A Response to a Follower of John Piper
The following comment is a good opportunity to clarify John Piper’s doctrine:
Dane,
I will respond line by the line and post it. My responses are in brackets.
“Have you ever even read Piper; his book on missions for instance?”
[Yes, I have read plenty of Piper, but even if I haven’t, what does that have to do with the message he delivered at the 2010 “Together for Gospel Sanctification” (T4GS) conference? Also, I realize that he writes and teaches some really cool stuff, but so does Joel Olsteen.]
“You act as if he is instructing Christians to sit on their thumbs and meditate all day.”
[No, but since I agree with your assessment on what Piper believes on that point:]
‘The point in meditation upon Christ and his gospels is to humble us so we don’t pridefully depend on our works instead of His grace.”
[Right, except for the fact that Piper believes the whole Bible is about the gospel, not just the Gospels. In other words, he believes the whole Bible is about justification. In a very scary interview between DA Carson and Tim Keller, close associates of Piper, and also GS advocates, which I believe was a review concerning the upcoming 2012 T4GS conference, they talked about how they were going to teach pastors to “drive toward Christ and the gospel,” and to show what “Biblical Theology,” ie., the Christocentric redemptive-historical hermeneutic, dubbed BT by Geerhardus Vos, “looks like,” in order to “read the Bible in such a way that you {always} get to Jesus.” Whether Piper, Keller, or Carson, I find their nuanced verbiage sickening. If you are going to teach redemptive-historical hermeneutics, for the love of mercy just say so. Also, I assume all of the fawning pastors at that conference will fail to pick-up on the fact that they are being taught to interpret the Bible with a theology (as in “Biblical Theology”), which is Interpretive No-No’s 101. Of course, they are, in fact, going to teach a hermeneutic; only the terminology should raise a red flag, which it won’t.
Notice in your statement that you correctly identify what Piper believes: ANY works on our part in sanctification will result in prideful works INSTEAD of grace. Of course, evangelicals don’t believe that we “depend” on our own works alone in sanctification, but that doesn’t mean we don’t work. But in the video, “The Gospel in 6 Minutes,” which is an excerpt from one of his (Piper’s) sermons, he says to “never {he repeats “never” like, 20 times} separate the gospel from sanctification.” The gospel is received by faith alone. So this clearly means that Piper, as all GS proponents, believes in sanctification by justification, or sanctification by faith alone. This is what’s behind meditating on the gospel to the exclusion of “….works instead of His grace.” In fact, Piper believes that any effort on our part in the sanctification process is works salvation. Though Piper, like most GS advocates, speaks in nuance, the logical conclusion of what he says in the aforementioned sermon is irrefutable. I comment in another post accordingly:
“Piper begins this section with the following: ‘I know that there are people reading this who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation.’ In context, what does he mean that they are not ‘trusting Jesus Christ’? Well, he continues: ‘Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone.’ So, who is he talking to? I’m glad you asked, he continues in the very next sentence: ‘I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the gospel.’ He is talking about being strong, or strengthened, in regard to ‘us’ (remember the title of the sermon that the video was excerpted from? ‘God Strengthens Us by the Gospel’). In other words, exerting our own effort in the sanctification process, and especially apart from the gospel, will result in ‘condemnation.’ This is a plea for any person who believes in synergistic sanctification to be saved. Also note how he uses expressions of justification and sanctification interchangeably. The topics of his paragraphs in the same general context often look like this: Justification, sanctification, justification, sanctification. Likewise, Piper and many others such as Paul Tripp often use justification verses to make points about sanctification. I have cited many, many, examples of this in previous articles, and a prime example would be pages 64 and 65 of ‘How People Change.’” ]
“His grace motivates us to works.”
