“I didn’t know that God needs associate editors for the Book of Life.” Dee
I have been following John Piper’s recent tweets on the issue of salvation by faith alone. Here are the two tweets that got this whole show on the road.
Behind the scenes, controversy has erupted. Thoughtful people have asked pertinent question only to be told that they need further seminary training because John Piper is always right. Stupid me. I thought that being saved by faith alone was the essential doctrine coming out of the Reformation. Maybe that is because I am Lutheran and Martin Luther said it. I forgot there would come another greater than he, who would be named John Piper, to clear things up.
Sola Pipera
I often get criticized by Piperettes of putting words in John’s™ mouth. (When a commenter uses Piper’s first name, I know I am in for a ride since this has become quite personal for them.) However, John’s boyz are wrong. I link to the articles in question so that I do not put any words in anyone’s mouth-John’s or others. Y’all might disagree with my take on his words but all of his words are present. I am merely telling you what I hear and see when I read his words.
Let’s take a look at two posts in which he develops his unique thinking.
Quick digression: whenever anything about the Bible or long time tradition gets a new spin on it, be careful. Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to basic beliefs. So, when it sounds *new and exciting,* take a deep breath and start thinking.
Piper’s Post One: Final salvation
Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone? was posted at Desiring God on September 25, 2017.
Essential to the Christian life and necessary for final salvation is the killing of sin (Romans 8:13) and the pursuit of holiness (Hebrews 12:14). Mortification of sin, sanctification in holiness. But what makes that possible and pleasing to God? We put sin to death and we pursue holiness from a justified position where God is one hundred percent for us — already — by faith alone.
There is an interesting use of terms here. Why use the modifier *final* in front of the word *salvation?* Was this just a simple error? You will see it again.
What is meant by *mortification of sin.* This is a Christian duty that was taught by John Owen. Greg Herrik writes:
In chapter five Owen mentioned several points in order to clarify what mortification is not. Here in chapter six, he has explained what true mortification is and what it involves. First, it involves a habitual weakening of sin at its very root. This is done by crucifying sin and its lusts. Second, true mortification consists in constantly fighting and contending against sin. In this battle we must realize that we do indeed have a deadly enemy—the stratagems of whom we must take pains to learn and be able to identify—and that we must bring all our resources to bear on him. Third, true mortification, based as it is upon the prior work of God in giving us his Spirit and a new nature, involves enduring success over sin.
Piper discusses this concept here.
And here comes the dagger with which you are going to kill the love of money and you are going to kill greed in your life. For God said: I will never leave you or forsake you. So we can confidently say: The Lord is my helper. I will not fear. What can man do to me?
So how do we put to death the sin of greed when the love of money starts to raise its ugly head and all the fear and the pride that goes with it comes? We hear a word. Well, what word do we hear? We hear the word: I will never leave you. I will never forsake you. I will be your sufficient helper. Man cannot destroy you. He cannot ruin you. I am for you. We hear those words about this afternoon. I am talking about this afternoon or the rent that can’t be paid or the mortgage that is overdue. That specific promise. We hear it. We believe it and God the Spirit almighty with his sword kills greed and fear and pride and possessions. So killing sin means daily calling to mind and trusting blood bought specific promises of God.
There is a sense of finality here. Somehow, if you quote enough Scripture, you will put to death the sin of greed. I have a question. Do we really put it to death, once and for all, or is it a constant battle? And, if it is a constant battle, which for many I think it is, then we have not put that sin to death. I am curious on our readers’ takes on this matter.
Piper Post Two: Final salvation and and the dissing of Sola Fide.
Faith Alone: How (Not) to Use a Reformed Slogan was posted on September 13, 2017 on Desiring God. Notice that he makes the argument that the phrase, “thru faith alone,” is not accurate or enough. All of you have heard variants on this one. *Faith without works is dead.* Of course he is utilizing the book of James for his argument.
One last question: What is the nature of this faith which unites us to Christ for justification? It is a receiving of Christ for who he really is — the beautiful, supreme, all-satisfying treasure that he is as our divine Substitute and Sovereign. This is why genuine faith always transforms the heart and life.
James saw in his day those who were treating “faith alone” as a doctrine that claimed you could be justified by faith which produced no good works. And he said No to such faith. He said it is dead: “Faith without works is dead” (2:17). It is like a body with no breath (2:26). It is like an energy with no effect (2:20), no completion (2:22). If there is justifying faith, it has works (2:17). So, he says, “I will show you my faith by my works” (2:18). The works will come from faith.
I remember discussing this whole concept with a friend in college. First of all, it is only by faith in Jesus that we are saved. The works part of it follows. I do not know one Christian who does not desire, in some shape or fashion, to live a holy life. Every believer that I have met has memorized Scripture with the desire of getting rid of sin in their life. They may slip along the way but they will eventually stand up and keep on walking.
I have yet to meet one Christian who has totally *mortified his sin.* I do not think that I ever will. In fact, the very belief that we can do ever so will lead to despair. Many of us despair that we will ever be *good enough* even thought we want to live a holy life. So, as one former pastor, we cook the books. We choose sins with which we do not struggle and use those as a sledgehammer to browbeat other Christians who do struggle in that area. We then appear more holy and we can ignore those dark corners of our souls. Sadly, this occurs due to a misunderstanding about sin. We are positionally holy but are still functionally sinners. If you are not one of those functional sinners, please let me know.
John Piper appears to be the very example of a “cook the books” kind of guy. Here is my favorite example from July 2017: John Piper: I’ve Never Felt Sexually Attracted to Another Woman While Married.
Ever since he fell in love with Noel in 1966, Piper said “the very thought of touching another woman sexually became disgusting, sickening.”
“This may sound weird. I have not talked about it with many people,” he wrote. “But I have said to myself often, with amazement, ‘The thought of having sex with any other woman besides Noël feels as nauseating to me as the prospect of having sex with a man.’
Piper talks out of both sides of his mouth here. First, he claims he is not interested in having sex with other women. He says the thought makes him sick to his stomach. Then he claims he cannot go to a beach because he could be tempted. Tempted to do or think what? He just said he isn’t interested in sex with others. What actually happened when he went to the beach that one time?
Piper now holds himself up as the holy example of never having to deal with the sin of wanting to have sex with another women so long as he stays off beaches. Isn’t he a good man? Piper’s chose to *cook the books* of the sin of *wanting to have sex with another women.* All the rest of you slugs who have been tempted are just not as good as Piper in mortifying your sin.* I guarantee you that Piper struggles with and has not mortified a sin with which another does not struggle but we won’t hear about that one.
He then makes the entire issue even more cloudy.
Essential to the Christian life and necessary for final salvation is the killing of sin (Romans 8:13) and the pursuit of holiness (Hebrews 12:14). Mortification of sin, sanctification in holiness. But what makes that possible and pleasing to God? We put sin to death and we pursue holiness from a justified position where God is one hundred percent for us — already — by faith alone.
Because if we try to put sin to death and to pursue holiness from a position where we are not fully accepted, not fully forgiven, not fully righteous in Christ, and where God is not one hundred percent for us, then we will be putting sin to death and pursuing holiness as a means of getting into a position where God is one hundred percent for us. And that is the Galatian heresy.
Once again, he uses the phrase “final salvation.” What in the world does he mean? Are there two types of salvation? The doctrines of grace to which he adheres states this about salvation.
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
If you have been justified before God you cannot lose your salvation. Once a person is truly saved, this salvation is eternally secure. In speaking about his sheep, Jesus taught that “no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand” (John 10:28-29).Rather than having to hold on to our salvation, the Bible teaches that when a person believes in Christ, they immediately obtain an eternal life (John 5:24; 6:47) that cannot be lost (John 10:27-28; Romans 8:31-39). Those who do appear to permanently fall away from the faith were never true believers (1 John 2:19).
Disagreement from within his tribe
Rachel MIller, a Reformed blogger, wrote Salvation by Grace Alone through Faith Alone in Christ Alone on 10/9/17. She asked this question.
No one in in the evangelical world is teaching salvation by works and certainly not in the Reformed world! Right?
She answered her own question by pointing to John Piper. Miller is a member of a PCA congregation and identifies as Reformed.
Last week, Desiring God ran an article by John Piper on sola fide, Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone? The article is a rerun of older material by Piper. It makes the rounds every couple of years and receives a wide range of responses. The point of the article seems to be to encourage believers to have an active faith as described in James 2. This is a worthy aim. There are many today, even in Reformed circles, who speak and act as though believers should not be expected to live godly lives and to struggle against their sins.(ed. note Tullian Tchividjian?)
What is the danger behind such statements by Piper? Miller says:
The problem in many responses to such antinomianism is a trend towards moralism, pietism, or legalism. Such a reaction to antinomianism is not surprising, but it is equally dangerous. And this is the ditch Piper’s article falls into.
What in the world is the final salvation? Miller believes that he is leading us to conclude that the final salvation will involve our works which will contribute to this final salvation.
There are many problems with Piper’s trajectory.
- Everyone agrees that true faith will result in good works of one kind or another.
- These good works play no part in our salvation. They are merely an outward expression of an inner reality.
- Strangely enough, Piper believes that God has chosen who will be saved from the beginning of time and there is nothing we can do about this. Yet, Piper also seems to say that we have something we need to do for our final salvation.
- There will be rewards for good works in eternity. Those rewards have nothing to do with our salvation.
Sola Fide banners are showing up in my Lutheran Church as we prepare for Reformation 500.
Since it was Luther who started this *sola fide* explosion, we should check with the Book of Concord to see the Lutheran take on the matter. Here are some quotes from Crying Out For Justice.
The Piperettes attempt to *mortify* Rachel Miller for her temerity in challenging the Great One.
I have always thought that the goal of any theologian, who is reaching out to the general public, is to speak in a manner that is clear and concise. I agree with Rachel MIller’s assessment of Piper’s words and I am not a Calvinist. I bet many of our readers will think similar thoughts.
Can you imagine a woman (Gasp!) daring to challenge John Piper? This will not be allowed and the boyz settle in for some externally applied mortification. In John Piper Compromising Sola Fide, Mark Jones at The Calvinist International, demonstrates how he has ineffectively mortified his arrogance by saying the following:
Here’s the problem for these critics of Piper. This isn’t really a problem. And if you write blog posts taking issue with Piper on this particular topic, but claim to be Reformed, you probably need to spend some time getting theological training and then, after that, publishing via peer-reviewed journals, books, etc., before you can be taken seriously. And even then, it’s possible that you could have such a built-in bias against someone that you’d find a problem with them for saying “Jesus loves sinners.”
Mark Jones: I think it is time for the Reformed community to wake up and smell the coffee when it come to John Piper. I know he is the ultimate celebrity in your circles and should never be criticized. However, on my side of the fence, many simply do not get this man. When you must write post after post attempting to explain just a few of his words, you demonstrate the Piper problem.
If Rachel doesn’t understand it, I can well assure you that 99.9% of the population won’t get it either. So, maybe you should spend some time mortifying your obvious need to put down thoughtful people who are trying to understand your hero. It doesn’t help when you go after one of your own. Sometimes, you guys scare me.
Never forget: Sola Pipera was not one of the Reformation’s solas.
1
Final Salvation? Maybe Piper has been reading too much Dan Corner: https://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/initial.htm. I did a search on “final salvation” and this was at the top.
2
Don’t forget the Piper quote: “No holiness, no heaven.” Apparently Christ’s death was not enough. The Piper version of John 3:16 must read: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him AND LIVES A HOLY LIFE should not perish but have everlasting life.”
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-really-save-us-by-faith-alone
“Paul calls this effect or fruit or evidence of faith the “work of faith” (1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11) and the “obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5; 16:26). These works of faith, and this obedience of faith, these fruits of the Spirit that come by faith, are necessary for our final salvation. No holiness, no heaven (Hebrews 12:14). So, we should not speak of getting to heaven by faith alone in the same way we are justified by faith alone.
Okay 3 or 4! Is it possible that “salvation” can refer to not only “past” salvation (Eph 2), “present” salvation” (sanctification), and also “future” or “final” salvation (Rom 5:9-10)? If good works are evidence of a genuine “past” salvation (Eph 2:10), then might it not be possible to say that this evidence will be seen at the final judgement? Perhaps it is just his wording rather than heresy?
Might this whole argument be just a semantic difference between necessary cause and necessary effect? It seems to me that when Concord says “good works certainly and without doubt follow true faith” it is saying good works are a necessary effect of true faith. And when Concord condemns “Good works are necessary to salvation” it is condemning the idea that good works are a necessary cause of salvation. It therefore condemns the ambiguous term “necessary to salvation” because people tend to understand it as necessary cause. Maybe everyone here is actually in agreement about the ideas and just sloppy with the language.
There are very few Christian authors left that I can read without getting totally frustrated by the addition of works / legalism / Calvinism into their writings. One refreshing exception is Pastor Dave Orrison who blogs at Grace for My Heart. I’ll copy and paste a paragraph below that speaks to the subject at hand.
Why are legalists so mean?
“If a person has to measure up in order to be acceptable to God, he’s in trouble. His actions, both past and present, do not meet the standards he believes are necessary. How does he survive the thoughts that this produces? (This is the inner conflict that causes performance people to be depressed and just plain mean.) The only way to feel better is through comparisons. He may not measure up to the ideal, but he may be able to surpass you. When he measures himself against others, he has a competitive system of spirituality that moves him to hide his own sins while pointing out those of others. Of course, this doesn’t help his true problems. He may still be depressed and/or mean, but he will have something going for him. He may actually feel better about himself.”
https://graceformyheart.wordpress.com/2010/05/
I’ve long suspected that many Calvinists advocate a backdoor works-based salvation. Enter John Piper’s writings as evidence.
@ J.C. Mahaney:
I think you and I are saying the same thing. In fact I think we all agree here there should be some evidence of genuine salvation?
Silly Dee…Pope Piper has always held the answers to everything.
As far as his writing, I, too, have been criticized for not understanding Piper’s (excuse me, John’s) writings. I’ve been told that if I truly read correctly, I would see the consistency of his points throughout the whole of his writings…that his intent is always clear. Which always leads me to respond that if Piper’s intent is always clear then I should not come to the wrong conclusion.
The Reformation shorthand for this concept was “saved by faith alone, but faith that is alone (i.e. unaccompanied by any works) never saves.
The relationship between faith and works has been a subject of much debate for 500 years. The book of James guarantees it will continue to be.
“But we need crystal clarity on what they mean…” – Piper in his tweet above, screenshot.
Red flag right there: “need crystal clarity”.
Again, what is meant by ‘Salvation’.
It’s a fair question because it settles the silt in the water so to speak.
Do you (generic you) mean the avoidance of hell and the assurance of heaven?
Let’s be Socratic and define our terms.
@ John:
Those who’s ubiquitous desire to elaborate is unmatched by their ability to articulate should discipline themselves to spectate until such time as the desire to elaborate and the ability to articulate are commensurate.
Piper is a writer and he uses language to captivate the reader, its a hook to get you to continue to read more and more. The point is to provoke the person to be thinking about Piper or whomever is writing even if it is not theologically accurate or Biblical™. Many of the Reformed guys write this way. A. Make an initial statement that sounds disapproving or disappointing about another Reformed guy or Reformed stance. B. Secondly, begin to struggle with what you read, thinking and with much thoughtful prayer and meditating on what you read. C. This Reformed guy or Reformed thought was right all along and you had to come along side them with the help of G-D of course to their point of view.
Piper also has given you insight that his motivation against adultery is not so much at offending G-d who loves you but the thought of something repulsive that he does not will to do ever. Brothers, you are not professionals, when are you going to get that through your hearts. And church wake up to these men who seek to bind your conscience to their own interpretation of the bible.
Kathi wrote:
Silly Kathi! In their books, you are a woman, which defines you as easily led astray. You don’t need to bother your pretty little head with doctrine. Just let your husband worry about it, and trust him to explain to you just what you need to know, no more, and no less.
/s
(But, yeah, there were actually some women in our neo-reformed hyper-calvinistic former church who were heard to say they didn’t study the Bible for themselves, they relied on a husband’s explanations.)
Kathi wrote:
I wonder if those people have read his Twitter. Because there’s all kinds of crazy goin’ on there! I mean, other New Cals make fun of his tweets!
Example: ““God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.” Luke 3:8 Wealthy stones. Sexy stones. Political stones. Precious stones.”
I just don’t understand this “gotta have works” (got to mortify sin, got to pursue righteousness) set alongside defense of the “leaders” who fall short, who are obviously not pursuing righteousness if they’re being caught in adultery (multiple adulteries?), put on trial for hurting children, trying to force women to stay with abusive or law-breaking husbands, etc.
If *they* don’t mortify sin or pursue righteousness, they get a pass and a comparison to David, “a man after God’s own heart”.
All they have to do is say “I repent” and it resets their clock, in a manner of speaking. Wipes the board clean. Puts away their sin as far as the East is from the West.
Meanwhile, those of us who have not engaged in adultery or hurting children or lording it over others continue to be browbeaten by these guys.
What gives?
One more thing. I get so tired of re-stating what someone like Piper or one of his followers actually said, and getting told, “No, I (he) didn’t say that! What he actually said was…” (and then they restate what I said I heard them say, as if they are saying something new and fresh and I’m too stupid to understand the plain meaning of the words, and I mis-stated them in the first place, which I didn’t.
It’s as if, if they say it enough times, it will mean something other than what I am hearing them say. My eyes will be opened, and I will finally be in full agreement with them. And their authority. (And the authority of their guru.)
Beg pardon, I’m a bit irritable tonight.
Good post.
I believe the reformed Ordo Salutis is something like:
Election -> Effectual Calling -> Regeneration/Faith/Justification -> Sanctification -> Glorification (Heaven)
For this conversation we can join with the Lutherans and most other Reformation Christians and agree on:
Justification -> Sanctification -> Glorification
While “salvation” is sometimes used synonymously with “justification” (Ant May got “saved” at the revival last week!), it also seems to be used in Scripture as the name of the whole package (Work out your salvation with fear and trembling). We’ll use it that way. I’m also going to lump good works in with sanctification. Now let’s ask a question I’ve never seen asked: Is glorification necessary to salvation? That puts a different spin on it, eh? Obviously, glorification is necessary to salvation insofar as it is a necessary component of the complete package. There is no salvation that does not end in glorification. Now let’s ask again, Is sanctification necessary to salvation? I think all of us, including Piper and even the Roman Catholics, believe it is insofar as it is a necessary component of the whole package just as glorification is. Here we lose the Antinomians and Tullians, whose Ordo Salutis is:
Justification -> Glorification
When we say sanctification is necessary to salvation we do not mean it is a cause of salvation any more than we mean glorification is a cause of salvation. Both are necessary components of the whole package and necessary results of justification, not causes of justification. This does not contradict Sola Fide, which addresses the means or cause of justification and salvation. And here is where we lose the Roman Catholics, who do indeed believe sanctification along with faith is a necessary cause of justification and salvation. This is one of the core divisions of the Reformation between Roman Catholics and the rest of us and it remains a core division today. Reformed, Lutherans, and Piper are all on the same side here.
By the way, since I really didn’t feel like explaining that, my weak desire to elaborate is roughly commensurate with my ability to articulate.
What Happened wrote:
??
@ John:
Referring to Piper.
Some many years ago, Piper declared at a Desiring God conference that Doug Wilson understood the Gospel and that Doug Wilson preached the Gospel. It was disgraceful that he vouched for a wolf rather than exposing and denouncing him. Those of us who understand the Gospel proclaimed in the Bible knew that Piper was speaking utter nonsense because Doug Wilson’s theology has no connection with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Rachel Miller understands that very well, and that is why she picks up Piper’s problem and why Piper is so blind to Wilson’s error. Good for her, and shame on Piper and his enablers. If only the conservative church pulpits were filled with people who think like Rachel Miller rather than like John Piper.
Gram3,
Thank you for that info. Good grief, Piper actually validated Doug Wilson? That’s the guy that recommends church discipline for wives that don’t do the dishes fast enough!
Thanks Dee and Deb for using the quotes I from the Book of Concord which I had put at my post at A Cry For Justice. 🙂
R Scott Clarke, a Reformed theologian if ever there was one, recently tweeted these tweets—
[Charles] Hodge: good works are “are consequences and indirectly the fruits of justification”
Hodge says there has never been any fundamental diff between Lutherans & Ref’d on the necessity of good works as fruit & evidence.
Contra some learned critics, he [Hodge] knew that Luther was no antinomian. You have a right to doubt anyone who calls Luther antinomian.
Unlike some learned commenters, it’s clear that Hodge knew early Protestantism. He knew Luther.
He [Hodges] says that none of the confessional Prots (Ref’d/Lutheran) were antinomian.
Brad Mason is one of the people defending Rachel Miller’s critique of Piper. Brad has just published this:
https://www.heartandmouth.org/2017/10/16/salvation-sola-fide-martin-luther-fruits-faith/
Ephesians 2:8,9
For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God not of works lest any man should boast!
Gods word does not contradict itself nor is God a liar! Gods word is sharper than any double edged sword. Why would this even be a debate?
John Piper is making serious heretical statements and anyone justifying them or explaining them away are committing heresy themselves!
Again why would anyone debate him on this scripture stands alone his minions who defend him on this are committing heresy as well! Just saying
@ Shauna:
Shauna, not trying to defend him, but just read the next verse too.
Well, it’s obvious to me that the trouble with all of you is that you’re looking for the perfect church.
What I would say is, if you ever find the perfect church, don’t join it – you’ll spoil it.
Yours Sincerely,
Arnold Smartarse
What Piper says is not The Reformed understanding of Sola Fide. He floated the idea in a foreword to Schreiners book on Justification two weeks earlier and it was publicised by The Gospel Coalition where there was the usual applause.
However if you read the comments you will find his standpoint taken apart by Brian Onstead who wrote
“They are not in full accord with the best Protestant-Reformed and Puritan theologians. Whereas the Reformers and Puritans said our good works were EVIDENCE of our salvation, Piper is making our works as GROUND for a particular stage of our salvation. Not only is this not in accord with Reformed and Puritan writers but it is a complete reversal of what Paul says in Col 3:1-5ff. Paul says that we are to put sin to death because we will be glorified (indeed our life is now hidden in Christ in heaven and will appear when he appears). Piper says we will be glorified because we are putting since to death. Whereas, Paul grounds our sanctification in our glorification, Piper grounds our glorification in our sanctification. Good works are EVIDENCE, not GROUNDS for our salvation – any stage of our salvation.”
Justin Taylor took exception to this and accused him of PUBLICLY misrepresenting Piper who has WRITTEN A WHOLE BOOK ON THE SUBJECT! A curious defence.
Sorry, the link is here
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2015/09/15/john-pipers-foreword-to-tom-schreiners-new-book-on-justification-by-faith-alone/
And Piper the so-called Calvinist should perhaps read this remark from Calvin quoted in Richard Muller’s book ‘Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On The Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation’
“Calvin’s reason, however, for this exclusion of outward works from the grounds of assurance has little to do with warnings against the practical syllogism—rather it is because works are not part of the causality of salvation: those who would attribute salvation to works are deceived. For though God begins our salvation, and at length completes it by renewing us after his own image: yet the only cause is his good pleasure, by which he makes us partakers of Christ.[ 42]”
“Here in chapter six, he has explained what true mortification is and what it involves. First, it involves a habitual weakening of sin at its very root. This is done by crucifying sin and its lusts.”
+++++++++++++++++++++
why, what a practical tip!!
crimany — what in the world does this even mean?
how many times have i heard glib rhetoric like this dished out like a doctor rattling off a prescription. and the christian playing dr. hasn’t a clue, either. but it sure makes them sound spiritual!
“Somehow, if you quote enough Scripture, you will put to death the sin of greed. I have a question. Do we really put it to death, once and for all, or is it a constant battle? And, if it is a constant battle, which for many I think it is, then we have not put that sin to death. I am curious on our readers’ takes on this matter.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
no. we do not put it to death.
we can learn to manage it (whatever “it” might be). we can learn not to pay attention to it, thereby weakening it by denying it that source of fuel. but it doesn’t cease to exist.
I tend to think this approach of “a constant battle” actually feeds the issue.
kind of like… well, in the big old house where my husband grew up there is a resident ghost. a female in Victorian garb who likes to talk. to the current occupants of the house it’s simply like a spider in a corner. it’s just there, not really causing trouble. the people just go on with their lives, making their lives beautiful things.
to someone totally freaked out by such things, it’s a problem. they’d be tense, stressed, unable to sleep, always on the look-out for this bad and scary thing. shades of paranoia. pretty hard to make one’s life a beautiful thing under those conditions.
i wonder if JP is paranoid, but derives some kind of pleasure from it. a symbiotic thing. he feeds it with hyper-concern for sin sin sin (which isn’t really sin), and then it gives him something to fight, which gives him a feeling of satisfaction.
there’s certainly an audience for it! (so gets attention from it, too!)
yuck — i think this is a description of church(!)….
hmmmm…. i can’t help but feel like many christians are nervous scaredy cats. nervous and terrified underneath that smile. ready to jump as if something ‘sinful’ is about to yell “BOO!”
i think normal drives of a healthy person can be overspiritualized by many christians into “sin”. Liking nice quality things, or a steady paycheck, or a plan to go to Hawaii for 2 weeks = “greed”.
Noticing a physically attractive person and appreciating how that person is put together = lust.
creating boundaries for how to spend time and who to spend it with = selfishness.
all this talk of “killing sin” (spoken by someone of huge influence, strangely and unfortunately so) i think causes people to put their lives under a microscope, and they suddenly start seeing evil phantom parameciums! “oh no, it’s worse than I thought, Jim.”
i think JP’s paranoia is contagious.
@ Lowlandseer:
Excellent comment. Piper has gotten a free pass for decades now. When “Desiring God” came out, he added “luster after God” to faith when he spoke of justification. “Could it be that one must be born again to Christian Hedonism?” He also added works to justification when he wrote his book “Future Grace.” Add to that his complete lack of discernment.
Tim Challies recently did a video on the seven false teachers in the church. They were Heretic (2 Peter 2:1), Charlatan (1 Timothy 6:3-5), False Prophet (1 John 4:1), Abuser (Jude 4), Divider (Jude 8-9), Speculator (Titus 3:9), and Tickler (2 Timothy 4:3-4). Heretic – His teaching on justification. Charlatan – His desire to be famous. False Prophet – His mysticism. Abuser – His stand on women in the church. Divider – His double-mindedness. Speculator – His teaching on Hedonism. Tickler – His desire to be all things to all people, even questionable and/or fallen pastors like Mark and Doug and Rick.
The more I look onto JP, the more my spidey senses tingle.
““Somehow, if you quote enough Scripture, you will put to death the sin of greed. I have a question. Do we really put it to death, once and for all, or is it a constant battle?”
+++++++++++++++
a final thought — i think advice like JP’s is somewhat self-serving. he needs the bible to be “the sword of the spirit” because “the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword”.
he needs the bible to be what he thinks it is and what he thinks it means, or else he doesn’t have much else (certainly not a career).
if he thinks the leather-bound book of ink-in-too-tiny-a-font on parchment is the sword of the spirit, the “then” is necessarily “where is the thing i’m supposed to lop off with it? aha! let’s go sin hunting! i’m putting on my shining armour and watch me wield this sword!”
so, in sermonizing about killing sin with a verse, he is co-opting someone’s struggles by using them to make his bible true.
don’t know how well i said that, there.
for the record, i think “the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword” is the sound waves of God’s voice that are forever sounding out across the universe and through our bodies, from outside of time, and from the point when the words were spoken in real time — the dawn of time and after. many of which were captured in ink on papyrus.
“Because if we try to put sin to death and to pursue holiness from a position where we are not fully accepted, not fully forgiven, not fully righteous in Christ, and where God is not one hundred percent for us, then we will be putting sin to death and pursuing holiness as a means of getting into a position where God is one hundred percent for us.”
That has to be one of the most tortured sentences I have ever read. And, it is NOT the Galatian heresy. What he advocates IS. Talk about twisting Scripture.
His claim about sex with women other than his wife reminds me of MacArthur’s claim that he fell asleep praying and woke up praying.
These Reformed types always seem to be competing to be thought of as “Divines”, a term I find particularly telling.
The man should just give it up already.
…i can’t sleep, you see.
@ A.Tumbleweed:
I completely agree… Have you ever heard one of “big prayers”?
Good luck with that “killing sin” thing. If that is necessary for “final salvation” then why did Jesus Christ have to die?
