One could possibly make the case that while Sanctification is not in view whatsoever in Romans 8:30, the reason for that is because it was already a forgone conclusion as mentioned in verse 29.
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”
God predestines, not the “who” but the “what”. That believers would be conformed into the image of Christ. This is the goal of Sanctification. In fact the mention of predestination in verse 30 links back to verse 29. The predestination has to do with conforming to the image of Christ. Paul just used a shorthand in verse 30 because it should have been obvious what he was referring to.
“Moreover whom he did predestinate (to be conformed to the image of His Son), them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
In other words, in order for God to Sanctify us, it was necessary for Him to call us, justify us, and glorify us. Once that is done, then we can be conformed into the image of Christ (Sanctification) which was what He pre-determined to do. But that in no way joins justifcation/sanctification. If anything it simply enforces the argument of Justification and Glorification being already finished.
The logic of Paul’s treatise in these two verses is impeccable!
The logical inverse of this statement is then, “some sinners are justified.”
It then follows to ask the question, which sinners ARE justified. One draws the inference that this would be a reference to believers. Therefore, in this construct, believers are STILL sinners.
Wrong! False! Error! Go directly to jail, do not pass GO, do not collect $200!
“The liberating law of the life-giving Spirit has freed us from the enslaving law of death-giving sin.”
Ooo, this is so subtile what Piper has perpertrated here. He has changed the function of the word “of” from that of limiting in scope to that of showing possession.
“The law of the spirit of life” has now become “the law of the life-giving Spirit.” He has changed it from a law that is specifically limited to one that results in the Spirit of Life and turned it into the life-giving spirit’s law.
“The law of sin and death” has now become “the enslaving law of death-giving sin.” He has changed it from a law that is specifically limited to one that results in sin and death and tuned it into Sin’s law.
That last statement becomes even more egregious because it impugnes the Law by describing it as Sin’s law, and Paul stated that the law was not sinful but resulted in sin. Sin used it for its destructive ends, but it was not Sin’s law.
He has purposefully mis-used the same words of scripture, by rearranging them to fit his narrative. This is so very nuanced, and you have to think really hard to discern the subtle difference in tone.
paulspassingthoughts said, on August 18, 2014 at 3:15 PM
Andy, correct me if I am wrong, but the logical conclusion of your assessment would be that these are 2 REALMS, a life realm and a death realm. If the written law is good, and the problem is our sinful response to the law, and of course the law of the Spirit must be good as well, this blows the 2 powers/2 realms narrative out of the water. In fact, Paul states elsewhere that it is a law that promises life, but is death TO US because of sin, not the law. Hence, you are far from splitting hairs here.
paulspassingthoughts said, on August 18, 2014 at 3:21 PM
…so, Christ’s death on the cross fulfilled the penalty of the law and stripped its ability to condemn us. Hence, Matthew 5:17…He didn’t come to abolish the law of the Spirit of life, but to end the laws ability to condemn us.
“If the written law is good, and the problem is our sinful response to the law, and of course the law of the Spirit must be good as well, this blows the 2 powers/2 realms narrative out of the water. In fact, Paul states elsewhere that it is a law that promises life, but is death TO US because of sin, not the law. Hence, you are far from splitting hairs here.”
Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying, and Piper is very clever in the way he engages his word-smithing so that he clearly communicates what he means under the subterfuge of what a normal thinking reasoning person would understand from simply reading those same verses for themselves. Thus, they are decieved because they percieve that he is saying the same thing they believe. But he isn’t. And as you mentioned, that is the problem with 500-years of protestantism dumbing-down Christianity.
paulspassingthoughts said, on August 18, 2014 at 3:44 PM
I am beginning to see why Paul worded things the way he did–the Holy Spirit saw all of this coming. So, supposedly, men are not judged in the final judgement according to works they have done, they are judged according to what realm they belong to.
paulspassingthoughts said, on August 18, 2014 at 3:48 PM
…they aren’t judged according to the written law, but a realm. But… “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.”
That is particularly evident when he makes the statement:
“There is a sense in which whether we are acquitted before God depends on whether the law of the Spirit of life has freed us from the law of sin and death.”
Now, we can quibble about if “law” means law or realm or power, and that is exactly what he wants to distract us with. Notice, you almost overlook that pharse “we are acquitted before God”. He says that as if that is a given, but he has set up a false premise that he is counting on the novice, unskilled believer to overlook: a question about a believer’s acquittal. Point: We won’t even BE IN THAT JUDGMENT, so there is NO NEED for an acquittal!!! That fact alone makes the rest of his argument moot.
