Comments on Bring the Books: If You Are Late to the Discussion

"Nothing different"? Even if you disagr...

2011-06-22T23:15:24.219-05:00

"Nothing different"? Even if you disagree with what Piper says in his book, the fact that he wrote that book in DISAGREEING with Wright shows that you're using some pretty hyperbolic and overblown rhetoric, Nancy. I can't defend anything and everything Piper has said, but you and I both know that the statement "he says nothing different than NT Wright" is wrong - I would almost be tempted to say slanderous.

Piper....pew. He says nothing different that NT W...

2011-06-22T19:00:19.705-05:00

Piper....pew.

He says nothing different that NT Wright. I have his book only to refute it in my dissertation.

Sadly, his recent sitdown with tricky ricky warren shows how much of a fake he is.

Brandon, I agree with everything that Reymond say...

2009-11-08T15:48:18.519-06:00

Brandon,

I agree with everything that Reymond says about the future justification. But I think that what happens on the last day is more that just declaring the just to be just. For example, I think that rewards will be given to believers.

I do agree with the Reymond quote, but I do no...

2009-11-07T18:16:45.890-06:00
I do agree with the Reymond quote, but I do not think it says everything about eschatological justification and final salvation.

Elaborate.

Joshua, Thanks for your comments, but just so you...

2009-11-07T18:16:10.742-06:00
Joshua,

Thanks for your comments, but just so you know, you just killed my wife's teddy bear.

I appreciate your word of caution regarding Fuller. I have not read his work, and some of the more important things are in journal articles unavailable to me, thus I am left guessing what Piper means when he says if he had to document Fuller's influence, it would be a footnote on every single page.

My point was not to attempt guilt by association. I recognize that there are differences between the two. My point was to demonstrate that if Piper's views end up unintentionally making faith and works the instrumental causes of justification it is understandable because that is what his "most influential teacher" believes and teaches.

That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ.(Again, he doesn't say that God will use this as evidence that he will judge by, only that our works will be presented before God as evidence of the Holy Spirit's work in our lives. I think the rest of the statement about Piper's view makes clear that God will judge solely on the basis of works.)

What does it mean for evidence to be brought forward in a courtroom? It means it is being judged. And that's what Piper means. If you believe he means something else, don't just give me your interpretation, give me quotes from Piper that demonstrate so. Piper believes God will judge our works in order to determine if we are Christians. Piper is explicit in this. Our works are judged on the last day to determine if we are going to heaven (and yes, I know, for the hundredth time, not on the basis of our works, but on the basis of Christ's work).

Piper explicitly disagrees with your interpretation of Piper:
"Fourth, when we stand before Christ we will be judged according to our deeds in this life. 'For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad" (2 Cor 5:10). [he also cites Matt 16:27 and Rev 22:12]... Is the aim of this judgment to declare who is lost and who is saved, according to the works done in the body? Or is the aim of this judgment to declare the measure of your reward in the age to come according to the works done in body? The answer of the New Testament, if you interpret carefully, is: both. Our deeds will reveal who enters the age to come, and our deeds will reveal the measure of our reward in the age to come." (Future Grace p363)
--
I think the rest of the statement about Piper's view makes clear that God will judge solely on the basis of works.

I assume that is a typo?

(He is not saying there will be no future salvation because God will count our works for our salvation, but that we cannot possess justification without sanctification.

That's when I murdered the teddy bear. It's unbelievably annoying that we can't get passed this.

Brandon, I do agree with the Reymond quote, but I...

2009-11-07T17:05:04.836-06:00
Brandon,

I do agree with the Reymond quote, but I do not think it says everything about eschatological justification and final salvation.

Brandon, I know I'm late to this conversation...

2009-11-07T14:20:57.392-06:00
Brandon,

I know I'm late to this conversation, but I think that you are, in the case of the Piper/Fuller link, oversimplifying, and, in the case of commenting on the description of Piper's view in Christianity Today, just not clear.

First, I don't want to in any way impugn your view of justification or sanctification. From my reading of these posts, both you and Josh and Adam seem to be making biblical statements about those. You difference is in your understanding of Piper.

Second, trying to tie Piper or anyone else to Fuller just because they appreciate some part of his writing is not possible. Fuller is almost schizophrenic in his statements on this area of theology as well as several others, including inerrancy. He has gone back and forth on so many issues for so long that it would be hard to point to anyone who agreed with him and figure out just what part they're talking about. Even Piper's comments that are fairly specific are not specific enough to castigate him about. If it was clear that he was in agreement with Fuller on some of his bad theology then people would not be asking for him to clarify his statements about Fuller, they would be asking him to recant. He has never been completely clear about his areas of agreement and disagreement with Fuller. He probably should be more clear, but I'm sure some of this is clouded by personal relationship. As sad as that is, it's not the only place, either among today's theologians, or in the history of Christian theology, that this is the case.