In addition, Piper is not pointing you to Christ, he is pointing you inward, to spiritual navel-gazing, which is one of the definitions of sin.
Finally, according to their own system everything one does is tainted by sin. So even in the k*Kling, one piles on sin. To what end?
He’s probably just getting ready to release another book on living his version of the so called Christian life. It’s all about the bucks with these guys.
Joe Reed wrote:
Yep. And in fact the Bible *never* says that we are saved (or even justified) by Faith ALONE. Luther added the word “alone” in his German translation of the Bible. It is not there in the Greek. This is the elephant in the room.
It’s not “works righteousness,” an overcharged epithet if there ever was one. It’s Scriptural. Grace Alone is in the Bible. Faith Alone isn’t. In fact, there are key NT texts that say we will be judged at the Final Judgment according to our works — not to determine the relative brilliance of our crown but to determine our final fate. Matthew 25: 31-46 springs to mind. There’s a verse in Romans, too, but hey, I’m just a clueless Papist; I can’t quote chapter and verse all that well. 😀 (Runs and ducks for cover.)
Bottom line: I actually think Piper is on to something here. But then, I would, wouldn’t I? 😉
@ refugee:
I completely agree…. i especially hurt for all the young people/kids being indoctrinated by these guys..
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
Perhaps Piper will swim the Tiber soon?
Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:
Not sure. What do you mean?
Correction, the TGC article was in Sep 2015, not 2017
elastigirl wrote:
I agree as to effect. But, I think his paranoia is built into his theological system. He has to keep looking inward to kill the monster of uncertainty, to make his calling and election sure. The only thing he can do is to take his spiritual temperature and work at “killing sin” so that his feelings feel closer to God and make him feel like he is one of the elect.
It’s a sick system.
John Piper has been peddling this stuff for years an it is clear that he isn’t dressing up the perseverance of the saints in his flowery language. Kevin De Young tried to excuse him by saying that it was another way of expressing perseverance and even tried to bring the late Prof John Murray of Princeton and Westminster in as a witness.. No he is clearly talking about a form of justification by works as this link shows.
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/john-pipers-justification-according-to-works/
Though I didn’t agree with your take regarding your last post on Piper’s article on discipline, I do agree with the concern that he is not being clear on this matter of a faith that actually works.
btw – not all who are critical towards your posts on Pipe are Piperettes.
David wrote:
It isn’t just Piper. Read enough history of the Puritans, and you’ll get the same impression. Another one is the early 18th century Marrow controversy in the Scottish Presbyterian Kirk.
Beloved Son wrote:
Amen!
ishy wrote:
I thought sexy stones were….oh never mind.
Beloved Son wrote:
If that is true, then he is a liar according to his own theological system.
The main problem is, in general and in particular, that John Piper is incomprehensible.
The words of HUG come to mind: “I have a verse for that!”
So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.
1 Corinthians 14:9 (NIV)
Not being rude, but what is your point? Yes God ordained we should do good works however they are not a requirement of our salvation. That was simply what I was pointing out without writing a novel here in the comments. I pointed to a couple verses where our salvation is contingent upon our faith and trust in Jesus Christ alone and not our works. His death on the cross as payment for our sins are a free gift and can not be earned. As believers in our Lord Jesus Christ who are filled with the Holy Spirit are to do good works for Him but they do not earn us salvation nor do they keep our salvation. Once our trust is put in Him and we receive Him as our Savior no one can snatch us out of His hands and only He knows who His bride is as only He knows the hearts of men in regards to who is in the book of life and who is not. I’m just going by His word and because His word does not contradict itself nor is God a liar this is one of many scripture verses that affirm that our Salvation comes through our faith and trust in Him. Jesus says I am the way the truth and the life no man cometh unto the Father but through Me! I love that. Anyways I hope you have a wonderful day John well a wonderful week that is. John wrote:
You know Dee, one thing that occurs to me is the Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints in contrast with the Lutheran doctrine that a genuine Christian can apostatize and fall away (and even come back again). Piper supposedly believes the former; I just can’t figure out how it squares with his ideas about *final* salvation.
Maybe the complete mortification of sin and final salvation are achieved in Purgatory. Wait? What? Wrong branch of Christianity?
@ A.Tumbleweed:
Typo on my part… Listen to some of JP overly dramatic prayers….. it is hard to figure out what he is trying to say… the NT talks about praying secretly in your closet, not like the pharisees..
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
Nice red herring. Romans 3 makes it clear that a man is justified by faith, not by works of the law. And the Catholic Church agrees. The following quote is from Catholic Answers where Romans 3 and James 2 are being discussed.
“All Paul’s teaching comes down to this: Our own works can never justify us, but works that grow out of faith in Christ are part of our justification. That’s why Paul says in Philippians 2:12 you must “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” And that squares with James’s teaching that works that grow from faith justify.”
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/arent-we-saved-by-faith-alone
John wrote:
Ephesians 2:10 “For we are His worksmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”
To many Calvinists, this verse unties the knot that the previous two verses put them into. Their presupposition is that one is NOT saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Verse 10 is often emphasized by Reformed folk to make sure that “good works” get shoehorned in there somehow. “See, we are NOT saved by grace alone”. And therefore Scripture contradicts Scripture, and they can camp on doubt and uncertainty as being part and parcel to their particular brand of the “Christian Life – TM”.
My former pastor in Bible Church Land was very fond of emphasizing that verse when anyone would quote the previous two verses in ANY discussion, not matter how innocent. It reinforces their presuppositions.
That’s why we constantly heard that we were “saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone.” It’s the carrot and stick approach. I think it is also why they like to add qualifiers or modifiers to biblical words. “Saving faith”, “Final Salvation”.
Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:
Gotcha. I have, and I see what you mean.
Everyone know the term ‘mansplaining’? I now submit the term ‘Pipersplaining’ where all his acolytes pop up to explain in terms simple enough for the rest of us to understand what exactly JP did mean by his last pronouncement. They’re very busy 🙂
Lowlandseer wrote:
Are you sure about that?. That is not my understanding according to official Roman Catholic Doctrine, the Council of Trent, and their Catechism.
Isn’t the Roman Catholic view is that of infused grace that enables man to cooperate with God, and therefore final salvation is a process of faith plus good works?
Maybe Piper is already half way across the Tiber, sporting a Speedo. (Sorry if that puts a horrible image in anyone’s head…)
Though a fan of his early books, I must agree. This was a very confusing tweet by Piper. Someone who cares about this man needs to take away his Tweeter account. If we are going to go “pithy”, i.e. twitter, Justification by faith alone is the only way to go!
John wrote:
Evidence? WOW… evidence as seen by whom? “Humans see only the outer person. God looks on the heart”.
@ A.Tumbleweed:
Yes inasmuch as it is a red herring here. Luther wasn’t the first to insert the word alone into the text and he explained his reasons for doing so in his “Open Letter on Translating” in 1530.
The Eminent Catholic theologian Joseph Fitzmyer wrote at some length on those Church Father’s who had added “alone” to the meaning of the text and there were quite a few.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361
Rachel Miller has done an excellent job in revealing the error of many of today’s Neo-Reformed ‘leading lights’ – not only recently but also during the ESS controversy and even prior. I am sure that it burned them to no end that ladies like Miller and Aimee Byrd, who are within the Reformed community, have caught their errors and then exposed them to the eye of the general public. Good on you Rachel!
I am not the first to note the irony of these recent statements by Piper, given that the 500th anniversary of the Reformation is in a few weeks. Increasingly, I believe that Piper’s background in the IFB community is coming out in his writings; putting sin to death as a requirement for salvation is a fundamental truth in free will theology.
@ Lowlandseer:
Ah…I see. Got it. Thanks.
These guys aren’t reformed, rather, they are neo-puritains. Nothing makes this case better than this current post.
Regarding Piper: there is no fool like an old fool.
(Sorry for the ageism.)
“This may sound weird. I have not talked about it with many people,” he wrote. “But I have said to myself often, with amazement, ‘The thought of having sex with any other woman besides Noël feels as nauseating to me as the prospect of having sex with a man.’
Not too long ago, Rod Dreher made the point that if parents were relying on just the ‘ick’ factor to put their kids off things like homosexuality and transgenderism, they were being horribly naive. Not everyone finds sexual sins automatically icky, and even if they do, enough exposure to such people in their lives will eventually erode such a feeling. Piper is essentially claiming that his own icky feeling for adultery is what any married Christian man should be experiencing, because hey, that’s what happened to him! Never mind that Piper is not your typical Christian, on multiple levels.
Ken wrote:
Ain’t dat da truth! Abraham has an Internet business– he’s on the way to being a gazillionaire– strangely he doesn’t feature many quotes from yours truly– oh my– but he could excommunicate me from the Internet. I showed him how. But I suppose that depends on what excommunication means. I should endure it for a season unless my wife asks me to rob a bank or have a theeesome. Those would be wrong.
Fake Pastor John here to answer any questions. Now I’ll read the article.
A.Tumbleweed wrote:
Now THAT is icky.
A.Tumbleweed wrote:
This. So this. The main problem is the focus–sin, definition of “faith”, trying to determine what’s enough. No,no,no!!
We were created to be in fellowship with God. That’s our purpose, our life, our “job”, as it were. When we live into that, and focus on God, we are “saved”, for now, and for eternity. When we succumb to temptation, and focus on other things, we are pulled away.
God wants us to love God, and share God’s love with others. Those thoughts, feelings and actions are the “works” that bring us into God’s fullest life for us. Not always visible, or define-able in human terms but that’s irrelevant.
I hear the James passages as pointing to God, and a focus on God. Love God, God will tell you what to “do”. Forget looking at sin, forget rules, legalism, measurement. Just look at God.
drJ wrote:
I referred to them as Neo-Reformed, but I believe your nomenclature is far more accurate. Neo-Puritan.
This is especially true given Piper’s love for all things Jonathan Edwards. About 20 years ago I heard someone, I cannot for the life of me remember who, say that in essence Piper was taking Jonathan Edwards and presenting him to the 20th (and now 21st) Century. My knowledge of Edwards is limited (though I once took a theology of Edwards class taught by the late John Gerstner – clearly my mind is a sieve), I do not believe that Edwards strayed this far into the realm works-based salvation.
I never even heard of “solas” until reading here. I was raised a Christian but I guess this never came up in Sunday school.
Ultimately it’s slicing and dicing the bible. Piper does and Luther did it.
One thing that did stick from Sunday school was the story of the rich guy. Where Jesus said it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Then says all things are possible through God.
Or something like that.
This solas stuff seems designed to keep one mired in self doubt.
Both Piper & Luther said some pretty awful things. If I need to, I can read the bible myself.
Like Dr. Benjamin Spock said “trust yourself, you know more than you think you do”
“There is a sense of finality here. Somehow, if you quote enough Scripture, you will put to death the sin of greed. I have a question. Do we really put it to death, once and for all, or is it a constant battle? And, if it is a constant battle, which for many I think it is, then we have not put that sin to death. I am curious on our readers’ takes on this matter.”
I think this is an ongoing debate within and without of the “reformed” community. The only thing that makes sense to me after 30 years of thinking about it from various angles is that I in fact am told in the NT I am a new man at the point of regeneration. The problem is that the new man is in a “body of sin”. I can’t get out of that body. The “body of sin” includes a lot more than my “physical body”. I was a practiced sinner until the Lord saved me. Ashamedly I became “pretty good” at it. I will struggle with my flesh until the Lord takes me home to be with Him or I am translated into my new body when I meet Him when he returns. It may get easier not to give into sin, and I would say by God’s grace it does. Yet I am never going to be rid of it in this life. I think we all misunderstand the power of sin in our lives. Even those who say they understand it. Does that include me? Yes I think it does. “Who shall save me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ!”
I knew that the “P” (Perseverance of the saints) in T-U-L-I-P meant something different than what I believe as “preservation of the saints” but I didn’t know exactly how. Baptists typically believe in the “eternal security of the believer” which, after studying Calvinism for a bit, I realized that “perseverance of the saints” is something vastly different. They essentially believe that good works are a necessary part of maintaining your salvation. Also, you’d better die with your act together, or you’re just not going to make it.
Sorry, but I have no interest in a salvation that hinges on my own human fickleness and frailty. Jesus tells us in John 10 that NO ONE can pluck us out of the Father’s hand–I believe that means I can’t even pluck myself from my Father’s hand! To put it even more simply, once you are born again, you cannot be ‘unborn.’
This is Piper once again using his fear-mongering techniques in order to control people’s salvation. If people stay afraid, they will toe the line and be good little sheep. However, he IS adding to salvation, no matter how you slice it!
I don’t know about the rest of y’all, but my “Final Salvation” was accomplished once I believed by faith on the finished work of Christ. Anything added to that becomes a slippery slide into legalism.
@ Ken:
+1
Pastor John wrote:
Are there medications involved?
Root 66 wrote:
Ditto
Ken wrote:
That kind of sums it up.
Root 66 wrote:
Sadly, I think this man really believes that he does a better job on the *sin* situation and he needs to warn the rest of us.
Burwell wrote:
I need to learn more about this.
NJ wrote:
Great comment on the *ick* factor. The reality is that Piper is actually quite typical but loves to view himself as somehow *deeper.*
Lowlandseer wrote:
Thank you. I need to read this.
The obsession with sin-sniffing and sin-killing isn’t limited to Piper. It happens a lot in the wider calvinist leaning fundamentalist type crowd. John MacArthur got in hot water for his lordship salvation teaching. He claims to have renounced it, but there’s still a heavy focus in his writings and his organization on mortifying sin, how to avoid God’s judgment, God’s holiness compared to our filth, etc etc. I don’t think he crosses the line that Piper did, but it’s all very imbalanced.
What I don’t get is why none of these guys can focus on the positive. If you have a life full of the beauty of Jesus, sin tends to lose its attraction. The greatest saints I’ve known didn’t get to be that way by obsessing over every sin; they got that way by following Jesus more and more closely. That is what transforms people. Those people radiate God’s love, and it’s one of the most beautiful things you will ever witness.
Piper, MacArthur, and those like them are missing what the gospel is and can be. They’re selling a warped shadow of the life of faith, twisted by sin obsession and never sure of the light and life and beauty of Christ.
Burwell wrote:
I agree. However, the boyz and associated minions will not allow her to do so. She is now going to be attacked whenever she writes anything.
@ dee:
I will try and dig out my course notes and see what was said.
David wrote:
Yes, my thoughts too.
However, I also think Piper is a train wreck. The man forgets what he writes with so many contradictions.
He comes off to me as a pied piper, leading people to a faith disaster.
John wrote:
There is nothing new under the sun. I think all of these guys fall down the hole on a regular basis. I think Piper comes quite close.
dee wrote:
True believers disturb me more than charlatans.
A.Tumbleweed wrote:
Sounds like a few guys in TGC…
dee wrote:
Yes! A million times YES!
@ A.Tumbleweed:
There are an number of them who believe that God has now given us the Holy Spirit which frees us to be *obedient.*
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/failure-is-not-a-virtue
@ Jack:
I don’t mean people of faith. I mean those who feel they somehow have a direct mandate from God himself.
True people of faith don’t have the gall to pretend to know God’s mind to that extent.
They also don’t lord their “wonderfulness” over others with the express purpose of putting them down.
I think there was a carpenter who mentioned something about planks in eyes.
Man, I’m really using that Sunday school education today!
Beloved Son wrote:
Excellent.
J.C. Mahaney wrote:
LOL!! Than you.
refugee wrote:
I think Beaker J called it mansplaining! I agree with you.
What Happened wrote:
LOL
Muff Potter wrote:
The assurance of eternal life in the presence of the Father. (my attempt.)
JYJames wrote:
He misspoke. he meant “Need Piperesque clarity.”
Joe Reed wrote:
Luther was not a fan of James.
I have never found it to be too difficult. We are sinners. We are saved by Christ and the Holy Spirit spurs us on to good works. I am still a functional sinner but am positionally holy. I have never met one Christian who would deny that they should attempt to be obedient and to show love to others.
Also, the more I write this blog the more convinced I am that sin is pervasive in the hearts of the ones who claim that they are the most obedient.
Kathi wrote:
Yes- and it is my sinful nature that is always questioning him.
refugee wrote:
But they KNOW if they Truly Explained it (and your pea brain was Enlightened like theirs), you would Truly UNDERSTAND that Two Plus Two Equals Five!
Burwell wrote:
Hmm. I will have to look into that. I was never IFB, if that is what you are using for example of the free will theology community, but I was FWB, and there was nothing about any requirement for salvation except faith in Christ. They did not preach holiness doctrine at all, but they did practice a more separated life style than, let us say, than the Methodists who also are ‘free will’ if by that you mean whosoever will and choose you this day.
Maybe we are using the same words with different meanings?
dee wrote:
Like Deep Thoughts on SNL?
“Wherever You Go… There You Are.”
John wrote:
And “Whatever I Do THAT YOU DON’T!” doesn’t count as evidence.
John wrote:
Well, not to get picky or anything, but what sort of evidence? Evidence that you will accept? Piper acknowledges? I think there are many people with many issues who deal with these issues and it is not always evident on the outside.
Also, there are some Calvinistas who claim that those who do not bow at the altar of Calvinism are not Christians in spite of many evidences of faith. I know of one well known Calvinist leaders who converted to Catholicism. The boyz declared that he was never a Christian despite many evidences of a changed internal life.
That is why I ALWAYS leave such judgments in the hands of God.
Beloved Son wrote:
Like Got Hard’s “NO! NEVER! PERISH THE THOUGHT!” when confronted about sexual abuse of his Interns?
David wrote:
The more that I read of the current day *prophets of the movement” the more I suspect you may be correct.
@ Mary27:
Thank you for this reference. I will have to read him.
Gram3 wrote:
“Penetrate! Colonize! Conquer! Plant!” Wilson, Jerk with his “Kirk” in Moscow, Idaho?
“Southern Slavery As It REALLY Was” Wilson?
Kathi wrote:
Every word Dogma Ex Cathedra.
John wrote:
A man of his stature, who knows his writings are being pursued, should be very, very careful in matter pertaining to salvation. Could it be that he thought he was being clever by refuting *sola fide* at this time of Reformation 500?
Mary27 wrote:
I like this.
elastigirl wrote:
Remember surviving 17th-18th Century Massacusetts Puritan journals.
Navel-gazing sin-sniffing and little else.
Mary27 wrote:
Unspoken: “Like MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!”
A.Tumbleweed wrote:
No Way.
There’s already a Pope in Rome, and It Ain’t Him.
Ken wrote:
A good (believing) friend of mine once posed the following thought-experiment-cum-question: Did Jesus have a sinful nature? The NT states that, if we’re in him, we’re new creations; the old is deid, the new is here, etc. Clearly, Jesus does not have, and has never had, a sinful nature. On the other hand, he did at one point say, The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
More could be said, but tea’s ready and I’ve got to go out soon.
Depends.
Is she a MUSCULAR Woman?
It says For we are His workmanship created in Christ for good works that doesn ‘t mean we will always do good works. Again that’s not the only verse in scripture that refers to our faith and belief. Even Abraham by faith He believed. If you believe differently on this no worries I’m glad to read you input on this subject. I think everyone here brings a lot of knowledge of the scripture to the table. I can only say in my personal walk with Christ that I believe that my faith in Him and my trust in him is what has redeemed and saved me. It is my faith in what he did for me on the Cross and why He chose to pay my penalty because He loved me so much that He gave Himself up for me and for all of you. Anyways I’m so glad He did this for me and I’m so thankful that my life is in His hands. Thanks for sharing your comment with me. A.Tumbleweed wrote:
dee wrote:
Everyone knows who Martin Luther is. And everyone knows of the family of denominations that bear his name.
I did an informal poll at work asking if people had heard of John Piper. It drew a blank except for someone who thought he might be a professional wrestler. But he was confusing John Piper with Rowdy Roddy Piper.
I’m pretty sure that most people in my circle would Neo Calvinism with a Bill Waterson comeback.
And these guys want to co-opt the Reformation? Good luck with that!
Jack wrote:
Small phone, big fingers should be “associate Neo Calvinism with…”
Mark Jones at The Calvinist International
“you probably need to spend some time getting theological training”
What a miserable response to a critique of Piper’s writing, it answers no questions and provides no insight. Resorting to put downs and ridicule may puff you up and silence your opponents in the short run but you earn your their enmity in return. In a discussion of faith and works, Jones’ attitude here is a work that does not display faith. It is also an admission that Jones lacks the ability to counter Miller’s argument.
elastigirl wrote:
Tell me about it.
Piper says, “This is done by crucifying sin and its lusts.” I say, “Aaaaaaaand, how exactly do we do that???“
Juulie Downs wrote:
Somehow the post and this discussion keeps bringing me back to memories of Drivers Ed class. I remember the instructor emphasizing, “Steer where you want the car to go.” I think he was talking about loss of traction and coming out of a skid, but I could be wrong about that part. He went on to say that if you fix your eyes on that telephone pole you’re afraid you’re going to slam into, you’ll unconsciously steer the car toward the pole.
I haven’t read Paul in the original (just the excerpts people quote here and there) in a couple of years now, but I seem to recall him exhorting people to follow Christ, or to follow him as he’s following Christ.
The Neo-puritans/neo-calvinists/etc. may be exhorting their followers to follow them as they follow… their navels? Sounds a lot like the blind leading the blind, and scripture has something to say about where those folks end up.
John wrote:
I really like this. We weren’t saved FROM something as much as we were saved TO something! The life-transforming power of the Holy Spirit living in me makes all the difference and changes us from the inside out…not my human ability to keep from sinning.
Time to run this out once more:
“I love Mark Driscoll’s theology, that’s bottom line for me. We stand together on glorious truths about God. That’s huge to me.”
-John Piper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYVCVx5QyFQ
dee wrote:
Reminds me of Doug Wilson and the Federal Vision crowd, as well. Maybe that’s why Piper gave Wilson such a warm endorsement.
dee wrote:
Yes! This is exactly the sentiment I remember hearing in two different reformed congregations, one hyper-reformed (friends of Doug Wilson) and the other a 9Marks church.
You could arguably say that Martin Luther ushered in an era that altered history. The Reformation changed the Catholic church as well. It opened the door to changes in there as well. The impact cannot be understated.
Though it would horrify Luther, the repercussions led to the liberal democracies that many of us benefit from today.
And if Luther had some off putting ideas, well, he was a man of his time. They weren’t right but they were prevalent at that period of history.
Piper has no such excuse.
The ideas behind the Reformation propelled society forward. Neo Calvinism wants to take us back.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Boom. Says it all right there.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Hah! Well said. Excellent example.
Holy Guacamole dee!
You sure opened a can o’ fishin’ worms with this thread!
And that’s a good thing because it encourages dialogue.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Actually, it makes me wonder about the direction of his own attraction. Having met a variety of people with differing attractions, since coming out of the old binary-gender-is-all-there-is church, I am astonished (though perhaps I should not be) at the variations I have heard. But because for decades I was immersed in “this is the only way that’s the right way to feel about others” I did not have the capacity to imagine otherwise and put myself in others’ shoes.
In such a community, it is all too common to conform oneself to the idea that there will be only one love — of the opposite gender — in your life, and that you *will not* be attracted to anyone else. Oh, and if you do happen to feel any attraction outside that One True Pairing, you’ll squelch it. People in suppressive societies may will themselves to act as if they are choosing to pair with the One and Only One that God Has Been Preparing for them, even as they know deep inside that it’s only an act.
I’ve talked to too many people who have come out of this culture, who expressed the common theme that they had been living a lie.
But I suppose you can talk yourself into anything, so long as you keep talking loud enough to drown out any contrary thoughts.
p.s. I am not calling Piper any particular names. I am just considering his own words and wondering about his insistence that his wife is the only creature he finds attractive — it could even be that he talked himself into finding her attractive — taken together with his diatribes against muscular (man-like) women and his fixation with teens going down to the riverbank.
There are so many possibilities. He has a problem with lust, but thinks he can talk himself out of it if he just keeps talking. Or he *doesn’t* experience lust (some people’s brains are wired that way) but thinks he *should* have, so he just keeps talking… and congratulating himself…
okrapod wrote:
That is a great question/statement. I may very well be mixing IFB and FWB and not even realize it…I just looked him up, and Piper (John) described his father as “…independent fundamentalist”. His father was a close confidant of Bob Jones Sr, until they split in 1957 over Billy Graham, as well.
shauna wrote:
Thank you, Shauna. I needed this encouraging word today.
On a tangent, so many churchgoers seem to insist that only “christians” are capable of doing good works, and only “christians” have a moral standard. I know an awful lot of atheists and agnostics who, if their works were measured against those of churchgoers, would blow the latter out of the water.
(But of course the churchgoers can dismiss all that the “unbelievers” do as “filthy rags”…)
@ Jack:
How refreshing!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Tea sounds like a lovely idea.
Nick, forgot to ask if the hurricane has passed by. Saw on a map that it was ploughing through Ireland as a hurricane on its way to Scotland as a tropical storm.
How are things in the aftermath?
refugee wrote:
See, this is where I see a huge disconnect between what Piper says and his own belief system. His system does not allow for him to believe that he is capable of managing his internal sin machine at all. According to his own writing, his own theology, and his own fan boyz, his heart is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things. Unless he has achieved some sort of higher state of being, then he is incapable, according to his own system, of even understanding himself. His own belief system paints him into a corner when it comes to his ability to perform anything good, his ability to prevent himself from performing anything bad, or anything in between. All his own works are as filthy rags in God’s eyes.
Therefore, where does he get off lecturing, advising, or pontificating about how anyone should go about living the “Christian life”? He has no standing whatsoever to even offer an opinion, because he could be deceiving himself, something for which there is no remedy in this life. That is where his own belief system leads him. He is unsure of his own eternal destiny, completely unable to determine if, in fact, he is one of the elect.
So the best he can offer anyone is to live a “filthy rag life” like his.
No thank you.
Hmmm. In my new role as a home based sixth grade teacher, with due stamp of approval by the state to do that, we are currently doing sixth grade social studies-a delightful curriculum by the way. It is a basic and minimal overview and intro to history from a social studies angle at a sixth grade level.
So today as it would happen we just got to the unit on the Renaissance and behold there is Martin Luther presented as ‘Another Renaissance Thinker’. That is pretty much how I see what was going on. The Renaissance was not limited to the religious reformation, and crediting the reformation with massive? changes in culture is something to be cautious about. The reformers were not by any means the only players in the game. I doubt that all the changes in doctrine that were advanced by the reformers were exactly forced on them by scripture alone. There are righ many good and bible-based arguments on both sides of some of the reformation issues.
For example, how does one read scripture and totally eliminate church structure, resistance to sin, and the idea that there is a link between faith and works? I don’t see how one can go that far solely from scripture. But the influence of the changing culture and the need to break free from some older ideas could certainly influence how one sees and understands scripture. And, I might add, the surrounding culture may also influence us in how we understand scripture.
You all do know I am sure of the various protestant voices/ movements who say that we need a new reformation. Some think that the reformers and their doctrines and ideas served a purpose but do not adequately address all the issues that need addressing. Others want to urge people to re-examine Christianity’s roots in Judaism and re-think some idea from that angle. Of course in Anglicanism which is by definition protestant there is the anglo-catholic aspect which is not new but is hard to totally overlook. Then there is ecumenism in which some want to look beyond doctrinal differences for various reasons. Anyhow, I keep reading that some are saying that the 500 year mark is a great time to move beyond the reformation in one way or another.
IMO, five hundred years is long enough to strive over some things, and perhaps some issues need euthanized with appropriate memorial rites and we might have to move on. Preserve what needs preserved, solve what can be solved and table what can be tabled and see if we can’t do better than just one more denomination, on more specialty seminary and one more theological celebrity.
dee wrote:
This has been my experience with many of the New Calvinistas I have known. Remember Joe Carter who said that “submission to loving authority” was the sign of a Christian in the comments of the Broken Wolves article? And I believe the core of New Calvinism is obeying the hierarchy, not belief in God. Of course, this is also the #1 sign of a cult.
It occurred to me that maybe some of these guys thinks adherence to their theology is also a primary “work”. So if you don’t agree with them and you don’t obey them, you have no “works” to make your faith evident.
ishy wrote:
This resonates with Mohler’s “Where else are (believers) going to go?”
refugee wrote:
You will stop people from following men like Piper&Driscoll. They’ll always have someone willing to give them a payday.