This “sermon” is from 1980. He was making these statements way back then and nobody caught it. And he’s still saying them today. At least he’s consistent. 🙂
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
One could possibly make the case that while Sanctification is not in view whatsoever in Romans 8:30, the reason for that is because it was already a forgone conclusion as mentioned in verse 29.
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”
God predestines, not the “who” but the “what”. That believers would be conformed into the image of Christ. This is the goal of Sanctification. In fact the mention of predestination in verse 30 links back to verse 29. The predestination has to do with conforming to the image of Christ. Paul just used a shorthand in verse 30 because it should have been obvious what he was referring to.
“Moreover whom he did predestinate (to be conformed to the image of His Son), them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
In other words, in order for God to Sanctify us, it was necessary for Him to call us, justify us, and glorify us. Once that is done, then we can be conformed into the image of Christ (Sanctification) which was what He pre-determined to do. But that in no way joins justifcation/sanctification. If anything it simply enforces the argument of Justification and Glorification being already finished.
The logic of Paul’s treatise in these two verses is impeccable!
LikeLike
“not all sinners are justified.”
The logical inverse of this statement is then, “some sinners are justified.”
It then follows to ask the question, which sinners ARE justified. One draws the inference that this would be a reference to believers. Therefore, in this construct, believers are STILL sinners.
Wrong! False! Error! Go directly to jail, do not pass GO, do not collect $200!
LikeLike
“The liberating law of the life-giving Spirit has freed us from the enslaving law of death-giving sin.”
Ooo, this is so subtile what Piper has perpertrated here. He has changed the function of the word “of” from that of limiting in scope to that of showing possession.
“The law of the spirit of life” has now become “the law of the life-giving Spirit.” He has changed it from a law that is specifically limited to one that results in the Spirit of Life and turned it into the life-giving spirit’s law.
“The law of sin and death” has now become “the enslaving law of death-giving sin.” He has changed it from a law that is specifically limited to one that results in sin and death and tuned it into Sin’s law.
That last statement becomes even more egregious because it impugnes the Law by describing it as Sin’s law, and Paul stated that the law was not sinful but resulted in sin. Sin used it for its destructive ends, but it was not Sin’s law.
He has purposefully mis-used the same words of scripture, by rearranging them to fit his narrative. This is so very nuanced, and you have to think really hard to discern the subtle difference in tone.
LikeLike
Andy, correct me if I am wrong, but the logical conclusion of your assessment would be that these are 2 REALMS, a life realm and a death realm. If the written law is good, and the problem is our sinful response to the law, and of course the law of the Spirit must be good as well, this blows the 2 powers/2 realms narrative out of the water. In fact, Paul states elsewhere that it is a law that promises life, but is death TO US because of sin, not the law. Hence, you are far from splitting hairs here.
LikeLike
…so, Christ’s death on the cross fulfilled the penalty of the law and stripped its ability to condemn us. Hence, Matthew 5:17…He didn’t come to abolish the law of the Spirit of life, but to end the laws ability to condemn us.
LikeLike
“If the written law is good, and the problem is our sinful response to the law, and of course the law of the Spirit must be good as well, this blows the 2 powers/2 realms narrative out of the water. In fact, Paul states elsewhere that it is a law that promises life, but is death TO US because of sin, not the law. Hence, you are far from splitting hairs here.”
Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying, and Piper is very clever in the way he engages his word-smithing so that he clearly communicates what he means under the subterfuge of what a normal thinking reasoning person would understand from simply reading those same verses for themselves. Thus, they are decieved because they percieve that he is saying the same thing they believe. But he isn’t. And as you mentioned, that is the problem with 500-years of protestantism dumbing-down Christianity.
LikeLike
I am beginning to see why Paul worded things the way he did–the Holy Spirit saw all of this coming. So, supposedly, men are not judged in the final judgement according to works they have done, they are judged according to what realm they belong to.
LikeLike
…they aren’t judged according to the written law, but a realm. But… “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.”
LikeLike
That is particularly evident when he makes the statement:
“There is a sense in which whether we are acquitted before God depends on whether the law of the Spirit of life has freed us from the law of sin and death.”
Now, we can quibble about if “law” means law or realm or power, and that is exactly what he wants to distract us with. Notice, you almost overlook that pharse “we are acquitted before God”. He says that as if that is a given, but he has set up a false premise that he is counting on the novice, unskilled believer to overlook: a question about a believer’s acquittal. Point: We won’t even BE IN THAT JUDGMENT, so there is NO NEED for an acquittal!!! That fact alone makes the rest of his argument moot.
LikeLike
This “sermon” is from 1980. He was making these statements way back then and nobody caught it. And he’s still saying them today. At least he’s consistent. 🙂
LikeLike