Finally, with regard to your statements about Piper's view of sanctification, I don't think you are clearly stating either what Piper believes, or what Christianity Today says that he believes. Here is the quote:

This final judgment accords with our works. (In this statement Piper does not say that God uses our works to evaluate the evidence. Only that God's judgement/evaluation will be in accord with our works)
That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ.(Again, he doesn't say that God will use this as evidence that he will judge by, only that our works will be presented before God as evidence of the Holy Spirit's work in our lives. I think the rest of the statement about Piper's view makes clear that God will judge solely on the basis of works.)
Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation. (He is not saying there will be no future salvation because God will count our works for our salvation, but that we cannot possess justification without sanctification. I think this is clearly seen in the Calvin quote that Faris gave us.)

Faris, you should have read more carefully then. Y...

2009-11-07T13:45:50.065-06:00
Faris, you should have read more carefully then. You can read my comment here where I make it quite explicit that I do not believe Josh/Piper are saying the same thing as Rome:
http://www.bringthebooks.org/2009/08/if-you-are-late-to-discussion.html?showComment=1251767024426#c6237770864155721696

If you want me to be explicit again: I do not believe Josh is teaching the same thing as Rome. So, again, stop distracting from the discussion. The reason I mentioned Rome a couple of comments ago was to point out that there is a wrong way and a right way to guard against antinomianism. The correct way to guard against antinomianism is to have a proper understanding of God's law - not to make our good works play a determining role in whether or not we will go to heaven. Both Rome and Piper make our good works play a determining role - though they do so differently.

Believe it or not the gospel is not at stake on this blog so we can relax a little bit.

That's certainly a matter of opinion. I don't believe that Josh or Piper deny the gospel, but I do think they are very confused and I do believe their views are in conflict with the gospel - so they need to get it sorted out.

And I'm going to go punch a teddy bear if one more person tries to say this is a discussion about whether or not a saved person will manifest works. Get it through your head: That is not what this discussion is about!!!!!!!

It seems like a heap of waste for Christ to be our sanctification if it is as irrelevant as you claim.

It is irrelevant TO JUDGMENT!!! Is it really that hard to understand?!

This discussion is about the final judgment. Josh has not answered my question that is at the heart of this discussion: Is justification ("present" justification to use Piper's erroneous term) the same thing as the verdict rendered at the final judgment?

Do you agree with Reymond when he says: “Justification possesses an eschatological dimension, for it amounts to the divine verdict of the Eschaton being brought forward into the present time and rendered here and now concerning the believing sinner.” (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p743)?

Kyle, Thanks for commenting again. Could you expl...

2009-11-07T13:17:37.832-06:00
Kyle,

Thanks for commenting again. Could you explain what you mean by this "the unnecessary confusion between the indicative and imparitive." I am not sure what you mean. Perhaps you could illustrate where and how I am doing this. But as it stands I am not even sure what you mean.

Brandon, I followed this conversation when it fir...

2009-11-07T13:14:29.827-06:00
Brandon,

I followed this conversation when it first began. In all honesty, I find it odd that you deny casting Josh in a RC shadow especially since you are the one who keeps bringing it up. This would be akin to a baptist denouncing paedobaptism because Rome does it too. "Rome baptizes babies, you don't want to be like Rome do you?" It would not be a a red herring for the paedo defender to say, "I'm not advocating the Roman church." The only reason that you have to throw Rome around would be to link or insinuate Josh with Rome.

If no one is advocating Roman Catholicism then why bring it up so often? Yes we know Rome has some bad mojo. We get it. But when Adam quotes James, your immediate response is "If you believe James 2 is referring to our justification before God, then yes, you are a Roman Catholic." Believe it or not the gospel is not at stake on this blog so we can relax a little bit.

Meanwhile Calvin speaks to what Josh is getting at:

Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies. But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification, to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them,they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ.Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ. But you cannot possess him without being made a partaker of his sanctification: for Christ cannot be divided. Since the Lord, therefore, does not grant us the enjoyment of these blessings without bestowing himself, he bestows both at once but never the one without the other. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification.
-Institutes 3.16.1

It seems like a heap of waste for Christ to be our sanctification if it is as irrelevant as you claim.

Peace,
Faris

Josh, my problem with the way you are presenting t...

2009-11-07T13:13:00.081-06:00
Josh, my problem with the way you are presenting this... Is the unnecessary confusion between the indicative and imparitive. But there has always been a difference in this regard between the Reformed and the Presbyterians.