The best is get the word out. Encourage those in the pews to ask questions and assert themselves.
But most of these guys support is scattered.
All churches are taking hits. People have choices on where & how they want to spend their time.
The christians I know value community more than dictatorship.
Piper and his ilk offer the theological equivalent of the Berlin Wall.
Keeping people in with a wall of doubt.
Jack wrote:
Ach. Und cellphone ist und nuisance phone. “You will not stop….”
Kathi wrote:
This seems to be a thing Doug Wilson does consciously…say something and then claim to have been ‘misunderstood’. Usually, he hasn’t been misunderstood at all, he just wanted to have some deniability. Or maybe it’s a game, idk.
Piper purposefully took on a sola, so he could give it a ‘twist’. If you’re going to do that, you best be clear. I think he is clear on what he truly believes. He just wants to deny it, because it doesn’t fit with what reformed people are supposed to believe.
refugee wrote:
And if you don’t have one we’ll either pretend you don’t exist or tell you you’re in sin, rather than deal with the idea that you might be able to make up your own mind.
@ Jack:
I agree. Once people start to realize that these “men” don’t have any assurance themselves, and therefore don’t have anything real and objective to offer anyone else, they will be free.
Often salvation is spoken of as a having three aspects – justification (initial salvation from the penalty of sin), sanctification (ongoing salvation from the power of sin), and glorification (ultimate salvation from the presence of sin).
Mr. Piper wants us to think that justification is by faith but sanctification is faith plus works which then mskes possible our glorification in God’s eternal presrnce. In doing so he denies Scripture itself.
Your Works Are Not Your Holiness – a response to John Piper’s problems with faith https://timfall.wordpress.com/2017/10/09/your-works-are-not-your-holiness-a-response-to-john-pipers-problems-with-faith/
shauna wrote:
Amen Shauna. That is the true good news and there is nothing to add to it. Good works are important – I want to serve God BECAUSE he loved me and he sent Jesus to save me. I also know from my own experience with backsliding that God withdraws his blessings and can even bring judgement into my life if I walk away – just like a good father disciplines his children. That is why I believe that my salvation is secure but it does not give a licence to sin complacently.
John wrote:
MacArthur’s writings present a truly hopeless message: if you fall away from the faith then it proves you were never saved to begin with, that you had “spurious faith” as opposed to “saving faith” and that Jesus never died for your sins (limited atonement) and God never elected you to salvation. And you have to wait until judgement day to know whether you are one of the elect. Another one, Jay Adams actually discouraged nouthetic counsellors from telling counselees that “Christ died for their sins” as they cannot be sure. The Gospel of Piper and MacArthur is simply this: We can’t be sure of anything!
ZechZav wrote:
Therefore, they have nothing to say. When I realized this fact, it was the first step of freedom.
A.Tumbleweed wrote:
And yet they write volumes. They say a lot of words but nothing of any substance!
refugee wrote:
Thanks for asking…
The Forth Valley wasn’t really affected at all; we’re sheltered by the topography of Scotland from a lot of weather that comes from the west, and so on this occasion we were extremely fortunate. In general, things were much worse in Ireland, where three people were killed (albeit one not directly by the storm) than in Wales or Scotland, though Dumfries & Galloway (the far south-west of Scotland) did see some disruption and structural damage.
Today has, oddly enough, been dry and largely bright.
Nick,
Did you get the red skyline? I live in the North of England and I saw it on the way to work yesterday. It cleared up later in the day and it was nice to see blue sky again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-41654436
A.Tumbleweed wrote:
If he is so “desperately wicked and deceitful”, why the hell should I trust him about anything?
refugee wrote:
Neither sounds like a particularly stable or sane individual.
Not sure which is worse – self-medicating (the first) or role-playing (the second).
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
“He’s Such a REAL MANLY MAN — I WANT TO HAVE HIS CHILD!”
(That’s what it’s starting to sound like…)
dee wrote:
I laugh every time one of these types quotes GK Chesterton or Dorothy Sayers.
@ okrapod:
Okra, I remember reading something on these blogs that Christianity goes through a major shakeup around every 500 years, the last one being the Protestant Reformation. If true, we’re about due for another.
ZechZav wrote:
Isn’t that Skepticism gone seriously to seed, next step Nihilism?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
The Calvinista’s have written books indicating this. D.A. Carson “A Call to a Spiritual Reformation” and John Piper’s “The Future of Justification”. I have got no idea what is inside the books and to be honest I’d probably fall asleep if opened them. But the titles worry me…
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
dee wrote:
I should warn you Dee that he does a bit of name calling. Lol
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Exactly!
Burwell wrote:
To be clear – I know Sayers was CofE, but she also self-identified as a humanist. And she was a woman.
I’ve long held that Piper and MacArthur preach very similar theology to pre reformation Roman Catholics. This just proves it.
While you may not be a dispensationalist nor agree with every jot and tittle, there are some very good free grace books coming out of the Grace Evangelical Society, think it is called. From Dallas. Lots of Zane Hodges, etc.
@ elastigirl:
Great comment elastigirl!
My sentiments too. This ongoing obsession with ‘sin’, even the innocuous stuff (as you’ve pointed out) that gets branded as ‘sin’ in the Evangelical sub-culture, has gotten way over blown.
I’ve seen and lived this up close and personal during my time in country (fundagelicalism). It’s a never ending hamster wheel of guilt and frustration.
15 All things have I seen in the days of my vanity: there is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness.
16 Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself ?
17 Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?
18 It is good that thou shouldest take hold of this; yea, also from this withdraw not thine hand: for he that feareth God shall come forth of them all.
— Ecclesiastes 7:15-18 —
@ ZechZav:
Yes, and although there was full cloud cover yesterday morning – as the storm approached – there was a really weird light coming through the clouds.
I have a couple questions to throw out there. In fairness to Piper and to the commenters here, I have at times read all the same texts Piper commented on and asked myself the same questions about grace/faith/works.
Here are the questions…..
1 – if someone claims they are “saved” but they never “grow”, do we ever ask them questions to provoke thought? I will just say it….. should we ever confront sin issues the way Paul does in I Cor 6 ?
2 – is “false assurance” a real thing?
Curious to see the commenters or hosts weigh in.
@ ZechZav:
We had it down here in the far South, both yesterday & today. It was really eerie.
“And if you write blog posts taking issue with Piper on this particular topic, but claim to be Reformed, you probably need to spend some time getting theological training and then, after that, publishing via peer-reviewed journals, books, etc., before you can be taken seriously. ”
That quote is exactly why I do not believe that such people belong in a Baptist Church. I am a firm believer in the preisthood of all believers, and that by extension all Christians are qualified to speak on any issue of faith, without any training theological or otherwise. While learning theology can be beneficial, it is not a requirement to learn from or be trained by other humans, nor is it a requirement for your views to be approved by other humans in journals or books. From the lest educated member of a congregation to the pastor, all are equally qualified to speak on matters of faith all that is required is faith in Christ, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit.
Also, I fully believe that all that is needed for our salvation is “Faith Alone.” However, I think the problem develops because too many people have come to the conclusion that by faith alone it is meant that as long as someone just says the words “I believe” that they are saved. But, it is not the words that we say, it is the sincerity of the words We often say that we love things or people without meaning it, but we know that when we sincerely mean the words, the words have real meaning.
So what I say is that all that is needed to be saved is sincere faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. And, if you are sincere in your faith, than good works will naturally flow from your faith, but that they are not part of your salvation, just outward signs of the glory of God in you.
I cringe whenever my Pastor quotes Piper in a sermon. It happens rarely, but every time he does I think of changing churches.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
This is a very important question.
Some observations:
Some questions:
Your question highlights a very important issue that divides Christians. I don’t think the question is easy to answer. I’m leaning toward the Orthodox view as stated by St Gregory.
Joe Reed wrote:
Yes, indeed, Joe Reed. I tend to think the subject of faith versus works will be zealously debated until the eschaton. I’ve hesitated commenting on this thread because I am not a Protestant, and I will not be celebrating the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. What I’m inclined to believe is that the Protestant teaching on justification by faith alone has its real problems, which is why Luther, the man who first coined this term, wanted to toss out the entire book of James. Of course, the other end of the spectrum is that a person can trust in their works to save them, which is also wrought with problems.
Being that I am not a Protestant, I can only look with a sense of dismay at many of the comments on this thread marking justification by faith alone as the dividing point as to who is a genuine Christian and who is not. I do not subscribe to justification by faith alone so I guess that would put me outside the category of “saved” according to many. Oh well…that’s how the cookie crumbles.
Muff Potter wrote:
Well Muff, I’d say that even the Protestants (those who are not Catholic or Orthodox) within all their variations cannot always agree on what constitutes salvation. I won’t go into all the various beliefs, interpretations of scripture, etc., etc., etc. Suffice it to say that the many schisms themselves are evidence of my point.
Runs and ducks for cover….
Arnold Smartarse wrote:
Nah, Arnold. Just make sure that it’s a church that teaches justification by faith alone or else you’re a flaming HERETIC!!!
@ Ken F – thanks for chiming in as your contributions generally are worth their weight in gold.
@ kin:
Thanks. In this case I don’t think I added much beyond uncertainty.
A.Tumbleweed wrote:
I don’t quite understand the correlation you’ve made here, Tumbleweed. Paul the Apostle certainly thought something very similar to the idea of “killing sin.” He called it putting to death what is earthly in you. Here’s the entire passage:
Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you once walked, when you lived in them. But now put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth.
It seems to me that St. Paul is addressing a struggle that the Christian must take part in. Why did the apostle even mention putting to death any of these things, if as you allude, Jesus’ death was sufficient? Can’t a Christian believe that Jesus’ death was necessary and that we are also called to put death the deeds of the flesh? I don’t see both of these concepts – Jesus’ death and putting sin to death in our mortal bodies – as being mutually exclusive. How does the latter contradict or nullify the former? I just don’t see it that way.
srs wrote:
Or…maybe there is such a thing as the Christian struggle against sin in THIS life. Just a thought…
dee wrote:
The difference is between “should attempt to be obedient…” (your words) and “must be obedient.” The question is, is obedience a good idea (“should”), but ultimately irrelevant if a person decides not to be, or is obedience in some sense a requirement for a genuine believer (“must”), and therefore necessary in some sense.
Luther’s problem with James is that James explicitly says we’re not justified by faith without works. So if Piper says the same thing as James, he may have some grounds to stand on.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Bingo! Faith Alone wasn’t taught for 1500 years. But what did all those clueless Christians know? Go figure, it took Luther to set us all straight.
@ Darlene:
I am a Protestant, and do believe in justification by faith alone. But sola fide is a nuanced doctrine, as it must be to fit into James and even the Romans 8 texts that Piper is wrestling with. The text does say “if you live according to the flesh you must die,” and die there can only mean eternal death, so is one who struggles with sin working his/her way into heaven? Because if one doesn’t “put to death the deeds of the flesh” by the Spirit, one is lost.
These works are not the cause of justification, but a justification that doesn’t produce these works does not justify.
Avid Reader wrote:
Piper endorsed Doug Wilson at a time when Wilson’s orthodoxy was being questioned due to the Federal Vision controversy with its notion of temporary justification and baptismal regeneration (I am wildly oversimplifying the problem) and other oddities. That is not exactly what they were saying, but none of them said the same thing on two different occasions. Regardless, none of what they said was Reformed or Protestant. In fairness, however, the Federal Vision guys had prose that rivaled Piper’s for its complexity and creativity, so there’s that. 🙂
Piper was still the whale of the YRR movement, and Piper’s endorsement was critical to provide cover for Wilson’s faulty soteriology and ecclesiology (faulty from a Reformed POV.) Jared Wilson (no relation to Doug) approved of Doug Wilson’s Penetrate-Colonize-Conquer-Plant model for marital intimacy. AFAIK, none of the Gospel Glitterati questioned the other aspects of his problematic theology. He was in the Club.
The cover was necessary because Wilson is a Crossway author and so is Piper and the others. Their Supreme Dogma is Patriarchy, and all other doctrines are necessarily subordinate. Cross-selling is a thing.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Lowlandseer, except I”m going to posit that Protestants don’t believe that works that grow out of faith in Christ are part of our justificationas Catholic Answers states. That is why Protestants separate justification from sanctification. Catholic Gate Crasher wasn’t employing a red herring, as you say. Luther, in fact, was the first one to coin the phrase, “justification by faith alone.” And James states that: ‘You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” The very fact that Luther tried to ditch the book of James shows that he misunderstood the concept of works under the New Covenant. When the New Testament writers speak of “works” by which we cannot be saved, they are specifically referring to the Old Testament Law. But James is not speaking about the O.T. Law when he refers to being justified by works. Somehow I think that no matter how many words are spoken and ink spilt on this issue, Christians will always wrangle over faith and works.
Darlene wrote:
No need to run and duck for cover. The myriad array of beliefs and doctrines in Protestantism are enough to dizzy even the most intrepid, and if they can’t even agree upon the color of dog doo-doo, how will they ever find accord on the meaning of ‘salvation’.
I will say though, and in a broad generality, it means what I said previously, the avoidance of hell and the assurance of heaven.
George Hyland wrote:
Your question has two sides to it. If it’s just a matter of failure to “grow” then the question would be, who is in charge of our “sanctification”? Is it up to us to prove we are Christians by our “good works”? I would argue that our sanctification is something that God commits himself to doing in his children. (Phil.1:6 He who began a good work will complete it.) I also believe that growing is a result of relationship… as we come to understand more of the love of Jesus and draw closer to him, abiding in him, the result will be “fruit” in our lives. (i.e. the vine and the branches in John 17 and the fruit of the Spirit in Gal. 5).
The other side to your question is confronting sin. There are obviously times when it’s necessary to confront… for example, when people are being hurt… in abusive marriages, or there is child abuse going on, it would be very wrong to ignore it. On the other hand, Christians often judge others around them by man-made standards like church attendance, tithing, getting involved in “ministry”, dress code, or whatever, and that is an entirely different matter. The Pharisees spent a lot of time trying to catch Jesus in those kinds of rule-breaking sins and well, there are still some Pharisees around today continuing the tradition.
Jack wrote:
That’s an interesting comment, Jack. Could you explain what you mean by that? I think I have a hunch, but I might be wrong.
@ dee:
Exactly.
Who says who needs crystal clarity?
Where is that in the Bible? Nowhere? Oh well, then, never mind.
@ Tim:
Thanks.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Well, for what it’s worth, I don’t think the problem is being aware of our sins, or even being cognizant of the sins of others. It’s what we do with that knowledge. Do we beat ourselves up and lay guilt trips on ourselves when we are convicted of our own sins? Or, do we trust in Christ’s mercy and forgiveness when we repent of such sin? When we become aware of the sins of others, do we ask Christ to be merciful toward them? Or do we deem them as despicable sinners, lower than ourselves? It’s all in our attitude toward sin and sinners that matters.
Jack wrote:
ROFL.
Darlene wrote:
I explained what I meant at 11:33 (or tried to). Happy to elaborate further if need be.
Muff Potter wrote:
Not everyone can be right. So what does salvation mean?
Ok, back to Sunday school…
Jesus said that no one comes to the father but through him.
He also stated something to the effect that if you feed the poor, clothe those who have nothing etc then you are doing this to him.
So I could say that a non Christian who never heard of Jesus but lives by the golden rule may well earn salvation.
Or for that matter, heaven may be more open than anyone realized.
To universal? One can support any view with the right verses.
Muff Potter wrote:
I agree with your statement, Muff. Reading some of the comments in this thread, I am aware of the many differences that exist among those that bear the name of Christian. And that like you, Muff, I would be considered a heretic by some folk’s standards. I’m not a Calvinist, nor do I subscribe to most of Piper’s Points on Theology. And I am not a Lutheran or even a Protestant. I wonder sometimes what God must think of all the arguing and squabbling over what the scriptures mean.
Darlene wrote:
Well, I agree. It’s just not taught in scripture. I can see where people believe it’s alluded to in several instances. It’s not just that it’s not taught in scripture but it tends to negate what we do as believers. Our work matters. What we toil at day after day in out little corners of the world matters for eternity. And that concept may play into a bigger problem of the heaven/hell dichotomy which frankly never made a lot of sense to me. I believe the earth will be redeemed and what we have done while here matters for eternity…..or not. I think there are those who will be “separated” from God but don’t ask me what that looks like. 🙂
Perhaps leaving off the terminology like justification, sanctification, Salvation, helps me see it in a different light because I think those terms cloud a larger understanding. I like the term rescue (sozo). Jesus Christ provided rescue (as God had done all through the OT) by conquering death. If we agree, we are predestined to strive to be like Him. IOW. Salvation is done. Finished. Ball is in our court with the help of our Advocate.
It’s interesting to do a study on word for faithfulness used in the OT. It’s serious stuff. Living by conviction. Same in NT as Faith. And a word study on metanoia (horribly translated as repentance) which is an inside -out transformation. A from….to. Maturing, completing that process so to speak. How we live matters.
After the infamous Eph 2:8-9 passage the Reformed love to quote (even insisting it that faith is the gift, not grace) is verse 10. “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” Back to God’s intention for us at creation, I believe.
It’s a huge topic and I can’t help but think the “faith alone” tentacles reach many areas such as how we view sin, life, hell, redemption, etc. It’s one reason I guess so much of the evil done in churches bothers me so much. If one can have “faith alone” as a believing molester who got caught and repents, what is the point of any of it? If that brings the thought of much touted ‘sinless perfection’ to mind, then faith alone just becomes another get out of hell pass of easy believism.
@ shauna:
Shauna, thanks for wishing me a wonderful day and week 🙂 Sorry for the late reply. The reason I referred to the next verse (Eph 2:10) is that it says works are what believers who are saved by faith (Eph 2:8-9) will do. So, can we say if there’s no evidence (Eph 2:10), then there’s no salvation (Eph 2:8-9). It is faith alone, but genuine faith will be seen, or there is no genuine faith there. By “evidence” I mean (faltering) love for Christ, his word, desire to grow in godliness, sorrow for sin, etc. If there are none of these then might there be no genuine faith in Christ? What do you think?
Sola Pipera! John Piper Says Sola Fide Doesn’t Cut it and Then Seems to *Cook the Books.*
“I didn’t know that God needs associate editors for the Book of Life.” Dee
New and improved is how products are marketed and re-marketed, kept in front of the consumer’s eye. New and improved editing in this case – God needs help, or God’s Saints need help – from Dear Leader Dude. Market and re-market theology to keep a powerful per$onal pre$ence before the market of sinners.
Thank God Jesus died, rose and lives so we don’t need this product, editing et al.
Lydia wrote:
I completely disagree with your theological assumptions as I believe in faith alone. But laying that aside for a moment consider the Roman Catholic Church and Neo-Calvinism: Has their denial of “faith alone” produced good fruit? Has it stopped the abuse and molestation? If you have seen the movie Spotlight and then read up on Sovereign Grace Ministries then you will know the answer.
Yes, I believe works are important. True believers can fall into sin but not without consequence. Some believers in Corinth were sick and died because they treated communion lightly (1 Corinthians 11), the deception of Ananias and Sapphira had serious consequences (Acts 5). Hyamaneas and Alexander shipwrecked the faith and were “delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme” – in other words they were still saved. King David committed adultery and murder and God’s hand was heavy upon him (Psalm 32). I know from my own experience of backsliding, neglecting prayer and straying that God withdraws his blessing makes you miserable until you come back to him. So free grace or “faith alone” does not provide a licence to sin. This is a much bigger issue than we have space to cover here but please try to understand the position. I read MacArthur’s books on Lordship salvation and tried to understand it. I believed he was well motivated because he wanted to ensure that people were spurred on to love and good deeds. Although with the more recent revelations about his support for CJ Mahaney and MacArthur’s own staff mistreating abuse victims, that no longer has any credibility.
Thersites wrote:
Yes, that is usually telling. It is a greater shortcoming in the minds of them that Rachel Miller is a woman. She is, consequently, un-ordainable and not an office-bearer, and anything she says may be safely dismissed with a clear and righteous conscience with Amens all around from the other Churchmen. I do not know Mr. Jones, but I have read Rachel Miller’s writing and analysis of texts. I stand by my earlier statement that the conservative protestant church would be better off with pulpits filled with people who think like Rachel Miller instead of people who think like John Piper and Mr. Jones.
Gram3 wrote:
I was with you till “think like John Piper and Mr. Jones”. I am unwilling to classify what they exhibit as “thinking”, it certainly is not thoughtful.
@ George Hyland:
“1 – if someone claims they are “saved” but they never “grow”, do we ever ask them questions to provoke thought? I will just say it….. should we ever confront sin issues the way Paul does in I Cor 6 ?”
++++++++++++++++++++++
my immediate thought is who defines what growth looks like? and what are the criteria a person is judged on as having grown?
seems to me growth is something that a person experiences quite privately, or is seen only by those closest to them (family, best friend).
George Hyland wrote:
We don’t really know what Piper is talking about when it comes to works. It may not be growth, because as many have already said here, he seems to talk a lot about how it’s impossible not to be completely wretched even after salvation. Growth is traditionally how Christians have imagined works but that may not have been exactly what James was talking about, either. I feel like James was in answer to some specific questions or problem and we are missing the question.
I have not seen Piper consistently go so far as to demand submission from everybody but that is how most New Cal leaders measure someone’s faith. They do not seem to care a bit about humility or caring for the weak or poor, so their definition of works has to be different from a traditional Christian understanding.
@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
George Hyland wrote:
Bah.
Intellectually you’ll “weigh” in at about a nanogram of methane and hydrogen sulphide between you, and you won’t even care that a nanogram isn’t a unit of weight. Unlike Apostle Piper, who thinks deeply about everything.
You’re all rubbish.
Up Yours,
Roger Bombast
Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
Hmm… not sure what Mr Bombast thought he was replying to you about. Anyone would think he has an alter-ego somewhere who’s prone to typographical errors.
Jarrett Edwards wrote (quoting one Mark Jones from The Calvinist International):
At a certain level, this is humorous. What he doesn’t seem to realise is that there’s a big cultural overlap between those who write blog posts and those who publish via peer-reviewed journals. In general, those writing blog posts have to pay their way by some other means. And, to be fair, it is not unusual for those devoting themselves to full-time theological study to have at least some form of part-time work that supports them. But theology is not an experimental science; you can’t go and get more data to refine the peer-review process itself, and ultimately, you get a paper published because the cut of your theological jib fits the editorial colour of the journal.
To give Mark Jones his due, he clearly shows some humility about his own opinions; he would not, for instance, presume to publish his opinions on the age of the earth without studying the natural sciences for some time and, thereafter, publishing in peer-reviewed journals. And he is right in saying that proponents of the ~6000-year-old-earth hypothesis cannot be taken seriously if their primary basis for proposing it is their theological study.
ishy wrote:
Based on what I’ve read and seen, “works” seems to imply obedience to law being paramount. This brand of Christianity appears to deal with the suffering conundrum by celebrating it. You suffer for God’s glory.
Potential scene on judgment day:
Defense: ‘But, Lord, in Your Name we accumulated degrees and published books and articles.’
Reply: ‘What did you say your name was again? Have we met?’
Lydia wrote:
On target.
“All who (**and only those**) are being (**present ongoing**) led by the Spirit of God (**as opposed to the flesh**), these (**and only these**), are the sons of God.”. Rms 8:14
Which is why the sons and daughters of God are exhorted in multiple places of Scripture to take note and avoid certain people who claim to love God, but whose walk routinely denies knowledge of Him.
Takes very careful discernment and righteous judgement.
Darlene wrote:
Sorry folks. Romans 3:28 Paul explicitly states “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.” That is pretty clear.
Muff Potter wrote:
I have another question about scripture. It include accounts, poetry, narratives, letters, etc written to believers. Was it meant to be a how-to primer on the Salvation process? Are Paul, John, James and Peter all on the same page about such things?
“Work out your Salvation (rescue) with fear and trembling”
@ Jack:
When scripture talks about law, it’s not always Mosaic Law. 1 John is a good example. John refers to sin as “lawlessness” and he was not advocating a return to Mosaic Law.
@ Ken:
I see Romans as a treatise from Paul on the Jew/Gentile dichotomy going on in Rome after Jewish banishment over. I don’t read it as a lesson on the individual Salvation process, It’s one of those books that it’s not a good idea to proof text as the proof text is often negated a chapter later. Look at chapter 4. Abraham’s belief was counted as righteousness. Did Abraham just believe and then do nothing about his belief? Faithfulness is living out conviction. Is it a “work” because he “acted” on his belief? Would Abraham get credit for just believing God and doing nothing about what he believed? No, because that is not “faithfulness”.
Demons “believe” God.
Ken wrote:
It is pretty clear.
James 2:24Revised Standard Version (RSV)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
That also is pretty clear. James even says that Abraham was justified by works, a direct challenge to Paul.
Sooo-we have a problem.
I can see why Luther had a problem with James. Surely we all have to wrestle with what appears to be James vs Paul on works vs faith.
From the OP:
I was reminded of Mark Jones’ ignorance (willful? You decide) in scanning through the comments above, especially in one from Jarrett Edwards. I am not sure who Jones is appealing to here, but he mistaken. Theology is not a ‘hard’ science like physics, biology or chemistry. For the most part theological journals are not “peer reviewed” in the way that scientific journals are (eg., Lancet or JAMA); rather, they are controlled by a single editor or board of editors who invite people to contribute to publication. Therefore, the “peer review” process is nothing more than friendship or fellowship with the editorial board. The same holds true in most publishing houses (esp. Crossway, B&H and Banner of Truth Trust). So, Jones’ “entrance exam” falls flat.
However, assuming for a moment that Jones’ qualifications held true, then I ask: would Piper qualify as one who has published in a “peer reviewed” setting? I doubt it – look at the strangle hold that ESS had for 20 years and what it took to bring it to the light. Had ESS been subjected to honest and open peer review, it would likely have been rejected many, many years ago.
Continuing, if the peer review process was a universal truth, then currently only a handful of theologians would actually qualify. Happily, one of my favorites would – Alister McGrath, who achieved first class honors in chemistry (quantum theory) and received his D.Phil in molecular biophysics from Oxford prior to other two doctorates (divinity and intellectual history, all earned from Oxford). Perhaps he would qualify, but Jones likely would not agree with him because he is an Anglican and not a 7 day creationist.
Which is a nice segue into another of Jones’ “qualifications”:
Fortunately, I have spent some time (and too much money) getting some theological training, so I feel qualified to address this point. Yet, I will defer to Martyn Lloyd-Jones who, in one of his sermons on Acts reminded his congregation that the world idolizes degrees and learning but Jesus chose plain, ordinary, uneducated people to establish His church. Or, as Paul wrote, “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are…” 1 Corinthians 1:27-28
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I really, really, REALLY need to read all the comments before adding my own. 🙁
@ Darlene:
Let me see if I can explain my gut reaction to Piper’s concept without getting too wordy.
The passage you mentioned is found in Col. 3. In my view that passage should be read in the context of the thought Paul is expressing from 2:8 to 4:5, the whole letter, and by making a distinction between law & gospel.
With that in mind, there are several things I see being said there. First, Paul points us to Christ and our baptism. Second, he expressly speaks against the idea of self abasement as having any value in the battle against the flesh. Third, Paul gets the arrows pointing outward and upward regarding our focus in living as those who are dead, raised, and in Christ.
When “the boyz” talk about killing sin, they are advocating for an extreme hyper-lordship view of the christian life. When they add modifiers to biblical words like salvation, they are, by default, adding requirements to one or more aspects of salvation. These “works” are then the determining factor on one’s standing before God.
Previously in the NT, the case is made for salvation solely on the basis of the shed blood of Christ and nothing else. When I read things that the boyz preach, I ask, where are the arrows pointed? Are the pointing me to Christ, or are they pointing me inward?
If the answer is inward, then I say “good luck with that.” Why? Because if any aspect of my salvation is dependent upon my performance, then I am toast. I am lost and without any hope due to the fact of my perpetual sin (concupiscence) that is not eradicated until I go to be with the Lord. I sin daily in thought, word, and deed.
If the answer is outward, pointing me to Christ, then I can say “amen”. If I am pointed to my identity in Christ, then the law is doing it’s work. Obedience to the law does not kill sin. Only Christ can do that. He did that for me at the cross, and he accepted me in the beloved when he baptized me, being dead and raised with him, and now clothed with him as I spend my days here.
