that left Egypt were saved?

There is no scripture to support that, in fact I believe you will find the opposite. See Heb. 3:17-4:2 regarding OT Israel.

 

Can a person get to heaven and NOT love Jesus?

NO

And how do we know that we love Him? We OBEY Him! If you are a true child of His, you will obey Him (i.e. follow him). Lordship salvation. He is Lord and you obey Him.

 

We are also told that we can "fall away" (backslide) which is disobeyment. This does not affect our justification with God, only our sanctification. This is where Lordship salvation falls short: "Perseverance of the Saints" (the "P" in TULIP) for our justification.

 

Perserverance of the saints has nothign to do with justification. And lordship salvation doesn't teach that you can't backslide.

 

What happens, then, to someone who does not "persevere to the end"? It has been taught that they were never saved to begin with, which is false. Every definition of perseverance of the saints I have seen teaches this.

 

Yes, that is what Col 1:22-23, Heb 3:12-14, 2 Cor 13:5, and a host of other passages all teach. But that is off the topic of John Piper. Although he does address this question with very solid biblical teaching. It would be worth your time.

 

The passages you quote deal with sanctification. Lack of perseverance does not affect our justification in any way. This is not what those passages teach, nor any other in the Bible, as the Bible is clear justification is through Him alone.

 

Which is what perseverance of the saints teaches, Webdog. Perseverance does not affect our justification in anyway. I already said that. Those passages do not teach that perseverance affects our justification. And it is true that justification in through him alone. That is not the topic of perseverance, nor is it the topic of this thread.

 

PL, that sounds like double talk.

I said..."What happens, then, to someone who does not "persevere to the end"? It has been taught that they were never saved to begin with --they were not justified--, which is false. Every definition of perseverance of the saints I have seen teaches this."

To which you replied..."Yes, that is what Col 1:22-23, Heb 3:12-14, 2 Cor 13:5, and a host of other passages all teach."--pertaining to justification--

I then said..."The passages you quote deal with sanctification. Lack of perseverance does not affect our justification in any way."

To which you replied..."Which is what perseverance of the saints teaches, Webdog."

In one breath you agree with the false notion that those who do not persevere were never justified based on your quoted Scripture and the teaching of perseverance of the Saints...then you later state that the Scriptures you quoted deal with sanctification. Which is it?

 

Let's clarify here. You're seem to be confusing eternal security and perseverance of the saints.Perseverance and eternity security are not interchangeable concepts. Eternal security is associated with certain brands of fundamentalism and is attached to the non-Lordship view, not the Lordship view, not Calvinism per se. It is antinomian. It confines the grace of God to the objective work of Christ to the exclusion of the subjective work of the Spirit. Those who apostatize do not lose their salvation in this view, and they remain saved. Zane Hodges, Dave Hunt, and Bob Wilkin typify those who hold to this view. Charles Stanley reads Hebrews 6 and 10 and tells unbelievers who once professed faith not to worry, that they will be saved. Every objection to eternal security is not an objection to perseverance.

. Classic Arminianism
• One must persevere in faith to be saved.
• True believers can lose their faith.
• Those dying without faith in Christ are condemned.
“The believer who loses his faith is damned.”

2. Etermal Security
• One need not persevere in faith to be saved.
• True believers can lose their faith.
• Those who lose their faith are saved, since they once believed.
“The believer who loses his faith is saved.”

3. Classic Calvinism
• One must persevere in faith to be saved.
• True believers cannot lose their faith, since it’s God’s gift.
• Those dying without faith in Christ are condemned.
• Those who “lose” their faith never had it to begin with.God will preserve true believers and they will be saved

-Piper affirms # 3 not #2

1. You Must Persevere until the End: God's Requirement of His People
God does not merely command us to begin to believe for a time, and then fall away. He requires us to continue to believe until the end, living lives of repentance and covenant faithfulness. Granted, He does not ask for a perfect faith, but He does ask for a real faith, one that produces real, lasting change.
• Colossians 1:21-23
• 1 John 1:5-10; 3:3-6
• Hebrews 10:26-31
• Hebrews 12:1

2. You Will Persevere Until the End: God's Preservation of His People
We will persevere because God preserves us. God will keep us from falling—not one will be lost of all those who belong to the Son. True believers are not able to leave Christ, for Christ is at work within them.
• John 6:38-40
• John 10:28-29
• Romans 8:28-39
• Philippians 1:4-6
• Philippians 2:12-13
• 1 John 2:19

Calvinists like Piper do not believe you can apostatize, not that you cannot backslide. He follows after RBC Howell, the second president of the SBC:

Howell said,

Howell also remarked that perseverance does not come apart from means:

The Arminian simply deduces that God would not have included the various warnings about the necessity of perseverance if men could not fall away. This repeats the basic logical fallacy: A command to do a thing proves the ability to do it. This is a false antithesis. Not only can one deduce nothing about ability from the presence of a command or warning, the Calvinist need simply reply that they are given in order to have a salutary effect. One may constantly badger a marathon runner to win a race, not because you know they can fail, but because that is the means you know will cause them to persevere. The issue is “why do those that take these warnings seriously enough to avoid apostasy do so?” The Calvinist answers: the grace of God, Philippians 1:6 "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ."