[Not exactly. Piper believes in the total depravity of the saints. Therefore, it stands to reason that the totally depraved can’t be rightly motivated to do anything. In fact, he teaches that joy gives all works moral value and that joy is always a gift from God. In essence, Piper calls on us to sin (work in our own efforts while asking God to forgive us—as you said, this keeps us humble) while waiting for God to grant us joy as a gift. This is what he clearly says on page 43 of “When I Don’t Desire God: How to Fight for Joy.” Hence, like Paul Tripp and many others, Piper teaches that sin is part of God’s prescription for sanctification. The “fight for joy” is—us necessarily sinning; Piper clearly says so. Also, in the short, three-chapter ebook, “Treating Duty as Delight is Controversial” which can be found on his website, Piper clearly says we are, as Christians, “enslaved to sinful passions” and specifically cites Romans 6:17, which speaks concerning our previous unregenerate state before salvation. Per the usual, the first pope of New Calvinism can say a verse says one thing when it clearly says something else because, well, he’s the Pope.]
“Please stop wasting your time criticizing Christians that you are jealous of and causing divisions in the church.”
[ Why would I be jealous of a false teacher? And why are you following this guy? He is in grave, stark contrast to the likes of JC Ryle, BB Warfield, and many, many, others. And truth doesn’t cause division, error does—truth unifies. And, I have seen the divisions / controversies / confusion that Piper’s teachings cause—first hand. Like the company that split because two of the partners stopped doing their job because: to do certain elements of their job that didn’t give them joy would be sin. Supposedly. Like the guy who prayed for hours begging God to save him, and God supposedly wouldn’t, because he couldn’t experience “the treasure chest of joy” that supposedly always accompanies salvation.
No, I’m not wasting my time. I will fight this hideous doctrine till God gives me my last breath or by God’s decree GS is put out of business: whichever happens first.]
paul
Christians Aren’t “Under” the Law? Oh Really?
One of the realities that has hit home with me recently is the fact that Christians in this country have been dumbed-down like our children are being dumbed-down in public schools. In fact, the dumbing-down started in my generation (I am 54 years old). When I was in eighth grade, I went to Oakwood Junior High School in Dayton, Ohio; it has always been a top-rated school nationally. However, when I was there, for example, in literature class, we primarily studied the significance of Beatles (the rock band) songs and their lyrics. Now, my dumbed-down generation, who was rarely taught how to think objectively, has moved into the American church.
Couple that with the fact that by and large, seminaries have taken over the administration of doctrinal teaching. Try teaching a class on soteriology in the local church; no one will show up because Christians don’t even know what soteriology is, and anyone who does show up will mock you by saying, “Is this a church or a seminary?” Seminaries are now in total control of what is taught in the local churches and the average American parishioner perceives seminarians as authorities who cannot be questioned. I recently visited a local church here in Xenia, Ohio and the church was having an annual Sunday school presentation. The church has a strong affiliation with Cedarville [Christian] College and many of the students attend there. I listened in horror as a Sunday school teacher explained that the main focus of his class (the college age class) was to merely encourage the students because, “we could never teach them anything more than they are learning at Cedarville.” Adding to my dismay was the senior pastor / MC nodding in agreement like some bobbing head in the back window of a low-rider.
This blogsite concerns Gospel Sanctification, and it has become evident to me why this doctrine has been able to sweep across America unchecked: Christians don’t know the difference between justification, sanctification, and glorification. In fact, not only do they not know the difference, they don’t even know what the terms mean; and worse yet, they aren’t theological terms, they are specific biblical terms ( 1Cor 1:30, 6:11).
Hence, the mantra / cliché: “Christians aren’t under the law.” 99.9999 percent of all Christians, it seems like, would quickly agree with this statement. When someone replies, “Christians are not under the law for justification, but we are under the law for sanctification because that’s what the Holy Spirit uses to sanctify us (John 17:17 [the specific term Paul used for us being ‘under’ the law is, ‘we uphold’ the law]),” the reply will be, “That’s legalism,” another American Christian cliché that replaces working knowledge of the Scriptures. Let me tell you what they mean by “legalism” because they don’t even know what they mean by that themselves. They intend to say that you believe we are sanctified by keeping the law, BUT the belief that Christians are under (obligated to) the law does not hold to that. It rather believes that the Holy Spirit sanctifies, and that we are walking in the Spirit when we are walking (living) in the truth, which of course is revealed in the Scriptures (again, John 17:17). It’s a colaboring; we obey, the Spirit sanctifies. Sanctification means to “set apart,” and the only thing that distinguishes us from the world is God’s way of thinking and doing verses that of the world. That’s why the kingdom of darkness constantly strives to un-sanctify those whom they have lost to being damned eternally; encouraging them to be more like the world dampens their testimony to those they haven’t lost yet—du! That’s why the kingdom of darkness always propagates, “being against the law (which most Christians think always refers to the Decalogue [ten commandments], but most often the word refers to all of Scripture) of God,” and I am using those words because most Christians don’t know what an antinomian is which is really weird because that’s what the apostle Paul said Satan is, and Satan is our enemy so it seems like most Christians would know what he is, but I guess not, and please hold while I catch my breath for the next sentence.