The boyz never offer any solutions other that do more, try hard, be better. Paul, by way of contrast, actually does offer solutions in the rest of Col. 3. He cover all of our relationships in life, and points us to Christ, our baptism, and our identity in Christ as the solution to “killing sin”. The boyz point us inward which always takes our eyes and mind off of Christ.
So, I hope that explains my reaction. It’s really a personal expression – shorthand if you will – that points me to Christ and away from myself. I think Jesus would have us live in this life pointed outward and upward rather than pointed inward.
Incidentally, this is where the means of grace (baptism, confession & absolution, and the Lord’s Supper) come into play in the perpetual battle against sin. This is something that evangelicals do not have that they are actually looking for. They also don’t have the law/gospel distinction as categories, and therefore quite often misread Scripture. But that is another kettle of fish.
Grace
@ okrapod:
We won’t solve this here. Romans and Galatians for that matter lay out doctrine related to this. James is addressed to a specific issue of those saying something like “faith” is only faith. Of course true faith will result in a changed life. If it doesn’t there is no reason to give a person any assurance.
Paul and James are in perfect harmony.
Jack wrote:
Spiritual Masochism.
Ken wrote:
I grew up and spent the first half century of my life in a tradition that ‘explained’ every possible thing in scripture to make it all say the same thing. As in-no problem here. But I have found the arguments lacking mostly because of the suppositions which have to come into play so many times, but also because of the evidence of disagreements clearly shown in the NT and which had to be settled sometimes by compromise-like gentile circumcision and the compromise position which resulted from that disagreement. Like eating with gentiles and the conflict over that.
So, no, I do not at all see that they were in perfect harmony, and neither did Luther. Luther and I seem to be in agreement on that. IMO there are quite a few issues which cannot just be nullified by redefining words or by presuming intent of the author.
@ okrapod:
And BTW, I see this as a good thing. Sometimes when one person starts with position A and someone else starts with position B the best thing is to leave it at that because if compromise is reached then the resulting conclusion is necessarily neither A nor B since both proponents have backed off their original stance. To have to have compromised conclusions, or in some way say that there is no disagreement can be simply to say that the issue does not matter but rather that peace is more important than truth.
I think that sometimes to leave something unresolved pending further actual evidence, not just theological or linguistic meandering, is by far the better way.
Dear goodness, how did I ever survive my prior church affiliation? I am so not suited for that sort of thing.
I think Piper is a pretty good writer. He’s able to turn a phrase in a way that makes it punchy and quotable, and perfect for Twitter. That’s part of the reason he’s quoted so often.
As a theologian [and speaker, and former pastor], he’s scary. Some people are drawn to his theology, which is also scary.
I’m a Piper supporter, as long as it’s the Piper whose first name is Rowdy. Middle name Roddy.
And I’m a Calvinist. As long as it’s the Calvin who has a stuffed tiger named Hobbes.
Burwell wrote:
Actually, I rather like yours!
As to the issue of whether or not some issue is settled. I think that settling an issue may indeed never happen, and I am good with that depending on the issue of course. But what usually happens is that we do settle the issue, except that we do not all come to the same conclusion. We settle an issue for ourselves by deciding who ya gonna believe. Some folks decide to believe some organization or some church, some people chose to believe a favorite teacher or preacher or author, some choose to believe whatever the crowd they hang out with believes, and some people rely on their own understandings and decisions as to what to believe.
I get that. But what I wonder is how God feels about it. Suppose I choose to believe the wrong source, the wrong ‘authority’ and then it turns out to have been the wrong decision. To what extent am I held responsible for that wrong choice? Even if I did the best I could? Even if I have no learning in the field? Even if my vocational calling had nothing to do with theology and if spending time on theology would have forced me to neglect my own calling? What does it take to get me off the hook of responsibility for the fact that I chose to believe the wrong ‘authority’ or trusted the wrong information?
I am serious here. This has to be considered. Can individual responsibility be shifted somewhere else, and even if so should it be shifted elsewhere?
@ okrapod:
This is stepping into much broader territory (though that’s fine because I’ve no interest in dissecting Mr Piper’s interpretations of christian doctrines no matter how many people read his books). But I think the epithet “none” increasingly needs to be taken seriously, both by that subset of mainstream churchgoers who have hitherto despised it, AND by those of us who claim it.
Here in the UK, the visible professing church is an overwhelmingly middle-class, respectable institution. It is dominated by those on whom the infrastructure of a developed country has, for the most part, conferred a reasonably good life. In other words, whilst they remain mortal and subject to sickness and bereavement, life works reasonably well for them, and it’s easy for them to suppose that this is because their standards of respectability are indeed God’s standards too, and he has blessed them because they keep his laws.
At the same time, anyone on the outside can see that it is splintered into many, mutually-exclusive fragments that have little direct contact with one another and that are essentially monocultures. If you don’t fit in “THIS church”, then you try “ANOTHER church”, and keep doing this until you find “A church” where you do fit. Thus, few Christians ever really have to learn to love and respect people who are significantly different from themselves.
Into this setting, the Nones have a vitally important prophetic message: wake up. This is not just “not perfect” – it’s not right.
More could be said, but I’ve a WordPress meetup in Edinburgh and I’ve a train to catch…
Lydia wrote:
Maybe “law” wasn’t the best word. While these guys certainly look back to the Mosaic Law there is also the intensive legalism pertaining to the New Testament as well, not so much the gospels but certainly Paul.
Paul was definitely influenced by mosaic law – I think he was a pharisee before the Damascus event. Even those early Christians who wrote books like James would have been influenced by the mosaic law.
But there’s also the oppressive legalism of some branches of modern Christianity. From the RC church all the way to the independent mini-mega down the street. You must follow, follow, follow. Not just the bible but God’s “representatives” and boy does Piper consider himself one of those!
“Right thoughts, right words, right actions” – Franz Ferdinand – the band not the Archduke.
Pardon this off topic post but the “Open Discussion” page isn’t. The link http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/can-museum-bible-overcome-sins-past describes in a cautious way a museum scheduled to open in November that intends to present Biblical archeology in an academically honest way. The AAAS’s SCIENCE magazine is about as mainstream as it gets. In the UK NATURE has a comparable reputation. Clearly, the Museum of the Bible is not intended to be another Ken Ham amusement park.
Jack wrote:
C.S. Lewis argued for this very thing in his book:
Mere Christianity— (New York, Macmillian Publishing Company, 1960, pp. 176-177)
Jack wrote:
Oh yeah, I know, the objections and subsequent charges of heresy over the dreaded ‘U’ word (universalism) will fly like mortar rounds.
@ Jack:
Personally I think Paul is very misunderstood but I do think there are good reasons for it. I certainly don’t put him or any of the others on a pedestal with Jesus Christ.
Paul, to me, seems to be desperately trying to create some sort of structure for this new thing- this ‘new way’ that did not fit any of society’s current structures. This “new way” had no caste system. it was like an untamed living organism with a holy spirit blowing wherever it wanted. Some tried to take advantage of that. What else is new?
Nothing he wrote was binding from any human authority. He pleaded, persuaded, conjoled, praised, guilted etc.
Being influenced by Mosaic law is not all bad. I think we can all agree that murder is wrong, for example. And, while living under occupation, the Leviticus style Mosaic law was impossible. That had been long gone.
But few Pharisees, etc were actually practicing Mosaic law as they had made up their own. And there were several schools of Interpretation of oral law.
So when I see Paul responding to the Judaizers about the law I don’t think of Leviticus style Mosaic law. I think in terms of what they made-up as interpreting Mosaic law.
Jesus was constantly dissing that “law”. My view is that the “spirit” of the Mosaic law was to have the Jews, who had been the slaves of pagans for centuries, looking to God for guidance and deliverance. There’s even a lot of health and hygiene type of laws that sound bizarre to us today.
@ Ken:
The big problems with it or when you add in inherited guilt, Original Sin and any sort of limiting atonement. Those literally changed the definition of faith.
okrapod wrote:
Luther was an Augustinian monk. A lot of us say we believe we can say we believe we do good works that will save us. But Luther really tried. I have never heard of anyone who took it as seriously as Luther did. He denied himself, fasted, flailed himself, spent nights in the cold confessed for hours , he was a monk! Did all he could to be righteous before God to get assurance of salvation. Once he understood that it all meant nothing in relation to salvation he would not give it up. As I understand it with this thinking early in his life he thought James was “straw”. But later in life he embraced it as scripture. I stand with Luther. No amount of good works will earn anything before God. It will also not keep me saved. Romans 3:28 “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” , Galatians 3:15-16 “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Lydia wrote:
I hear what you are saying, but we have a problem in that there seems to be something wrong/ missing with man. We could say that there was an original sin and that the effects of that are continuing. Or we cold say that when God created man He did not get a few things right-made some mistakes. Or we could say that man is an evolving animal and that what we call either sin or call the flesh is the evidence that we have not evolved yet as far as we would like, while all the time God seems to be taking his time with the evolving processes. Not any of that seems air tight if we are going to be theists who insist that God is all wise and all caring.
On my more religious days I lean toward original sin, but on my other days I lean toward evolving s-l-o-w-l-y.
Do you have some ideas as to what other answers there might be?
okrapod wrote:
Which tradition was that?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Why am I thinking of Dickens and Chesterton when I read that?
Analogous to present-day American politics, where every faction is sealed off inside its own echo chamber.
Are works necessary to salvation? According to John 6:29 there is a necessary work. And it is simply to believe in Jesus.
Trouble comes when we don’t use God’s definition of work!
Ken wrote:
That’s masochism not good works. I’m thinking good works along the lines of feeding the poor, helping to promote world peace, not lying on your tax form.
This is the problem with some aspects of Christianity. It seems believe that God is satisfied with suffering, that if we suffer enough then it makes him even more happy.
Reading the gospels, I get the sense that Jesus did what he had to do, there was no joy in it insofar has having to go through it, he even prayed to God (or spoke to himself in the Trinitarian view, since he is God or a third of God or whatever) that he didn’t have to do it.
Luther also was firmly on the side of divine to rule, antisemitism and other things that were “normal” for his time. Not right by any stretch.
Forget Luther. What is so hard? I affirm Romans 3:28 and Galatians 3:15-16. Justification is by Faith alone! I also affirm James 14-17 What good is it, my brother of sister, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? ….v17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” If your or my faith does not manifest itself in concern for my poor brothers sisters in Christ where I won’t help them, my faith is dead. It isn’t real. But by doing them I add nothing to my justification.
@ A.Tumbleweed:
My reaction to Piper’s concept above should also take into account that his views come from a Puritan source, John Owen. He is famous for uttering the words that Piper is espousing.
He and JM advocate a radical view of sanctification because they have no sacramental mechanism to deal with recurring sin.
I think, on the question of “works vs. faith,” where one is pitted against the other (similar to “justice vs. mercy”), we often assume that, because they are of different substances and perform different functions, they therefore are opposed to one another, and only one is necessary to perform the “function” of salvation.
I have come to understand the issue along anatomical lines: are muscle and bone opposed to one another, simply because they are made of different substances and perform different functions? Can bone move without muscle? Or can muscle move in any effective sense without bone? (At least, to be considered a normal human. I’m convinced at least some people lack bones, mainly of the dorsal variety. In a certain sense, muscle and bone are opposed to one another; but it is this tension that allows healthy function. Similarly, why do we assume it is either solely works or solely faith that God desires in us?
Or what about the heart and lungs? They are separate and perform distinct functions; yet “a heart without lungs is dead” in the sense that “faith without works is dead,” and “lungs without a heart are useless” in the sense that works without faith (or love) are useless as well. But together, they are inseparable as the cardiorespiratory system. Maybe we should call “faith and works” the “fideoperatory system”
Ken wrote:
Well said Ken
As for what kind of works, here’s a good quote from George MacDonald (which automatically makes me a heretic in the eyes of the Reformed crowd):
“How terribly, then, have the theologians misrepresented God in the measures of the low and showy, not the lofty and simple humanities! Nearly all of them represent him as a great King on a grand throne, thinking how grand he is, and making it the business of his being and the end of his universe to keep up his glory, wielding the bolts of a Jupiter against them that take his name in vain. They would not allow this, but follow out what they say, and it comes much to this. Brothers, have you found our king? There he is, kissing little children and saying they are like God. There he is at table with the head of a fisherman lying on his bosom, and somewhat heavy at heart that even he, the beloved disciple, cannot yet understand him well. The simplest peasant who loves his children and his sheep were – no, not a truer, for the other is false, but – a true type of our God beside that monstrosity of a monarch.”
Muff Potter wrote:
Dee just shared an article about ‘insecurity’ being a sin! Ridiculous. All this focus on anger and insecurity and sadness and fear as sins, rather than normal reactions that need to be processed coupled with completely ignoring actual sins is mindboggling.
Darlene wrote:
Darlene, I would not say that at all. The faith is not meant to be in the *doctrine* but in the living God.
But absent some pretty obvious terrible actions, I do not feel comfortable telling anyone they are saved/not saved as a general rule. That’s not my job. It wasn’t the Popes job. It’s not John Piper’s job either.
@ okrapod:
In general terms, I think it’s because we are all born dying. The Whole death thing is corrupting in so many areas of life on earth. Death was the consequence to sin.
I tend to see the promise of eternal life as the conquering of death along with the redeemed earth.
@ Darlene:
@ Lea:
Darlene, just so you know, I did reply to your earlier question.
Lea, I agree. You make an excellent point.
Jack wrote:
I believe something close to this, although I would not say it is ‘earning’. I would say that people can see God and belong to him, without elastigirl wrote:
Yes! This is what gets me about judging works. Aren’t we supposed to be doing good without telling everyone about it? So who’s ‘works’ are being judged here, the vocal ones? The ones who Jesus said have already had their reward?
@ Lea:
Whoops, sorry that reply to Jack wasn’t meant to be included because it is massively incomplete.
Lydia wrote:
1. Probably not.
2. This is one of the things we aren’t supposed to talk about.
Back on the subject of faith and works, and harmonising the Apostle James withthe Apostle Paul, there is another solution I offer: James was speaking about justification/vindication before men and not before men whereas Paul was referring to justification before God. Paul’s letters are doctrinal, James is very practical. A dead faith is still faith and he asks “can faith save”? The word ‘that’ is italicised which means it is not in the original.
Abraham was justified before God when he believed his promise of having seed as numerous as the stars in the sky. Many years later he was justified before men when he offered up Isaac and he became known as “the friend of God”. Rahab could have quietly trusted in God for ETERNAL salvation but kept that quiet. If she did, she would have perished with the rest of them but she was justified before the spies when they protected her. As humans we cannot see the faith of another person.
A dead faith is still faith but it is powerless, unproductive and useless. A car battery can be dead but it still exists. It dismisses a starving person with empty words but will not rescue or deliver him from his poverty. James 2 is an encouragement and a challenge for us to have active faith every day and to show mercy and kindness to other brothers and sisters. When I went through a season of unemployment, I had faith that God would provide but I had the responsibility to actively reach out to employers otherwise my faith would just be unfruitful.
@ Lea:
“Aren’t we supposed to be doing good without telling everyone about it? So who’s ‘works’ are being judged here, the vocal ones?”
++++++++++++++
growth, works…
i remember a few decades ago, a big, popular church was doing some kind of conference event. a group of wiccans (perhaps) came protested outside — something in evangelicalism was in the news at the time, something cruddy or inhumane, can’t remember what it was. because of that, the wiccan group was justified in their protest (even if this particular church wasn’t involved). this was on our local news.
The pastor came and talked with the leader (had long bleached hair, beads, earthy hippie apparel, etc) — talked with him at length, on multiple occasions to try to understand, and explain his perspective to the wiccan leader, shooting for mutual understanding.
the wiccan leader was (what’s the best wording) won over, convinced, felt resolution in the issue that he had a philosophical problem with concerning christianity.
He (what’s the best wording) converted / prayed the sinner’s prayer / became born again… i hate all these words, but something truly seemed to have happened.
Some days later the (former) wiccan leader appeared with the pastor on a TV something-or-other. his hair was cut short, side part, color returned to what it would have been naturally, in a conservative suit.
now, i don’t know exactly what happened (could have been authentic, significant), but it was deemed by everyone talking about this that “growth” had happened.
the “growth” came down to the side-part light brown short haircut, conservative suit and shoes, the christianese language he was speaking, the christianese behavior, attending bible studies, coming to church regularly.
All too many times what is deemed christian “growth” is all cosmetic. A wiccan (or anyone) dressing and acting the part.
i say pooey.
Lea wrote:
We aren’t supposed to discuss them because it detracts from the belief that Scripture has absolute and complete harmony, which in turn makes air-tight-doctrinal-theology a speculative endeavor.
I am comfortable with the tensions and contradictions in Scripture because they don’t affect my belief and trust in the very person of Messiah.
Muff Potter wrote:
I think that is true.
Also, if we admit difficulties with scripture then we have to think about how to solve this, and that brings up the issue of the Catholic contention that the CC has the final authority to interpret scripture in their theology, and then there we are in that whole issue which probably nobody wants to talk about. It is just easier to say that there are no problems than to get into how to handle it if there are problems.
So, we divide up and argue among ourselves which also does not solve anything. I am glad I don’t get headaches, or this would surely bring one on.
elastigirl wrote:
I totally agree with you, elastigirl. Though I don’t think New Cals care about growth or maturity or “good” at all. I think it’s all about convincing peons to follow the leader obediently. The leaders certainly don’t seem to hold the same standards for themselves that they do for others.
In this, as with many other things like YEC/OEC or eschatology, I am fine with not really knowing. I think there’s a lot of the Bible that is very clear. I also think that any group that leaves out Christ really doesn’t have any business telling people how to be Christians.
Ken wrote:
Note that this verse speaks of “works of the law.” Meaning the Old Testament Law. What has happened since the Reformation, is that “works” have come to mean all sorts of things beyond “works of the law” such as: baptism, believing, accepting Christ as Lord, good works done by the power of the Holy Spirit, etc.
Further, such a passage isn’t as clear as you suggest if one intends to grapple with James 2:24: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” So, how does one hold both Romans 3:28 & James 2:24 in tension so that extremes on one side or the other can be avoided? I think the very reason that controversy exists regarding faith and works and their place in the life a Christians, is because it is quite difficult to arrive at a conclusion that is able to hold both of these concepts in tension without doing a disservice to one or the other.
okrapod wrote:
Okrapod, we’re thinking alike in this regard. The question is: How do we solve the problem? I don’t really have an answer for that at the moment, but I don’t think it’s something as simple as: “Works are just something the Christian will do, BUT they have nothing to do with our justification” – which seems to be the consensus on this thread.
Lydia wrote:
All good points, Lydia. Some Christians do go so far as saying that even believing is a “work.” I’m not going to go down that rabbit hole right now, but suffice it to say the faith versus works subject is not so simple as Jesus plus nothing = salvation – something I hear parroted quite a bit by Evangelicals. Suffice it to say that I don’t think believing in and by itself is worth very much, since as you pointed out that even the demons “believe” God.
Darlene wrote:
In my opinion, the controversy has arisen because ‘faith’ and ‘deeds’ have been compartmentalized in Western Christian Theology, and that they operate in one direction only.
If ‘faith’ then ‘works’. It’s all predicated on an ‘if then’ as the operator between the two operands.
This is alien to Jewish thought which places an ‘if and only if’ operator between ‘faith’ and ‘works’. The difference is that ‘if and only if’ is bi-directional, in other words, you (generic you) can’t have one without the other, because one ensures the existence of the other.
Personally, I subscribe to Jewish thought on this old faith vs. works chestnut.
Darlene wrote:
All too easy to just sit on your butt doing nothing, Smug in your FAITH FAITH FAITH.
Especially if you’re involved in “The Calvary Road” whipsaw or Extreme Holiness (defined in terms of Thou Shalt Not), you Don’t Dare do ANYTHING out of fear of committing Sin.
Muff Potter wrote:
Faith expresses itself in Works, and the practice of Works trains you in and grows your Faith through experience.
@ Muff Potter:
Yes. Yes to your whole comment.
The gospels have a gracious plenty illustrations where Jesus talked about count the cost and then made various kinds of demands/requirements of people who might/might not follow him. And he let people walk away if they were not willing to do that.
Muff Potter wrote:
I do have problems with that mentality. There are admittedly certain issues that our minds cannot resolve. An example is the idea that God has no beginning – that simply blows my mind. I can’t fully resolve the incarnation – that Jesus is both God and human. The issue of divine sovereignty and human freedom is another. But we should not get lazy and not give thought to these things at all. In fact it is good to discuss them in a brotherly manner.
Accepting contradictions can also set a precedent in reasoning. I remember once hearing Calvinist authors condemning Arminianism, Mormonism, Islam and other faiths for contradicting themselves. But when faced with their own contradictions they hide behind words like “mystery” and “paradox”.
A.Tumbleweed wrote:
Yes, Tumbleweed. I read your reply. This subject sometimes makes it seem as though my mind is being twisted like a pretzel. Probably because so many things have been about faith versus works to the point where all of it can come rushing in on the senses, overwhelming the cognitive function of my brain. Insert smiley face here.
Correction: *so many things have been said about faith versus works.
Muff Potter wrote:
It seems to me that air-tight-doctrinal-theology falls into the category of parsing every single jot and tittle of Scripture to the nth degree. The entire mindset becomes tighter than a drum in which something will eventually snap. Like the crazed preacher at the pulpit shaking his bible and screaming, GOD SAITH!!! at the congregation.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Just a typo?!? Getting the attention of Roger on this site is something like winning the equivalent of the Nobel Peace Prize. I thought I had reached a new pinnacle. Oh well, the fame was fun while it lasted…
okrapod wrote:
I personally have found value in looking up Orthodox ideas on topics like this. In many cases I find that Protestants and Catholics argue A vs B as is the only viable options, but the Orthodox believe Z. I find that by searching on things like “orthodox original sin” or “orthodox heaven and hell” I can get some pretty good sources.
In this particular case, the Orthodox view on original sin makes a lot of sense.
@ GSD [Getting Stuff Done]:
LOL.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
The flip side of that is checking all the works boxes (whatever that means) and saying ‘done’.
@ The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday:
Wish there were a like button!
@ The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday:
Beautiful. Our “Friend”, too.
@ Lea:
We have not really defined works. Is practicing character and integrity a “work”, for example?
@ Muff Potter:
I found this interesting from an historical Christian POV when I was looking into this topic.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ukyNU51OcnA
srs wrote:
Lol, I was going to say something to that effect but chickened out.
Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
Which view? David Bentley Hart’s? 😉
Darlene wrote:
Amen.
I’ve heard so many IDEAS folks claim that good works just automatically flow once you’re a branch grafted into the Vine. If that’s so, how does one explain all the fervent, committed Christians who treat their fellow human beings like pond scum? It’s no good to say they don’t have “real saving faith.” That’s a copout. And it’s totally subjective: How can anyone know how genuine someone else’s faith is? Only God knows.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
I have no idea where the word “IDEAS” came from — in all caps, no less. I guess it was predestined to pop up there.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Catholics believe in Sola Gratia, but not in Sola Fide. The famous verse in Romans does NOT say “faith ALONE,” and any attempt to add the word “alone” constitutes adding to the Word of God, a huge no-no. This is not a red herring. It is absolutely central to the debate. If Paul had meant “faith ALONE,” he would have *said* “faith ALONE.”
Moreover, when he contrasts faith to “works of the Law” he is talking about the Jewish Law, NOT about the moral law that binds Christians. Even Protestant scholars now concede this.
Calvinists and others cherry-pick Scripture in order to maintain Sola Fide. They ignore the countless verses in the NT that flatly contradict Sola Fide — such as James’s explicit insistence that we are NOT saved by faith alone! (That’s the only place in Scripture where the phrase “faith alone” occurs!)
But cherry-picking Scripture is fundamentally wrong. When it’s done deliberately, it’s dishonest. ALL of Scripture is inspired and true, not just the parts that fit our preconceptions or theological grid. 😀
I have yet to see a credible explanation showing how Matthew 25: 31-46 squares with Sola Fide. That entire lengthy passage does not even mention the word “faith”! And it consists entirely of the words of Our Lord Himself. Our Lord’s words trump even Paul’s — unless, of course, you’re a Calvinist. 😉
BTW, re the Catholic Answers quote: You have wrenched it violently out of context. But that is beside the point. If you want to know what Catholicism actually teaches, you don’t go to some guy’s article on the Internet. You go to the Catechism. That’s what it’s there for.
Lydia wrote:
This is crucial. Thank you.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yep.
Classic Catholic theology says that we must cooperate with Grace. Which is so obviously true that I cannot see how it can be gainsaid. We are not passive automatons. The Holy Spirit does not take over our minds and bodies and do good works through us, as though we were helpless zombies. We must cooperate with Grace. We have agency.
But, at the same time, even our cooperation comes from Grace. As Augustine said, “In crowning our merits, Lord, You are only crowning Your own grace.” And as Saint Teresa of Avila said, ” Everything is Grace.”
How can cooperation and free will square with “everything is Grace”? Well, as the nuns used to tell us, it’s a mystery. 🙂
BTW Lowlandseer, after re-reading that Catholic Answers quote, I sure don’t see how it makes your case. It says NOTHING about “faith ALONE”…which is not surprising, considering that no one at Catholic Answers subscribes to “faith alone”!
IMHO you cannot get around the fact that “faith ALONE” is not in the Bible. You cannot claim it’s implied. That’s eisegesis, not exegesis. It is reading stuff into Scripture that is simply not there. Again, if Paul had meant “alone,” he would have said “alone.” But he didn’t. 😀
And now I’m getting off my soapbox and going to bed.:D
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Ah…CGC, I can see that you are a synergist just like me. Excellent insights. I agree with that Classic Catholic Theology. 🙂
This was a very hard article to read and the comments were hard. It was a big deal in my first faith community concerning “works” salvation, something I was often accused of. My works are filthy rags, vile before God, anything done outside of faith (even one nanosecond of doubt) is basically worshipping Satan God, in His Holy Wrath will burn up all such works to our eternal shame, even if we are saved (which is very doubtful). I found myself actually praying God would not reward me for any works, my prayer often was, please dont kill me.
This is most likely evil in some way I am unaware of. But I got great joy out of doing good, somewhere in there I am sure I sinned because I wanted rewards, did it for someone to see etc. People think the Catholics are works oriented, they are a walk in the park compared to evangelical faith groups, the work never ends and well most of us will lose.
As for you were not really ever saved issue. I dont expect God to save me, there I said it I can stop worrying if I slipped up somewhere. I worked on units with people struggling with dementia and Alzheimer’s some of these fine folks were “Christians” I E pastors, missionaries etc. Well when they started to cognitively deteriorate, they might become belligerent, swear, say really awful things. Of course, they were not saved as Jesus will not let one out of his hand and those that continue to sin Cannot be saved. That was a basic tell, that did not include the “sin” of hating family members, holding grudges, getting revenge etc those were not real “sins”.
I had clients I worked with who did things, self-stimulation, swear, Self Injurious behavior and assault others. I did, to my shame, ask for prayer for these people at times, it was made clear such actions were under the wrath of God being poured out on the Children of Disobedience. Its sort of the reason I became a universalist, I do not include myself in that, but that is another post. I learned one thing, nothing is simple. I always struggled with the Gospel being a pure business transaction and nothing at all more, but it was often pushed that way.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
I have commented on James 2 earlier in this thread. To accuse “Calvinists and others” of “cherry picking Scripture” is both wrong, provocative and unhelpful in an exegetical debate. This generalisation is flatly contradicted by many “Calvinists and others” who have taught the whole Bible and whilst they don’t always get it right, they try to teach the whole word of God. I would strongly recommend reading the following books: The Gospel and It’s Ministry by Sir Robert Anderson, Must Faith Endure by Tom Stegall and So Great Salvation by Charles Ryrie. I would also recommend checking out Middletown Bible Church (G.W. Zeller) but I could go on giving examples.
I have some good Catholic friends and relatives who have a real relationship with God and they keep the commands to love their neighbour. I was most encouraged when one of them read the verse in 1 Timothy which said “there is only one mediator between God and man – Jesus Christ”. She concluded that the office of the Pope and the priests was false and unnecessary. And with all due respect to my Catholic friends and relatives: The Vatican has not even tried to keep “the moral law which binds Christians”. Like the neo-Calvinists, the leadership have protected child abusers just like Sovereign Grace Ministries (see the Spotlight movie). More recently Pope Francis begged forgiveness for the RCs part in the 1994 mass murder in Rwanda (see Catholic Herald 20th March 2017). And the Vatican assisted Nazi war criminals to escape justice after the war. With all their own wealth the Vatican have accumulated, they could have done more to help the poor. So I would not look to that church for moral guidance. But then I would not look to the Anglican or Evangelical establishment either. I fellowship with other believers on an informal basis but cautious about the institutional churches generally.
