Repost: “Can Christian Women Gone Wild Save Us From New Calvinism?”
I have shared my theory in other posts that contemporary antinomians are like serial criminals. Not in essence of being actual criminals, but in their deep-seated desire to get caught. You have seen the plot in movies—serial criminals always dropping catch me if you can hints to the police. At least two antinomians of our day, Tullian Tchividjian and John Piper, are good examples of this. But first, let me say that I realize that I am one of the very few people around who equate Gospel Sanctification / Sonship theology ( Tim Keller, a significant forerunner of Sonship theology, is one of the founders of TGC) / the gospel-driven life with antinomianism. However, my reasoning is simple; if we are sanctified by justification, that excludes the law either by obligation or ability. Neither do I buy into the idea that thinking the law is good—is an acceptable replacement for an obligation to obey it. Also, the fact that I rubbed shoulders with six GS proponents for several years, and I’m privy to the fact that they bragged about being antinomians is not helpful to those who are trying to persuade me otherwise.
Hold on, my phone is ringing: “Oh! Hi honey. Uh—uh , ya, hmmm. I know sweety, we have discussed this before—getting to the point and such, ya, I will get to the women shortly. Ok, talk to you later, bye!”
Anyway, Tullian Tchividjian recently dropped a really big hint by promoting the idea that preachers should strive to be accused of antinomianism as a way to validate their preaching as having enough Jesus. When one, lone man protested, it made national headlines in Christian circles. But despite Tchividjian’s efforts, it didn’t work. The one, lone protestant focused on the accusation element without considering for a moment that maybe TT really is antinomian. Whew, that was a close one! Michael Horton followed the same week by accusing an accuser of accusing him of antinomianism when the accuser never even used the word in the accusation. Another hint? Hmmmm.
Also, we have John Piper, the First Pope of New Calvinism, continually drawing attention to himself (hints?) by promoting heretics and refusing to correct associates that use profanity in public, while notable evangelicals at large cover for him, and not for a moment considering that any of this has anything to do with the guy’s theology while teaching that what we believe always dictates what we do—unless you’re Pope John the First. A prime example of this is Piper’s invitation to Rick Warren to speak at one of his Desiring God conventions. But hello, when you believe that every verse in the Bible is about the gospel, how can the particular elements of God’s truth really have that much significance? If Warren also believes that the Bible is a plenary gospel narrative, everything else is fair game—so why wouldn’t they hangout together? In fact, a reader sent me a quote by Tchividjian in regard to his defense of Piper for the invite by saying something like this: “All truth is God’s truth, even if it comes from Rick Warren.”
But what’s up with Piper being defended by the likes of Phil Johnson, John MacArthur’s right-hand guy, in the following post: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/04/on-piper-warren-connection.html ? “I love John Piper. People often ask me what living preachers I listen to besides John MacArthur. John Piper is my clear first choice. He’s also one of my favorite authors.” Unbelievable. That is, until you read this in the same post:
“Speaking of Twitter chatter and Facebook feedback, I can’t touch on this whole subject without pointing out that the tone of some of the criticism leveled at Dr. Piper is simply revolting. Within fifteen minutes of Dr. Piper’s live webcast the other night, I had to delete a comment on my Facebook page from a woman who called him a clown. Over the past week I have deleted an average of two or three comments each day that were personally insulting or deliberately disrespectful toward Dr. Piper. One woman expressed a hope that his sabbatical would be permanent.
It intrigues and disturbs me that most (not all, but most) of the overtly impertinent comments have come from women. There’s evidently a growing regiment of self-appointed discernment experts consisting of women who give lip service to the authority of Scripture. They would unanimously affirm that Scripture reserves for men the teaching and ruling elders’ roles in the church. They would, I presume, deplore the ordination of women to such positions of authority. They are not offended by Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 2:12; rather, they would say amen to it. And yet in practice they have no compunction about posting angry, loud condemnations and insistent demands for the removal of a pastor of John Piper’s stature. These things ought not to be.”