Besides, and furthermore, most Christians really don’t know what “legalism” means either. It’s trying to keep “a” (not “the”) law to gain justification (in other words, salvation), but because it’s impossible to keep the law perfectly in order to be justified, they create “a” law / ritual / rite that is their own standard for salvation, or what they perceive to be obtainable by humanoids. This is contrary to being justified by faith alone and working dependably with the Holy Spirit to be set apart (sanctified). Legalism is NOT an attempt to uphold God’s law for purposes of sanctification, that’s a classic antinomian lie, and it’s why antinomians attempt to make sanctification and justification the same thing—it makes an attempt to uphold “the” law for purposes of sanctification the same thing as true legalism. Got that?
That’s what Gospel Sanctification does; it synthesizes justification and sanctification: “The same gospel (gospel concerns justification) that saved you also sanctifies you.” Hence, you are supposedly sanctified by justification, or sanctification by faith alone, which means the exclusion of “the” law in sanctification because it is impossible to keep the law in order to be justified. Got it? Bye, bye law. Unless somebody else is keeping the law for you, in you, or through you; namely, as many forms of GS teach—Christ obeys for us. This moves us to other things Christians usually are not privy to: imputation, atonement, etc. Bottom line: the level of un-indoctrination among American Christians is frightful, and I never cease to be amazed at our zeal to spread such Christianity abroad via missionaries.
Because Christians don’t understand what justification is, and sanctification, or the difference between the two, GS hacks can teach Christians that not being, as Paul said, “under the law,” equals not being “obligated to the law.” They can also teach that the two are the same thing and nobody even blinks. They can also teach that separating the two (justification and sanctification) is legalism because Christians don’t know what that means either. That’s why GS advocates can say, as I heard one say in a sermon, that “any separation of justification and sanctification is an abomination.” Also, a staple among GS advocates is teaching that Paul was speaking about sanctification in the first five chapters of Galatians. Supposedly, the Galatians were guilty of legalism because they were making efforts to obey God’s law, but the context of those chapters is clearly justification ( 2:16, 17, 21, 3:8,11, 24, 5;4). In fact, Paul says SPECIFICALLY in 5:4 that their error was an attempt to be “justified” by the law, NOT sanctified:
“You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”
Hence the days we live in: teachers can teach that Paul’s line of thought is about sanctification, when Paul clearly states otherwise. That’s because they’re both the same, right?
paul
Enough With the Puritans Already!
Why do proponents of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship theology quote creeds and Puritans so much? It’s because they can’t make their case from Scripture; and, the redemptive-historical hermeneutic eliminates the use of Scripture to draw conclusions about truth from the text. That’s why. When the supposed primary purpose of Scripture is to “show forth the gospel narrative” for both believers and unbelievers, rather than a proof text for issues of life—the gap needs to be filled with something, so why not Puritans and creeds? Besides, they are supposedly the last ones in redemptive history to be enlightened enough to know that every verse in the Bible is about justification.
I will soon be launching into some research regarding this issue, but I have already been sent some information suggesting that GS/Sonship advocates routinely misrepresent Marshall, Murray, and Owen to make points. But for now, my preliminary thoughts are as follows:
1. Puritans and creeds are not inspired, and we have the same Holy Spirit they had / have.
2. Puritan writings are available in massive volumes, and even if Owen, Marshall, Murray, etc., did believe that “the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us,” or “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday,” such a minute portion could not be said to represent Puritan thought in general. And even if it did, so what? They are men, and the “Puritan” label is not a “Proof of Truth” seal. If what they said doesn’t align with Scripture, they can all hang it on their beaks as far as I’m concerned.