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
For what it’s worth, CGC, I am very familiar with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Irish Catholic Catechism for Adults and it is quite clear in paragraphs 1987 to 1995 (CCC, Life in Christ, Article 2, Grace and Justification) that the church places justification as the work of God alone – the Holy Spirit “converts, effecting justification (1989), Justification detaches man from sin (1990), accepts God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ (1991), is merited for us by the Passion of Christ (1992).
We do no need to disagree that justification establishes cooperation between God’s Grace and man’s freedom, because it is explained that although theoretically man could reject it, in reality, without God’s Grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight (1993 and Council of Trent 1547, DS 1525).
Justification is the most excellent work of God’s love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit (1994); it also entails the sanctification of his whole being…and it’s end, eternal life.(1995).
The Irish version makes all of the same points except that it contradicts itself. It starts off by declaring that we are justified – cleansed from our sins and reconciled to God – through the power of the Holy Spirit. It then says that our part in Justification is our acceptance or reception of the holiness of God and calls this aspect sanctification through participation in the divine life. It is still the work of God from beginning to end?
Apologies for the digression from John Piper. That’s my last word to CGC.
The contradiction* in the Irish Catechism arises from the rather imprecise language,imo.
To say that Jesus’ words trump Paul, or that James cancels out Paul, is to completely misunderstand Scripture. Either God gave us the whole thing or He did not. And if He did not then there is nothing to talk about.
@ ZechZav:
“I also know from my own experience with backsliding that God withdraws his blessings and can even bring judgement into my life if I walk away – just like a good father disciplines his children.”
++++++++++++++++
what do you mean by judgement?
(for me, it’s a christian-y word — i’ve stopped being able to compute these words — like nerve damage, or something.)
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
eh. I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Alone is more of an emphasis word, that can be added or not. When you say ‘I did X’ you can easily mean that’s all you did.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
“I remember reading something on these blogs that Christianity goes through a major shakeup around every 500 years, the last one being the Protestant Reformation. If true, we’re about due for another.”
++++++++++++++++
GOOD
it’s like, good gracious, rain already, will ya?!
(talking to a sky and atmosphere heavy with water but it’s taking it’s own sweet time and making it muggy and still for everyone… you can just feel a deluge [of sorts] wants to happen but it’s not… change is in the air…
it wants to happen…. please happen! limbo is exasperating)
elastigirl wrote:
ha!
Whatever you think of the outcomes of the reformation, doctrine wise, no one can convince that it wasn’t SORELY needed, when you read the history of the time.
Ken wrote:
Good point Ken, Luther’s connection to Augustine has to be understood. But I just noticed something… Luther did all that stuff, but did he do anything to help someone else, like give a cold cup of water to a “little one?” All of his piety seems to be self-centered, with no sense of service. It’s religious selfishness — The worst kind. [I know from experience.]
Muff’s comments on the western idea of faith and works being one-way only in western thought really has me thinking. Can some sorts of works, sacrificial, service oriented works, actually lead to faith? That’s one of those ideas that’s going to stick in my brain for a long time. Thanks Muff.
Lea wrote:
It seems healthy to debate it and point out it is not actually taught in Scripture, though. When something is emphasized so strictly it results in things like strict determinism.
For the last 10 years I have been asking Neo calvinist if practicing character and integrity are works.
The responses have been all over the board but all include some variation of the worm theology that “we are all sinners” and evidently we cannot help it. I came to the conclusion that we all need to adopt The Bob Newhart doctrine of: Well, Stop it.:)
@ elastigirl:
Just wrestling the land from Rome and keeping indulgence money local made a huge difference for the princes’ and electors. But sadly they adopted the same hierarchical church structure as Rome to some degree. And the Reformation gave the peasants some lofty ideals above their station which led to war. But that is how things evolve to freedom.
The real gospel is really so very simple. Think John 3:16. Jesus did not say if you believe plus try really hard, persevere to the end, follow an endless set of rules, or do all manner of good deeds. He said if you believe. Simple.
Many of each flavor of Christianity think being saved equals being a disciple. It does not. Many will be in heaven due only to faith who did not follow in discipleship. Yeah, they lose rewards. Yeah, not obeying God’s commands flat out hurts here on earth. Hurts the sinning person and hurts others.
Simple free grace is not cheap. It cost Jesus His life. But it is free to us, no strings attached. Not neoPuritan strings, not Catholic strings, not Baptist or Lutheran or Methodist or holiness movement or quaker or whatever strings.
Being a disciple, not just saved, is tougher. Better, healthier, kinder, more fun here and now in some ways, but tougher. All hell and humankind will come against you.
The real danger is deciding someone else’s works and ideas are all wet but your own adding of works to the simple gospel is just discipleship or getting it right.
Remember the blood on the lintel when the death angel came at the first Passover? What counted was the blood applied, not the character of the people within the house.
Same today. Those under the blood of Christ are saved, permanently. Those not, no matter how vile OR HOW HOLY are not.
GSD [Getting Stuff Done] wrote:
The answer is no. Faith is a gift, it is not wages. A good work is not a good work unless it is done outside of the context of salvation, which faith initially belongs to.
Unless, of course, you want to elevate experience, feelings, and individual gnosis above the Word of God.
A.Tumbleweed wrote:
I don’t think quite like you are thinking. What we have of Jesus’ words are first of directly out of the mouth of God and secondly selected as needing to be written down in the gospels even while not everything about Jesus was written down, or so we are told in the gospels, and are direct quotes rather than ideas ‘inspired’ but passing through the minds of some man before being recorded.
Christians do not see the NT as being dictated in the same way that Muslims regard their sacred writings. This is a huge difference.
Meanwhile, what we have in the epistles is directed at particular groups of people, not that we know selectively edited (that can be argued) and at best has passed from God through a human mind before being written. At the same time Revelation is a vision which John himself did not even understand-apparently.
I see these differences as being hugely important.
So, I do not see the statements in the NT as being equal. ‘Follow me’ out of the mouth of Jesus is at a whole different level from Paul’s comments on male and female hair length.
Lydia wrote:
In this sixth grade social studies curriculum there is emphasis on how the serfs were changing their ideas about themselves and they include that this had to do with the development of nations as opposed to the older feudal system. That would be that people began to not so much see themselves as belonging to some local place or some local village or feudal system of allegiance but rather as citizens of nations-a whole different way to see oneself. This was happening during the same era in which the reformers and the ideas immediately preceding the reformers were happening.
I am, of course, still trying to say that not everything that happened during the reformation era, for better or for worse, can be totally attributed to the reformation. Times were changing. I think this is important because otherwise people could think that we totally owe modern western civilization to protestantism, which is ridiculously simplistic at best.
And no, I did not say that you said that, I am just adding to the discussion.
@ okrapod:
I am glad you weighed in because it’s interesting to track how thinking changes over time and what is attributed to that changed thinking.
It’s not hard for me to imagine that some peasants thought, wow if they can free us from Rome why cant we free ourselves from surfdom on this plot of land.
If you come across anything in your studies on legal literacy for the peasants I would find it interesting to see what is being taught. History is all over the place when it comes to the Reformation, printing, and literacy.
@ okrapod:
Agree. I don’t discount Paul but I certainly do not elevate his letters to be on par with the narratives that tell us what Jesus said and did.
I think Christianity would be much healthier if we used a Jesus filter to interpret Paul’s letters. But it is often the other way around.
@ A.Tumbleweed:
I address that issue in a comment at 11:37 today. I would be interested in what you have heard which supports your opinion about scripture in contrast to what I have said, which is pretty much the opposite. The comment has not yet been published.
I am not trying to be contentious just for the sake of it, but rather I think this is an important difference between christians and this difference is part of the opinion stances of various people.
@ okrapod:
Oops. It got published while I was typing.
okrapod wrote:
Oh, my. This took me back to the Monty Python film about King Arthur and the Holy Grail, the scene where he stops to ask directions of a bunch of peasants working in a field, and they respond with social discourse.
Come to think of it, Piper himself is rather a Monty-Pythonesque caricature.
@ refugee:
Lol. I remember that
@ okrapod:
Well, without trying to be contentious either, I think we have to consider that the same God gave us all of the Scriptures, in all five genres, in order to reveal Himself and us. I’ve never personally liked it when people say “Paul said thus & so”. I prefer that we are led to think of the Scripture as God speaking through people.
That said, I recognize that Jesus is God, and that when He spoke it carries more weight than when His disciples spoke. However, it is all given for our benefit, and cannot contradict itself because God does not contradict Himself. So somewhere along the line we have to, again, imo, have some way to reconcile the apparent differences. How that is done is up for debate.
I do not think it is helpful to embed doubt or uncertainty into discussions about Scripture. (Not that anyone is doing that, it’s a principle) I wouldn’t have much of an apologetic if I did not have confidence in the material I was using. If Jesus and Paul aren’t agreeing, and James is mucking up the whole thing, then why should I trust any of them to tell me what to do about sin, salvation, or my eternal destiny? What of the good news then?
Somewhere along the way we have to hit bedrock. Where is it then, if not in the trustworthiness of God’s Word? And if we say bedrock is in the person of Christ, I say we would not know about Christ without the revealed Word. That has to include all of it, since Jesus didn’t say everything, Paul didn’t, James didn’t, Moses didn’t, etc. It has to be taken as a whole, with a consistent way to interpret that spans all genres.
I favor a Christ centered hermeneutic, where all of the arrow point to the cross. So that’s where I’m coming from.
The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:
I cannot speak to whether an affinity for MacDonald would make you a heretic in the eyes of the Reformed crowd. However, assuming for a moment that it would, I find it funny that, like quoting GK Chesterton or Dorothy Sayers, the “good and the great” of the modern Reformed set will dismiss MacDonald while praising CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien.
Lydia wrote:
I don’t have any problem with not translating it that way, I just disagree that it’s absence means that it is NOT alone. It can kind of go either way with that sentence, but if I were translating in my head I would tend to agree that ‘we are saved by faith’ can easily mean we are saved by faith. Period. Alone is unnecessary to make that point. You can certainly argue the actuality either way, and people have and will continue to.
okrapod wrote:
I’ve actually always thought it was silly for people to say that because a Reformer believed something, we have to. We certainly owe a lot to Luther in particular, but that doesn’t mean he or Calvin were right about everything.
I think that when something is not mentioned it definitely means that it is not mentioned. Period.
I think that when somebody else in scripture takes up a certain issue seemingly in response to what has been said, then it can mean that they disagree, or it can mean that they agree and wish to add to the discussion to round it out, or it can mean that they are mistaken about what they think the other person said, or it can mean that they are pulling rank or trying to pull rank (like when Paul reminds people that he is an apostle), or it can mean that they are addressing slightly different circumstances, or it can mean that they are intervening in some controversy about which we know nothing, or it can mean that the issue impacts some other issue and they want to consider the two together, or who knows what all it can mean.
That being the case, unless the persons specifically indicate why they are saying what they say, then for us to guess is just way too apt to be wrong to be the grounds for much if any conclusions. And if that is the case for things which are said, then it is even more so in the case for things which are not said-not specifically mentioned.
Did Paul mean to say ‘alone’? He did not say. So I conclude that he did not say.
Burwell wrote:
I can speak for certain that it would. In fact, Tim Keller and John Piper can as well:
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/would-we-have-been-friends-keller-and-piper-on-lewis
The fact that MacDonald was unequivocally opposed to Jonathan Edwards’ view of God ( in MacDonald’s words: “I turned with loathing from the God of Jonathan Edwards”) is enough to raise eyebrows when I bring him up.
Interesting to note also is the increasing dislike of both Tolkien and Lewis (whom I consider my “bros” along with Chesterton: I often have lunch with them. The best part is they just sit there in tranquil book-form, and let me listen to them at my leisure. I suppose that same quiet companionship renders them equally susceptible to misinterpretations and accusations of heresy today). I’ve read/heard many calls to be skeptical of Lewis and Tolkien because of their ‘fantastical’ literature and ‘unorthodox’ theology. I can’t imagine…
okrapod wrote:
Would you have a problem with the Trinity then?
Errors in sanctification can be traced back to misunderstandings or incomplete understandings of salvation.
We are saved by works! Christ’s perfect work on our behalf; without it, there is no salvation. It is impossible for us to do this work. It is an alien Righteousness (outside of ourselves), yet “for us.” The perfect Christ then bore our penalty for us thereby satisfying God’s wrath, justice, and holiness. By grace through faith, this salvation is offered to whosever wills. God’s wrath puts to death sin and its consequence, death – so God’s wrath is a loving act (destroying that which harms us). Only He could do this. He is the recipient of His own righteous wrath (in His Son), which is an act of love for us. Then, mercy and forgiveness can be extended to us without violating His holiness, justice, and wrath. Oh! How He humiliated Himself (humbled Himself), so that His love would win our hearts!!!
The NT writers state that Truth and Love is not merely something to be intellectually grasped, but is received/accepted in the Person of Jesus Christ (via indwelling of Holy Spirit). But they did write Epistles for instruction, admonition, correction, etc. 2 Peter 3, we need to grow in the grace (reception of the gift) and knowledge (includes intellect) of our LORD.
We become more like that which we worship. If we have placed our faith and trust in Him alone, we will become progressively more like Him (and progressively more exhibit the works which He did). Obedience, for the Christian, is so valuable because it proves our faith is truly salvific faith. Faith alone does not save, but the object of our faith is the One who saves. The trials of our faith are more valuable than gold. It proves that our love for Him is real. We can only obey out of love (the love spread abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit); otherwise, we are trying to obey according to the good intentions of our flesh (impose them on ourselves). If we have received/accepted this Truth and Love in the Person of Christ, then we will have some works. His abiding love will create good works in us: they are His works born by His love in us.
What we need is a Gospel that can save unfaithful Christians – Good News indeed! Too much emphasis on works (Imperatives) will distort the Good News (Indicatives). Let’s endeavor to preach Christ and Him crucified (Indicatives – Who God is, and what He has already done). When our hearts are flooded with this Truth and Love, His works will follow in us because they spring from within born of His love.
Every new generation can create new imperatives (it’s all do-do) for their own cultural generation; and, market them through the Christian Industrial Complex in order to exalt themselves as the way forward. But, the indicatives do not change – Who God is and what He has already done. The believer, who “gets” this, will not exalt the self. Rather, the self will be so enraptured, purchased, redeemed, transformed, that only this indescribable, boundless, unlimited, Self-Giving Love will be our every motivation.
The love of God is greater far
Than tongue or pen can ever tell
It goes beyond the highest star
And reaches to the lowest hell
The guilty pair, bowed down with care
God gave His Son to win
His erring child He reconciled
And pardoned from his sin
Could we with ink the ocean fill
And were the skies of parchment made
Were every stalk on earth a quill
And every man a scribe by trade
To write the love of God above
Would drain the ocean dry
Nor could the scroll contain the whole
Though stretched from sky to sky
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
O love of God, how rich and pure!
How measureless and strong!
It shall forevermore endure
The saints’ and angels’ song
ishy wrote:
Yeah. Me too.
I don’t see any difference between when people quote Luther and when they quote some Catholic document. The idea is still to let someone else do the thinking and for the person to acquiesce. For me that means that part of decision making about what scripture says/means is right back to who you gonna believe. In other words which is the more probable to be correct. That, of course, is where it gets sticky for me, because I would say ‘neither’, at least not completely.
But, I don’t think that my understanding is necessarily correct either, or that I can read the minds of any of the authors of the biblical writings and so fill in the blanks as to meaning.
Which leads me to the conclusion, again, that there is no such thing as salvation by dogma alone.
Lydia wrote:
Luther + Printing Press had a much greater impact than would have happened otherwise. Why bother learning to read if there wasn’t much to be read? It all worked together.
A.Tumbleweed wrote:
But if you don’t understand that this is Paul, speaking to the church at X, about problem they were having Y, then how can you really understand what he is saying in the first place?
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but I’ve had a much greater appreciation for Paul’s letter since it was explained that they have an actual format to them, and since I’ve realized Paul sort of meanders about on the way to his ultimate point. But it’s also why we need to know that taking a chapter out of a letter is different from reading a psalm. Or a parable. And so on.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Never apologise for digressing from John Piper.
RE: Luther
I think that if people want to understand Luther (& Lutheranism), then they need to understand the Law/Gospel hermeneutic. Luther also saw that the Holy Spirit works through the Word, so that the Word is powerful, creating and sustaining faith, rather than informational which is the generic Evangelical view.
Evangelicals (speaking in general) seek unmediated access to God, see the Scriptures as information or data to be acted upon, and see the Holy Spirit working apart from the Word of God, individually, with the arrows pointing inward to the heart. It’s primarily an internal, subjective, experience based religion. Not to judge, just pointing out a couple of things.
Salvation in Lutheranism (and we would say Scripture) is external and objective. Faith is a gift given via the means of grace. The primary means being the Word, and secondarily via Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and confession & absolution. God is the primary & sole actor in salvation, which a person simply receives apart from works, merit, or the promise of an ammended life . Everything in Lutheranism points to the cross, to Christ for us. It defines worship and the life of faith.
Lutheranism and the Radical Reformation (what became Calvinism) parted ways at the issue of the real presence of Christ in the supper, and then apparently the divisions grew over other matters over time.
But the issue of Justification by faith was the main point of contention, and still is. Having been an evangelical for thirty years, the Law/Gospel view of Scripture answered a lot of questions for me.
A.Tumbleweed wrote:
Some say that the idea of the Trinity is mentioned in scripture but not by using that specific term.
So, yes, based solely on scripture I would have a problem with declaring that the concept of the Trinity as it was decided by the early church is a thorough or complete understanding of God-but then is that not what we all say? That we understand ‘in part’ and will not understand until ‘we see Him as He is’ which is not yet? Could it be correct but not complete? It could.
Is it possible that the concept of the Trinity is just way off base and that we are guessing from what are only hints in scripture? It is possible. Or do be accept the conclusions of the early universal church about this. Again, it comes down to who ya gonna believe.
But if we accept one or more of the conclusions of the early universal church about some things, why do we not accept the claimed authority of the church to make those decisions. Ah, now that gets even more tricky.
A purist might say that there are hints in scripture but no definitive statement, which is why the early universal church felt the need to be specific, because some did not accept the idea of the Trinity. Which is indeed what happened.
Lea wrote:
I still apply a hermeneutic that looks at context, who they are speaking to, etc. I also ask where am I reading law and where am I reading gospel (or promise). Yes, knowing who he was addressing his letter to and why is invaluable data. But the Word is more than that. The law does it’s job of pointing out sin, and it points me to Christ. The gospel then creates and sustains faith.
I agree with your last paragraph. John does the same thing. Knowing that they were writing to combat errors helps. I just think that first we need to hear God speaking through His Word.
okrapod wrote:
Indeed. I believe it is because people do not want to elevate the authority of men, who sin much daily, over the Word of God. So they could ascertain from the Word directly a concept like the trinity, but not the concept that a particular church body was without error.
That the church was scattered helped in this regard since faithful people all over believed the same things about and because of the Word. But now, 200 years later, it’s like people are going back to square one and trying to figure out things that have been argued and settled all over again. It’s crazy.
I think a person has to have something solid in their life, and the Word of God is a good place to start. Doubt and uncertainty can’t be the bedrock upon which a life is built. That leads to despair, imo.
okrapod wrote:
Well, if we accept because we agree, I do not see a problem here because its based on agreement and not authority. We do not have to throw out all to disagree on certain points do we? It’s a difference in why we believe something, not the thing itself.
Lowlandseer wrote:
What about baptism? I think the protestant position is that baptism is purely symbolic.
It has no salvific value. The Catholic Church position is different. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.” I understand this to mean that salvation includes the work of baptism.
A.Tumbleweed wrote:
And also you said “That the church was scattered helped in this regard since faithful people all over believed the same things about and because of the Word.’
However, not everything that has been argued has been settled. Unless you accept the authority of a Church which claims that if it argued it and concluded about it then it is settled. Not everybody accepts that. And if you look at the original evangelization of Europe, Britain and Ireland you will note that many areas were not originally in communion with Rome and not all accepted all the same ideas-so argued and settled has not been some done deal.
As to the sufficiency of what you are calling the Word, and which I take to mean the bible, therein lies a real area of disagreement. Jesus’ comments reported in John 16: 12-15 state clearly that He did not tell us all that He had to tell us but that the promised Spirit would lead us into all truth, that the Spirit would not speak for Himself but rather for the Son and the Father. So-that not ‘all truth’ is in the bible, or else Paul was dead wrong about knowing in part and about not hoping to know until the end of time ‘when we see Him as He is’.
I think that we are not supposed to make of scripture more than it is, or something different from what it is. I looks clear to me that both Jesus and Paul said that there is more to be revealed? or perhaps they meant understood? some way or other, by the Spirit. Neither of them spelled out what the mechanism of that would be.
okrapod wrote:
Agree, faith seeking understanding (Anselm). Or, What meaneth this?
We should give reason (understanding) for the Hope that resides in us. We receive/accept the Person of Jesus Christ (abiding Truth and Love), then seek more knowledge and understanding of the Spirit’s work in us.
okrapod wrote:
I looks clear to me that both Jesus and Paul said that there is more to be revealed? or perhaps they meant understood? some way or other, by the Spirit. Neither of them spelled out what the mechanism of that would be.
If knowledge is to increase, does that not include knowledge of God?
The Pentecostal/Charismatic revivals surely have accomplished this – more experiential understanding which led to seeking more understanding.
IMO, God desires to more fully reveal Himself prior to judgment (primary purpose is for repentance); hence, the plagues before Exodus. Why not expect that prior to His Second Coming (also a fuller revelation – coming in Power).
Ken G wrote:
Baptism varies across denom’s, though. The reformation generally reduced the 7 sacraments of the catholic faith to 2, baptism and communion. The Baptist position is different on this from the Presby position, for instance.
@ Lea:
In some places it was illegal for the peasants to learn how to read. There were even limits and constraints put on people who could read interpreting scripture for themselves. It took awhile for the printing press to really benefit the masses.
I just find it all interesting and that doesn’t mean that others do too. 🙂
@ Lea:
Actually the very next verse that “alone” is attributed to but isn’t in there kind of negates it anyway. I think we are basically discussing how faith and work are together. Not alone. It’s one reason why I always ask if practicing character and integrity are a work.
@ A.Tumbleweed:
Do you believe that God gave us the Apocrypha? Catholics considerate scripture but Protestants don’t. I don’t know if the Orthodox do or not maybe Darlene can tell us.
Lydia wrote:
Interesting.
I do think they work together, but if you focus on only one thing you will probably miss the point. What I don’t believe is that you can look at a person and say ‘they did xyz’ so Christian. I also don’t think a terrible person can just say ‘oh I believe’ and it’s all good. But we also have the thief on the cross, who believed. Where were his works?
Lydia wrote:
I do not know about this, but we’ve been doing a series on luther and they were talking about the pamphlets that went around and how people would basically learn to read to read those. And something about a guy translating things into low german making it easier. /obviously not an expert on this topic. Reformation history has never been my favorite subject but for some reason I’ve been on a medici/Borgia/etc kick coinciding with Reformation stuff and it all works together.
okrapod wrote:
Pretty good conclusion, imo. I am just thrilled to be able to talk about it again. I’m a bit embarrassed to say I had never heard much on the five Solas until the calvinist resurgence. Then it was everywhere all the time. Like a mantra. I can see where it would become very ingrained.
@ Lydia:
No, I do not.
@ Lea:
One thing I learned reading Reformation history is not to only read from the theologian authors. I don’t know if that’s what you guys are studying but they leave out so much. Secular historians tend to incorporate the political and social which gives a much richer backdrop.
The pamphlets, if I remember correctly, were to try and Focus people on the new official but different doctrine. It was really neat because it was in their language.
This was the problem in Geneva. When they broke with the Catholic Church they didn’t have anything official to replace it. The first time Calvin was there they wouldn’t give him much power so he left. But the Catholic Church started making major inroads back into Geneva so they asked him to come back. He developed the system they officially implemented as mandatory Doctrine and living.
okrapod wrote:
Yeah. It is a real problem.
I actually think the Jesus told His disciples that the Spirit would lead them into all truth, not us.
Here again is a sticking point: is the Canon closed or not, is there such a thing as extra-biblical Revelation, does the Holy Spirit work apart from the Word (existing)?
I would say no.
@ Lea:
I was wondering when the thief would make an appearance. 🙂
The resurrection had not even happened. My thoughts on that would be comparing the thief, who had no prior knowledge of Christ, with those of us who have a lot of prior knowledge. And know better. Hebrews 10 26-31 touches on this issue.
I don’t buy into our being able to decide who is saved or not but I do think that scripture encourages us to look at fruit. A good tree does not bear bad fruit and so on. I believe what Jesus said to the Jews early on also applies to us.
I don’t think believing in faith “alone” is a horrible thing, either, in case I have given you that impression. I’m just presenting another opinion.
Lydia wrote:
It makes ya’ wonder if healing on Shabbat is considered work?
@ A.Tumbleweed:
I guess I’m confused what do you mean by revelation? Would that be something someone declares they heard from God and we must all believe it as truth? Like Benny Hinn?
If everyone, even from ancients, were on the same page about scripture interpretation we wouldn’t be having these discussions. There would be no need for them. My understanding from scripture is that the “Word” is Jesus Christ who was at creation. Scripture is usually referred to as scripture or ‘as it is written’
@ Muff Potter:
Or picking grain cos you are hungry! My late precious mother used to always say we have to get that Ox out of the ditch!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I think you’re onto something HUG.
@ Lydia:
“In some places it was illegal for the peasants to learn how to read. There were even limits and constraints put on people who could read interpreting scripture for themselves. It took awhile for the printing press to really benefit the masses.”
++++++++++++++++++++
i find it interesting, too.
i’ve noticed in the last many years that bible studies on offer are all topical. Spiritual Gifts, Crazy Love, prayer, etc. (booooorING!)
I’ve been longing to go through an entire book of the bible comprehensively in a group setting. While I was still at my last church, I asked many times for such a thing.
But they always stuck with topics (they were all so poorly written and much ado about not much! well, they were much ado about the ideas of the person who assembled what was in the book — see, i can’t even credit it with the words “wrote the book” or “writer” — writers is too lofty a title to give them)
i really do think the church didn’t want people studying the bible.
the pastor had mentioned to me that when he was in seminary (TEDS) that a number of his fellow students got so discouraged from the bigger picture they were learning concerning the bible that their faith took a severe beating (ending up agnostic).
I suspect he wanted to protect people from that. seems crazy to me, though. keeping people ignorant is…. atrocious.
but i also suspect some church leaders want to keep christians ignorant out of convenience (no hard questions to have to answer; no peasant revolts; keep people happy with controlled flow of positive information to keep church/income/pastor careers stable).
@ Muff Potter:
Back to John Piper being so confusing with this latest teaching. he has always been a shock jock. From Christian Hedonism to Scream of the Damned. From Driscoll to Wilson. From sexy stones to plunging necklines in the Psalms.
I think he is working hard to try to stay relevant . His stardom is waning. At least people are talking about him.
The debate of faith vs works has been going on for ages. This is one topic that I studied intensely. (Of course. My own salvation is at stake too!) In fact I am planning to make a YouTube video on this topic one day.
And my conclusion is that:
If you love God and love ALL your neighbours, you will be saved. (The ALL here is very important. This means an all inclusive and indiscriminate love, not picking and choosing who you love.)
I can write a lot about this. But I will keep this short by quoting a few bible verses first:
Philippians 3:1-11 (You are saved by faith alone. Even Paul, Hebrew of Hebrews, cannot rely at all in his fresh and his works.)
1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (Works without love is dead. Even faith without love is dead.)
James 2:12-20 (Faith without works is dead. Say your brother hasn’t eaten for 3 days and he is literally starving to death. If you don’t do any works to help him but just pray and pray and pray, your faith is dead because you lacked love!)
Matthew 25:41-46 (If you see many least of these people in great needs and you didn’t help any of them, you didn’t help Jesus neither. If this was your whole life, you will go into hell.)