First of all, God is sovereign; it is obvious that God planned before the foundation of the Earth for me to marry Susan and not the woman who called Piper a clown. Besides, in the spirit of defending people just because we like them, are we sure that wasn’t her way of saying Piper is a follower of Edmund Clowney? As I unravel the sorted history of New Calvinism, there is some question as to who was really the father of Sonship theology that is the fundamental basis for neo-Calvinism—Clowney, or John “Jack” Miller. Clowney wrote Preaching Christ in All of Scripture, How Jesus Transforms the Ten Commandments, and Christian Meditation. Any of those themes sound familiar in Piper’s teachings? But if that’s not the case, to Phil Johnson’s point, how dare that woomun call out a man of “Piper’s stature” (did he really say that? Let me check again.Yep, he sure did). Well, that pretty much says it all—if one of the who’s who of the evangelical world teaches error, the uneducated book-buying peasants of American church culture need to keep their mouths shut and submit to the “ruling elders.” Worse yet, if not unthinkable, is the idea that one of the woomun peasants would speak out!
If Phil would check Acts 17:11: the Holy Spirit commends the Bereans for vetting Paul’s (the apostle) teachings and no gender is mentioned. In fact, verse 12 seems to indicate women were among them. And I know this is difficult for Phil, but John Piper is no apostle Paul. Furthermore, Priscilla and Aquila both instructed Apollos (Acts 18:26), and I doubt Piper is an Apollos as well. As far as Phil’s citing of 1Timothy 2:12, because of 1Corinthians 14:34, I would think Paul is referring to the corporate setting, and not the milieu of life in general. Phil’s boss, John MacArthur, agrees; see his comments on 1Timothy 2:12 in his Bible Commentary, page 1783. He states the following: “He is not prohibiting them from teaching in other appropriate conditions and circumstances (cf. Acts 18:26; Titus 2:3,4).” John’s over the Seminary and Phil’s over other stuff, right?
Moreover, now that we have established that women can callout man-leaders of high stature, Phil apparently deleted a woman who was dead-on regarding Piper taking a permanent sabbatical. Piper took an eight-month sabbatical for beyond unbiblical reasons. An eight-month, paid sabbatical to eliminate several “species of heart idols.”? And the obvious logical conclusion as follows: an eight-month sabbatical instead of being counseled by his own elders; where is all of that in the Bible? Add to that his announcement that he is hoping to remain pastor there five years after returning from his sabbatical. The lady is absolutely right, why not just retire and be done with it? And by the way, HOW DO YOU PREDETERMINE HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO ELIMINATE “SEVERAL SPECIES OF HEART IDOLS”? ARE THEY THE EIGHT-MONTH TYPE? Have we lost our minds?
Phil also wrote: “It intrigues and disturbs me that most (not all, but most) of the overtly impertinent comments have come from women. There’s evidently a growing regiment of self-appointed discernment experts consisting of women….” Yes, discerning Christian woman gone wild, and thank goodness for them. Phil sates that it is mostly women who are speaking up and calling for leaders to be held accountable. Sad. And the women folk are right about something else: something can be done about it; separation, not inviting them to conferences (Matthew 18:17). Rejection, not fellowship (Titus 3:10 Rom 16:17,18), Rebuke, not excuses (1Timothy 5:19).
John Piper is one of the featured speakers at this years TGC conference in Chicago. Who knows what hint he will drop this time around. Will some Christian woman gone wild have to satisfy his deep-seated desire to be exposed? Can Christian women gone wild save the church from New Calvinism? Stay tuned.
paul
2Corinthians 3:18: New Calvinist “Word Pictures,” and Idol Worship
“If MacArthur hasn’t bought into contemplative spirituality, where is the clarification while his verbiage mimics that of antinomians such as John Piper?”
“Please do not bore me with what you think he meant—he’s unclear and that’s on him. Furthermore, a lack of clarity regarding this issue is reckless because of what is widely taught in our day, and coupled with whom and what Phil Johnson endorses.”
New Calvinism (NC) makes much of two primary Scriptures: Galatians 2:20 (the targeted verse for distortion among antinomians throughout the New Testament age) and 2Corinthians 3:18. It reads as follows:
“And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.”
I have chosen the NIV translation because it best fits the NC take on this passage. Supposedly, by contemplating the Lord’s glory in Scripture we are changed (the implication is by contemplation alone) from one degree of glory to the next, or “ever-increasing glory.” The fact that this is the primary message that proponents want parishioners to get can be seen in John Piper’s mantra, “Beholding as a way of becoming.” If there is another way equally as important in the process of change—they don’t talk about it much—if at all. To be certain, conversation about doing (biblical doing) something different as change, which one would assume is change, is avoided like the Bubonic Plague. In his endorsement of Uneclipsing The Son by Rick Holland, Phil Johnson, a close ministry associate of MacArthur, states the following:
“We become like whatever we worship (Psalm 135:15-18). So the key to sanctification and spiritual maturity is a simple principle: As we set our affections on Christ and keep Him at the center of all our thoughts, activities, desires, and ambitions, we are transformed into His likeness (2 Corinthians 3:18).”
