The Thief on the Cross
New Calvinism says you must live by faith alone in sanctification to keep your justification. Those are ill motives. The motive is not love, it’s to keep your just standing. It’s staying nailed to the cross in order to keep our salvation. In contrast, the thief on the cross readily recognized that he was going to be with Jesus in paradise that day, but if Christ had released him from that cross, he would have loved Christ with everything in him by obeying everything Christ commanded. “If you love me, keep my commandments.”
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
The thief was a better theologian than the millions of “theologians” we have today. The thief knew where he was going based on faith in Jesus alone for justification (and as you said, his sanctification would have been obedience to his Master, had he had that opportunity).
The thief will win the end. He is still discussed to this day. But Chan’s/Piper’s/Platt’s/MacArthur’s etc etc etc new books will be forgotten in about a year.
LikeLike
Well stated.
LikeLike
“New Calvinism says you must live by faith alone in sanctification to keep your justification.” This is not the teaching of Chan/Piper/MacArthur. Once you are an adopted child of God you remain an adopted child of God, period! Yet, once a person truly is a child of God, his/her inclinations do change as now he/she is a “new creature” in Christ (2 Cor 5:17). Old desires are “put off” and new godly desires are “put on” (Eph 4:22-24). Sanctification is a person growing into Christlikeness and is a natural outgrowth of his/her new birth. You can’t lose your justification. And since I studied under Chan/MacArthur I know they don’t teach you can lose your justification.
LikeLike
Rae,
You don’t pay attention well. What they seem to say is not what is always being said. Piper clearly teaches that you can lose your salvation. They all believe in “final justification.” We have MacArthur on tape stating that all you can do to be saved is “ask” and hope for the best. We have MacArthur on tape saying that only the what can be preached from the Bible and the how must be left to the Holy Spirit. He has completely bought into the Reformed “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event” routine.
Moreover, they are all, by the words of their own mouths, followers of Augustine who clearly taught that we do not know if we are saved for certain until the final judgement. Calvin, who they all avow as the savior of Western cutler in regard to the gospel, especially through Spurgeon, taught progressive justification and even used that very term to describe his gospel.
You know not what you speak of.
LikeLike
Rae, Chan/MacArthur teach that you can “prove that you never had justification in the first place”, by your lack of works/too much sin. So they teach works for salvation, which cannot save.
LikeLike
A true believer (adopted child of God) is saved and no one can take that away (John 10:28). So it appears we all agree with what the Bible says.
What concerns me, is that taking a person out of context can mislead people on what someone says/means. I do personally know that Chan does not believe in works for salvation. Works are an outgrowth of a redeeming faith, which is quite different than what you are trying to make Chan say. A silly example is, I do kind/loving things for my husband because I love him, not so that I keep loving him or for him to love me, for that matter.
When anyone is adopted as a child of God and the Holy Spirit resides in him/her, his/her desires will be to please God above all else (2 Cor 5:9,15). Perhaps you would agree to what I just said. I am just saying that I know Chan believes that as well. Works do not save, ever!
Changes really do take place in a Holy Spirit indwelled person, wouldn’t you agree? However, not until our glorification will we perfectly reflect our Savior (Rom 8:28-30).
LikeLike
Rae,
Agreed on all except for what Chan et al teach. Exactly like Luther, they teach that true loving obedience is “experienced” subjectively by believing on the objective gospel only. Sanctification by faith alone in the objective gospel. Obedience is not something we do, we only “experience” it as the Holy Spirit performs the work apart from us as Christ’s atonement in sanctification. Hence, Chan like Piper, and Keller, teaches that anything we do out of duty is works and we must repent of it. If it gives us joy, it is not necessarily the manifestation of Christ’s imputed “salvific” works, but it could be. When we do works that give us joy, we should attend the work with repentance that others perceive it as coming from us.. This is the New Calvinist concept of “repenting of good works” that came directly from Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation. In “Crazy Love,” Chan states, “If it feels like work, it’s work, if it feels like love, it’s love.”
Oh really?
LikeLike
Rae, you want to draw me into a “lordship salvation” debate, but I consider “lordship salvation” to be a false gospel that leads to hell. So I reject the debate.
MacArthur/Chan/Piper are false teachers on many levels. Their heresy of “lordship salvation” is just one of those levels.
LikeLike
Abe, I am not trying to get into any debate, “lordship salvation” or otherwise. What Scripture says is all that matters. I was in a false gospel for over 20 years of my adult life (Jehovah’s Witness) and I know what it is like to be in a works/salvation religion. I have been a believer in Jesus Christ since 1996.
Paul, could you please find any quotes from Chan or MacArthur that say that if you find joy in what you do it is works you should repent of? And though I am still not sure where you stand on obedience, I know that obedience isn’t something we always “feel” like doing, but because of wanting to please the Lord above all else, we obey whether we “feel” like it or not, and He is pleased in our obedience.
Sorry if I am way off, but do you believe that nothing changes in you internally when you become a believer that would change your desire to obey the Lord? Is that what you call antinomianism? One of the key reasons I became a JW at age 19 was because my “Christian” friend said she could live any way she wanted to and that Jesus “understands.” But that wasn’t what I found in 1 John at all.
LikeLike
Rae,
I agree with you, but you don’t get what these guys teach. Really? I need to supply quotes from Piper and Chan that true obedience is legitimized by feelings? Other than multiple times in p.100 ff in “Crazy Love,” Piper’s whole Christian Hedonism construct is based on that idea. Also, put on a pot, pull up a chair, and google: “Repenting of Good Works.” Be sure to leave yourself plenty of time–it’s not a short read.