1 John 4:16-21 (Whoever claims to love God yet hates his brother, either hating inside his heart or acting upon that hate, he is a liar! No one can love the unseen God if they don’t even love their brother who they can see. And our motivation to love is not from fear of punishment on judgement day. We have ONE reason and ONE reason alone to love: We love because Jesus first love us. We are so grateful of his love that we cannot help but love even our very worst enemies in return. )
Matthew 5:38-48 (If you pick and choose who you love, you are no better than the Gentiles. Even Gentiles would love those who benefits them. So if you want to follow Jesus your love must be perfect, just as God’s love is perfect.)
Luke 17:1-10 (A stumbling block is a reason, any reason, for you to stop loving someone, anyone. Jesus said WOE to anyone who teaches others to stop loving anyone for any reason. God’s command is simple and clear: Love God and love all our neighbours. There is no picking and choosing allowed, since God’s love is all inclusive, indiscriminate and unconditional. This is what we are expected to do so don’t be proud or view ourselves as special when we do love. This is STANDARD and EXPECTED! If we don’t love everyone, the problem isn’t in our lack of faith. The problem is far worst, our TOTAL ABSENCE of faith! Because if we just have a mustard seed size of faith, we would be loving even our very worst enemies with a love far greater than our faith(v6). So pay attention (v3) to never fall into the side of hate or unloving toward anyone.)
So how do we put these all together? Firstly all these must be aimed at ourselves. Are we are true believer? We have heard this faith vs works debate many times. But what is often forgotten is love. Do we actually care about others? If I donate $1000 to someone and I don’t love that person at all, it is pointless. Why? Because then I would be donating that $1000 out of duty. And that in God’s kingdom is pointless. It is not about dute, but love. Worst yet maybe I am donating just to “pretend” I am a believer and to increase my reputation and status in my church. Then I am doing this for selfish reasons. This once again is pointless.
Secondly it helps us identify who is a false Christian. Now obviously Buddhists and Muslims aren’t Christians. And cults aren’t Christians. But if anyone believes the cores beliefs (primary doctrines) correctly, they are a Christian. (e.g. that Christ is God, Christ physically died & resurrected, and accepts Christ as their savior) They can believe in old earth or young earth, and both are Christians. Once they got the core beliefs correct, we cannot say someone is a false believer by our differences in secondary doctrine. Many hours were wasted when Christians argue with each other over secondary doctrines and calling each other false believers, when both are true Christians.
What can help identify a true Christians from a false Christian is their love, or lack of love. I already wrote a lot about this so I will try to avoid repeating myself.
But for example it is very obvious to me that someone like Iain D Campbell (IDC) is a false Christians. Why? He has 7 mistresses hidden inside his church! So he hurts his wife and also those 7 mistresses and their respective husbands. This is a great and painful sin that he rather kill himself than repent for. As I mentioned no one can love God and yet hate ANY of his neighbours. With IDC we pretty must lost count how many people he HATED. He hated his wife by cheating against her. He hated his mistresses by causing them to stumble and sin. He obviously hated their husbands. And lastly he hated his church by lying to them all these years, using the church as a cover up for his sexual sins.
Someone might say “Wait! Does IDC really hate his church?” I will say yes. A true Christian cannot pick and choose who to love. IDC cannot love his 7 mistresses while hating his wife, for example. How can we even call this love when there are zero loyalty and zero commitment involved? Look at how loyal and committed Jesus was to us! If IDC can hate his wife and his 7 mistresses so much, do we really think anything IDC did was for the benefit of his church? No my friends. It was all for himself and his sinful selfish desires. It was all a mask for him to hide behind.
These are the people that we certain should NOT submit to. Christians are not called to submit to the abuses and sins of non-believers. Yes we love non-believers and should try to help them. But only when that person is willing to talk and doesn’t meant us harm. And when someone claim to be a Christian but yet delight and rejoice in evil sins, DO NOT EVEN EAT with such people. That means when they hurt you or others, they laugh and high-five each other. These abusive false believers will receive greater condemnations in hell.
Now finally let’s talk about John Piper. His theology is “close” to the truth, but that is why it is deceptive. A theology can be 99% true and 1% false, but yet that 1% falsehood would twist everything into falsehood. It is like you buying house are requires a $200,000 down payment. Can you give them $199,999.99 and claim that you paid them exactly what they asked for? No my friend. Truth is truth. 99.99% truth means it is a lie.
So what is wrong with his theology? The best place to point it out is 1 John 4:17-19. We read that our motivation to love is NOT from fear of day of judgement. We don’t love because we fear punishment. If punishment is our motivation, we are in fact in deep trouble because God’s love hasn’t been perfected in us. We have ONE reason and ONE reason alone to love: We love because Jesus first love us. We are so grateful of his love that we cannot help but love even our very worst enemies in return.
John Piper said we love because we HAVE TO and MUST love, else we don’t have faith and Christ will reject us. John the Apostle said we do works of love because we GET to love after we had been FREED by Christ. Very different motivations. Because how can love be real if it is motivated by threats of judgement and fear? Only love out of gratefulness from the love of God is true love.
Think about it. God ask husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it. Does this mean we love our wives only because we HAVE TO and because we FEAR judgement on judgement day? Same thing when we help the homeless. Do we only love the homeless just because we HAVE TO and because we FEAR judgement on judgement day? No this isn’t even true love.
Now if we don’t love our wives and don’t help the homeless (or whatever mission God calls you to do), yes there will be judgement. So I am not denying the judgement for those that knows God yet have zero love. The demons know about God, but they are condemned because they hates God and hate their neighbours. So the same will happen to those that know ABOUT God but yet DON’T love God and neighbours. But at the same time it is very dangerous if we let that fear to be our motivation. Once again this mean we are not filled with God’s love.
No my friends. We love our wives and the homeless because Jesus first loved us. Remember this always! This is so important. We love them because of how grateful we are of Jesus’s love for us. So now we vow to love God and love all of our neighbours to the best of our abilities.
Lydia wrote:
Well we are using a few things including a pbs documentary, but there is a book too called ‘brand Luther’ (which I have yet to read) and since you mentioned it I had to look up the author and he is a history professor at St. Andrews and does some reformation related thing. So maybe I will read the book. I am much more interested in history than theology actually.
Lydia wrote:
I tend to think we can not always tell who is saved but maybe some people make it clear they are not!
I mostly don’t worry about sitting around trying to decide these things.
@ elastigirl:
I hear ya and think you have nailed the reasons. I will add another. Many churches now require packaged studies in order to control content. And it’s easier to find facilitators than teachers . Of course they are usually happy to do the very popular ones. I can remember the days of Beth Moore madness when she was cranking them out like hotcakes. She was like a rockstar with the women’s ministry set.
The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:
Welcome back Not Thursday! It’s been awhile…
The faith vs works discussion can become tedious and life-sapping. I especially like your analogy because it brings life back into the reality of both faith and works.
I hope you allow me to extrapolate your analogy a bit further. I think can all agree that Jesus Christ saves us. But was it his human nature or his divine nature that did it? Which is most important? These are obviously meaningless questions because “orthodox” Christians have always claimed that he had to be both 100% God and 100% man in order to save us. It makes no sense to try to explain our salvation in terms of EITHER one nature of Christ or the other.
I think we in the West like to scientifically dismantle things into their components – but this does not always help us to make sense of the whole.
TEDSgrad wrote:
What does this mean? What is an error in sanctification?
@ Lea:
Me too! Book sounds interesting. One of the reasons why I find NT Wright interesting is that he was an ancients scholar before he was a theologian so he tends to incorporate the historical. (Now at St Andrews) Not that I agree all the time. He has a bit of a church state sort of bent that bothers me.
TEDSgrad wrote:
You and I had a discussion a few threads back about penal substitution where you and I disagreed. But I very much agree with you here that God’s wrath is an expression of his love, in that it is directed against those things that harm us. But if PSA is true in the way you describe, and God’s wrath is directed at Jesus (the recipient of his wrath), it means that Jesus harms us. This is another reason for me that PSA makes no sense. I’m not sure that any of us can explain what actually happened during the crucifixion. While I don’t believe the penal substitution is the correct way of viewing it, I think we can all agree that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection were necessary for our salvation. It is finished! He is Risen!
Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
Intense research has led me to this link: http://founders.org/2017/04/11/some-errors-avoided-by-a-right-doctrine-of-sanctification/
@ A.Tumbleweed:
I missed this earlier but helps me understand better where you are coming from. I see doubt and uncertainty as potentially quite positive if they become a launching pad for seeking understanding.
And that could be a temperament/personality thing.
kin wrote:
Interesting link. This phrase is key:
The article describes the problems with errors in what one believes about sanctification, but not errors in sanctification itself. If this quote from the article is true, there can be no errors in sanctification unless God makes errors. Or it means that our sanctification is up to us and therefore we need to be careful to not make errors. I guess I still don’t know what TEDSgrad meant.
Hi again, Ken F,
No, Jesus doesn’t harm us. God’s wrath is directed at His Son “for us.” He endured that harm for us, so that mercy and forgiveness can be offered without violence to His Justice. He was humiliated, so we can be brought to glory. Once we strive to understand the depth of (humiliation) His love, then we are prompted out of our own humiliation and bondage to sin, in order to cling to Him for He has gone before us.
While we disagree on PSA, there is no one way to define the Atonement. It is too multi-faceted and cannot be fully defined. I, with others of my ilk, say that PSA is the hinge pin that holds all the others together (contra C.H. Dodd (1931), pro Roger Nicole and Leon Morris). Roger Nicole was my elderly mentor’s prof at Gordon Conwell in the late 40’s. The book I mentioned, was a tribute to Dr. Roger Nicole (The Glory of the Atonement, IVP, 2004).
Errors in sanctification (righteous living) are the main subject of this blog (committed by church leaders in this instance). If we abide in love, we will not commit these errors – these ‘grave’ errors, anyway. We will love Him more than we love sin or the flesh. This love is not so much taught (imperatives), but is caught (received/accepted) into our hearts by the Holy Spirit. We don’t commit these errors by strength of will or by our zeal of commitment. We don’t commit these errors in sanctification because of His Great Love – the indwelling Presence of the Holy Spirit (the Promise of the Father). No good acts born of the flesh will survive the fire; only what God has wrought through us and in us will survive. That is why I don’t like all this teaching the flesh ‘how to do it’ – imposition and imperatives. It must spring from within by the Holy Spirit.
One can get out ahead of the Holy Spirit, do all kinds of good things, but it is not born of God. Doesn’t mean you’re not saved, just that we sometimes try to do in the flesh what can only be done in the Spirit.
‘Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus,
Just to take Him at His Word
Just to rest upon His promise,
Just to know, “Thus saith the Lord!”
Jesus, Jesus, how I trust Him!
How I’ve proved Him o’er and o’er
Jesus, Jesus, precious Jesus!
Oh, for grace to trust Him more!
I’m so glad I learned to trust Him,
Precious Jesus, Savior, Friend
And I know that He is with me,
Will be with me to the end.
Love of God (love of His indwelling of us) will capture and satisfy our heats. We will not be prone to grave erros, because we love Him more – do not want to endanger His abiding Presence in our lives (Joseph fled from Potipher’s wife not because the sex wouldn’t be pleasurable, but because He didn’t want to lose the abiding Presence of God in his heart and life. We will love Him more than xyz…..
“r”s are sticking on my keyboard.
While God has done all to effect salvation, we must still repent or call upon the Name of the LORD. There is some free will to the covenant stipulations, and the ‘works’ are Christ’s works for us, effecting the possibility for all, unlimited.
In Sanctification, there are still stipulations. God’s love is designed to win our hearts and wills. Faith is tested between the promise given, and the promise fulfilled. Abraham waited from 75 to 100 for the promised child – circumcision at 99, then conception with no Viagra! Then, he was asked to sacrifice his laughter (Isaac means laughter) on the altar – the Father of faith! His love of God and faith in God, overrode all the circumstances. The Israelites in the wilderness failed to inherit the promise because of lack of belief (Hebrews 3:12 – 4:11). The stipulation is always faith (for salvation and sanctification). Today, today, is the day of faith. We cannot rest on a faith of yesterday – it must be ongoing faith till the promise is fulfilled.
Faith is a gift of God. Love is a gift of God. Love of God’s abiding Presence in our lives will encourage/strengthen faith as faith is tested and proven. God said of Abraham, Now I know that thou hast not withheld thy son, thy only son, from Me – God uses the same phrasing of His Son in the NT. I hope this helps with understanding.
Lydia wrote:
I don’t think it matters what we call it. But if we consider ourselves Christians, then having character and integrity must be part of who we are. Practicing the virtues that the Scriptures point us to, is a necessary part of the Christian life.
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, first off the Orthodox call the Apocrypha the Deuterocanonical books. One thing I can say for certain is that the Orthodox Church does not consider all books in the Bible as being equally on par with one another. The Gospels are held in the highest esteem because they are Christ’s words and actions. I can’t even recall if I’ve ever heard anything from the Deuterocanonicals read during worship, but I’m inclined to think not. Here’s a tidbit from Wiki as regards the Orthodox Church’s view on the Deuterocanonical books.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books
@ Lydia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukyNU51OcnA&app=desktop
“Love is not our duty, but our destiny”
Interesting timing of you posting that video. My middle child is a prodigal, has been on the path of destruction for the past 7 years, and is currently dying of cancer. Praying God heals, but also uses it to wake him up spiritually. Think I’ll pass along the fitting link.
Lydia wrote:
Interesting. It was illegal in the Antebellum South for blacks to be taught to read too. And yeah, Gutenberg’s movable type printing press broke the strangle hold the Medieval Church had on the populace at the time. And at present day? The internet is disseminating information on theology much in the same way Gutenberg’s invention did. More and more folks are doing their own research and are making their own decisions as to what’s what with regard to the Bible and the Christian religion.
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, you can almost guarantee that if someone is touting:
Sola Gratia
Sola Fide
Solus Christus
Sola Scriptura
Soli Deo Gloria
then they are more than likely Reformed or possibly a Lutheran as well. What is often referred to as Classical Protestantism. Like you, I remember seeing the Solas all over the Internet at one point. With the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation, I’m surprised I don’t see more of it.
A.Tumbleweed wrote:
Does the Holy Spirit work apart from the Word?, you ask. Well, it depends what you mean by that. This is what I would say. Can the Holy Spirit reveal something to us without a verse from Scripture being attached to it? I would say most definitely ‘yes.’
There have been a number of times in my life where I have been cautioned/warned intuitively, and even in a stronger sense such as words coming to my mind but not from me or my voice, about a particular person or situation. There was not one lick of Scripture that accompanied these warnings, but in one case my life was spared. Perhaps some time in the future I will go into depth about that experience. Suffice it to say that I didn’t hear any verses from Scripture and yet in all these situations what I was being cautioned/warned about came true.
Muff Potter wrote:
In 1454 he printed indulgences with his printing press. Mass producing those things likely had the effect of dropping their value and reducing their profitability to the “church”.
@ Darlene:
This is neat. I have no doubt about it. it is very neat how God participates in relationship with us day by day, in a variety of ways. I believe God has used all kinds of means to communicate to me, too.
@ Thersites:
“In 1454 he printed indulgences with his printing press. Mass producing those things likely had the effect of dropping their value and reducing their profitability to the “church”.”
+++++++++++++++++
i say someone write high quality bible studies and write/produce fabulous music and offer it all up for free.
Lydia wrote:
Thanks for the link, I enjoyed Wright’s talk. He brought out the point of how the Christian heaven is always someplace elsewhere with little or no connection to this present world and that it’s always some place ya’ wanna’ ‘get to’.
He dwelt at length on what true courage is and how ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ alone are no guarantors of producing the fruits of the Spirit.
Great talk all in all. Too bad that MacArthur, Mahaney, Mohler, and the whole lot of them don’t get it still. No surprise there, they probably consider Wright a liberal apostate who doesn’t ‘believe the Bible’ anyway.
elastigirl wrote:
There are a lot of very good lectures on youtube, many of them far better than I have heard from a pulpit. You can also critique them later online, yeah it can degenerate and often does, but imagine a critique and debate following a sermon.
TEDSgrad wrote:
I’m still not sure what you mean by this. It sounds like you are saying that we are responsible for errors we make in our sanctification. But at the same time we cannot do anything in our sanctification because it’s entirely up to the Spirit. So who is responsible for the errors? If it us us, then I don’t see how our sanctification can depend on the Holy Spirit. If it’s the Holy Spirit, then I don’t see how we can be held accountable for the errors. Perhaps this is one of those free will topics that never seem to have a clear answer.
kin wrote:
I am so very sorry. Your family is now in my prayers.
A.Tumbleweed wrote:
I have to say that, apart from anything else, I don’t believe this idea to be biblical.
The following from John 20 and John 21:
That is, the bulk of what Jesus did was “unbiblical”.
This from Romans 1:
That is, God reveals himself through his works quite apart from the western canon of scripture; it’s worth remembering also that creation itself happened long before the various councils that closed the canon of scripture – indeed, before a single person was even around to pen the first letters of the canon of scripture.
Finally (for now), it’s also worth bearing in mind that everything God that was recorded in scripture was new revelation when God first gave it. To say that, following the various councils over some years during which the various canons (plural, remember) were agreed, God is now gagged and prevented from revealing anything else, is to make a vast claim for those councils. It is to claim that they were a more perfect, more complete, more final, more authoritative manifest act of self-disclosure on God’s part than was Jesus himself. This despite the fact that the pieces of the canon of scripture consistently refer to Jesus, and not to itself. And the notion of an event in history marking the Closure Of The Canon is not referenced in scripture, nor was it the hope for which Paul stood on trial.
And yet another finally before I go and buy floorboards: I don’t believe we should re-open the canon and add more scriptures. Nor, for that matter, subtract existing scriptures, such as all those passages that are clearly wrong, contradict other passages, or obviously don’t mean what they say. We already have enough scripture.
I do believe the closed nature of the canon does not in any sense silence the Holy Spirit, nor tie his hands and prevent him from speaking or acting. And it’s just as well, because we need more than just scripture. That’s why the Father gave his Spirit to the church in the first place.
TEDSgrad wrote:
I don’t know exactly where you are going with this, but it sounds like you are saying that a person should not ‘do good’ unless that person perceives that the Spirit is specifically instructing the person to do it. Surely you are not saying that. There are problems with that idea.
First, there is the supposition that there are no general ‘goodnesses’ that should be done regardless of how anybody feels about them. Lazarus at the gate needs fed and clothed. The scripture mentions the widows and the orphans. At the judgment there are the apparently mundane (non-spiritual) issues of the basic necessities of life for the naked and hungry and imprisoned. Have we not heard somebody here or there say that they did not feel ‘called’ or ‘convicted’ to throw some money in the plate for the prison ministry or the homeless shelter-surely you are not advocating that approach.
Secondly, there is the supposition that we as individuals understand the mind of the Spirit well enough to actually be able to edit in our own minds what we should or should not do in the way of things that need done if not by us then by others. Some would vote against the church having a food pantry, for example, because they themselves do not think that is the mind of the Spirit, and thus they would impose their ideas on others.
Thirdly, you seem to be saying that doing good is not a good idea unless the do gooder gets some spiritual value out of it. Let me phrase it this way: why should I clothe the naked; what is in it for me? Do I get spiritual brownie points?
I think I have an idea here that it seems that you may be missing. One does good because Jesus said so. One does good because good needs done. One does good because one would want good to be done for themselves. (‘as ye would that others…’). One does good because even the nonbelievers do good (treat their ‘children’ well). Even the animals do good in providing for their young, and what?, people should do less unless they get some spiritual extras and/or some direct guidance from God to do it?
Who in blazes would let some religious ideas keep them from doing good until some specific spiritual criteria were met and some personal benefit accrued to them? Don’t answer that. I have met people like that. More than a few.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Good points. Never thought of that last one which now looks obvious!
@ Darlene:
I can relate. Where I think this breaks down is when people claim their personal experience/insight/whatever we call it, for everyone.
I am very reluctant to speak of it as it was very personal and except to say unexpected in delivery and message. I don’t feel special. Just loved.
My view is that we are individuals first and foremost and our Lord deals with us where we are at the time if we are seeking Him. Only Secondly, are we a corporate body.
TEDSgrad wrote:
TEDSgrad wrote:
This sounds eerily like dualism. If one believes all good comes from Yahweh, not sure why we have to agonize over such. If a pagan saved my life it’s still a good thing. I don’t know what that means for eternity but that should not negate a noble good done today -here and now. I am not going to put it into a spiritual/ not spiritual category right after I give thanks.
I cringe at the thought of Christians agonizing over whether doing something good is spiritual or not. I would hope it would become second nature for all of us.
Of course we all have different opinions on what is good or not. 🙂 Perhaps that is where the Holy Spirit comes in?
@ Lydia:
Very sorry for botched cut and paste. Phone is glitchy today.
@Lydia
Many thanks!!
Thersites wrote:
There were different levels/costs of indulgences, from cheap local ones that were only good for X number of days off purgatory (or something) to go straight to heaven ones which were very expensive and signed by the pope.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Indeed.
Lydia wrote:
Surely we can agree about those things specifically said by Jesus as being either good or bad are indeed either good or bad. Or am I being unrealistic in thinking that? Are we that divided? We probably could be.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nice twisting of a word there.
@ okrapod:
I can assure you that what Mark Driscoll thinks is good for me is probably not what I think is goodfor me 🙂
There are many Christians who actually believe that suffering is a good and even necessary AND even instituted by God to build your character or orchestrated by God for some other good. (While I believe that suffering is mostly inevitable in a fallen world and can bring good based on our response to it. but it should be our goal to try and alleviate it as much as possible.)
The last 15 years or so have given me so many examples it’s chilling. And surreal. I had no idea how ignorant I was about Good and Evil according to some doctrines. It is turned upside down exactly as scripture describes.
Darlene wrote:
And there is the rub. On one side, me. On the other side, you. We both see things differently, and should work together towards unity, and probably should be grieved that there is so much division among God’s people.
I am content not to force my opinion on anyone. My view on various church bodies that I strongly disagree with is: “Not my circus, not my monkeys.” And I find that once we get past labels and positions, we would probably enjoy each others company over a hot cup of, for me, coffee.
Here, on this site, is one of the few places, imo, that opinions can be shared in the arena of ideas without the conversation degenerating into anathematizing one another. So we got that going for us…
Truth is, my view have evolved (gasp) over time having moved from nothing to Evangelical to nothing to Lutheran. Last night I went to a worship service in a small town and did things that would have got me kicked out of the Bible church if they ever found out. And I’m ok with that since they are in the rear view mirror. I hold on to the One that has remained steadfast through all trials, tribulations, and joys in my brief time here, and to His Word. I see them as one. I think some people could benefit from that too.
Thanks for not going off on me, to everyone for thoughtful discussion. In light of recent events regarding yesterday’s FBI sting, and meditating on last night’s sermon, I am probably going to take some time this weekend for quiet and solitude. What I read about was just too much to bear.
“A voice was heard in Ramah,
Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children,
Refusing to be comforted,
Because they are no more.” Matthew 2:18
Maranatha
@ Lydia:
Thanks for the feedback. I agree, he is not just a King, but something more impressive: a friend. If he were just a king he wouldn’t have to bother with us when we stumble, just send us to the chopping block. Sound familiar…? But a friend actually cares about us beyond our ability to serve them.
Which reminds me: I think that, just like we seem to think there is a dichotomy between works and faith, we think there is a dichotomy between Christ’s being Lord, and Christ’s being our Friend. They are one and the same: a friendly king, and a kingly friend, because both stem from his love.
Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. I generally don’t comment unless I feel like I can actually contribute something meaningful, or if I have direct experience of the stuff dealt in a post.
But I agree. We far too often think that because there are two sides of an equation, only one side really matters. Or because a human being has left and right arms, only the one we like is really necessary. Or one side of the brain. Or one half of a thumb…
I think it stems from the similar erroneous belief that in order to use something correctly, you have to understand exactly how it works, and be a master at precise technical descriptions of its most infinitesimal inner workings.
But does everybody who drives a car actually know what a CCV or knurled piston are? I sure don’t, but I still know how to drive my car. Or are we not fluent in our native tongue unless we can lay out every obscure grammatical and pronunciation rule ever devised? If that’s the case, then nobody born as a native speaker actually speaks fluently — except for those few who care what a “dental fricative” or “bilabial plosive fortis” are. But that is preposterous! You don’t need to know the exact name of the “th” or “p” sounds to be able to use them.
Sorry for nerding out, but it reminds me of the idea that you cannot actually “love others” unless you can obfuscate the definition of love by dismantling it into its mechanical and metaphysical properties. “Love” becomes a proposition to be studied rather than a life to be lived. And only once you have mastered those properties may you activate your biceps brachialis and pectoralis major, and, extracting a conglomeration of thermally processed complex carbohydrate product (equaling 500 grams of overall glucose composition, but specifically 4.01×10^25 carbon atoms) from carbon-based polymer bursa, further activate your extensor digitorum muscles and move the glucose mass in a sagittal motion such that the glucose mass has a peak velocity of 2.179 m/s, to be received by a second homo sapiens by way of being gripped between the subject’s polex and digitus primus, to be brought in an upward sagittal and transverse motion into the esophagus, to be broken down by enzymes in the gastrointestinal tract–
All that to say: You don’t need to be the guy who wrote the textbook on anatomy to take a loaf of bread out of a plastic bag and give it to someone in need.
Or, in more cheesy language: It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to raise people up.
@ The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday:
it’s neat, isn’t it? friend. pal, even. that is totally my experience of the famously-named “relationship” with God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.
okrapod wrote:
I don’t know exactly where you are going with this, but it sounds like you are saying that a person should not ‘do good’ unless that person perceives that the Spirit is specifically instructing the person to do it. Surely you are not saying that. There are problems with that idea.
Correct, I am not saying that.
We should do good. Evil people do some good; good people do some evil. Nothing born of the flesh will pass through the fire – good works that follow you into eternity. So I am not saying we shouldn’t do good.
Human righteousness (not salvific) does matter to God – He bragged (in a Divine sense not a human sense) about Job. Governments should do good, justice, etc. It’s a great thing to have a country where Judaeo-Christian values are social controls to curb wrong-doing. I lament its passing in my country. Obedience has value even if performed out of fear of punishment or social pressure.
Lydia,
Yes, that is where the Holy Spirit comes in.
Too many people think that the Holy Spirit gives us gifts to own – NO, they are “of” the Holy Spirit. They don’t exist apart from the presence of the Holy Spirit any more than we can have salvation (eternal security) apart from being “in Christ.” The eternal security is Christ’s (He won it for us) and you can’t claim it apart from being “in Christ.” This doesn’t mean that the intellect shouldn’t be taught or educated – I went to school. But I could do all this good, and be told to depart for He never knew me. That knowing intimacy, Abraham ‘knew’ his wife, is crucial. The early Church Fathers did not have all this codified or had as much intellectual understanding as we do.
“I know Whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I’ve committed unto Him against that day.” (2 Tim. 1:12)- this is not an intellectual statement. Sometimes, faith is in spite of all the evidence/data on the ground. Yet, we do need the intellect, too. “The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” (1 Tim. 1:5). The intellect is not the goal, but supports/aids faith and love, but is not the be all end all.
We’ve lost our balance in the Fall. A balance of keeping two truths together and living in the balance (love-wrath, justice-mercy, heart-mind, etc.). There is a fruitful tension in the middle. My personal definition: God’s holiness is all of God’s attributes to their fullest, not impinging/impeding the other ones, held together in full unity and expression. We tend to throw ourselves to one side and lose the other truth or diminish it somewhat. It’s so hard to disciple this by soundbites or thread posts. It takes a lifetime to get a little closer, then life is over. Good, mature discipleship will be a constant navigation (is “tack” the right nautical term?). I don’t claim to have it down. But when one has experiential knowledge of God’s indwelling presence, there is a knowing that passes all understanding, yet helps give a full-orbed understanding at the same time. His Presence is determinative, then we seek understanding and to communicate this with others.
Thersites wrote:
I think that’s a great idea. It’s sounds very Jewish in the way they do ‘Bible’ study as opposed to a kingpin pastor who tells you what’s what and will brook no dissent.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Well put Nick.
Lea wrote:
The rich (usually the aristocracy or princes of the church back then) could buy the express 1st class trip to heaven.