3. I have yet to see a Puritan quote, even by the New Calvinists, that resembles anything such as : “The same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us” or, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday,”
4. Puritan writings are translated into modern English by heaven-only-knows who. They are uninspired translations from men, and translated by men.
5. New Calvinists rarely quote the specific Puritan source (for example, title, volume, page, etc.). So the accuracy of the quote cannot usually be verified.
paul
Jason Hood Decries “Sanctification by Justification” and…. Oh Brother!
Some weeks ago, Jason Hood wrote an article published in Christianity today protesting the benchmark set by New Calvinist (proponents of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology) to be accused of antinomianism. It incited an outcry against Hood’s accusation that New Calvinist are, in fact, antinomian, and not merely trying to be accused of such. However, the fact of the matter is that Hood’s article launched no such accusation. It’s like the bank robber walking down the street being asked by policemen if he’d seen any bank robbers running by and immediately replying, “I didn’t do it!” Hood responded to Dane Ortlund, one of the “young, [but educated] restless [with no life experience] and reformed [supposedly]” New Calvinist that asked him to recant his supposed accusation. Hood’s response was a thorough dressing-down of Ortlund and New Calvinism in general. Ortland’s response to Hood’s response was a typical New Calvinist response: a pretension of humbleness; points of supposed agreement; and why the points of agreement are really not what they seem to the unintelligent because of their point of disagreement based on the deep realities of their own gospel. See link here, http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/01/28/we-who-have-the-spirit-have-the-power-to-change/ and it really is must reading.
Most of what I have to say concerning this superb piece of literature can be summed up in Hood’s calling out of New Calvinism’s “sanctification by justification.” It really says it all. But Hood also takes note of New Calvinism’s total depravity of the saints in this statement: ”Ortlund recently pointed out [as in, ‘hey guys, we’re looking too unorthodox on this one’] that we have been neglecting the doctrine of regeneration. As a result, we treat believers like unbelievers [emphasis mine].” It’s all very simple, only the unregenerate need justification, but you can’t have it both ways when thinking- Christians start asking questions.
Moreover, a new one that I hadn’t heard before was mentioned by Hood regarding Ortlunds original challenge—the whole idea that today’s New Calvinists are being “falsely” accused of antinomianism like the apostle Paul was during his ministry (Rom 3:8). Therefore, if they are being accused of antinomianism, they must be preaching just like Paul was. Oh brother!
paul
My RC Sproul Challenge: Legalist or Not? And Why, or Why Not?
Poke anything written by “The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” or any other number of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship proponents—how could anything but an indictment of legalism come forth when you consider the following quotes by Sproul?
“Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work. I must work and God will work. If ever the extra-biblical maxim, “God helps those who help themselves,” had any truth, it is at this point. We are not called to sit back and let God do all the work. We are called to work, and to work hard. To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor. It is to work with care, with a profound concern with the end result” (“Pleasing God” p. 227).
1. Without both working, no work gets done: “ Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work.”
2. The imperative precedes the indicative: “I must work and God will work.”
3. Sanctification is hard work: “We are called to work, and to work hard.”
4. And with rigor: “ To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor.”
And: “The gospel saves us not from duty, but unto duty, by which the law of God is established. This book is a profound exposition of the biblical revelation of law. The Decalogue is explored in the depths of its many facets and nuances. This book explains the Law, defends the Law, and shows the sweetness of the Law. It can help us delight in the Law as it was meant to be understood, and to delight in performing our duty to the One whose Law it is” (Forward: “Reasons for Duty” J. Gerstner).
1. So much for John Piper’s Christian Hedonism: “The gospel saves us not from duty, but unto duty,”
2. So much for New Covenant Theology: ”…. by which the law of God is established” [ouch!].
3. Just “more bad news”? “This book explains the Law, defends the Law, and shows the sweetness of the Law.”
It is way, way past the time for Carson, Horton, Keller, Mahaney, Piper, et al to continue getting a pass on contradicting respected orthodox teachers of our day. Is Sproul a legalist or not? We know what they can do with soft targets like Rob Bell and Joel Olsteen, but what about Sproul? And if he’s not a legalist, why not?
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment