Thanks. There’s no ambiguity in what Piper says here. And it *is* sad that he can get away with saying that. I’m assuming that no one questioned him and that he did not retract it or say that he “misspoke.” If you have the link, would you post it?
paulspassingthoughts said, on December 27, 2012 at 5:32 PM
Jeff,
Basically, the thesis is that if we live by faith alone in sanctification, we are kept by the power of God. The second we stop living by faith alone in sanctification, we are no longer kept. That’s a huge problem. What’s the difference between that and Free Will Baptists praying their way into heaven or Catholics buying their way in? It’s salvation by Christ plus antinomianism. http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/the-elect-are-kept-by-the-power-of-god
“Basically, the thesis is that if we live by faith alone in sanctification, we are kept by the power of God. The second we stop living by faith alone in sanctification, we are no longer kept.” Yes, that seems to be the clear implication of what he says in his talk. And how can we have “security” and not be “home free”?
I read the text of Piper’s sermon from the link you provided. I see that he’s discussing 1 Pet 1:5, which he prints as: “who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”
You quoted the second of four points that Piper made:
“1. There is a salvation ready to be revealed. We are saved now, but our salvation is not complete. There is an inheritance imperishable, undefiled and unfading yet to be received. There is much more grace and glory to be experienced (1:13; 4:13; 5:10). We are not yet across the chasm.
2. There is danger on the way to salvation in heaven. We need ongoing protection after our conversion. Our security does not mean we are home free. There is a battle to be fought. And in this battle we need protection and help far beyond what we can supply for ourselves.
3. Our protection comes from God. More specifically, from the power of God. “[We] are [now being] protected by the power of God.” In verse 3 we saw that God causes the new birth, and in verse 5 we see that God protects his children all the way to heaven. So our security doesn’t mean that there is no battle, or that we don’t have to win it, but that God will fight for us with infallible skill and omnipotent power.
4.The means God uses to protect us is faith. “[We] are [now being] protected by the power of God through faith.”
Later on, he writes:
“So what does verse 5 mean, then, when it says we are “protected [from losing our final salvation] by the power of God through faith”? It means that God’s power protects us for salvation by sustaining our faith. The only thing that can keep us from heaven is forsaking our faith in Christ, and turning to other hopes, other treasures. So to protect us God prevents that. He inspires and nourishes and strengthens and builds our faith. And in doing this he secures us against the only thing that could destroy us; unbelief, lack of trust in God.”
He is saying that God infallibly makes sure that we never “[forsake] our faith in Christ…”. So it’s not that Piper is saying, in your words, “…if we live by faith alone in sanctification, we are kept by the power of God. The second we stop living by faith alone in sanctification, we are no longer kept.” He is saying that, *because* we are kept by God, we will never entirely lose our faith, and, therefore, will not lose our salvation. This seems to me to be an adequate explanation of 1 Pet 1:5.
Earlier, he gives an image that he hopes we will *not* see:
“One image is of the Christian walking along the edge of a great chasm which he needs to cross to get to heaven. He is holding onto one end of the chain leading into the past. Day by day he is forging the links of faithfulness as best he can with some help from the Holy Spirit (not infallible help) so that eventually he can try to connect with the chain of heaven that hangs down from the high cliff on the other side. But he is never sure that he will forge the links well enough or have the strength to finish the chain.
In other words, I hope the image you have of the chain of salvation is not one that leaves the believer insecure and ready to fall out of faith and into destruction.”
This is similar to the image that you say that Piper promotes. But he explicitly does *not* promote it.