Calvinists and the proponents of eternal security deal different with the text of Hebrew 6 for example. A proponent of eternal security often dismisses the whole text and says that the believer can apostatize and still be saved, because the definition of "saving faith" is Sandemanian, essentially a type of intellectual assent, a "decision."

Piper, on the other hand, looks at Hebrews 6 and takes the warning seriously. He asks questions of the text. What does it mean, then, to the author of Hebrews, to have tasted of the Spirit? It isn’t enough to say that they tasted of the Holy Spirit. You have to ask how the work of the Spirit is delineated in the Book of Hebrews. Is this equivalent to regeneration—or inspiration? Is this about the New Birth? Or is it related to the agency of the Holy Spirit in the authorship of Scripture? Are they resisting the grace of regeneration? Or are they resisting the voice of the Spirit speaking in Scripture? In terms of the trajectory and flow of the argument, the leading theme in Hebrews is not the danger of apostasy, but the supremacy of Christ. The author mounts a spiral argument to show that Christ is superior to the prophets and the angels, to Moses and Aaron. These admonitions come within a larger framework, the supremacy of Christ. If Christ, as the high priest of his people, cannot save his people from apostasy, then how is he superior to the prophets and the angels, to Moses and Aaron? What does the high priestly intercession of Christ amount to if he cannot preserve his people from damnation?

Whereas Hodges and Wilkin would say that no faith is false faith so the text is irrelevant. Piper would say that the text never mentions the psychology of faith, only the externals of believing. To taste of the Spirit is to dabble, to flirt, not to imbibe fully. The people are resisting the grace of the inspiration of Scripture, the evidences of miracles, and the offer of the gospel to them, not their own internal regeneration and salvation. The passage proves that faith in Christ can be limited to external items and thus false faith. It does not refer to genuine believers at all. Throughout this letter, the author’s emphasis is on the phenomenology rather than psychology of faith. His few references to the work of the Spirit are confined to the Spirit’s agency in inspiration and the charismata or sign-gifts. Whereas, Hodges and Wilkin would say Simon Magus was a true convert, Piper would say no, he was a false convert, and church history as well as the Bible proves it, because they universally attribute the rise of Gnosticism to him and condemn him as an unbeliever.

 

Theese will be my last comments.

Not at all.

Both. Think carefully. Sanctification only happens to justified people. Therefore, someone who is not sanctified or being sanctified) was never justified. That is the connection between those passages. For instance, Col 1 says "you have been reconciled" (justification) if you continue (sanctification)." The obvious conclusion is that if you don't continue (sanctification) you were not reconciled (justification).

The passages are addressing specifically the issue of sanctification, but they show that it flows from justification.

Back to the topic of this thread, Piper has some great material. Take some time at his sight to read and study it. You might not agree, but you will have a better understanding of why we believe what we do, and that can't hurt you
BTW, calling something a "false notion" does not make it so. You would actually have to answer the Scriptures on this matter.

 

John is from Greenville, SC near where I grew up and he attended Wade Hampton High School. He is a good communicator and makes old ideas fresh and appealing. As stated, he is Calvinistic but he overreaches himself sometimes by trying to be intellectual and innovative. He is not an exceptionally original thinker even though he is a sharp cookie. His drive for new ideas and intellectual aspirations, IMHO, is his relative weakness. Take his Christian hedonism for example. Through convoluted logic, John has made hedonism a Christian virtue if the desire of the self-indulgence is God. The problem is that it is still pure essential humanism because it begins with the highest good as man’s pleasure. This so-called Christian hedonism is more about man than God even though God may be the object of man’s pleasure-seeking. It follows that if drugs are more satisfying than God, then we replace God with drugs or sex or alcohol or whatever is the most fulfilling. In mathematical logic, a good definition is reversible. Piper’s definition is certainly not reversible, therefore, it is invalid and spurious. It is a rationalistic attempt to morph a humanistic principle into Christian orthodoxy.

IHMO, Piper would increase his usefulness by not trying to be intellectual or original and stick to communicating the verities of the faith. He is a good communicator.

 

Looks like someone doesn't understand Piper's view of Christian hedonism ...

It isn't a mathematical concept needing to be reversed. It is a simple concept, that our greatest pleasure will come from seeking God and that is what God wants from us. You are correct that if drugs were more satisfying than God, we replace God with druges or sex or whatever. That is exactly the point. We pursue the things that bring us the most satisfaction. The problem is that everythign we pursue other than God is false satisfaction. Drugs, sex, alcohol or whatever else is a deceitful pleasure rather than a lasting one. God is the lasting pleasure.