Notice that Phil Johnson quotes Psalm 135: 15-18 to make his point:
“The idols of the nations are silver and gold, made by the hands of men. They have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but they cannot see; they have ears, but cannot hear, nor is there breath in their mouths. Those who make them will be like them and so will all who trust in them.”
So, in the same way that pagans become like the images they worship, we can supposedly become like Jesus by worshiping “Him,” and keeping “Him” at the center of our lives. But what does that mean? The point of this Psalm is that men trust images that can’t instruct or impart true wisdom (they can’t speak, hear, or see). Therefore, the images represent anything the worshippers want them to represent, and then they become whatever that is. We are not to worship any image in heaven or earth because images can’t impart truth to be obeyed (Exodus 20:4-6), but using Scripture to ascertain the personhood of Christ (ie., the mantra of our day: “Christ is not a quiz—He’s a person”) rather than what He instructs is flirting with making images of Christ that are the result of our own imaginations. Johnson asserts that this nebulous concept is the “key” to spiritual maturity. I strongly disagree. Please do not bore me with what you think he meant—he’s unclear and that’s on him. Furthermore, a lack of clarity regarding this issue is reckless because of what is widely taught in our day, and coupled with whom and what Phil Johnson endorses.
In addition, is this “simple principle” more simple than learning and applying? Johnson’s statement is indicative of the new four-letter word of our age: O-B-E-Y. Note the degree to which the word and the idea is spoken of in the New Testament, and then compare that to what the spiritual rock stars of our time emphasize—hardly anything is more conspicuous.
How subtle this is; in its application to teaching, can be seen in John MacArthur’s recently published, “Slave.” The book is an excellent exposition of the fact that we are slaves to Christ, and the historical documentation/insight is most likely unmatched by anything written in recent history, but the book is all but purely descriptive and not prescriptive for our walk with Christ. In other words, it displays an awesome “picture” of what our slavery to Christ “looks like,” but very little information regarding how that fact can be specifically applied to our lives. This is a marked departure from how MacArthur taught in the past.
It is also a prism that saturates the writings of John Piper as well. His writings are predominantly descriptive and contain little, if any instruction. Piper advocated the idea that the Gospels should be read with the sole intent of looking for “pictures of Jesus” at the 2010 T4G. Funny, Christ’s conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount was: “He who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like….” Of course, Paul David Tripp clears up the confusion caused by Jesus’ plain language by clarifying with the term, “word pictures.” Apparently, Jesus doesn’t really want us to study and apply, but rather contemplate what obedience “looks like” so our obedience will “look like” MacArthur’s description in Slave: always without hesitation and full of joy. Like his close friend John Piper, MacArthur now makes these statements without any specific qualification. In Piper’s case, he doesn’t qualify such statements because he believes joy gives obedience its moral value—one can only assume that MacArthur doesn’t qualify such statements for the same reason. Birds of the feather flock together.
Back to 2Corithians 3:18. Asserting that Paul was teaching a contemplation on the glory of Christ only as the paramount way in which we change is an assumption at best. It says both are going on at the same time, but there is no because of or a result of conjunction that also excludes anything else. Besides, this passage is best interpreted by James 1:25 which contains the same types as 2Corinthians 3:18 in context; such as, “liberty” and “mirrors[s]” (see verse 17). We are changed into the likeness of Christ by being “doers” of the word, and not hearers only. Of course, this application is only possible through our vital union with Christ—I think that is Paul’s main point in 2Corinthians, NOT a pie in the sky obedience that flows automatically from contemplative spirituality.
If MacArthur hasn’t bought into contemplative spirituality, where is his clarification while his verbiage mimics that of antinomians such as John Piper? And, the key to spiritual growth is understanding the supposed dynamics of how worshipping an image makes us like that image? Has the key to spiritual growth become worshipping the right “picture”? Again, if biblical instruction and life application (obedience) is equally important, or just as “key” as setting our affections on “Him” and also seeing “pictures” of His “personhood,” it’s conspicuously missing.
But this is for certain: we become what is emphasized, and the emphasis of our day looks more and more like the servant who hid his talents in the ground; because supposedly, we can’t add to the faith Christ has given. Since it apparently doesn’t turn out well for that servant, perhaps we could get some clarification.
