John Piper: You’re Either With Us, or You’re With Rome
“Piper is an antinomian false teacher who has the audacity to proclaim, in essence, “You are with us (the New Calvinists), or you are with the Roman Catholics.”
Let’s take some time here to chat about how John Piper thinks he’s the elder statesmen of a modern-day resurgence of the original Reformation. Truly, his ego cup runneth over.
First, as established in “The Truth About New Calvinism,” Piper and his arrogant horde got their doctrine from the Australian Forum. The Forum believed the following about what the true issue of the original Reformation was: Rome separated justification and sanctification, and thereby “infused grace” into the believer via the new birth. The new birth constituted a righteousness that was inside of us, or a righteousness that we actually possessed within us. Supposedly, the Reformation reclaimed “the objective righteousness of Christ completely outside of us.”
To believe that we have an actual righteousness imparted to us through the new birth is supposedly to believe that our participation in sanctification can maintain and finish justification. In other words, the Reformers supposedly believed that sanctification had to maintain justification and finish it. Of course, mortals cannot do that. Supposedly, the Reformers believed that Christ not only died so that we could be justified, but He lived a perfect life for us also, so that His obedience could be imputed to us for sanctification, which can now complete justification because it is Christ’s works and not ours that is being presented. The Forum believed that living by faith is to constantly present the works of Christ to the Father to maintain justification, and not our own imperfect righteousness.
But the premise is false, and evangelicals believe that justification does not have to be maintained. We believe that justification is a onetime declaration that guarantees glorification (Romans 8:30). And the full righteousness of God has been credited to our account based on our faith ALONE in what Christ accomplished on the cross, and His resurrection. Evangelicals believe that sanctification can’t change that—it’s past tense—it’s a completely done deal. Evangelicals and old Calvinists alike utterly reject an infusion of sanctification and justification.
The truth of the matter is that the infusion of sanctification and justification is the bases for almost every false doctrine known to man because it leaves you with two alternatives only: First, faith alone justifies us and wipes out all of our past sin, but now our standing has to be maintained by what we do in sanctification, either by work or ritual. The other alternative is to say that Jesus ALONE does sanctification for us because everyone knows we are not even going to be faithful in the easier option of ritual to maintain justification; this second option is a Jesus obeys for us antinomianism.
Again, evangelicals don’t believe that justification has to be maintained or completed by sanctification. However, the Forum was formed to develop a systematic theology that made sanctification by Jesus alone for the purpose of completing justification plausible. They also taught ecciesia reformata semper reformanda which holds to the idea that the Reformation was not finished with Luther and Calvin.
The following charts might help to clarify the issue:
The following montage from the Forum’s theological journal confirms what they thought about the original Reformation and the new birth:
Then it happened. One of the original members of the Australian Forum did a series of lectures on the Reformation at Southern Theological Seminary. Piper, who usually stays aloof from his ties to the Forum—couldn’t help himself. He wrote an article about it:
Desiring God blog, June 25, 2009: Goldsworthy on Why the Reformation Was Necessary.
In the article, Piper shows his full agreement with the Forum on their ridiculous Reformation motif and false doctrine:
This meant the reversal of the relationship of sanctification to justification. Infused grace, beginning with baptismal regeneration, internalized the Gospel and made sanctification the basis of justification. This is an upside down Gospel.
In case one would think that Piper excludes evangelicals from this concern because of his mention of baptismal regeneration, consider what he said in the same article: “I would add that this ‘upside down’ gospel has not gone away— neither from Catholicism nor from Protestants….” Piper, like all New Calvinists, insists that justification and sanctification have a “relationship” (infusion), and of course, they reject the idea that we help in the completion of justification; that’s a “reversal” of the two and an “upside down” gospel. They therefore hold to option B: Jesus obeys for us antinomianism.
Piper also states in the same article:
When the ground of justification moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled. It is an upside down gospel.
Like the Forum, Piper rejects the new birth as having anything to do with a righteousness that is possessed by the believer. This explains the continual pontification by New Calvinists that believers are no better off than the unregenerate. Paul David Tripp describes believers as dead and unable to do anything. Piper also got the “upside down gospel” phrase from the Forum. In fact, it was one of the major themes of an issue in their theological journal as can be observed below. BUT, also note that they even exclude a righteousness imparted to us by Christ within, and Him doing the work! In fact, to believe that Christ is doing the work within us “imperils(ed)” the soul!
Like the Forum, Piper lumps evangelicals together with Rome in the same article:
In it [Goldsworthy’s lecture at Southern] it gave one of the clearest statements of why the Reformation was needed and what the problem was in the way the Roman Catholic church had conceived of the gospel….I would add that this ‘upside down’ gospel has not gone away—neither from Catholicism nor from Protestants.
Piper is an antinomian false teacher who has the audacity to proclaim, in essence, “You are with us (the New Calvinists), or you are with the Roman Catholics. While Piper puts on the whole humbleness and wisdom of Yoda act, he is one the most arrogant and deceitful false teachers in recent church history.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Paul,
You are still failing to understand Piper’s statement. That righteousness is not infused for [as the ground] justification, does not mean that righteousness is not imparted at all. Piper’s statement is clearly talking about the GROUND OF JUSTIFICATION, not about regeneration or sanctification. If you wish to accuse of being a wicked antinomian false teacher, you should at least provide a quote from him in which he denies the reality and necessity of regeneration and of the believer’s conscious obedience in sanctification. If the New Calvinist you just interviewed at all provides a fair representative sample of NC doctrine, they clearly do not believe what you claim.
