John Piper: 2-Stage Salvation

[RDKirk]

I read it. I’m in agreement with Piper here.

Piper is a very solid Calvinist. If he wrote something that sounds otherwise, it should be read again.

I'm totally with his view of "Christian living in the world as a alien" (see my signature), but I realize that view does rest on some Calvinist concepts.

However, I only dance with some concepts that Piper has married.

 

[Hammster]

Piper is a very solid Calvinist. If he wrote something that sounds otherwise, it should be read again.

I'm totally with his view of "Christian living in the world as a alien" (see my signature), but I realize that view does rest on some Calvinist concepts.

However, I only dance with some concepts that Piper has married.

Same here. That’s why I read the article. I didn’t want to just agree with him to agree with him.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The way I read the harmony between Galatians and James (that seems to be discussed in this thread) is that we are born again by faith and then continue to live in that new life by faith.
I also read the article and it makes sense to me from the scriptures.
The distinction being made appears to be from the point of being born again to the life lived to the redemption of our souls which is discussed in the scriptures.
Thanks for the thread, a good read.

 

[JM]

I hate to sound crabby but it's a confusion of theological categories by Piper that is causing the fall out. A confusion of sanctification and justification, Reformed theology is a lot more precise than fellas like Piper are willing to be. Let's keep in mind that Piper has Calvinistic soteriology but he's not Reformed or Confessional. It sounds like Piper is saying justification is a future gift and not a current reality, and that it's based on our sanctification, which demonstrates our initial entrance into the covenant of grace.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Hammster]

I hate to sound crabby but it's a confusion of theological categories by Piper that is causing the fall out. A confusion of sanctification and justification, Reformed theology is a lot more precise than fellas like Piper are willing to be. Let's keep in mind that Piper has Calvinistic soteriology but he's not Reformed or Confessional. It sounds like Piper is saying justification is a future gift and not a current reality, and that it's based on our sanctification, which demonstrates our initial entrance into the covenant of grace.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

He could have been clearer. But I don’t think he was incorrect here.

 

[Danny23000]

In the second video, Piper wrote this in his foreword to Schreiner's book:

"Right with God by faith alone, not attain heaven by faith alone. There are other conditions for attaining heaven but no other to enter into a right relationship with God. In fact, one must be in a right relationship with God by faith alone in order to meet the other conditions."

You call this confusing? It's not confusing to me. It's clear as day. If you still insist on being blinded by your idolatry of Piper, let me make it really clear to you.
This is NOT Protestantism.
This is NOT Biblical.
This is NOT Calvinistic soteriology.
This is NOT Pauline theology.

Please note that in more than one place, Piper states this very clearly. There is no confusion on his part. It is in your mind that you insist on muddling up things because your hero can do no wrong.

 

[Hammster]

In the second video, Piper wrote this in his foreword to Schreiner's book:

"Right with God by faith alone, not attain heaven by faith alone. There are other conditions for attaining heaven but no other to enter into a right relationship with God. In fact, one must be in a right relationship with God by faith alone in order to meet the other conditions."

You call this confusing? It's not confusing to me. It's clear as day. If you still insist on being blinded by your idolatry of Piper, let me make it really clear to you.
This is NOT Protestantism.
This is NOT Biblical.
This is NOT Calvinistic soteriology.
This is NOT Pauline theology.

Please note that in more than one place, Piper states this very clearly. There is no confusion on his part. It is in your mind that you insist on muddling up things because your hero can do no wrong.

Who are you responding to?

 

[Danny23000]

I'm rebuking the evil spirit that has possessed many evangelicals and caused them to worship their celebrity pastors.

 

[Hammster]

I'm rebuking the evil spirit that has possessed many evangelicals and caused them to worship their celebrity pastors.

So nobody in this thread then. At least not what I’ve seen.

 

[Dave-W]

James wrote to legalistic Jews in need of salvation,

James wrote to Jews who were already New Covenant believers.

 

[JM]

Who are you responding to?

He was responding to you.

 

[Hammster]

He was responding to you.

Not according to him.

 

[Danny23000]

He was responding to you.

Unfortunately, not just him.

 

[Hammster]

Unfortunately, not just him.

You should make up your mind and just come out and address me as a man instead of the passive/aggressive nonsense.

 

[JM]

Not according to him.

It's the context...

 

[Hammster]

It's the context...

I never mentioned any videos. You did, however.

 

[JM]

Hammster,

You, "I read it. I’m in agreement with Piper here."

You, "He could have been clearer. But I don’t think he was incorrect here."

Other guy, "Please note that in more than one place, Piper states this very clearly. There is no confusion on his part. It is in your mind that you insist on muddling up things because your hero can do no wrong."

So you see Hammy he's talking to you and had a few posts that reply to comments back on the first page.

I think Piper did pretty good for not being Reformed.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Hammster]

Hammster,

You, "I read it. I’m in agreement with Piper here."

You, "He could have been clearer. But I don’t think he was incorrect here."

Other guy, "Please note that in more than one place, Piper states this very clearly. There is no confusion on his part. It is in your mind that you insist on muddling up things because your hero can do no wrong."

So you see Hammy he's talking to you and had a few posts that reply to comments back on the first page.

I think Piper did pretty good for not being Reformed.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Piper isn’t my hero, so it can’t be addressed to me.

 

[mark kennedy]

Here is some of it....

have not read it yet:

Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone? | Desiring God

some fall out:

Just a Curmudgeon: Does John Piper Believe in Salvation by Works?

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. (Does God Really Save Us By Faith Alone, John Piper)
​

We know that we are saved for good works, not by them, I don't see any credible argument otherwise. You must be the righteousness of God in Christ or you are lost, God will meet you were you are and make you what he wants you to be but sanctification is absolutely necessary. This is summed up as bearing fruit, there are hazards after the seed, (word of God) is sown in the heart:

• Unbelief: some fell by the wayside; and it was trampled down, and the birds of the air devoured it.
  
• Persecution: Some fell on rock; and as soon as it sprang up, it withered away because it lacked moisture.
  
• Carnality: And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up with it and choked it.
  
• Bearing Fruit: But others fell on good ground, sprang up, and yielded a crop a hundredfold. (Luke 8:5-8)

All four of these hearts have the same potential, the last one is the only one to bear fruit. We talk a lot about James two and faith without works but do you know what the work is James says is inextricably linked to saving faith? They were depriving the poor in the love feasts, some feeding their faces and some even getting drunk. Paul was dealing with the same problem in Corinth when he said, 'some of you are sick and some of you sleep' (1 Cor. 11::13). Just one more, 'By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:35)'.

Here's my point, justification is by grace through faith alone, but justification is never alone, sanctification will follow. You bear fruit or the word of God, sufficient to produce righteousness and holiness in your life, will perish in your heart. This isn't controversial, it's gospel.

So, we should not speak of getting to heaven by faith alone in the same way we are justified by faith alone. (Does God Really Save Us By Faith Alone, John Piper)​

I don't see how you can seriously dispute this statement, we are justified by grace through faith alone but we as believers, must bear fruit. Otherwise we are cast down and thrown into the fire.

A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, by their fruit you will recognize them (Matt. 7:19)​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Danny23000]

You should make up your mind and just come out and address me as a man instead of the passive/aggressive nonsense.

My mind has not wavered in the least. I was addressing the spirit that is in many evangelicals, including most in this thread (with the clear exception of JM). The same spirit that causes evangelicals to defend their celebrity pastors when they teach heresies, or when they abuse their power, or when they fall into marital impropriety, or when they pilfer from church funds. No matter what they have done, evangelicals will rally to their defence. As can be clearly seen in this thread.