I have some big problems with Piper. But, in this case, I’m sorry to say that you seem to have misrepresented him.
paulspassingthoughts said, on December 27, 2012 at 9:55 PM
Jeff,
Oh really? Because like all false teachers he uses doublespeak–all bets are off? Pray tell then, what are we in danger of? He did use the word “danger” right? Did he also not use the word “not” and “home free.” And is it true that we are kept by the power of God “through” *faith* IN SANCTIFICATION. Clearly, he is saying that there is a perpetual keeping based on our faith with the implication being that it is a faith alone in sanctification. Look, all of these guys teach exactly that: salvation by faith alone in sanctification. I have documented this long and far.
paulspassingthoughts said, on December 27, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Uh, Jeff, and then there is this: “The means God uses to protect us is faith.” What does “means” mean? Again, it is clearly salvation by faith alone in sanctification because, “the same gospel that saves us also sanctifies us” and “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday,” and “all of our works are filthy rags” therefore we need to live by faith alone. They are all guilty as hell. I have not misrepresented anybody.
paulspassingthoughts said, on December 28, 2012 at 1:16 PM
Look, I was rereading chapter 2 of FR and was surprised at the detail in which I had addressed this specific sermon. Piper states, “In the second image the believer has security in the wrong place; a kind of automatic eternal security that can get you to heaven another way than by the chain of God’s saving, persevering acts revealed in Scripture.” Salvation is a “CHAIN” of “SAVING” (saving? From what?) “ACTS” (“saving acts” are in the plural). If this isn’t progressive justification, what is? Clearly, Piper is saying that the gospel is a chain of saving acts by God that are invoked through the “means” of our faith. These statements are damning, smoking guns and indicative of Reformed theology.
I would have responded sooner if I did not have distractions.
Just to make it clear: I’m responding only to what Piper is saying in this particular sermon about this particular verse (1 Pet 1:5), although he also refers to vss. 3 and 4.
As you have made it very clear, we must rely only on Scripture and to interpret it as honestly as we can. (I hope the following short “Bible lesson” doesn’t sound condescending; I don’t mean it to.)
1 Pet 1:3-5: “Praise the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. According to His great mercy, He has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and into an inheritance that is imperishable, uncorrupted, and unfading, kept in heaven for you. You are being protected by God’s power through faith for a salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.”
In addition to verses that speak of salvation as past and present, there are verses in Scripture that speak of it as future; or, at least, of some *aspect* of it that is future (e.g. Rom 5:9-10; 1 Cor 3:15; Heb 1:14). 1 Pet 1:3-5 seems to be some of those verses.
As far as I know, none of these “future” verses say or imply that a genuine believer can lose his/her salvation.
1 Peter is talking to believers – those who have been justified. And yet he says that these believers are being “protected.” Doesn’t this word imply a possible danger? Or at least a theoretical one (if there’s a difference)? Piper writes: “There is danger on the way to salvation in heaven. We need ongoing protection after our conversion. Our security does not mean we are home free. There is a battle to be fought. And in this battle we need protection and help far beyond what we can supply for ourselves.”
In isolation, these words are indeed alarming, maybe heretical. But, combined with the other three points he uses (quoted in my earlier comment), it seems to me that he’s trying to deal honestly with the text. He’s trying to deal with a biblical *paradox,* not double-speaking, unless the Bible is double-speaking when it speaks of salvation being past, present, and future – which, of course, it isn’t.
The verse also says what we are protected by: “God’s power through faith.” Is Scripture then saying that believers must constantly exercise faith every moment or lose their salvation? If it does, then the New Calvinists are correct, and it would follow that sanctification entails constant faith so that Jesus will perform all possible works for us.
Of course, it doesn’t mean that. But it *is* talking about the necessity of faith for the believer, a faith that secures and/or relies on “God’s power.” And that this power protects us “for a salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.”
Piper’s conclusion, which I also quoted above: “So what does verse 5 mean, then, when it says we are ‘protected [from losing our final salvation] by the power of God through faith’? It means that God’s power protects us for salvation by sustaining our faith. The only thing that can keep us from heaven is forsaking our faith in Christ, and turning to other hopes, other treasures. So to protect us God prevents that. He inspires and nourishes and strengthens and builds our faith. And in doing this he secures us against the only thing that could destroy us; unbelief, lack of trust in God.”
He isn’t talking about faith according to the Law – perfect faith every second of our lives. And he isn’t saying that sanctification is only faith (at least, not here). His interpretation of these verses is that God keeps us from losing our faith in Christ, without which we are condemned. He says elsewhere in his sermon that, although God infallibly keeps us faithful, we shouldn’t take faith for granted. Though it will not happen for true believers, losing one’s faith is truly dangerous.