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 10: A Strong Finish For “Dr.” John MacArthur Not Looking Good
“Where did this ‘eclipsing Christ’ standard of truth come from? And does it add anything to the genealogy hypothesis?”
When I saw the advertisement, my heart sank. In my wrestling with proponents of Gospel Sanctification over the years, one of their mantranized mottos has been whether or not something “eclipses Christ” as a primary standard for determining truth. As others will attest who witnessed the hostile takeover of Clearcreek Chapel by the Chad Bresson cartel, “I have a problem with that view because it eclipses Christ” was a phrase that was constantly heard.
Back to the advertisement: MacArthur has written the forward to a new book written by one of his close ministry associates, Rick Holland. The title of the book is, “Uneclipsing The Son” by “Dr.” (a title that more and more is becoming a sign of danger more than respect) Rick Holland. Even from the standpoint of this (me) Evangelical peasant, “Dr.” MacArthur’s forward to the book raises troubling questions:
“This book is an insightful, convicting reminder that no one and nothing other than Christ deserves to be the central theme of the tidings we as Christians proclaim—not only to one another and to the world, but also in the private meditations of our heart.”
I asked the Sultana of Optimism, my wife Susan, to evaluate the statement. She immediately pointed out that the second part of the statement concerning private meditation was biblically untrue for many reasons. As far as Christ ALWAYS being the CENTRAL theme of the gospel, I will address that in future parts. Granted, Christ must always be part of a gospel presentation, it’s not the gospel without Him, but is He always the one and only central theme of the presentation as MacArthur suggests? Is Christ the only one who “deserves” to be a central figure of the gospel? Phil Johnson’s (the Executive Director of MacArthur’s ministry) endorsement of the book is even more disturbing as his statement mirrors John Piper contemplative spirituality:
“We become like whatever we worship (Psalm 135:15-18). So the key to sanctification and spiritual maturity is a simple principle: As we set our affections on Christ and keep Him at the center of all our thoughts, activities, desires, and ambitions, we are transformed into His likeness (2 Corinthians 3:18).”
Barry E. Horner also echo’s concern on page 192 of Future Israel when he writes: ‘This is not an insignificant point since it is common today, especially within Reformed Christianity as Thomas Smail pointed out in The Forgotten Father, for an incorrect prominence to be given to Jesus Christ (as though impossible to challenge) that results in biblical distortion.’”
As far as meditation on Christ alone being the one “simple” principle for sanctification as stated by Phil Johnson above, Dr. Jay E. Adams states:
“The problem with Sonship is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification. Justification, though a wonderful fact, a ground of assurance, and something never to forget, cannot produce a holy life through strong motive for it.”
“Certainly, all of us may frequently look back to the time when we became sons and rejoice in the fact, but there is no directive to do so for growth, or even an example of this practice, in the New Testament….The true reminder of the good news about Jesus’ death for our sins is the one that he left for us to observe-the Lord’s supper (‘Do this in remembrance of Me’).”
Where did this eclipsing Christ standard of truth come from? And does it add to the genealogy hypothesis? (http://wp.me/pmd7S-Gm ) (Revised: http://wp.me/pmd7S-K7 ). You be the judge. The following are excerpts from the Australian Forum archives, one excerpt per article:
When the law is emphasized so as to eclipse the glory of the gospel, the church falls under the bondage of legalism.
…faith and never want to lose it, and may even fear that if any other truth is emphasized, it will eclipse the wonderful message of salvation. …
From “The Centrality of the Gospel”: evangelical preaching has contributed more to the eclipse of the Bible than we would ever dare to imagine.
They are used to eclipse or displace Christ’s imputed righteousness! “That glory cannot be taken away from Christ and transferred to either our renewal or …[same statement used in at least three other articles].
They are used to eclipse or displace Christ’s imputed righteousness!
When the law is emphasized so as to eclipse the glory of the gospel, the church … and rapturous experience) of having Christ come into the heart—and then …
When the law is emphasized so as to eclipse the glory of the gospel, … grace alone, on account of Christ’s obedience alone, and received by faith alone …
truth is emphasized, it will eclipse the wonderful message of salvation. …. And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the …
Church history may be seen as a struggle to keep law and gospel in proper tension. When the law is emphasized so as to eclipse the glory of the gospel, …
Because they are put in the very room of the gospel! They are used to eclipse or displace Christ’s imputed righteousness! “That glory cannot be taken away …
… any other truth is emphasized, it will eclipse the wonderful message of salvation. …. Similarly, non-believers may reject the gospel because of their …
Tavard explains that when Luther began his work as a Reformer, the gospel was in “partial eclipse.” The Council of Trent, however, “reformulated” the gospel …
These sample statements were gleaned from the AF archives by a cursory search. Uneclipsing the Son (or his works) is a dominate theme that saturates AF doctrine.