@ The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday:
I was taught that understanding of Jesus Christ as a child. But as a grown-up I found it harder and harder to find that understanding in any church. It’s lifeless. Needlessly hierarchical and distant. And in Neo Cal churches they rarely talk about Jesus Christ at all.
Lydia wrote:
Wasn’t it pointed out on a previous thread that you (generic) you can get a special dispensation-indulgence from MacArthur that will absolve you from the ‘sin’ of dancing or some such?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
In your opinion, what else has God revealed since the various canons were agreed? I can think of “new” religions such as Latter Day Saints and Christ Scientist, but others may simply claim they are not Christian. I’m not sure how we can determine whether God has or has not revealed anything else.
@ Ken G:
You asked Nick: “In your opinion, what else has God revealed since the various canons were agreed?”
I read a good comment by B16 in a paper he wrote before he retired. He said that ‘we’ are not expecting new revelation but that we do expect greater? understanding. Not a verbatim quote but as close as I can get right now. I think he is right about that.
@ okrapod:
Of course, if greater understanding does come, then it is greater understanding which has been revealed. It does not have to be fire from heaven that burns stone and water every time.
okrapod wrote:
Thanks for the comment. I don’t intend to be argumentative or to belabor my question to Nick, but “greater understanding” means what exactly? Are there any examples the author shared which illustrate the greater understanding of which has been revealed?
Ken G wrote:
Which author, Nick or B16?
@ Ken G:
@ okrapod:
This is, of course, a very important question. I think there are a number of apple-points to be made, in the order in which they occur to me. As I understand it:
It’s worth remembering that the canon (or, as I like to call it, the Book of Contents – because to believe in the inspiration of scripture is necessarily to believe in the inspiration of the councils that decided what was in and what was not) did not descend on a stone tablet borne by cherubim. It took a long time and much debate among a very widely-sourced gathering of the Church as it was at the time.
The pinnacle of all revelation by God of himself to humanity was, is, and is to come, Jesus himself. In fact, except insofar as it paints a previously unavailable picture of Jesus, I don’t even believe the New Testament itself actually reveals anything new. To see Jesus is to see the Father; this is not a claim that scripture makes of itself.
Speaking of Jesus: there will be no temple in eternity, because the Lord God and the Lamb are the temple, and there won’t be any need for sun or moon because the Lamb will be the lamp from which God’s glory emanates. The clear implication is that we won’t be sat around studying our bibles, because the few pages of our finite and limited canon will be done away with forever; then we will see face to face, and will know as we are known.
So, all “fundamental revelation” (I use the term for want of a better) is about Jesus. There are increasing numbers of reports of Muslims in Muslim countries, having never read or had access to a Bible, having dreams about him (Isa, as he is named in Arabic) and – long story short – becoming his followers as a result. Although I can’t verify that these are true, if so, then it would be an instance of God revealing Jesus to people other than through the canonical Bible. I can certainly believe God would do this.
Purportedly “fundamental revelation” that Jesus is just an angel, a created being, an alien, etc, etc, etc, comes and goes all the time, of course. If any of it were true, then obviously the Bible would be false and we should probably get rid of it. But then, the Christian faith would also be false and we should convert to the new one. If..
There’s also an infinitude of “non-fundamental” (again, for want of a better phrase) revelation: information, wisdom, faith, instruction etc that the Holy Spirit gives to an individual or group for a particular time and a particular place. This sort of thing happened consistently through the book of Acts (I’m confident we’re given only a tiny representative sample) and continues to do so today.
TBH, there’s a whole building full of books on this topic. The above is neither authoritative – er… obviously – nor even a comprehensive overview of what I personally think, but it’s a representative sample of where I’m coming from.
IHTIH
Ken G wrote:
One example of this is, I think, given in Acts itself, when the Holy Spirit began filling uncircumcised Gentiles and the (then-Jewish) church had to decide what to do with the Torah. James (and almost certainly others) referred to OT scriptures that had always been there and with which they would have been familiar. BUT, which they were now understanding in a new light, having seen what the Holy Spirit was currently doing among them.
Ken G wrote:
You’re not sounding argumentative; or belabouring, really – I could happily while away many an evening on this sort of thing!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
wile away…
elastigirl wrote:
Judgement probably wasn’t the best word as that implies condemnation. The Bible is actually clear that the believer does not come into judgement (John 3:18, 5:24, Romans 8:1). What I meant to convey was that God can withdraw his blessing and joy when we are not walking with him – but this is part of his love because he wants us to come back.
okrapod wrote:
Exactly. That is what Blessed Cardinal Newman meant by “development of doctrine.” We do NOT invent new doctrines. But we further understand and elucidate the original apostolic doctrines — e.g., at Nicaea and Chalcedon. Saint Vincent of Lerins, an early Church Father, said the same thing. And others before Him. Including Jesus, in His promise that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. The Deposit of Faith ended with the death of the last Apostle (John). Understanding and elucidating it goes on.
Lea wrote:
None of which has zip to do with official Catholic Teaching, then or now. There is a lot of disinformation out there about this stuff. No one disputes that there were serious abuses, and Luther was not the only one pointing them out. Loyal Catholics like Erasmus, John Colet, and Contarini also sounded the alarm. But the polemical Protestant histories force-fed to kids in Baptist Sunday School are largely bunk. Serious scholars of all faiths offer a corrective to these discredited mythologies. If you are interested in the English Reformation, you may want to start with groundbreaking, influential, and eye-opening works by Christopher Haigh and Eamon Duffy. Links later, I promise. 😀
Lydia wrote:
You can’t just add an “emphasis word.” That is adding to the Word of God, period. No way around it. If it’s not there, it’s not there.
Moreover…not only is it NOT there, it is flatly contradicted by other passages in the NT. Including other passages in Romans!
Bottom line: “Justification (and salvation) by Faith ALONE” is NOT in the Bible. It’s not there. Trying to justify its inclusion with claims about “emphasis” simply does not cut it. It is not there. Period.
@Lydia, meant that last as a response to Lea, not you. I love the Bob Newhart response! Lol!
Lowlandseer wrote:
Oh, you’ve read the entire Catechism, have you? That’s quite a feat. It’s pretty long. 😉
Darlene wrote:
Amen. You go, girl!
A.Tumbleweed wrote:
Of course God gave us all of Scripture, which is precisely why it is wrong to cherry-pick some verses while ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away others.
But surely any Christian would agree that the actual words of Jesus are more important than those of Paul??? Not everything in the Bible is of equal weight. Protestant Bibles put Our Lord’s words in red. They do not do the same for the words of Paul.
If you cannot see the special significance and sacredness of the actual words of the God-Man, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, then nothing I say can convince you. 🙁
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Ummm. I grew up in SBC Sunday School and later my kids were in FWB Sunday School and I never-that would be never-heard that. I heard at home reasons why we did not agree with various beliefs, but neither in church or SS or at home did I hear any history much less reformation history. We did not identify with the reformation much at all. We thought that was mostly Calvin and Luther and we were not that. We were into doctrinal differences-infant baptist, sacraments, confession to priests, that sort of thing, and memorizing bible verses and such, but not history. I think that the lack of historical information during my childhood was a real problem for me, but I had no idea at the time. So there we were with theology and ‘it says in the Greek’ and religio-cultural patterns for how to live life (which I still think are OK) but with a large lack of information about the reformation.
I don’t know about the IFB. Maybe they were doing what you have said, but we were not.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
C.S. Lewis argued for this very thing.
Here’s the quote:
“There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position.”
SOURCE: C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (New York, Macmillian Publishing Company, 1960), pp. 176-177.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
The ‘In Brief’ sections are good for an overview, though.
okrapod wrote:
That is my experience in the SBC many moons ago. We did not even identify as Protestants. Just Baptist. It just wasn’t a thing. Now it’s everywhere.
The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:
If you would do this with theological themes you would out-Piper Piper.
Lydia wrote:
Exactly. That is hard to explain to people who just can’t imagine what that would have been like. In retrospect I think the whole idea of the autonomy of the local church was taken very seriously, more so than now where apparently even the Baptists have to organically identify with, or even swear allegiance to, some larger group of some sort. We looked at associations and the convention as a way to get things done by co-operating, not at all as some group with authority over the local church.
And we used to say that no Baptist could tell any other Baptist what they had to believe. Talk about things changing.
@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
Be careful what you wish for. You have inspired me to stick my hands in the dirt, and I have come up with this little piece of refuse:
The following is a satire intended as an argument ad absurdum, and does not reflect the views of the writer. It is written from the hypothetical perspective of a fictional Reformed theologian writing on a popular blog, by the equally fictional surname of “Whistler.” Any resemblance to a real person is strictly coincidental.
______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________THIS IS A SATIRE. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING DOGGEREL___________
“Jesus once said, “A new command I give to you: love one another” (John 13:34).
Seems simple, right? But for the God-fearing follower of Christ, what does it mean to truly “love one another?”
I would humbly submit that any God-centered, Father-honoring disciple should tread on this ground very carefully, because the very salvation of souls is at risk here, and we may not only risk offending the secret will of the Father concerning the situation of those around us, but also miss out on a beautiful opportunity to help others see the beauty of God’s perfect plans.
On the one hand, we know that it is God’s “kindness that leads us to repentance” (Romans 2:4). But we have to understand that it is God’s kindness, not ours — that is, the kindness of the Father alone. What does that mean for us? Well, remember that there are many times in scripture where God the Father does something that it would be wrong for a man to do (such as ordering Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, ordering the slaughter of the Canaanites, establishing the very foundation of moral justice, sending His son to die on the Cross, judging the hearts of men, etc.), not because he is evil, but because he is the Sovereign King, and whatever he decrees is right. We often refer to God’s unique moral sovereignty and omnipotence as his “goodness,” but it is distinctly separate from our own fallen ideas of goodness, and his standard is ever so much higher and exacting than ours, so that we could never call someone “good” in the sense that God is “good,” and it would be evil for us to try to do “good” in the sense that God the Father does “good” (Which is why he sent the Son to be an example for us of perfect humanity; yet this leads to the difficult question, “What would Jesus do in my situation?”, which I dealt with in my article, “Why WWJD Bracelets Lead To Despair: Accepting Our Fallen Inability to Emulate Our Perfect Lord”).
In the same way, his “kindness” (which is often translated as the same word for “goodness,” chréstotés), being omnipotent and omniscient, and yet absolutely holy and untouched by sin, cannot possibly be what we think of when we think of “kindness.” God is not subject to herd instincts or selfish paternal partiality like we are — Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross at the command of the Father is illustrative of this point — and thus is free from the fleshly emotional and sentimental feelings we think of as “kindness.” That means His kindness is far more free to act than ours, and even perfectly just, as opposed to our kindness — which is almost always motivated by the desire, not for the other person’s well-being, but for our own feeling of “being good.” And this selfish desire completely negates the positive effect of anything we might have done for the other person, leaving both of us unrepentant and stuck in our darkness, possibly even worse off than before, like the man freed of one demon, only to have seven others return into him along with the first (Luke 11:26).
But even when the sinfulness of our fallen hearts does not interfere with our “kindness” (which I would argue is “Never!”), often when we think we are being “kind” to someone by helping them in a tough situation, much like helping a butterfly out of a cocoon, we actually do more harm than good. In fact, we could even say that in many instances it would be far kinder to leave people to the suffering they have brought on themselves by their own unrepentant sinfulness, and let them taste of God’s Wrath, instead of trying to alleviate the pain of a broken marriage, or physical poverty, or natural disasters (which God, in his omnipotence and omniscience, brings as a kind of “tough love”), or even the death of an innocent child brought on by an earthly father’s moral failure. It goes against all our natural desires to tell these people, “God is using your pain to discipline you, and I don’t want to put his plan for your healing in jeopardy by making your situation easier.” Contrary to popular belief, God does give us more than we can handle, to show us that we can’t handle it.
So what happens if what we call a “well-meaning” bystander (though no such person really exists — Romans 3:10) comes along and tries to help a person whom God has placed in a painful situation for his sanctification? I wouldn’t want to find out, at the Judgement Seat, that I had cost someone their salvation because of a misguided act of intervention that I thought was motivated by kindness.
That’s kindness, but what about love? According to God’s Word, even though there are four kinds of love (agape is unattainable to us, and eros is irrelevant to our situation), the kinds of love we are told to have for others are storge (“charity”), and phileos (“brotherly affection”). These three each deserve their own doctrinal thesis, but we will go through them briefly here.
Storge is what Lewis called “charity,” but as he pointed out it is far stronger than that: it means forgiving the inexcusable, and loving someone who is absolutely unlovable. We are always the recipients of such love, and seldom the givers; but Christ has called us to love our fallen brothers and sisters, especially when they are incapable of doing anything to merit our love.
But what does loving someone with storge mean? It really means loving those who have absolutely no ability to get themselves out of a mess, much as God loves us and saves us with absolutely zero help from us. But this raise a key question: Can helping someone else, or forgiving someone else, really be considered storge if they had any part at all in bringing about salvation or reconciliation?
I would argue, “No!” Since God saved us apart from any choice we could possibly make, and we are told to love others with the same love with which he loved us (1 John 4:19), if we render aid to anybody who is even remotely capable of taking care of themselves, we are only encouraging them in their sinful lifestyles (1 Corinthians 5:5). In order for us to truly serve anyone through true storge, they must be absolutely incapable of helping themselves, on the order of those actually invalid or crippled or mentally destroyed. Such are the ones we are called to serve; anybody else who has the God-given capability to better their situation, but doesn’t, is simply – and this is where it gets tough – an unrepentant sluggard who would rather see others serve them than do the God-ordained work required of them, and it is this rebellion that leads to their pain (2 Thessalonians 3:11-12, Matthew 25:26-30, Proverbs 10:4 – the list goes on and on…).
The other question is, whose agency enacts the act of love when I give someone bread? If the other person has the choice to receive it, then have I actually given to them as God has given to me? Sure, I may have bought the bread, carried it over to them, and maybe even harvested the wheat and baked it myself. But the simple fact is, if they have the choice to accept my gift, then they have completely nullified any storge I had for them, and declare with defiance that it is they, not I, who have provided sustenance for them. “Look at how strong I am,” they might think, “for raising my hand and taking this bread from somebody stronger than me!”
That is exactly what we do with God. And in so doing, we intentionally seek to nullify his love for us – which is a gift solely to be given to us by Him, and no effort we could make could help us accept it.
I pray that we as a church could grow to love and embrace this wholesome view of “loving others,” and why church discipline is actually one of the highest expressions of love.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________END OF DOGGEREL_____________________________________
I could go on and on, but I think that’s enough to make anyone puke. I was going to add a section on how “phileos” really only means loving the Church, since on this fictional writer’s view they are truly the brothers of the Elect, and therefore the reprobate ought not to be shown “phileos” or brotherly affection, but I think this suffices.
I’d like to repeat, I don’t agree with *Whistler’s* view of love. I think we don’t really have to understand how love works to know that it does work.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
As it happens, Eamon Duffy was my tutor at Magdalene College. A fine fellow, I have to say, and somebody I didn’t fully appreciate at the time!
(The role of the tutor at Cambridge is pastoral, rather than educational, the latter being overseen by one’s Director of Studies. Just to clear up any confusion, as regular Wartburgers will ken that my background is in Natural Sciences rather than Dr Duffy’s own subject of History.)
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Joel Prophecy? Know several situations from missionary family where ‘dreams’ of Isa sent a few Muslims on a dangerous quest to learn more. It’s out of my realm to even begin to fathom these things. The typical evangelical mindset wants dramatic stories but the few people I know working in certain countries are reticent because of the high cost involved. The point is that vivid dreams were the precursor. Not preaching the Gospel as some insist has to be. (They forget Romans 1)
@ okrapod:
We were in quite a few different SBC churches because of my mom’s music profession. (She did it all, music director, pianist, organist, etc) As I look back, the consistent theme was church autonomy with agreement to cooperate with other Baptist churches on missions. It was bottom up -not top down- as my mom used to say. Every believer a priest.
It’s pretty much top down micromanaged now —but without a vote on such. Which is total irony to me.
okrapod wrote:
I once read the entire preface to the KJV. Not the shortened one in most bibles. That changed my perspective on that translation. It made me wonder if some of the translators were working under political duress.
@ drstevej:
@ The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday:
You did it – you out-Pipered Piper. If you did not highlight is as satire it would be tempting to believe you were truly channeling Piper. This is exactly how the YRRs twist truth.
@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
Sorry @drstevej, did not mean to include you in my reply.
A.Tumbleweed wrote:
This is one of those issues that is really not as black-and-white as we would like for it to be. Thirty or so years ago A movement began in the SBC for inerrancy that set off a chain of events that, IMO looking back, brought the SBC to exactly where it is right now. The irony of that movement is that There is no way the concept and meaning of “inerrancy” can stand when there is such a divide on interpretation between Calvinists non Calvinist.
Who do Calvinists quote the most? Paul. Quoting Jesus all the time doesn’t fit as well with determinism. He can start to sound like a ConMan using a switch and bait. He is walking around saying ‘repent and believe’ when he well knows that not everyone was chosen before they were born to do so.
Besides the whole issue of interpretation, there is a massive misunderstanding on what the Bible is. It’s a collection of books (used loosely) of narratives, poetry, letters, account of visions, etc. I totally agree that scripture was inspired. But I don’t agree that God was forcing every word. If that were the case I doubt there would be so much disagreement on interpretation or deviations in translations over time. The one that sticks in my crawl the most is the translation of teshuqa in Gen 3 from ‘turning’ to ‘desire’ which seems to have happened around the year 1300 by a monk named Pagnino. It changed the true meaning.
I love scripture. My concern in all this is whether we have a relationship with a book or a relationship with a living Savior. I think scripture complements the real relationship. The early Christians only had the old testament which did not mean the same to the Gentiles, for example.
There is so much room for misunderstanding in these sorts of conversations and I reluctant to even get into them anymore in certain places. (Thx TWW!) The accusation of “not believing the Bible” has gone off the charts in Christendom. In some ways scripture has replaced Jesus Christ by calling it the “Word” of God. Jesus Christ is described as the ‘Word’ in scripture.
If we do this with scripture, think of what adding creeds and confessions, which are supposed to interpret scripture more systematically, might do to limit our understanding.
@ The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday:
Oh.my.Word! This nails it.
Do I have permission to share this as satire?
(This is a perfect illustration of why I can no longer sit through these sorts of sermons. I.just.cant. It sounds too much like Islam to me)
Lydia wrote:
In the words of Lumiere (I find Disney offers a much better example of kindness than most Reformed theologians), “Be my guest!” Share away.
I’ve been exposed to so much of this stuff I could rattle it off in my sleep — and I have, but that’s another story. The comparison with Islam is exactly what I’ve thought of before too, especially after the pastor at a Reformed church I used to go to once said, “We don’t know who the man of lawlessness is. It could be you, could be me. We just have to trust God that he knows what he’s doing, even when we feel totally out of it.”
In a certain sense, that is a noble thought: in the face of uncertainty, trust God. On the other hand, what kind of twisted theology would lead us to question whether or not we are the antichrist? And we have no choice in the matter? But it leads back to making God’s mercy conditional, and his hatred/wrath the only certainty.
In a way that’s comforting, I suppose. It affords a sense of finality. In the same way a whipped cur finds solace in his master’s kicks and punches: at least his master still pays attention to him. But still, something’s missing from that relationship. Can’t quite place my finger on it….
The most nefarious part when I was writing it, though, was the subtle misinterpretation of the verses cited — all of which I have heard used at some point in similar fashion. Doesn’t it just give you a sense of doctrinal purity to have a (Book Chapter:Verse) at the end of a confusing string of authoritative verbosity? That shows I’m really smart and know what I want you to — er, what God wants you to believe, right?
@ The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday:
That is someone who is madly in Love with the sound of his own voice if not the smell of his own farts…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMTkedIUX8U
“POOT! SNIFF! AHHHHHHHHHH…”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That’s exactly the point. Anybody can write stuff like this if you just listen to enough NewCal sermon jams. People like our imaginary friend / theologian *Whistler* and his other unmentioned buddies seem to think truth is directly proportional to the amount of words they use.
Or, if they don’t exactly believe their own stuff, they expect others to believe it because they use big words.
Coincidentally, our imaginary friend *Whistler*, like some other Reformed theologians, considers himself a poet on the level of Dante and Shakespeare — and even better because he’s not Catholic. Some of his favorite creations are “Ode to Eternal Torment” and “Behold the Filth of Man,” and best of all, the hit hymn, “I Sing Because God’s Angry.” I have a feeling he would be highly successful if let loose on the Reformed masses… His mixed metaphors alone are highly effective evangelism tools. (I don’t know if there is a “snark” emoji, but now would be the time to use it)
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
And that video is a piece of art.
The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:
Yes, I agree. The satire is brilliant.
I can safely say that C.S. Lewis also agreed when he wrote:
If God’s moral judgements differ from ours so that our “black” may be His “white”, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say “God is good”, while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say “God is we know not what”. An utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) “good” we shall obey, if at all, only through fear—and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity—when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of God is worth simply nothing—may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.
— From The Problem of Pain By C.S. Lewis —
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Thanks for your comment and insight. I always wondered how Romans 1:20 dovetails with advances made in science, medicine and technology or if there is any relationship at all. As a very simple example, public radio broadcasting began in the 1920’s, color television in the late 1950’s and now the internet, etc. Why did this take almost 2,000 years to develop? I like to think it is because God decided to reveal more and more about his creation, as mentioned in Romans 1:20, which made such progress possible. Others may disagree and claim such progress is just the result of man learning and build upon previous knowledge or even such progress should be discouraged.
@ Muff Potter:
Wow. Oh wow. That is one of Lewis’ books I have not read.
@ Ken G:
I think that is one part of it. Another reason is controlling hierarchies. Think of Examples all through history. Galileo imprisoned. Servetus burned. (Yes, he comes off as a bit of a con as he was totally outside of his time. He had insights into the circulatory system that eventually became common knowledge) Think of the censorship and lack of free speech or expression allowed from the state church on both sides. Calvin banished and ruined his protégé, Castillo, because he wanted to interpret scripture with a new translation.
With a Birdseye view of Western history, The state church controlled progress for 1000 years. That doesn’t mean there were not good things done or ideas that came out of it that were important. On balance, it comes off as stifling.
I think in some ways our Founding was a catalyst for the momentum of progress. After WW1, European aristocracy was cracking apart. By WW2, they were mostly empty poor titles. (Prince Phillip is an interesting example)
@ The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday:
Or in reality because they became doctrine for so many: Scream of the Damned and Christian Hedonism.
Oh how such leaves their mark of chaos and confusion. The Savior I can’t know or trust.
@ The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday:
“a certain sense, that is a noble thought: in the face of uncertainty, trust God. On the other hand, what kind of twisted theology would lead us to question whether or not we are the antichrist? And we have no choice in the matter? But it leads back to making God’s mercy conditional, and his hatred/wrath the only certainty”
Yikes. Yes, there is no choice and even worse, Their Sovereign God (Who is not really sovereign over his sovereignty, btw, according to their beliefs) by passing over you before the foundation of the world, and gives you no volition in the matter, leaves you vulnerable to the evil one deterministically choosing you as the anti Christ!
And “trust God” really means , ‘trust the guru’ because there is no other way you can possibly understand it. God has given them special insight you don’t have. The fact that you question it and don’t understand it is proof that you don’t have the God given insight. Sigh. Double sigh.
I argued on that merry go round for 10 years until I realized it was not so much of an abyss but a group think authority problem designed by gurus — for which every generation produces a bunch of them to fit the era. Thank God church is now voluntary!
Lydia wrote:
I was trying to leave some anonymity for the authors I was satirizing, but I can neither confirm nor deny that in some way it is probably possible that certain popular theologians do share similar titles to those attributed to my fictional *Whistler*.
In English: those works are exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote the above post. But I’m not sure the poetry of these self-avowed “poets” is as grand and devotional and high-minded as they seem to believe. Sure, it rhymes, but that doesn’t make it good. But it is not the clumsiness of the attempt that is the trouble, nor the style, but the self-importance attached to it. By all means let us make all make poetry! But the delusions of grandeur surrounding it is what causes an odious smell, and that smell seems to pop up whenever we start talking about their theology. Maybe they like it, so kudos to them; but does it really make them more spiritual if they can put their theology into a rhyme? Or does it make their theology any truer? Or more palatable?
The smallest act of kindness on the part of a kindergartner is far greater poetry than these theologians could ever scribble, for action is more poetic than thought. An act of compassion, a hug, a helping hand, has in it that Romantic and spiritual quality of actually being real, something “Scream of the Damned” could never attain. In that sense I think most of the true “spiritual poetry” of the world slips by unnoticed, in the silent actions of kind people. If Piper — I mean, our hypothetical *Whistler*, (no need to talk about real people) — could put that simple love into rhyme, I would call it poetry, and call it good, even if it was clumsy.
The thing that makes their poetry an atrocity is the air of self-importance, and the insistence that it is so deep as to be the next great devotional of our age. That self-importance is perhaps the key theme running through these discussions, and the single thing that most renders this a disturbing subject. But it’s ok for them to be self-important, because ultimately (on their view) God is the most self-important, right? And we’re taught to be like God, right? So why not accept a little adoration from those we’re supposed to be serving? After all, a worker deserves his due…
@ Muff Potter:
Excellent quote, and excellent point! I think Lewis was more correct than he knew, since it seems that God’s power is becoming (in the minds of the Reformed) more important than his love or goodness as a reason to worship him. Thus he becomes more of a Nietschan Übermensch to be worshiped simply because of power alone. Or that he is “totally other,” and his goodness is inconceivable. You’d be surprised (then again, maybe not) how many Reformed/Calvinist pastors, students, or ministers I’ve spoken with who try to claim that Jesus’s goodness is different from the Father’s, because the Father’s goodness is “completely other”, and we only know Jesus’s goodness because he was human, but his human goodness doesn’t have the final say, and is sometimes incompatible with the Father’s. Whatever happened to “in him dwells the fullness…”?
(I’ll have to read The Problem of Pain: it’s actually one of 3 of Lewis’s books I have not gotten around to, so you caught my Lewis-Database off-guard, but you have inspired me to find the book. Here’s a preemptive “thanks” for the hit my wallet’s about to take)
Lydia wrote:
I had thought this was an invention of Piper or Mahaney, but RC Sproul has been using it since at least 1990: https://godwordistruth.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/the-truth-of-the-cross-jesus-christ-taking-gods-curse-and-wrath-in-the-place-of-sinners/
This view God is evil.
The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:
It seems like you were able to write that rather effortlessly. Very sad that you were exposed to this so much that it comes this easily.
The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:
Please don’t give them ideas…
The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:
Should we dare you to write this? While the satire would be entertaining, the writing of it would likely damage your soul. Or would it free others?
Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
Utterly evil. And seriously warped.
okrapod wrote:
Ok, I sit corrected. But my Baptist brethren must be getting this stuff from *somewhere,* because I sure do see it a lot. And I do mean a *lot.*
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
CGC:
You sit corrected because you made a statement about Baptist Sunday School that you know nothing about.
I really get tired of the eloquent yet condescending tone of your comments, but I would expect that given your nickname (just whose gates are you crashing?). I may be wrong, but I get the impression that you believe that all Baptist are either ignorant or stupid.
I am 57 years old, so I can’t speak for the YRR Baptists, but I was not taught anything regarding Reformation history in church, but there were a few things we learned. We learned that Calvin, Luther, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Rome (historically) didn’t care much for groups that did not believe in Baptizing babies.
That being said, most Baptists are NOT hostile to Roman Catholics, but there are a lot of Baptists that ARE hostile to Roman Catholic doctrine, and that should be expected. That is the reason I do not engage in debates with Catholics that know and believe their catechism. It is simply pointless.
Ken P. wrote:
Based on your comment, you sound like you could be in the minority.
Ken P. wrote:
And then there’s Robert Jeffress mega-biggie pastor in Dallas who made Yahoo front page news here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/did-satan-create-catholicism-trump-175533867.html
I’m inclined to agree with you though, bigots tend to be a minority in any religion.
Ken P. wrote:
This is why there really isn’t one Christianity but multiple christianities that are for all intents & purposes following their own version of Jesus.
Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
St Gregory is claimed by Catholics, too, you know. We have both Eastern and Western saints. 😉
Ken P. wrote:
Good grief. No hostility there, eh?