Near the end, he writes: “Those who are born of God ‘are protected by the power of God through faith’—*through God’s sustaining their faith*—’for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.’ He caused us to be born again by creating our faith; and he protects us on the way to heaven by preserving our faith.” (My emphasis)
You quoted Piper in your last comment: “In the second image the believer has security in the wrong place; a kind of automatic eternal security that can get you to heaven another way than by the chain of God’s saving, persevering acts revealed in Scripture.”
Combining these two quotes, I think Piper is saying that merely making a declaration of faith (he goes into this a little more in the sermon) does not grant “a kind of automatic eternal security that can get you to heaven.” We need to keep believing (not perfectly every second), and we *will* keep believing because God “[sustains our] faith,” “[preserves] our faith.” I think this is what he means by “God’s saving, persevering acts revealed in Scripture.”
Another paradox (which Piper alludes to): “…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God who is working in you, enabling you both to desire and to work out His good purpose.” Is God combining justification and sanctification here? No.
I think Piper’s interpretation here is reasonable. Paul, if you disagree, I’d be interested to know how you interpret these verses, esp. verse 5.
paulspassingthoughts said, on December 29, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Jeff,
He believes exactly what Calvin believes; per him. Let’s see if this is clear enough:
“Secondly, this passage shows that the gratuitous pardon of sins is given us not only once, but that it is a benefit perpetually residing in the Church, and daily offered to the faithful. For the Apostle here addresses the faithful; as doubtless no man has ever been, nor ever will be, who can otherwise please God, since all are guilty before him; for however strong a desire there may be in us of acting rightly, we always go haltingly to God. Yet what is half done obtains no approval with God. In the meantime, by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God. Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God” (Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. 45: Catholic Epistles).
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
Thanks. There’s no ambiguity in what Piper says here. And it *is* sad that he can get away with saying that. I’m assuming that no one questioned him and that he did not retract it or say that he “misspoke.” If you have the link, would you post it?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Yes, I will post the link here.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I delve into this Piper escapade pretty deep in ch 2 of FR. The reference I have in the book is the following online source: http://goo.gl/9IeTg
LikeLike
Jeff,
Basically, the thesis is that if we live by faith alone in sanctification, we are kept by the power of God. The second we stop living by faith alone in sanctification, we are no longer kept. That’s a huge problem. What’s the difference between that and Free Will Baptists praying their way into heaven or Catholics buying their way in? It’s salvation by Christ plus antinomianism. http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/the-elect-are-kept-by-the-power-of-god
LikeLike
Thanks for the links.
“Basically, the thesis is that if we live by faith alone in sanctification, we are kept by the power of God. The second we stop living by faith alone in sanctification, we are no longer kept.” Yes, that seems to be the clear implication of what he says in his talk. And how can we have “security” and not be “home free”?
LikeLike
Yep. This is not a true gospel. Yet, this guy is the hottest thing since sliced bread in the church.
LikeLike
Paul,
I read the text of Piper’s sermon from the link you provided. I see that he’s discussing 1 Pet 1:5, which he prints as: “who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”
You quoted the second of four points that Piper made:
“1. There is a salvation ready to be revealed. We are saved now, but our salvation is not complete. There is an inheritance imperishable, undefiled and unfading yet to be received. There is much more grace and glory to be experienced (1:13; 4:13; 5:10). We are not yet across the chasm.
2. There is danger on the way to salvation in heaven. We need ongoing protection after our conversion. Our security does not mean we are home free. There is a battle to be fought. And in this battle we need protection and help far beyond what we can supply for ourselves.
3. Our protection comes from God. More specifically, from the power of God. “[We] are [now being] protected by the power of God.” In verse 3 we saw that God causes the new birth, and in verse 5 we see that God protects his children all the way to heaven. So our security doesn’t mean that there is no battle, or that we don’t have to win it, but that God will fight for us with infallible skill and omnipotent power.