Legacies are usually determined by how we end. This brings to mind something that we may want to meditate on often: the call to persevere. Christ didn’t say meditating on Him makes perseverance easy or guarantees that He will do it for us. MacArthur may not believe that, but he certainly lends credibility to those who do. Will the last leg of his ministry be remembered as lending creditability to Antinomians and even embracing their doctrines? I think it’s very likely.
If I had to bet, would I bet that I will find uncanny parallels between Holland’s new book and the AF archives? Absolutely. I am working on several side-by-side quotation charts, I trust that “Dr.” Holland will have a significant contribution to the comparisons.
paul
Frank Turk Helps Case Against New Calvinism Before Excommunicating Me From Pyro
“So, is understanding Piper like going to college? Are there prerequisite books to understanding his other books? Notice that Turk does not address my reply, but brings up another book. Why? Was Piper for it before he was against it?”
“Here is Turk’s gracious reply; which by the way, he later pulled down: ‘Going forward, ‘Paul’ will be dealt with by the Blogger spam filter.’ ”
As Susan and many of my close friends know, the ill effects of New Calvinist theology on real life hits close to home for me. For me, this isn’t intriguing theological debate—I see the debris that is continually being cleaned up after this hideous doctrine. One writer called John Piper “the elder statesman of New Calvinism.” Yes, him: the one, who among other things, proclaims with certainty how someone who is genuinely saved will feel during the conversion process—apparently, they will always have joy. But the problem is how many of us, especially in western culture, and especially a new Christian, might interpret “joy.” Isn’t dogma concerning how we”feel” during conversion a subject that is best left alone lest it sets up a stumbling block to salvation? (As I have personally witnessed). Not for John Piper—he fearlessly pontificates with all confidence concerning such matters, like other New Calvinist such as Tim Keller who recently proclaimed that those who are genuinely saved must also repent of all “good works” that they did while they were unbelievers.
The insanity that is New Calvinism matters not to those I used to deeply respect among Evangelical leaders. John MacArthur and his closest associate, Phil Johnson, are absolutely hell-bent on lending creditability to the likes of John Piper via association and accolades. Phil Johnson authors a blog named Pyromaniacs. I have visited Pyro on two occasions (with multiple visits within a short time frame for each occasion)—at the behest of a friend: yesterday, and a year ago because of dialogue that was occurring there that my friend wanted me to be privy to.
Before I continue, the purpose of this post is to reveal the fact that Pyro will defend Piper for any reason and at all cost. Why? Have they, including MacArthur, become New Calvinist? I’m beginning to think so. The exchange also enabled me to better articulate what Piper teaches, which is very opportune because of his mastery in deceptive doublespeak. The latter is my primary purpose. If you want to skip all the drama and focus on that, see the two GREEN sections.
The latest topic was another open letter to John Piper authored by a member of the Pyro Team of authors, Frank Turk. The letter was like the last one I was referred to which was a “gee whiz, pweeze stop saying stuff wike that because we wuv you soooo much and it’s getting harder and harder and harder to defend you.” After being accused by Turk on an initial comment of being off-topic, I noted the first comment by another Pyro Team member (Dan Phillips) to make sure I was perceived as being on-topic regarding further comments:
Another stellar letter. Thanks, Frank.
I may say more later, but for now let me join you in affirming my own appreciation for and personal indebtedness to John Piper. Those factors don’t dull the concern I feel for Piper’s attempt here to help Warren; they heighten that concern. I think the interview neither helps Warren personally, nor does it help his perception in the eyes of those who are concerned about his (to be charitable) many missteps.
My comment that caused a disturbance was the following:
In light of Elizabeth’s comment and, [Frank Turks answer to it] “I read Ms. Taylor as saying that the radical anti-Warren crowd is disowning Piper without grasping Piper. I agree with her,” I assume the following is on-subject: I am completely indifferent to who Piper associates with because I have formed judgments about what Piper believes based on what he says and what he writes.