Anyway... I've appreciated this discussion! Thanks! But I should study more before I say anything else!

Josh, I never said you did. Stop raising red herri...

2009-11-07T11:40:23.479-06:00
Josh, I never said you did. Stop raising red herrings.

Brandon, Speaking of being honest, anyone who has...

2009-11-07T11:39:17.453-06:00
Brandon,

Speaking of being honest, anyone who has followed this discussion will know that I am not advocating the Roman Catholic view of justification or of the final judgment. Your failure to grasp my distinction between evidence and ground is the only thing that could lead you to link me with a Roman Catholic view.

Rome tries to "protect the Gospel from antino...

2009-11-07T11:32:40.611-06:00
Rome tries to "protect the Gospel from antinomianism" too, as did Paul's opponents. The correct way to protect against antinomianism to to have a proper understanding of the law of God, not to make our "final salvation" determined by our works.

Thus, good works must be present by a saved person on the last day.

If they have saving faith, they will also have good work to show on the last day (unless they die first, like the thief on the cross - which is a problem for Piper's view). But that good work will be completely irrelevant in determining if they go to heaven or hell (contra Piper).

Brandon, I was trying to be honest. But as I see ...

2009-11-07T11:13:39.770-06:00
Brandon,

I was trying to be honest. But as I see it your failure to distinguish between "conditioned upon" and "determined by" is the issue. However, to be clear, I would not affirm either of those as they stand. But the first is clearly not my view. I have repeatedly stated that neither justification nor salvation are conditioned upon or based upon our good works. In a very narrow and strict sense I could agree with ""determined by," but I would never use that to describe my view. The phrase that I have used, and will continue to use is that good works are the "necessary evidence" of faith.

If you can agree with that phrase, then we agree, for the term "necessary" means required to be there. Thus, good works must be present by a saved person on the last day. This is the only point for which I am laboring to guard. I am trying to protect the gospel from antinomianism.

Josh, let's please be honest. It doesn't h...

2009-11-07T10:54:27.444-06:00
Josh, let's please be honest. It doesn't help any of us if we're not. This discussion is not about whether or not a person will bear fruit (as I have already said multiple times). This discussion is about whether or not their entrance into heaven is conditioned upon or determined by their obedience. It is not.

Kyle, I would recommend comparing Piper's view with John Kinnaird's view.

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/kinnaird.php

particularly:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/RasonsfortheVerdictbytheInterimSession.pdf

Kyle, Thanks for the link. Glad you are reading t...

2009-11-07T09:30:01.913-06:00
Kyle,

Thanks for the link. Glad you are reading the blog and adding to the discussion.

In the article Venema states, "Though Calvin nowhere countenanced the idea of 'merit' in his covenant theology, he did insist upon the necessity of good works, and of a 'subordinate and 'inherent righteousness as an indispensable and instrumental cause of salvation." He does not give a page number here, so I am not use if these are direct quotes of Lillback. Further, the troubling phrase, "instrumental cause of salvation" is not in quotes and thus I am not sure if Lillback used these words.

However, regardless if Lillback used these words or not, I do no think that good words are an "instrumental cause of salvation." Rather they are simple the necessary evidence of salvation.

As Venema points out himself in giving Luther's view that Luther stressed, "the necessity of good works as an inevitable fruit of a living faith." Venema goes on assert, "Lillback’s presentation gives the distinct impression that Luther was “antinomian” in his formulation of the doctrine of justification, because he excluded altogether works performed in obedience to the law from his doctrine of justification." Venema himself says that antinomianism is removing works performed in obedience to the law from justification, in some sense. Again not as the instrument or ground, but as the fruit.

Finally, Venema seems to be making the very point I have been arguing for this whole time in the comment section of this post when he states, "The fact is, however, that Calvin was every bit as emphatic as Luther about the distinction between law and gospel, when the question concerned the ground or basis for the believer’s justification" (emphasis original). And again Venema makes my point when he states, "Rather, his [Calvin's] point is simply that the faith that alone justifies is never an alone faith; it is a faith granted to believers by the Spirit of sanctification who always renews those in whom he dwells" (emphasis mine).

Thus, I would agree fully with Venema that works done in obedience to the law are never the ground of our justification (now or the final judgement). And with Venema I would agree that one who is justified must be sanctified.

Http://www.grebeweb.com/linden/Venema_on_Lillback%...

2009-11-07T00:56:16.022-06:00
Http://www.grebeweb.com/linden/Venema_on_Lillback%27s_Binding_of_God.htm

Venema on Lillback: Venemas central critique is Lillbakc's confusion of justification and sanctification which reads good works as necessary for final justification.