4.The means God uses to protect us is faith. “[We] are [now being] protected by the power of God through faith.”
Later on, he writes:
“So what does verse 5 mean, then, when it says we are “protected [from losing our final salvation] by the power of God through faith”? It means that God’s power protects us for salvation by sustaining our faith. The only thing that can keep us from heaven is forsaking our faith in Christ, and turning to other hopes, other treasures. So to protect us God prevents that. He inspires and nourishes and strengthens and builds our faith. And in doing this he secures us against the only thing that could destroy us; unbelief, lack of trust in God.”
He is saying that God infallibly makes sure that we never “[forsake] our faith in Christ…”. So it’s not that Piper is saying, in your words, “…if we live by faith alone in sanctification, we are kept by the power of God. The second we stop living by faith alone in sanctification, we are no longer kept.” He is saying that, *because* we are kept by God, we will never entirely lose our faith, and, therefore, will not lose our salvation. This seems to me to be an adequate explanation of 1 Pet 1:5.
Earlier, he gives an image that he hopes we will *not* see:
“One image is of the Christian walking along the edge of a great chasm which he needs to cross to get to heaven. He is holding onto one end of the chain leading into the past. Day by day he is forging the links of faithfulness as best he can with some help from the Holy Spirit (not infallible help) so that eventually he can try to connect with the chain of heaven that hangs down from the high cliff on the other side. But he is never sure that he will forge the links well enough or have the strength to finish the chain.
In other words, I hope the image you have of the chain of salvation is not one that leaves the believer insecure and ready to fall out of faith and into destruction.”
This is similar to the image that you say that Piper promotes. But he explicitly does *not* promote it.
I have some big problems with Piper. But, in this case, I’m sorry to say that you seem to have misrepresented him.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Oh really? Because like all false teachers he uses doublespeak–all bets are off? Pray tell then, what are we in danger of? He did use the word “danger” right? Did he also not use the word “not” and “home free.” And is it true that we are kept by the power of God “through” *faith* IN SANCTIFICATION. Clearly, he is saying that there is a perpetual keeping based on our faith with the implication being that it is a faith alone in sanctification. Look, all of these guys teach exactly that: salvation by faith alone in sanctification. I have documented this long and far.
1. What is the danger he speaks of specifically?
2. What isn’t home free?
LikeLike
Uh, Jeff, and then there is this: “The means God uses to protect us is faith.” What does “means” mean? Again, it is clearly salvation by faith alone in sanctification because, “the same gospel that saves us also sanctifies us” and “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday,” and “all of our works are filthy rags” therefore we need to live by faith alone. They are all guilty as hell. I have not misrepresented anybody.
LikeLike
Look, I was rereading chapter 2 of FR and was surprised at the detail in which I had addressed this specific sermon. Piper states, “In the second image the believer has security in the wrong place; a kind of automatic eternal security that can get you to heaven another way than by the chain of God’s saving, persevering acts revealed in Scripture.” Salvation is a “CHAIN” of “SAVING” (saving? From what?) “ACTS” (“saving acts” are in the plural). If this isn’t progressive justification, what is? Clearly, Piper is saying that the gospel is a chain of saving acts by God that are invoked through the “means” of our faith. These statements are damning, smoking guns and indicative of Reformed theology.
LikeLike
Paul,
I would have responded sooner if I did not have distractions.
Just to make it clear: I’m responding only to what Piper is saying in this particular sermon about this particular verse (1 Pet 1:5), although he also refers to vss. 3 and 4.
As you have made it very clear, we must rely only on Scripture and to interpret it as honestly as we can. (I hope the following short “Bible lesson” doesn’t sound condescending; I don’t mean it to.)
1 Pet 1:3-5: “Praise the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. According to His great mercy, He has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and into an inheritance that is imperishable, uncorrupted, and unfading, kept in heaven for you. You are being protected by God’s power through faith for a salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.”