He believes that the Law only expresses the works of Christ and not any obligation on our part. He believes Christians are still “enslaved” to sinful passions. He believes sanctification and justification are the same thing. He believes (still undefined by him) joy ALWAYS proceeds saving faith. He believes that obedience without joy during the act “strips obedience of its moral value” (see Matthew 26 and Hebrews 11 on that ridiculous notion). My concern is for those he associates with more than anything.
A comment came later by a Pyro reader that challenged my accusation:
Paul, your comments should be retracted if you cannot back them up with evidence. Anyone who has spent time in Piper’s works already knows that you have either grossly misinterpreted his positions (at best) or are simply slandering him (at worst). Either way, you should retract the statements.
The challenge was pulled down by Turk later. Here is my response:
1. He believes that the Law only expresses the works of Christ and not any obligation on our part: “What Then Shall Those Who Are Justified Do with the Law of Moses?
Read it and meditate on it as those who are dead to it as the ground of your justification and the power of your sanctification. Read it and meditate on it as those for whom Christ is your righteousness and Christ is your sanctification. Which means read and mediate on it to know Christ better and to treasure him more” (John Piper Sermon: How to Use the Law of God Lawfully to Bear Fruit For God).
He’s saying that we are dead to the Law in regard to it having power in our sanctification. Is that true (Mathew 4:4 John 17:17 James 1:25)? Are we to just meditate on the law or obey it also? Do you really think he left out “obedience” by accident? He is also saying that we should read it as if Christ effects our sanctification in the same way he effected our justification. In other words, sanctification by justification. Also, the “Law of Moses” bit is a deliberate smoke screen. Is he saying we should only meditate on the Law of Moses and do something different with the rest of Scripture? As usual, he creates confusion in the way he uses words, like, all the time.
2. He believes Christians are still “enslaved” to sinful passions: “Yes, it becomes increasingly evident that the experience of joy in God is beyond what the sinful heart can do. It goes against our nature. We are enslaved to pleasure in other things (Romans 6:17).” [Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial written by John Piper and available on his “Desiring God” website].
“We [Christians] are enslaved to pleasure…” That’s not true about a Christian in ANY regard. Notice he cites Romans 6:17 which is in the past tense, but his statement is in the present tense speaking of the same condition of the past tense verse. How can he do that? Easy—he thinks justification and sanctification are the same regarding our role.
3. He believes sanctification and justification are the same thing: From Another Gospel P.M. Dohse, p.111 concerning Piper’s sermon, God Strengthens Us by the Gospel:
“’I know that there are people reading this [edited for written form] who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation. So I’m just going to plead with you here at the end, lay down that rebellion. Lay it down. And simply embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Righteous One, died for your sins. He was raised on the third day, triumphant over all his enemies. He reigns until he puts all of his enemies under his feet. Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone. 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. Don’t put it off.’
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.”
CONTINUE
4. He believes (still undefined by him) joy ALWAYS proceeds saving faith:
“The pursuit of joy in God is not optional. It is not an ‘extra’ that a person might grow into after he comes to faith. Until your heart has hit upon this pursuit, your ‘faith’ cannot please God. It is not saving faith” (Desiring God page 69).
“We are converted when Christ becomes for us a Treasure Chest of holy joy” (Desiring God page 66).
“Before the decision comes delight. Before trust comes the discovery of treasure” (Desiring God, page 68).
“Something has happened in our hearts before the act of faith. It implies that beneath and behind the act of faith which pleases God, a new taste has been created. A taste for the glory of God and the beauty of Christ. Behold, a joy has been born!” (Desiring God page 67).
“Not everybody is saved from God’s wrath just because Christ died for sinners. There is a condition we must meet in order to be saved. I want to try to show that the condition…is nothing less than the creation of a Christian Hedonist” (Desiring God page 61).
“Could it be that today the most straightforward biblical command for conversion is not, ‘Believe in the Lord,’ but, ‘Delight yourself in the Lord’?” (Desiring God page 55).
“Unless a man be born again into a Christian Hedonist he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Desiring God page 55).
5. He believes that obedience without joy during the act “strips obedience of its moral value”: “Unless a spontaneous affection for my person motivates you, your overtures are stripped of all moral value” (Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial written by John Piper and available on his Desiring God website).
Turk responded with a classic New Calvinist defense—if you haven’t read all of Piper’s books (what? 600 or so by now?), you can’t evaluate any of his particular statements:
Paul:
You have never read the book, “What Jesus Demands of the World”, by John Piper, have you?