The drawback with Piper is that he is pretty much a one horse show. It is a good horse however. Desiring God is the highest aim of life.

I recommend reading the book. It is worth reading to get an accurate perspective of Piper's view.

 

Shouldn't our highest goal be to glorify God whether we receive pleasure from this act or not.

Hedonism is loving pleasure.

God doesn't call us to "loving pleasure." He calls us to obedience whether we feel like it or not. Our lives are meant to bring God glory. Whether we feel pleasure in that pursuit is irrelevant.

I think Paid has a good point when he articulated how "Christian Hedonism" is man-centered.

 

I have studied a bit of Piper and I disagree. He never teaches man's pleasure apart from pleasure in God, which makes this an incredibly God-centered, man-blessed approach.

He put it this way: many of us think our pleasure and God's glory are 2 different paths, but the wisdom of God is that we will glorify Him by enjoying Him. Some pleasures are by nature sinful, some are not. When I love my brother in Christ, I enjoy it- that's no sin, and God is glorified in it. As Piper says, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him."

Piper is not talking about seeking worldly pleasures, but God's pleasures. I especially have benefited from his teachings on finding pleasure in God through suffering. It doesn't get more God-centered than that.

Piper's Biblical teaching puts the emphasis back on the religious affections being awakened through conversion and delighting in God.

 

I have studied a bit of Piper and I disagree. He never teaches man's pleasure apart from pleasure in God, which makes this an incredibly God-centered, man-blessed approach.

He put it this way: many of us think our pleasure and God's glory are 2 different paths, but the wisdom of God is that we will glorify Him by enjoying Him. Some pleasures are by nature sinful, some are not. When I love my brother in Christ, I enjoy it- that's no sin, and God is glorified in it. As Piper says, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him."

Piper is not talking about seeking worldly pleasures, but God's pleasures. I especially have benefited from his teachings on finding pleasure in God through suffering. It doesn't get more God-centered than that.

Piper's Biblical teaching puts the emphasis back on the religious affections being awakened through conversion and delighting in God. </font>[/QUOTE]It starts with man and is man's pleasure as the highest good nonetheless. His logic just doesn't swim. There is only one path--the glory of God.

 

So, what don’t I understand? Please elaborate. I understand, I think—its just that you don’t like my view.

No, it’s not a mathematical concept yet it must be able to stand the rigorous scrutiny of logic as a mathematical principle would. It falls far short of the mark.

God has not said this? Where has God told us this? Are we so presumptuous as to assert what God wants without His telling us? How do you or Piper know? Does the Scripture teach that we continually find pleasure in God? What about God’s chastening? David’s delight in the Lord is a far cry from any concept of Christian hedonism.

This, my friend, is pure unadulterated humanism. BTW, I thought you said that I didn’t understand Piper yet you verify my assertions. This idea cuts against the grain of sacrifice and self-denial for the pleasure (i.e. pleasing) and glory of God. What do we do when God seems distant (a human perception) and doesn’t seem to satisfy? Job, no doubt, experienced feelings of abandonment and loss of satisfaction. It is faith, not satisfaction and pleasure-seeking, that brings us to God.

What is a false satisfaction? Satisfaction is a perception upon the part of the one experiencing it. I just don’t find these concepts in Scripture.

Yes, these are deceitful because of the ultimate ending and they are temporal but it doesn’t mean they are not very pleasurable in the now.

What is pleasure? It is the gratification of man’s desires. This implies that man is seeking God to fulfill his desire. Somehow this seems to run counter to the whole flow of Scripture, redemption and the idea of God seeking man, not man seeking God (See Romans 1-5). It seems that man in his flesh seeks pleasure and fulfillment in everything except God.

I would call it a winded gelding. After the first short sprint, it is not running too fast except for a few naïve college students.

What is your support for this? Have all the Christian theologians of the past two millennia missed this basic concept until Piper? It’s purely pop theology.

Although I have some of Piper’s stuff, don’t waste your time and money on it. One cannot know every deviant rambling—there is too much worthwhile stuff to waste time on things that do not edify. My son’s college roommate was enamored of Piper and I was curious enough to follow up. Fortunately, my son did not fall for it although he was thoroughly solicited.

 

So who is YOUR horse Paidagogos?

 

I admit that I haven't read anything from Piper. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

As a believer we are to delight in the Lord, worship him, trust him, praise him, love him.

I am so grateful for what God has done for me through Jesus Christ. But I can't quite get my mind around the idea of using a term like "Christian hedonism" to express it. Yes, God does receive glory when we are satisfied in him. It's called giving God glory and praise! It's called adoration and worship. Why can't we leave the center of attention God and not our "pleasure."

Maybe it is semantics, but if it is, it sure is a strange way to express the joy of the Christian life.