I have good Baptist friends. My freelance boss is Baptist. I certainly do NOT think that Baptists are ignorant or stupid. But yes, many do have misconceptions about my faith and my church. As a Bible Belt resident, I encounter this all. the. time.
Sorry for offending you by admitting I was wrong. 😉
@ Muff Potter:
““There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to….”
SOURCE: C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (New York, Macmillian Publishing Company, 1960), pp. 176-177.
++++++++++++++
I LOVE this!
@ Ken P.:
I don’t mean to stir any pots, but this issue of Baptist vs. Catholic rivalry is something I may be able to offer a fresh perspective on.
From my experience in the Bible Belt (and I have lived in the “Buckle” for the last ten years), the older generation seems to be more conciliatory and less focused on the Reformation than the younger. Among the college/young adult Reformed crowd there is an implicit assumption of the inferiority of the Catholics, much as during the middle ages there was an implicit assumption of the inferiority of the Jews, and it is simply a mood, or even groupthink.
In fact, most Baptists (or Presbyterians) I know have an extremely low view of the Catholic Church — and these are the shining stars of their home churches or institutions. As I say, these are the future leaders of their Reformed ministries, and they spread a mood of superiority over every other denomination — and especially over the Catholics — that essentially says, “We’ve rescued the Truth from those corrupted Papists, or Roundheads, or Liberals, or what have you.”
And yet, many of the things we were taught about Catholic doctrine (such as the classic “Catholics think they can earn they way into Heaven with a spiritual bank account full of good works apart from Christ,” or “Catholics think baptizing an infant automatically makes them a believer for life,” or “The Catholic church is nothing but the Jewish sacrificial system in new form,” or “They’re just pagans who worship Mary as a goddess”) are simply not the teachings of the Catholic church. True, many of the lay Catholics I have met actually believe (most of) the things above, but anybody who has actually studied Catholic doctrine must realize that the way the younger Baptist generation is being taught to view Catholics is simply a straw-man. But it makes it easier to rile up a young generation if they’re taught they’ve already won, right?
Now, I am no Catholic, because of other doctrinal concerns (for things that actually are official doctrines), but as you can probably tell by my flag, I am in a place where Catholic doctrine is literally everywhere, and I have great respect for the Catholic church. Thus, when I go back to my Reformed friends and they start Catholic-bashing, I am astonished by some of the accusations they level against Rome simply because of what they were spoonfed. But just because so many Catholics believe something (like “The Pope has absolute infallibility”) doesn’t mean the official doctrine actually supports it. (For instance, the Catholic church doesn’t actually teach strict “Papal Infallibility,” only on some special occasions when certain criteria have been met)
Again, that hostility and eagerness for destruction is among the younger generation, so I hope it doesn’t seem like I am saying it is a strong Baptist tradition to look down on Catholics. But many of the Baptist elite that I know have very strong views on where they would like to see the Holy See end up…
Ken P. wrote:
Let me guess… Anabaptist?
The only thing the Pope, Luther, and Calvin could agree on was a Final Solution to the Anabaptist Problem.
(Terminology deliberate.)
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Not just Baptists.
Calvary Chapel & Non-Denoms (which in my area were one and the same, just different labels) were no slouches in the “Romanists Worship Satan” department.
During my time in-country, PastorRaulReesCalvaryChapelWestCovina (all one word) used to quote directly from Hislop’s Two Babylons (a seminal Victorian-era anti-Catholic screed) in his AM radio sermons, and I remember echoing sneers and pious snarky putdowns from Born-Again Bible-Believers.
Lydia wrote:
Stop wondering.
It’s called the Kynge Jaymes for a reason; commissioned by a King who was really into Divine Right.
Lydia wrote:
Isn’t that the very definition of the Gnostic, the Inner Ring of Spiritual Illuminati?
The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:
Only an Elect Vogon.
Kind of like how Jerry “Buck” Jenkins, Greatest Christian Author of All Time (GCAAT), writes with all the arrogance and tropes of truly awful fanfic.
Ken P. wrote:
By way of background, I was born and raised Protestant and am currently an active member of a SBC church in the deep South. Your point about what is not taught about reformation history is important. In my own experience, Protestants are not good at teaching church history. And when it does get taught the history covers mostly the reformers and not so much early church history except perhaps Augustine. Since I started to do my own research into church history I have been pretty stunned by all the details not covered in my Protestant upbringing.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Yes, this is one of the things I learned fairly recently. I think in the fear of “all things Catholic” we Protestants have not paid much attention to the writings and teachings of the saints common to both East and West. What a loss. In Protestantism there seems to be an assumption that (with the exception of Augustine), the church fell into apostasy soon after the original Apostles died and remained in apostasy until the reformers restored it.
elastigirl wrote:
Me too!!!
Jack wrote:
This is true and a good thing if you think about it. Christendom went into over drive after the state church political hold disintegrated.
I think it a good thing every generation should wrestle with the historical Jesus. If only the German Lutheran Church had done so, for example. There isn’t enough bubblewrap in the world to protect us from ConMen so we have to seek on our own and be wise as serpents.
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
Maybe they just disagree. I do with the RCC closed system and hierarchy. So what? That has nothing to do with how I operate in the world. I feel the same way about Luther. And now realize that I need to put a disclaimer on anything I say about Luther, his person and doctrine, because I don’t view all Lutherans as Luthers. I don’t view all Catholics as RCC. People are much more varied than that. Unless they decide not to be.
The Southern city I grew up in was about half Catholic and half other. There were many rural Catholic settlements in my state. Every old neighborhood surrounding my city have a beautiful old cathedral surrounded by tiny shotgun houses. RCC is big here. Back in the day hospitals were actually run by religions, my dad was on the board of the a Catholic hospital. Later, my brother on the board of another one. Neither were Catholic. Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterian, Jewish, Mormons and Methodist have all been doing business together here for a few centuries.
People can peacefully coexist and disagree. Us Baptists got used to being made fun of. Do you know how many insults i heard in my life time that Baptist can’t dance or play cards? I do not know where that came from because at my house, my little Baptist mother was a card shark and danced for exercise and enjoyment.
@ HUG and Catholic Gate-Crasher
If I wasn’t such a Voltaire-ian free-thinker, free-spirit, and all-round’ contrarian renegade, I’d have probably swum the Tiber by now…
@ Muff Potter:
I attend scores of choral concerts and recitals in these old cathedrals. The Acoustics are phenomenal and the architecture is beautiful. Going to one in an hour. Singing a mass. Don’t ask me which one. I lose track. 🙂
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
We were talking about the printing press…I just thought that was an interesting fact that there were different levels. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Were you claiming what I said was ‘disinformation’? Otherwise I’m not sure why you would bring it up.
Yes, others were discussing the issues. Hess was murdered by the church 100 years before for discussing it. IIRC, Luthers mentor also had issue with indulgences.
okrapod wrote:
I heard reformation history in…history class.
Not we are discussing it at church, but mostly because of the 500 year anniversary. It’s an interesting topic, but then I like history.
Lydia wrote:
I’m reading “Reformations – the early modern world 1450 to 1650” by Carlos Eire. The Reformation was complex than I ever realized. A lot going on in the Catholic church itself with a big push to study the classic languages and push back to the “original” bible.
Eire calls it “Christian humanism”.
As more scholars began to read the bible in the original and then disseminate their scholarship via the printing press. Combine it with the age of exploration and leaps in science & technology, a very powerful synergy.
Perhaps the internet will bring its own power to the table. Just look at how many different viewpoints are shared here. Everything from Pentecostal to Baptist to RC to dones to nones with even a few non believers sprinkled into the mix.
The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:
But independent thinking requires effort…
@ Jack:
Totally agree. I think there is a quiet Reformation going on with seekers. I say quiet because it’s not being led by any great guru or movement. It’s more individualized because of the dissemination of information. We can’t really measure or track it. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence denominations are not the hold on people they once were. Yet, most denominations will try to inflate their numbers or claim growth. People are shuffling around like never before or staying home.
Jack wrote:
I need to read that book! I wrote my undergraduate senior thesis on Erasmus, perhaps the most famous of the Christian Humanists. But I realized later that I would have preferred to write it about John Colet, who lectured about Saint Paul. There was a lot of fascination among the Christian Humanists with Pauline themes of Grace and justification. Does the book go into that a lot? Does it deal extensively with Colet and Contarini?
Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
Lol, thank you, Ken F!
The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:
The Vogon version of SNL’s “Deep Thoughts”…
Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
Because everything in-between was The Great Apostasy of Romish Popery.
(Not coincidentally, this is also the same view of church history you find among the Mormons, JWs and SDAs: “The Church went completely Apostate early on until Our Founder Was Led By GOD to Restore The Original New Testament Church…”)
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I think it was more like conquered and controlled. The political piece is usually not spoken of much at all. So what do the Protestants do? Another state church. They just did not call them popes or cardinals. Political power rested in the church (with state) for the most part, for about 1500 years. Neither side has a leg to stand on when it comes to this topic. Both were oppressors.
@ Lydia:
I’m in agreement too. There really is a quiet revolution going on out here, I think it’s evidenced by many of us here at TWW.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
I’ve been an Erasmus fan for awhile now.
When Luther realized that he couldn’t enlist him in his Jihad, he turned on him like a rabid pit-bull.
The mere mention of ‘Humanism’ will throw many a fundagelical into a tizzy. There is no reasoning, there is no dialogue, and they will brook no dissent.
In their world, there is only a ‘Biblical’ world-view, which is completely at odds with Humanist ideals of any kind.
Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
Actually I am not hostile to Roman Catholics, only to their doctrine.
@ drstevej:
@ Ken P.:
But your comment to CGC came across as hostile. You might not have meant for it to come across the way it did. I don’t agree with all RC doctrine, but the RCs I know have all been very gracious to me.
@drstevej – sorry, did not mean to include you.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
I’m only in the first couple hundred pages. So far Eire is setting the stage showing that the RC church itself had many reformers based on a desire for scholars to return to the classics. Colet and Contarini are in the index but it doesn’t appear that they are discussed extensively. The book clocks in at about 800 pages but I’m finding it a fascinating read. Segues nicely with the discussion here.
Ken P. wrote:
Why do we need hostility at all? You can disagree without hostility. Those of other faiths (or no faith) cherish their beliefs as much as anyone else. Hostility kills dialog.
Jack wrote:
Unfortunately, I’ve seen a lot of hostility and condescending attitudes directed at kids who grew up Baptist as well. It would be nice if that could be dropped.
Jack wrote:
My intent is not to kill dialog. I have no problem with dialogue, but I do not want to be a part of it. I retrospect, I should not have written that I was hostile to Catholic doctrine. It does not further conversations here and I apologize.
Jack wrote:
Take out the dialogue.
Lea wrote:
TWW has long been a place where all are welcome so long as civility is the watchword. It’s made me think of Al-Andalus of old (before the inquisition took over), in which Muslims, Jews, Christians and Pagans prospered and enjoyed a relative tolerance for each other not found in the rest of Christian Europe at the time.
@ Jack:
“Why do we need hostility at all? You can disagree without hostility. Those of other faiths (or no faith) cherish their beliefs as much as anyone else. Hostility kills dialog.”
+++++++++++++
yes, this is so true.
my friends who are muslim, their beliefs mean so much to them — with the same hearts-full-of-feeling and meaning and conviction that christians have for their beliefs.
we can all disagree on religious matters, and even on what are the most important peaks emerging out of the haze of variety and the clouds of ambiguity.
but my feeling is that all religious conviction deserves to be revered, out of respect for the people who hold those convictions.
when religious convictions harm people, that’s a different story.
Ken P. wrote:
And I want to understand. This is difficult to do in a comments section. But i’ll try.
I’m not currently affiliated with any faith though I would say that I’m culturally Christian.
If some folks of faith don’t want to dialog, how is the great commission to be fulfilled?
I understand not subscribing to a belief – but is the desire to not promote dialog come from a viewpoint that those who already are part of another tradition are lost?
We once went to a Catholic prayer service – a Novena- for a friend’ s mom who had died.
My wife is a devout Pentecostal. When the prayer leader found out we weren’t Catholics sge said to my wife “I will pray for you”. For the rest of the evening we were very much excluded. I could care less but it was upsetting for my wife.
I experienced the same thing when Pentecostal friends found out I was Anglican. “Why. They’re just as bad as Catholics”
You’ll find this attitude on all sides (don’t get me started on some of the more rabid atheists I’ve read)
Ultimately I don’t believe anyone has it right. In our pluralist society only through dialog will we all have peace.
Jack wrote:
I despise that sort of attitude. I’m so sorry for your wife.
This is also why I favor open communion.
@ elastigirl:
or, to rephrase, to me it seems good and right to speak of the religious convictions of others with respectfulness (no matter how different from or opposed to one’s own they might be). out of respect for the individual.
elastigirl wrote:
It would appear that Mark Twain felt the same way. There’s an apocryphal anecdote from his travels in the Holy Land, in which one of the gentlemen in his party refused to take off his shoes upon entering the carpeted prayer area of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.
This is said to have been Twain’s response:
If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be–a Christian.
Source: – Mark Twain’s Notebook
The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:
I too don’t meant to offend anyone. But I believe that the Catholics do believe these falsehoods that you mentioned.
For example does the Catholics worship Mary, or just “respects” and “honor” her? I will let everyone read some of their Catechisms. Decide for yourselves what they mean.
Catechism 490-493
490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.”132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception (when Mary was in her own mother’s womb). That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135
492 The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”.136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.137
493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spiri
Catechism 968-971.
968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. “In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.”511
969 “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”512
970 “Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it.”513 “No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.”514
* II. DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN
971 “All generations will call me blessed”: “The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.”515 The Church rightly honors “the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration.”516 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an “epitome of the whole Gospel,” express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.517
Catechism 2677
2677 Holy Mary, Mother of God: With Elizabeth we marvel, “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”36 Because she gives us Jesus, her son, Mary is Mother of God and our mother; we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her: she prays for us as she prayed for herself: “Let it be to me according to your word.”37 By entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: “Thy will be done.”
Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death: By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the “Mother of Mercy,” the All-Holy One. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender “the hour of our death” wholly to her care. May she be there as she was at her son’s death on the cross. May she welcome us as our mother at the hour of our passing38 to lead us to her son, Jesus, in paradise.
And to think that John Piper was the one freaking out over NT Wright so much that he wrote an entire book.
I’ll take Bp. Wright any day over Piper. Wright actually makes sense and puts the joyful meaning back into daily Christian living, whereas Piper just leaves you thinking God is staring over your shoulder with His lightning bolt ready to strike if you screw up. Oh, I forgot. Jesus is your asbestos suit to protect me from the Father’s wrath. That made me feel so much better about the Father actually loving ME. NOT.
CHIPS wrote:
The problem with dialogue along these lines is that all of us believe falsehoods. Not one person on the planet completely and accurately understands God and his ways, which means disagreement is certain. I suppose the question is how wrong does one have to be in order to be outside of God’s saving grace? While I disagree with the direction Roman Catholic theology has gone in the last few centuries, I remain convinced that being Roman Catholic does not exclude a person from salvation. Nor do I believe that being a Protestant guarantees one’s salvation. I have learned much from Roman Catholics and I am grateful that they retained so much sound theology in their tradition even if they picked up some baggage that I cannot believe (I am pretty sure Roman Catholics still agree with the seven ecumenical councils).
For this site, things go much better when we don’t try to throw each other under the bus based on denominational labels and categories.
Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
Whole comment is nicely stated.
I’m late to the game on this one, but I feel the need to make a few observations. First, Reformed ministers (and I am one) often give into their Puritan instincts and separate themselves from Luther. To be sure, they hold to ‘faith alone,’ but while they offer that with one hand, they take it away with the other. ‘Sanctification alone’ replaces it, then leaves it up to the minister to decide what said sanctification should look like (its quality, sincerity, consistency, etc.). Second, Mark Jones is insufferable. He is arrogant and full of sh … shoe boxes packed with Puritan quotations. If he can assemble three (often obscure) Puritan theologians to make his case, he calls that the end of the argument. He does not show much dexterity with the Scriptures, as his citation of II Thess 2:13 (following Piper) indicates. The word “sanctification” in the NT does not always refer to the theological category that the Christian church uses. This is clear in II Thess 2, where “sanctification” refers to the Spirit’s work at the beginning of salvation–perhaps something closer to His regenerating work. I need to stop reading WW. You guys keep bringing my attention to matters in the larger church that get me down and make me mad.
@ CHIPS:
Yet, despite all that, not once does it equate her to being equal to or above God — e.g., a Supreme Goddess or something like that. If you notice, even her elevated status is attributed to “the merits of her Son.” That said, I do not agree with her elevated status (or at least, the degree), but it is a far cry from being “Mary, Queen of the Universe” as so many lay Catholics believe, and so many Protestants believe official Catholic doctrine teaches.
As I said, I am not Catholic because of actual doctrinal issues I have with the Catechism — as you have so concisely and succinctly illuminated — the veneration of Mary being one of them; but the standard Protestant accusations against Catholics often fall far short.
I think we are in violent agreement here. I fail to see how your comment undermines my position. Rather, your brief thesis reinforces what I stated earlier.
Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
Yes I agree. Not 100% of all protestants are saved. For example I don’t think a guy like Dr. Iain Campbell who had 7 mistresses is saved. I think true faith will bear good fruits. And a false faith will bear bad fruits. But that is up to God, not me.
To clarify we are not saved by our fruits. So we are not saved by loving God and loving our neighbours. Because none of us can love perfectly. We are all flawed and we are all in need of God’s forgiveness. But if we do have the Holy Spirit, we will indeed love God and love our neighbours.
Our love is the result of God’s salvation. God’s Salvation is not the result of our love.
Certain denominations (namely neo-Calvinists) often mix the above. At the very least their messages are “easily” misinterpreted to mistaken and mix the above.
The above is for protestants. The danger for them is that they know the right thing (IMO) but yet bears no fruits of love. Because even the Demons know the correct theology (more than us actually) and they fear God (once again more than us). But the demons are still going to hell because they hate God and hate their neighbours. For some protestants they are no better off than the demons.
As for Catholics, I am sorry but I cannot bring my self to say that they are saved. I am sorry but I don’t think they even get the theologies correct, never mind the fruits of love. I don’t say this because I “hate” the Catholics or anything. Quite the opposite. I don’t want to give any false assurance to anyone. That isn’t true love.
I mean yes I am sure some are saved. Even in cults like JW or Mormons there are true believers. Anyone who accepts Jesus as their one and only personal savior is saved. Anyone who reads the bible, even a corrupted false version of the bible, has a chance to become a true believer. There are even stories in Muslim countries where a person would dream about Jesus and then comes to faith. This is the power and works of the Holy Spirit, that nothing can stop. So it is possible for anyone in any situation to come to true faith in Jesus.
In fact I know there are Catholics who are actually protestants. This might sound funny but they exist, in vast numbers. That means that attend mass but they ignores what the pulpit teaches. They read the bible themselves, listen to online sermons, and came to their own conclusions. They only stay for family, friends or other reasons. When you talk to one they will say that going to mass doesn’t hinder their faith. They just ignores the falsehood that was taught and take in the truth. Because there are still some truth in what the Catholic Church teaches. They will also point out that even Protestant churches often teaches falsehood (like you said). Everyone MUST read the bible for themselves.
But can a person be saved by believing in the central theologies of the Catholic Church? I don’t think so because they believe in salvation by works, even more so than neo-Calvinists.
Perhaps reading this from GotQuestions.org will help clarify:
https://www.gotquestions.org/catholicism.html
The Bible clearly and consistently states that receiving Jesus Christ as Savior, by grace through faith, grants salvation (John 1:12; 3:16,18,36; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10,13; Ephesians 2:8-9). The Roman Catholic Church rejects this. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that a person must believe in Jesus Christ AND be baptized AND receive the Eucharist along with the other sacraments AND obey the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church AND perform meritorious works AND not die with any mortal sins AND etc., etc., etc. Catholic divergence from the Bible on this most crucial of issues, salvation, means that yes, Catholicism is a false religion. If a person believes what the Catholic Church officially teaches, he/she will not be saved. Any claim that works or rituals must be added to faith in order for salvation to be achieved is a claim that Jesus’ death was not sufficient to fully purchase our salvation.
The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:
Yes I think we are in agreement. When I talk with Catholics they (IMO) want to blur the line between “worship” and “respect/honor”. Now obvious these two terms means very different things. We only worship God. And respect/honor is paid to people.
However when they respect/honor Mary, they put it so far that it is almost like worship. The problem is that there is no “solid line” that marks the difference between worship and respect/honor. So no one can clearly say at which point is it no longer just respect/honor but is actually worship.
So what I call a worship can be defended by the other person are “merely” respect and honor.
Why is that? Because these terms are defined by the person. For example let’s say a so-called Christian (he doesn’t actually exist) decide to also respect/honor a demon named Baal. And respecting/honoring Baal requires child sacrifice. I am an outsider and I point out to him that he is worshipping Baal. He of course would deny it and say he is just respecting/honoring Baal. So he say that he is still fully Christian, because Jesus is still the only thing he worships. As crazy as it is I cannot prove that he is worshipping Baal. The term worship is not clearly defined, so it is up to each person to define worship.
But then I point out to this fictional guy that killing a child as a sacrifice is a sin as per the bible. He defends and say that it is only a sin because I “misinterpreted” the bible. And how his church traditions not only allows but encourages child sacrifice to Baal out of respect/honor. More so he claims that he can hear from God directly (Charismatic) and God clearly told him to sacrifice his own kid to Baal. As crazy as this sounds there isn’t much I can do. He can choose to ignore clearly written sins as written in the bible. He can choose to stay with his “church’ traditions and ignore God’s words. And I cannot say what he heard or didn’t hear from that Charismatic voice in his head.
The above example is very extreme. And no it didn’t actually happen. But I hope I get my point across. The line between worship and respect/honor can be very blur, if one let’s their own sinful desires push it that far.
As for us, I say we create for ourselves a huge gap between worship and respect/honor. When we worship God, let it be so strong that it is nowhere close to merely respect/honor. When we respect/honor a person or thing, let it be so weak that no one can even come close to saying that we are worshiping that person or thing.
@ CHIPS:
Well, I agree with you that there is (or should be) a difference between “respect” and “worship,” but I think that’s where trouble begins.
First, are you really comparing Mary and the Saints to Baal? I hope you aren’t, but with the example you chose, it is very easy to interpret it that way — and that is not simply up to the reader’s interpretation, but due to the way you formulated it. My philosophy is this: no matter what I write, somebody somewhere will misinterpret it to mean exactly what I don’t mean, so my job is to give them as little excuse to misinterpret as possible. I’m afraid, if you think I’m misinterpreting your example, you are giving me far too much reason to do so. I sincerely hope that is not what you mean to say.
That said, Mary and Baal are in two completely separate classes — Baal is straight up condemned in the Old and New Testaments as being a pagan god. But Mary is simply the “theotokos,” the “God-bearer,” being the human through which the Person of the Son took on Flesh, and is therefore considered “favored” (Luke 1:28). So I think the difference in those two examples is absolutely crucial. Not to mention, unless you want to go against the verses that literally say Mary bore the Divine Person of the Son in her womb (Luke 1:31-33), what I just wrote is next to impossible to denounce as heresy.
In the Orthodox tradition, Mary is venerated as the “God-bearer,” not because she is intrinsically different from other humans — that would defeat the point of Jesus dwelling among us and being able to sympathize with us (Hebrews 4:15) — but because she trusted the Holy Spirit. What happened to her physically — trusting God to come live literally inside her, and be born of her physically — is what the Father and Son promise us spiritually — that they will live inside our hearts, and that will give birth to life and spiritual renewal (Ezekiel 37:14, John 14:23, Ephesians 2:22, 1 Corinthians 3:16, John 4:14).
But the Catholic veneration, at least from what I have seen, and at least in lay practice, tends to border on Maryolatry, and therefore obscures the beautiful example of faith that she showed. But, that said, I have met many Catholics who also view her along more Orthodox lines.
As for praying to Mary, I view it along the lines of praying to the Saints. The Saints’ Communion is in a similar category of being misunderstood as “worshiping” the Saints. But, even though I personally have misgivings about it, the Orthodox belief is that the Saints (and Mary) are not dead, but living, because the Lord “is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive” (Luke 20:38). Therefore, the Orthodox Church teaches that Mary and the Saints make up the “great cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1) that pray around the throne in Heaven (Revelation 8:4).
Now, I may not be comfortable with praying to the Saints, but on that explanation, it is essentially the same as asking your friends and family to pray for you. Again, I am not saying we ought to pray to the saints, but it now makes a whole lot more sense. In no way could that view possibly be construed as worship, nor is praying to the Saints obligatory.
As for “not even coming close to worshiping” a person or thing: Do you enjoy music, art, sports, or anything at all? Do you have children who participate in such things? If you praise your kid for doing well in sports or art or music, if you honor them for giving their best, does that in any way equate to worship? Or does appreciating a sunset equate to worshiping the sun? Or does appreciating Michelangelo or da Vinci in anyway equate them with God? What about acknowledging someone as simply being more skillful than you are? (When I was stuck under Puritanism, I often subconsciously was envious of people better than me at sports, music, art, intelligence, etc. and would make myself feel better by saying, “Well, none of that matters, because only God matters. They might be better than me at that stuff, but they’re only better at stuff that is useless.” Then I would feel all grand and mighty on my high “spiritual” horse, and completely miss out not only on the things I was denouncing, but even on seeing the glory of God through the things I was denouncing. I was calling unclean what God had made clean (Acts 10:15). And that is a terrible thing to do. I do not accuse you of doing that, but I am telling you, from personal experience, that is one of the potential dangers in what you are saying).
Might I suggest, you will have a far deeper worship experience if, instead of trying to minimize your respect for other people to therefore make your worship of God look bigger (even though that doesn’t actually work — personal experience), you try to give thanks to God for the creatures and creations he has made that demonstrate his glory?
I used to think, “if I make the world unimportant, that makes God more important.” But I hope you see the folly in that statement — in fact, it even goes against what the Bible says (James 1:17, Colossians 3:17, Psalm 19:1) about giving thanks for everything, because ultimately “every good and perfect gift comes from above” — even other people, for other people are certainly gifts that make life worth living.
Idolatry means focusing on something as if it were God. Thankfulness means appreciating every good and perfect gift because the God who gives it is greater — which means you can enjoy the gift without trying to live a Puritan existence, and magnify the Father because of the wonderful things and people he has made. When I realized that (and saw it in other traditions besides the Puritan-based tradition in which I was raised), it gave new meaning to the word “worship,” and gave me new life.
Now, however, Jesus seems to say that if we are prepared to honor Mary, how much more should we honor those who “hear the word of God and keep it?” (Luke 11:27-28).
Then again, Mary does say, ““My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name” (Luke 1:46-49). But notice that, although she will be blessed by all generations, the result of her trust is that her worships lands not on herself, but on God. And “the humble estate” of Mary leading to her exaltation matches exactly with what Jesus says about humbling ourselves to be exalted (Matthew 23:12)
But do you think she was wrong, or should have been chastised, for saying that all generations would call her blessed? Or that the Angel was wrong when he said, “Greetings, oh favored one. The Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28)? Does that mean the Angel equated her with God? Sounds an awful lot like that Angel had some respect for her.
CHIPS wrote:
What about the ones that trust in Christ? Are they saved? What becomes the defining feature of faith? Is it trust in Christ, or is it the “good works” of learning correct doctrine? Can you trust in Christ even if your doctrine is flawed? If not, does anyone have perfect doctrine? If yes, then why are Catholics by default not saved?
CHIPS wrote:
“The Roman Catholic Church rejects this.”
Really? Who taught you that? Is it simply because of the “works and faith” issue that you believe that?
Not a single priest, layman, or anyone else I know in the Catholic Church rejects this. But, of course, you are free to disagree. But does your disagreement actually mean that Catholics are not Christians — even the ones who trust in Christ’s finished work on the Cross? And Christ’s continuing work in our hearts? (Both of those ideas, by the way, are official Catholic doctrine. And official doctrine for Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, the Orthodox, Coptics, etc.)
CHIPS wrote:
I don’t know if my flag shows up or not, but there are just a bit more than a few Catholics here. Like, a lot. And I have been to just a bit more than a few masses in Italian. Like, a lot. And I have to say, not one homile, zero, none, has contradicted “by grace, through faith in the Son of God.”
Finally, I would be careful of complaining about Someone else’s servants (Romans 14:4)
501!!
Does anyone hang out on threads this old?
Last!