In addition to verses that speak of salvation as past and present, there are verses in Scripture that speak of it as future; or, at least, of some *aspect* of it that is future (e.g. Rom 5:9-10; 1 Cor 3:15; Heb 1:14). 1 Pet 1:3-5 seems to be some of those verses.
As far as I know, none of these “future” verses say or imply that a genuine believer can lose his/her salvation.
1 Peter is talking to believers – those who have been justified. And yet he says that these believers are being “protected.” Doesn’t this word imply a possible danger? Or at least a theoretical one (if there’s a difference)? Piper writes: “There is danger on the way to salvation in heaven. We need ongoing protection after our conversion. Our security does not mean we are home free. There is a battle to be fought. And in this battle we need protection and help far beyond what we can supply for ourselves.”
In isolation, these words are indeed alarming, maybe heretical. But, combined with the other three points he uses (quoted in my earlier comment), it seems to me that he’s trying to deal honestly with the text. He’s trying to deal with a biblical *paradox,* not double-speaking, unless the Bible is double-speaking when it speaks of salvation being past, present, and future – which, of course, it isn’t.
The verse also says what we are protected by: “God’s power through faith.” Is Scripture then saying that believers must constantly exercise faith every moment or lose their salvation? If it does, then the New Calvinists are correct, and it would follow that sanctification entails constant faith so that Jesus will perform all possible works for us.
Of course, it doesn’t mean that. But it *is* talking about the necessity of faith for the believer, a faith that secures and/or relies on “God’s power.” And that this power protects us “for a salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.”
Piper’s conclusion, which I also quoted above: “So what does verse 5 mean, then, when it says we are ‘protected [from losing our final salvation] by the power of God through faith’? It means that God’s power protects us for salvation by sustaining our faith. The only thing that can keep us from heaven is forsaking our faith in Christ, and turning to other hopes, other treasures. So to protect us God prevents that. He inspires and nourishes and strengthens and builds our faith. And in doing this he secures us against the only thing that could destroy us; unbelief, lack of trust in God.”
He isn’t talking about faith according to the Law – perfect faith every second of our lives. And he isn’t saying that sanctification is only faith (at least, not here). His interpretation of these verses is that God keeps us from losing our faith in Christ, without which we are condemned. He says elsewhere in his sermon that, although God infallibly keeps us faithful, we shouldn’t take faith for granted. Though it will not happen for true believers, losing one’s faith is truly dangerous.
Near the end, he writes: “Those who are born of God ‘are protected by the power of God through faith’—*through God’s sustaining their faith*—’for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.’ He caused us to be born again by creating our faith; and he protects us on the way to heaven by preserving our faith.” (My emphasis)
You quoted Piper in your last comment: “In the second image the believer has security in the wrong place; a kind of automatic eternal security that can get you to heaven another way than by the chain of God’s saving, persevering acts revealed in Scripture.”
Combining these two quotes, I think Piper is saying that merely making a declaration of faith (he goes into this a little more in the sermon) does not grant “a kind of automatic eternal security that can get you to heaven.” We need to keep believing (not perfectly every second), and we *will* keep believing because God “[sustains our] faith,” “[preserves] our faith.” I think this is what he means by “God’s saving, persevering acts revealed in Scripture.”
Another paradox (which Piper alludes to): “…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God who is working in you, enabling you both to desire and to work out His good purpose.” Is God combining justification and sanctification here? No.
I think Piper’s interpretation here is reasonable. Paul, if you disagree, I’d be interested to know how you interpret these verses, esp. verse 5.
LikeLike
Jeff,
He believes exactly what Calvin believes; per him. Let’s see if this is clear enough:
“Secondly, this passage shows that the gratuitous pardon of sins is given us not only once, but that it is a benefit perpetually residing in the Church, and daily offered to the faithful. For the Apostle here addresses the faithful; as doubtless no man has ever been, nor ever will be, who can otherwise please God, since all are guilty before him; for however strong a desire there may be in us of acting rightly, we always go haltingly to God. Yet what is half done obtains no approval with God. In the meantime, by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God. Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God” (Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. 45: Catholic Epistles).
LikeLike