So, is understanding Piper like going to college? There are prerequisite books to understanding his other books? Notice that Turk does not address my reply, but brings up another book. Why? Was Piper for it before he was against it? However, after this, he did reply:
I have read Paul’s mini-thesis on Dr. Piper and have found it, um, shall we say “less than serious with the subject matter, [Frank, please just address the quotes that plainly demonstrate my accusations] but very serious in terms of offensiveness.” It’s out, and if it turns up again, it will get deleted again [thanks for the warning Frank—like I would try to repost it—you take yourself waaaay too seriously].
Paul: for your own edification, [thanks Frank, got anything on discernment?] here’s my single-subject justification for deleting your posts [because you can’t answer the others].
You said:
[QUOTE]
He believes that the Law only expresses the works of Christ and not any obligation on our part: “What Then Shall Those Who Are Justified Do with the Law of Moses?
Read it and meditate on it as those who are dead to it as the ground of your justification and the power of your sanctification. Read it and meditate on it as those for whom Christ is your righteousness and Christ is your sanctification. Which means read and mediate on it to know Christ better and to treasure him more” (John Piper Sermon: “How to Use the Law of God Lawfully to Bear Fruit For God”).
He’s saying that we are dead to the Law in regard to it having power in our sanctification. Is that true (Mathew 4:4 John 17:17 James 1:25)? Are we to just meditate on the law or obey it also? Do you really think he left out “obedience” by accident? He is also saying that we should read it as if Christ effects our sanctification in the same way he effected our justification. In other words, sanctification by justification. Also, the “Law of Moses” bit is a deliberate smoke screen. Is he saying we should only meditate on the Law of Moses and do something different with the rest of Scripture? As usual, he creates confusion in the way he uses words, like, all the time.
[/QUOTE]
Here is the complete text of that sermon
The context for this sermon is a supplement to his 3-year preaching through the book of Romans — Rom 7-8, for example. You’ve read it, I am sure: [no Frank, I didn’t take that Piper prerequisite course] “we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive,” “I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me,” “I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” But also “For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do.”
So Piper’s starting point is not whether there is a command to general obedience, or whether we ought to seek to do it: it is Paul’s own words which tell us that seeking justification of ourselves through the Law is only going to bring condemnation — thus we are wretched men. [But Frank, one of my points is that he then projects that point onto sanctification].
And his text for the sermon is 1 Tim 1:5-11. “we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person” and so on [your not going to answer the question, are you?].
You are concerned that he says this much: ” if the law has done its condemning and convicting work to bring you to Christ for justification and transformation, then it is not made for you any more …”
But you have snatched it away from the very next clause: “– in that sense. There may be other uses you can make of it, but that’s not what this text is about.”
In doing that, you are the one making a confusion of the sermon and of the message [no, he later projects the justification point onto the subject of sanctification—making the two equal]. And you are using that confusion to slander Dr. Piper [no, you are slandering me, I assume, unwittingly, because you can’t decipher Piper’s deceptive doublespeak].
Don’t do that. This is your only warning.
Turk then pulled down my posts that I copied above, which I commented on:
Frank,
The fact that you pulled my posts while only addressing the more nuanced statement by Piper is telling. The fact that neither you, nor anyone else will address Piper’s outrageous statements in Desiring God is also telling. And, I find the linguistic demeanor that suggests that posting here is some kind of privilege….well, arrogant and laughable.
That initiated this lame response from Dan Phillips:
Yeah, it’s “telling” that we have a policy of trying to keep comments on the topic of the post, which your personal hobby-horse/vendetta isn’t.
And for general edification: the position that Christians are not under the law of Moses per se, but rather are under the spoken/enscripturated/heart-inscribed law of Christ per se, is neither fringe nor heresy.
Obviously, my comments were on topic. Turk is the one who opened the floor to the whole “condemning Piper without grasping Piper” thing. Hobby-horse? Vendetta? I checked. Of the 218 articles posted on my blog right now, a search turned-up zero on “John Piper” that are presently posted, but I remember one that I can’t find. In fact, someone who was apparently involved in the conversation over at Pyro emailed me and complained that they couldn’t find any of my articles on Piper. What is Phillips talking about? A New Calvinist hobby-horse? Well, he would be correct about that, but you know, somebody has to tell the truth. Accolades are not the truth just because they are accolades.
