Request Clarification on the "Perseverance of the Saints"

[AndOne]

Hey ya'll -

Does anybody else see a contridiction in the following quote:

"Election is unconditional but glorification is not." John Piper

I just couldn't help but dig deeper into Piper's general theology after reading that article by Robbins. I went to read Piper's explanation on the five points and under the "Perseverance of the Saints" this is one of the first things he says.

I have issues with this quote - unless my understanding of glorification is off... As I read on - I became even more concerned. I'm beginning to think that Piper isn't Reformed in the classic sense and that perhaps he is a bit "neolegalistic."

 

[Dmckay]

Hey ya'll -

Does anybody else see a contridiction in the following quote:

"Election is unconditional but glorification is not." John Piper

I just couldn't help but dig deeper into Piper's general theology after reading that article by Robbins. I went to read Piper's explanation on the five points and under the "Perseverance of the Saints" this is one of the first things he says.

I have issues with this quote - unless my understanding of glorification is off... As I read on - I became even more concerned. I'm beginning to think that Piper isn't Reformed in the classic sense and that perhaps he is a bit "neolegalistic."

Where is this quote from, i.e. the context? Depending on what he was talking about this may not be the problem that you perceive it to be. We are told the the Bema Judgment of Christ will result in the giving or loss of rewards on the part of believers. In Revelation 19:7-8*"Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready." 8It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. and verse 14And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses." We are told that the Bride of Christ (the Church) will be clothed in the righteousnesses of the saints. Verse 14 seems to imply that the armies that return with Christ to end the Tribulation is compose of these same saints.

As the Bema Judgment speaks of rewards and loss of rewards for the saints as a result of this evaluative judgment of the believer's life and faithfulness it has been suggested that the individual garments of the believer may reflect a level of glorification which the Church is told will occur when we return with Christ.

I had a professor once who delivered a message in Chapel at the Bible College I went to based on the Revelation 19 passages. His message: "Will You have a Full Bridal Gown or a Birthday suit When you Return with Jesus?"

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

I had a professor once who delivered a message in Chapel at the Bible College I went to based on the Revelation 19 passages. His message: "Will You have a Full Bridal Gown or a Birthday suit When you Return with Jesus?"

Not to sound wierd or anything, but if redemption will return the earth to the state it was originally in, wouldn't that include us being naked and not ashamed? I have a few extra pounds to lose, but with a glorified body I'll be ok.

 

[Dmckay]

Not to sound wierd or anything, but if redemption will return the earth to the state it was originally in, wouldn't that include us being naked and not ashamed? I have a few extra pounds to lose, but with a glorified body I'll be ok.

ROFL. I'll keep at least a fig leaf, thank you.

 

[AndOne]

Dmckay -

That is a very good point. Unfortunately he followed that statement with the next sentence: "There are many warnings in scripture that those who do not hold fast to Christ can be lost in the end."

I didn't have much time yesterday - so I should have added that. The problem with this particular statement is that the focused effort is placed on man (holding fast) and not Christ Himself. I don't believe this is an accurate reflection on the "Perseverence Of The Saints."

Other statements from the article that I thought were off the mark:

1) "We must endure to the end in faith if we are to be saved." - Again he is placing the effort on man - not God.

2) "The implication is that God will so work that those whom he has chosen for eternal salvation will be enabled by him to persevere in faith to the end and fulfill by the power of the Holy Spirit, the requirement for obedience." - So now there is a requirement for obedience? Granted the Holy Spirit empowers us to obediance - I believe that - but since when is it a requirement? Is it not a natural result of true faith? There is just too much emphasis being placed on obediance. Obedience is nothing more than a sign of faith - not a part of it.