LikeLike
“You are still failing to understand Piper’s statement. That righteousness is not infused for [as the ground] justification, does not mean that righteousness is not imparted at all. Piper’s statement is clearly talking about the GROUND OF JUSTIFICATION, not about regeneration or sanctification.” Oh really? Then why does he say that an infusion of grace “REVERSES JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION”? He’s not talking about “regeneration or sanctification.” ? Then why does he talk about the “RELATIONSHIP” of the two? One: RL is free to comment here and speak for himself. Two: Go somewhere else, my readers are not stupid–you’re wasting your time.
LikeLike
Paul, Paul, Paul, now why did you get so defensive over anonymous? Just to make it clear, I did not write the above statement nor do I know who did but I do agree with the person who wrote it. I know that you and I don’t see eye to eye on a lot but I don’t think anonymous thinks you or your readership, “stupid”. Besides, this kind of speak is unhelpful in discussing this issue, on both sides.
LikeLike
If we believe the infusion of grace forms the basis of justification, we have reversed justification and sanctification. That has nothing to do with whether we believe in regeneration or whether we believe sanctification involves the Spirit’s enabling etc. The context in which Piper was speaking was clearly the basis of justification. All I was asking for are quotes in which he denies the reality and necessity of regeneration and of the believer’s conscious obedience in sanctification.
The statements you have provided simply don’t support your contention.
LikeLike
If his comment has nothing to do with sanctification, how does infusion of grace change sanctification’s position in regard to justification? And, the infusion of grace is into sanctification, NOT JUSTIFICATION. So, how does an infusion of grace into sanctification change the “ground of our justification?
LikeLike
Paul,
To answer your questions, 1. Oh really? Then why does he say that an infusion of grace “REVERSES JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION”? Because Sanctification does involve an infusion of grace but Justification doesn’t. 2. He’s not talking about “regeneration or sanctification.” ? Then why does he talk about the “RELATIONSHIP” of the two? There is a clear relationship between the two. Guilty people don’t want to approach or obey God. The problem with the Old Covenant was the inability of its sacrifices to deal with the guilty conscience. If God is going to sanctify his people, he must begin by removing the cause of their unwillingness to approach him. This is why sanctification follows justification.
LikeLike
NEITHER COVENANT DEALS DIRECTLY WITH THE CONSCIENCE. That’s a red herring. The apostle Paul told Timothy to “keep a clear conscience before God.” One of the horrible consequences of New Calvinism is the teaching that we should simply keep reminding ourselves of the gospel when we feel guilty. Evangelicals teach that we should do inventory and then deal with the cause according to Scripture.
LikeLike
Paul,
You wrote:
“If his comment has nothing to do with sanctification, how does infusion of grace change sanctification’s position in regard to justification? ” Infusion of grace doesn’t CHANGE sanctification’s position in regard to justification, but if we believe justification is based on infused grace not imputed righteousness we confuse justification and sanctification. This is no doubt what Piper means when he says there is a reversal of the two. In one righteousness is imputed; in the other holiness is imparted. You like J. C. Ryle. Go back and read his distinctions between justification and sanctification in his book on holiness.
Have you read Hebrews 9 and 10? “The worshipers once purged should have no more conscience [consciousness of guilt] of sins.” The sacrifices of the old covenant could not cleanse the conscience, Christ’s sacrifice does. How can you say neither covenant deals directly with the conscience?
LikeLike
Again, if the infusion is into sanctification, how does that change the ground of justification? Say that they aren’t connecting the two until your blue in the face–I’m not an idiot.
LikeLike
“All I was asking for are quotes in which he denies the reality and necessity of regeneration and of the believer’s conscious obedience in sanctification”
How about some quotes from Piper where he is clearly teaching that Sanctification is different than Justification?
And keep in mind his audiences are mainly professing born again believers. He does not usually preach to unbelievers. In fact, many of his audiences are pastors.
LikeLike
Lydia,
EXACTLY
LikeLike
Once more. He isn’t talking about the method of sanctification but about the ground of justification. The basis of justification is outside the sinner not something God is doing in him. That doesn’t mean God doesn’t also sanctify him by imparting to him a holiness that becomes the believer’s. If we confuse justification and sanctification [again I would beg you to see Ryle’s contrast of these] we forget that for justification, God imputes to sinners a righteousness that is not theirs but is totally outside of them. This is not NC; it is biblical truth.
LikeLike
A bit off topic but plays into the problems with Piper’s teachings. A link to articles about the way Piper teaches the Soveriegnty of God and the problems with it. A link to Piper’s rebuttal is included.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/811
LikeLike
I’m not sure I understand Lydia. Of course, sanctification is different from justification. Is there anyone in the believing world who doesn’t believe that?
LikeLike
Lydia,
How about this quote?
“This meant the reversal of the relationship of sanctification to justification. Infused grace, beginning with baptismal regeneration, internalized the Gospel and made sanctification the basis of justification. This is an upside down Gospel.”
It is impossible to reverse two works that are not different from one another. Additionally, one cannot be the basis of the other if they are not different.
LikeLike