Furthermore, what’s up with, “Christians are not under the law of Moses per se, but rather are under the spoken/enscripturated/heart-inscribed law of Christ per se,” Huh? What’s the difference in light of Paul telling Timothy that “all Scrpture” is profitable for making the man of God fully equipped? What Scripture equips us and which doesn’t? Nothing in the Law of Moses equips us? And as far as living by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), is it not that per se, but this per se? Does Phillips even know what he’s saying? I doubt it.
Meanwhile, Piper Koolaid Drinker extraordinaire, Mike Ricardo, said this to the reader who launched the original challenge:
You’re welcome to venture into this with Paul, but just know that he’s already ground this axe some time ago — in fact, almost a year ago to the day [this should reveal how enamored I am with the Pyro team]. This is his pet issue, and despite the lengths to which responses have gone, there seems to be no arrival in his understanding.
Add to that the fact that this post has nothing to do with Piper’s theology of Law and Gospel, but with his recent interview with Rick Warren [then why did Phillips make the opening comment that he made?].
The individual who first challenged me then typed this Extreme Anti-Berean Team statement:
Mike Riccardi,
thanks for the heads up. I should have known better. [CLICK, that was easy! Is it now any wonder why Pyro has the following that they have?]
I made this final appeal:
Frank,
I’m not too sure you guy’s KNOW my motives; forgive me if I don’t take that to the bank just yet. So, you guys have no problem with the 6 quotes from Desiring God. Ok, fair enough, but just do me one last favor; I will not even respond—I will let your answer stand as it is for your readers and will be instructed by it—as my promise not to respond should indicate. Fair enough? And besides, you did respond to it—I’m just requesting a final clarification.
First, you said:
“But you have snatched it away from the very next clause: ‘– in that sense. There may be other uses you can make of it, but that’s not what this text is about.’
In doing that, you are the one making a confusion of the sermon and of the message. And you are using that confusion to slander Dr. Piper.”
But Frank, he goes on to say: “But for the righteous – for people who have come to Christ for justification and come to Christ for the inner spiritual power to love, this role of the law is past. From now on, the place where we seek the power to love is not the law of commandments but the gospel of Christ.” How does that jive with John 17:17 and John 14:15,16? Is he not saying that as believers, we have to go through the “gospel” first before the law—and if we don’t, we are acting as if the power is in the letter of the law instead of the Spirit? And what does it mean to love through the gospel as opposed to loving through the law? What does that even mean? Our love is defined by “gospel” and not “law”? Frank, is this not a fair question? AND, the law and the gospel are for justification, but moving forward—only the gospel is applicable for sanctification? Forgive me if it is eerily similar to, “The same gospel that saves you also sanctifies you.”
Second, and lastly, and I will bother you no more:
On point 3, I cite his entire conclusion (and summation) to God Strengthens Us by the Gospel. Ok, who is “us”? Christians, right? I mean, unbelievers don’t need “strengthening”—they need salvation. So, in the conclusion, apparently, if I’m sitting there listening, I’m thinking: “Oh, ok, this is a gospel presentation just in case there are unsaved people here”;
“I know that there are people reading this [edited for written form] who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation. So I’m just going to plead with you here at the end, lay down that rebellion. Lay it down. And simply embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Righteous One, died for your sins. He was raised on the third day, triumphant over all his enemies. He reigns until he puts all of his enemies under his feet. Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone”
BUT then he concludes, STARTING IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE with:
“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. Don’t put it off.”
Frank, he is clearly synthesizing those who need strengthening with those who need the gospel, and being “strengthened in you own strength” is the object. AND, this is an *either/or* hermeneutic that implies that it is either all God (gospel—ever read ”God is the Gospel”?) OR all “us.” But in John 14:16, which is connected to verse 15 by the conjunction “and,” (as translated by the Bible of choice according to Piper, the ESV), the Holy Spirit is called a “helper.” What is he helping us with? It’s in verse 15—loving Christ by keeping his commandments! So, how do we know when our “own efforts “ are our “own strength” instead of God’s? What’s the difference between striving to obey with the Spirit’s “help” and being strengthened by the strength God gives “according to the gospel” which also necessitates the law to condemn for justification, but now only the “gospel” apart from the law is needed?
Are these not fair questions?
Here is Turk’s gracious reply; which by the way, he later pulled down:
Going forward, “Paul” will be dealt with by the Blogger spam filter.
Frank, I’m not sure, but I have a hunch that I will get over it.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
21 comments