LikeLike
I will go back to that book (Crazy Love) and reexamine. Thanks! But let me make sure I have this right from your perspective . . Obedience isn’t dependent on our feelings (what you and I both agree). And you wouldn’t think it unscriptural to feel good about obeying, would you?
LikeLike
“I was in a false gospel for over 20 years of my adult life (Jehovah’s Witness)…”
I was in the “church of Christ” denomination for over 20 years, and they taught that if you ever miss a Sunday service you will go to hell. It was very ceremonialist. They thought the Pauline epistles were a roadmap to a perfect church service, and pulled from it all kinds of rules that if you didn’t keep in organizing the service, you were going to hell. If you attended a church that didn’t have the proper church government, elders and deacons and so on, you were going to hell.
But I have found that the problem was not “works.” The problem was that they were so focused on ceremony. “Works salvation” if we are talking moral works, is nothing more than the distinction between mortal and venial sins. If you commit a mortal sin, you need to repent and confess (in prayer, not to a priest) and get forgiveness for that, because as John says “there is a sin unto death, and there is a sin not unto death.” (1 John 5:16-17) If you commit a venial sin, forgiveness is automatic. This can be described as ‘works salvation’ if you like, but its not at all like the crap we were raised in, and ultimately its much more liberating than Pauline faith-alonism! Because Pauline faith-alonism ALWAYS devolves into legalistic antinomianism: “If you live right morally, you’re going to hell.” Pauline faith-alonism is just as cultic as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the CoC.
LikeLike
The thief did a work: he rebuked the other thief. “This man is innocent, but we suffer justly. Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Holy smokes? Works salvation right there.
LikeLike
“When anyone is adopted as a child of God and the Holy Spirit resides in him/her, his/her desires will be to please God above all else (2 Cor 5:9,15).”
Here is the problem Rae– we still have fleshly desires that reside in us for a lifetime; actually til “death do us part”. I can tell you right now not ALL my flesh is in desire to serve God above all else. I would love for it to be, but the world still enters into the picture. We are in a lifetime of learning- which is called sanctification; perfection comes in heaven. If one reads Corinthians one can figure out real quick that these guys were far from perfect, yet Paul calls them brothers and sisters. By the way, this “philosophy of Paul” to still call these imperfect Christians brothers and sisters is quite healthy you know- it keeps us humble. Pride comes before the fall, something these NC are lacking BIG TIME! If fact, where Scripture is clear is on false teachers having no part of God and being cast out into darkness.
The problem with the Chans and Platts in this world is – if you are NOT “giving and serving” then we wonder about your salvation. The problems with the MacARthurs in this world is – if you did not come to Christ whole heartedly surrendering ALL to the Lord (hence Lordship Salvation) you are probaly not saved. The problems with the Pipers of this world is – if you did not receive the right “theology” then we wonder if you truly know the right doctrine. The problems with Devers and Mahaneys of this world is – how dare you put down the mouthpiece of God; you must be of the devil.
LikeLike
trust4himonly, the way you describe MacArthur, he sounds like that silly hymn, “Did you repent, fully repent, of your past sins friend, when you confessed his name on high? Did you believe, fully believe on his great name then, or was a doubt, treacherous doubt, lingering night?” What if you didn’t, you have to go back and repeat your conversion? Come on.
LikeLike
I didn’t mean to imply that one pleases God perfectly; not at all! We still struggle with the flesh, though it is not master over us any longer (Romans). Sanctification (growing in Christlikeness) is a process and won’t be completed until we are glorified when Jesus returns. No one surrenders ALL to the Lord, though He is our Lord and Master. Therefore we still repent and ask forgiveness, not for salvation, but for continued fellowship with God. I would assume you agree :-).
LikeLike
The other problem is that one stays perpetually depraved in their construct. Piper is horrible on this one. I don’t think most people pick up on it because of his passionate verbosity. He has been one of the most effective false teachers out there.
What I think Rae is missing is their perpetual justification: One cannot know if they are really saved until they die. (the P) They really do think that any good works at all means you think you can “earn” you Justification. And this is confusing because people do not realize they meld justification and sanctification into one.
If they really believed in sanctification they would not have been going out of their way to protect and promote Mahaney. Piper went there especially to defend him. This is because they redefine sin to fit their agenda. And because they believe all sins are the same.
Their view of God’s Sovereignty is even more scary. Man has no volition so Mahaney protecting child molesters and teaching the victims they are sinners too so get over it and forgive immediately……, because he has correct doctrine is ok.
They are wolves. Run Rae Run. They are not safe.
LikeLike
Here is a great quote from Leonard Verduin’s book “The Reformers and their Step Children” I pulled out today because I was looking for something else. This sums up much of the problem:
We meet in Luther [as well as the entire Reformed /Calvinist /Puritan tradition], to put it theologically, a very heavy emphasis on the forensic aspect of salvation and a correspondingly light emphasis on the moral aspect. Luther was primarily interested in pardon, rather than in renewal. His theology was a theology that addresses itself to the problem of guilt, rather than to the problem of pollution. There is an imbalance in this theology between what God does for man and what He does in man.”
The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, p. 12.
This fits what Piper, et al, teach. God does not do anything in man because man is “unable” to respond. God does FOR man. So Christ “imputes” His righteousness because we cannot actually grow in Holiness in sanctification. Humans have nothing to do with any of it. So why listen to them? If what they teach is not from Christ, then where does it come from?
Satan would love for us to spend our time Gospel navel gazing and making dates with Satan concerning sin (seems you are not forgiven until the elders say so) instead of doing and being Christians who CAN live for Christ.
This doctrine is creating more and more atheists by the week. Because Calvinism is not something that can be applied in everyday life except to argue about it. One cannot live it unless they are being paid to teach it.
LikeLike