3) Piper does make the statement that believers who do not persist in the faith only show that they were not born of God (which I agree with) but he follows that later with this: "The fact that such a thing is possible is precisely why the ministry of the Word in every local church must contain many admonitions to the church members to persevere in the faith and not be entangled in those things which could possibly strangle them and result in their condemnation." - Is the cross of Christ the final solution to sin or not? In my opinion Piper is putting way to much emphasis on man to persevere - instead he should be placing emphasis on man persevering through the strength of the Holy Spirit - and that any effort man makes is not his own - it is through Christ alone. He is wrong to say that a Christian man who gets entangled in sin will be condemned - for in Christ there is no condemnation at all. If one of the elect gets entangled in sin He should be saying that Christ in His faithfullness will deliver him. Here is what Piper does say:

4) "We are not left to ourselves and our assurance is very largely rooted in the sovereign love of God to perform that which he has called us to do." - What!! "Very largely???" Our assurance is COMPLETELY rooted in the sovereign love of God!

I'm sorry guys - I was sickend to come across this. I wish I never would have stumbled across that article by Robbins - which led me to look further into this - because I have spent so much time touting Piper as a hero of the faith - now I think he is nothing more than a Semi-Pelagian wolf in sheeps cloathing - shrouding the false teaching of "works + faith" deceptively in Reformed theology.

Here is a link to the article on TULIP by Piper:
http://www.desiringgod.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html

Take a look for yourselves - its the "Perseverence of the Saints" section that I take issue with.

 

[Dmckay]

Behe,

Is the link that you provided above where this quote you asked about is from? Thank you for bringing his to our attention. I have only ever read a couple of articles by Piper. I do know that several of the people in my Church almost sound like they think he walks on water. It looks like I really need to go through his material to determine if we need to stop offering his books on our literature table.

 

[brightlights]

"Election is unconditional but glorification is not." John Piper

I think that I might agree with John here if it weren't for Romans 8:28-30 where it specifically states that we were predestined to be glorified. In what way are we glorified, though? After election I believe that we can still deny God because we all still sin. If we do not have the courage to step up, then another will take our crown. We may have no will in salvation, but we do have a will in what we do with it.

 

[Dmckay]

Behe,

You can forget that last question. I just checked out your link, and the section on Perseverance. I am convinced that I have my reading cut out for me for the next few weeks. I agree that the way he words some of the things that he says in this statement can be ambiguous. It could be that he is trying to simplify as much as possible a doctrine that is difficult, at best for many to understand. However, I can also see where it could be taken for a "works" based or influenced salvation. Since I have never read any of his books, I can't be sure of where he is coming from.

I had heard of the doubts voiced by Robbins about Piper, but had dismissed them based on Robbins reputation of extremism in calling anyone not 100% Calvinist anit-Christian. Perhaps, this is nothing, but it does seem to warrant further investigation.

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

I'm a little surprised nobody else has brought up Romans 8:30 so far on this one.

Romans 8:30
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

It seems to me that we have a pretty clear progression here. We also have great examples of active verbs, showing us who it is that is responsible to see that each step of the progression takes place. If glorification is preached as the responsibility of man, we're all in deep doo-doo.

At the same time, this would make for an ideal straw man argument. Set up the fallacy and knock it down, proclaiming victory before anyone in the audience has a moment to ponder the validity of your basis. I'm not saying that this is what is going on, just that the pattern resembles such a strategy.

 

[AndOne]

Coffeswirls - thanks for pointing out Romans 8:30 - Very good point indeed...

Dmckay - I did not know of Robbins reputation to be honest - I litterally stumbled over the article looking for something completely unrelated. I did think his article was a bit sparse however - which is why I looked into it a little more.

 

[Lockheed]

Where is this quote from, i.e. the context? Depending on what he was talking about this may not be the problem that you perceive it to be. We are told the the Bema Judgment of Christ will result in the giving or loss of rewards on the part of believers.

Ach... the "Bema" seat is also the seat from which Pilate condemned Christ to death. The idea the Bema is only used for rewards/loss is not solid, given that the same term is used elsewhere for punitive judgment.