Sorry it took me so long to respond, I've been...

2009-10-13T11:16:19.807-05:00
Sorry it took me so long to respond, I've been rather busy.

1) No I do not think that our sanctification is superfluous and I'm tired of people pulling that card. That's not what the discussion is about. Anyone who is justified will absolutely manifest their faith in a changed life of obedience. But that changed life is never a determining factor in whether or not they will go to heaven or hell. Only their faith will and their obedience is irrelevant to that question.

2) A person must be resurrected from the dead to spend eternity with God? I do not believe so:

LBC 31.1._____ The bodies of men after death return to dust, and see corruption; but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the righteous being then made perfect in holiness, are received into paradise, where they are with Christ, and behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are cast into hell; where they remain in torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day; besides these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.
( Genesis 3:19; Acts 13:36; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 5:1, 6,8; Philippians 1:23; Hebrews 12:23; Jude 6, 7; 1 Peter 3:19; Luke 16:23, 24 )

Yes, our bodies are resurrected, but before they are resurrected we are already in paradise, in the presence of God, and that before the final day of judgment when our works supposedly determine if we will go to heaven or hell.

3) Yes, you are sneaking works into justification. You are making them the instrumental cause of justification. I am certain that this is just confusion on your part, rather than intentional. And I believe that part of this confusion seems to stem from what exactly you think justification is.

Do you believe that justification = the conclusion of the final judgment? In other words, is the declaration or the decision by the judge at the final judgment what we refer to as justification, or is justification something different?

Brandon, You asked me if I "believe that som...

2009-09-22T07:51:21.171-05:00
Brandon,

You asked me if I "believe that someone can be counted perfectly righteous, not have any sin counted against them, and yet not be granted entrance to heaven?" The answer, which I have stated about three times now, is no.

One more time (and last time), if a person is justification (i.e. "counted perfectly righteous, not have any sin counted against them") then by necessity, without fail, they will be sanctified. In other words, there will never be such a person as you described.

Further, many within the Reformed Faith take James 2 as justification before God (I don't), but many do. Just listen to our recent Christ the Center with Tom Schreiner. You, like your mentors Clark and Robins, draw the circle of who is Reformed way too small.

Now, you said awhile back that you have one more question and then you would get to mine, so here are my questions.

What do you think about the following?

One final argument, you seem to think that the only thing need to enter heaven is justification (as if the rest of salvation is superfluous), is this right? However it seems, from the Scriptures, that a person must be resurrected from the dead to spend eternity with God. Thus, more than justification is needed to be with God forever. My fear is that you are collapsing all of salvation into one of the parts of salvation, namely justification. And I know your fear is that I am somehow sneaking works into justification. However, Reformed Theology has affirmed what I am saying (as Adam said Gospel 101) yet they are the ones who have fought so hard, as I do, for sola fide.

No, Adam, he has not. In fact, he has said our goo...

2009-09-22T07:39:52.388-05:00
No, Adam, he has not. In fact, he has said our good works our a necessary condition for us to enter heaven and he has also said that the justification that we receive through faith alone on the basis of Christ alone is insufficient to enter heaven. So no, Adam, my question is not unnecessary.

A person who has no works was already, as James says, someone who had a said faith rather than a real faith. What is so controversial about this? I thought this was gospel 101. Suddenly to read "Faith without works is dead" makes you an RC!

If you believe James 2 is referring to our justification before God, then yes, you are a Roman Catholic.

Brandon, this clarification seems unnecessary, con...

2009-09-22T07:25:24.357-05:00
Brandon, this clarification seems unnecessary, considering that Josh has, ad infinitum, explained to you repeatedly that a person does not gain entrance to heaven by their works.

A person who has no works was already, as James says, someone who had a said faith rather than a real faith. What is so controversial about this? I thought this was gospel 101. Suddenly to read "Faith without works is dead" makes you an RC!

And furthermore, to clarify, you believe that some...

2009-09-22T00:01:34.244-05:00
And furthermore, to clarify, you believe that someone can be counted perfectly righteous, not have any sin counted against them, and yet not be granted entrance to heaven? On what grounds can they be barred? On account of sin?

So if we can't prove to the world that we'...

2009-09-21T23:40:40.497-05:00
So if we can't prove to the world that we're "with God" then we can't get into heaven?

Brandon, As has been said all along, by both Pipe...

2009-09-21T21:20:59.294-05:00
Brandon,

As has been said all along, by both Piper and myself, our works function as the evidence to our faith. The evidence are not necessarily set before God, but are set before the world to prove that we are indeed with God.