Kingdom First (1)
MATTHEW 6:33
But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
Jesus says in Matthew 6:33, "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." Although its meaning seems straightforward, this verse is often incorrectly understood and practiced. Thus many people might think that they are doers of the word when they are merely hearers of the word (James 1:22).
Sometimes we think that we have already done what is required of us, and feel good about ourselves for it, just because we agree with what we have heard from God's word. Sometimes we misunderstand a verse as demanding something lower than what it does, and thus we think that we have satisfied its requirements when this is not the case. Or, sometimes when we fail to satisfy even this lower standard, we will just say to ourselves, "That's close enough." The result is that, in all these instances, we are performing far below what God's word actually demands of us, and enjoying far less of the life and power that he has promised us.
In what follows, we will consider some of the ways that people have distorted and disobeyed this verse. Then, we will also consider the correct understanding of this verse as well as some of its implications.
First, there are those who exhibit blatant and unabashed disobedience; they explicitly make wealth their object of pursuit.1 Of course, this characterizes only unbelievers, and if it characterizes your life, then you are an unbeliever, still headed for everlasting suffering in hell.
Unbelievers are accustomed to doing the very opposite of what God's word commands (v. 32). All of their thinking reflects the fact that they love "Money" and despise God (v. 24). Their typical goal in life is to attain financial riches and security. This often leads to an emphasis on the means to attaining this goal, such as worldly education and business relationships.
We expect this approach to life from unbelievers, but many professing Christians are no better. They would often admonish their children to focus on school work, but they do not demonstrate the same level of urgency when speaking to them about church work. They tell their children to study hard so that they will get good grades, get into good schools and colleges, and eventually get good jobs and salaries. But their agenda is not nearly as specific and ambitious when it comes to their children's theological studies and future in ministry.
This is because the kingdom is not first with them. Whether explicitly or implicitly, whether by instruction or by example, they instill in their children the idea that the highest goal in life is financial security, rather than to know God and to work for his cause. Of course, those who teach this to their children are already practicing the same themselves. This is unacceptable, and unbecoming to those who profess the faith. The problem is so serious that it is to be harshly condemned.
1 By "wealth," we are not necessarily referring to great prosperity, but to food, clothing, money, and material things in general.
(to be continued)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Benjamin B. Warfield, "This- and Other-Worldliness," in Faith and Life
The Imprecatory Psalms (2)
Righteous retribution is one of the glories of the divine character. If it is right that God should desire to exercise it, then it cannot be wrong for his people to desire him to exercise it. It may be objected that, while he claims retribution for himself, he forbids it to them, and that he has thereby forbidden all satisfaction in it to them. The fact is true; the inference does not follow. Inasmuch as retribution inflicted by a creature is forbidden, the desire for its infliction by a creature, or pleasure therein, is also forbidden; but inasmuch as it is righteously inflicted by God, it must be right in him, and must therefore be, when in his hand, a proper subject of satisfaction to the godly.
Robert L. Dabney, Discussions Evangelical and Theological
(London: Banner of Truth, 1967), 1:709-10,
cited by James E. Adams in War Psalms of the Prince of Peace
(Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1991), p. 47-48.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, The Doctrine of Hell
"Forced to Believe" (4)
NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. It may be removed at any time without notice.
The article was released as a draft/preview to The Author of Sin. For the current and official version, please download the book from the online library.
We are continuing our discussion on inconsistent Calvinism, using A. A. Hodge as our example.
[Continuous creation] is inconsistent with our original and necessary intuitions of truth of all kinds, physical, intellectual, and moral. Our original intuitions assure us of the real and permanent existence of spiritual and material substances exercising powers, and of our own spirits as real, self-determining causes of action, and consequently as responsible moral agents. But if this doctrine is true these primary, constitutional intuitions of our nature deceive us, and if these deceive us, the whole universe is an illusion, our own natures a delusion, and absolute skepticism inevitable. (261)
Hodge is trying to refute continuous creation. Right now, the issue is not whether continuous creation is right, but the issue is that his refutation is terrible. Among other things, this is a spectacular display of begging the question. He says that continuous creation contradicts our intuition, so that if continuous creation is right, then our intuition is wrong, and if our intuition is right, then continuous creation is wrong.
So what? First, he fails to show that our intution is universal. My own intuition certainly does not tell me all that he is claiming here. Second, he fails to show that our intuition is infallible; we have no idea whether it is right or wrong. Third, he fails to show that our intuition is necessary. He claims that if we deny our intuition, then "absolute skepticism" is inevitable, but he fails to show that there are no other ways to avoid skepticism, or that we must reject absolute skepticism in the first place.
Then, when he attempts a positive construction on the subject, he writes:
The properties or active powers have a real, and not merely apparent, efficiency as second causes in producing the effects proper to them; and the phenomena alike of consciousness and of the outward world are really produced by the efficient agency of second causes, as we are informed by our native and necessary intuitions. (261-262)
But he fails to show that our intuition really tells us all of this (mine doesn't), nor does he establish that it is "native and necessary"; yet, he is trying to establish the biblical doctrine of providence on this flimsy basis.
Even we, if we thoroughly understand a friend's character, and all the present circumstances under which he acts, are often absolutely certain how he will freely act, though absent from us. (291)
This also begs the question. Hodge is addressing the topic, "Prove that the certainty of a volition is in no degree inconsistent with the liberty of the agent in that act." But he fails to prove anything here. Just because he inserts the word "freely" does not mean that it belongs there. I can just as easily say, "Even we, if we thoroughly understand a friend's character, and all the present circumstances under which he acts, are often absolutely certain how he will act, though absent from us; therefore, his action is not free but determined."
**
I think that's enough. Again, my purpose is not to show how bad Hodge is; in fact, he is already better than many. My purpose is to encourage you to abandon the false assumptions and poor habits exhibited by many theological writers, including many respected Reformed/Calvinistic authors. We must instead adopt a thoroughly biblical, coherent, and defensible theology. Such a theology will edify the elect, silence the reprobates, and glorify the God whose written revelation exhibits perfect rationality.
(end of series)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, "Arguing by Intuition"
(See www.rmiweb.org)
"Forced to Believe" (3)
NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. It may be removed at any time without notice.
The article was released as a draft/preview to The Author of Sin. For the current and official version, please download the book from the online library.
We are continuing our discussion on inconsistent Calvinism, using A. A. Hodge as our example.
The doctrine of unconditional decrees presents no special difficulty. It represents God as decreeing that the sin shall eventuate as the free act of the sinner, and not as by any form of co-action causing, nor by any form of temptation inducing, him to sin. (211)
This is against both the Scripture and the Reformers. I recommend my Commentary on Ephesians and "The Problem of Evil." Also see Martin Luther's The Bondage of the Will. In fact, even the term "co-action" would be too weak to describe God's active determination of the sinful acts of men.
It is a frightful but undeniable truth that multitudes, even in Christian countries, are born and brought up in such circumstances as afford them no probable, even no possible, chance of obtaining a knowledge of religious truth, or a habit of moral conduct, but are even trained from infancy in superstitious error and gross depravity. Why this should be permitted neither Calvinist nor Arminian can explain; nay, why the Almighty does not cause to die in the cradle every infant whose future wickedness and misery, if suffered to grow up, he foresees, is what no system of religion, natural or revealed, will enable us satisfactorily to account for. (227)
The question assumes that God sole purpose for a person is his holiness and happiness, but this is not true. It is as if this person is completely oblivious to what Scripture teaches, and what Calvinism affirms. Hodge did not write this paragraph, but he is quoting Archbishop Whately with approval. But then Whately must have never heard of a "system of religion" called CHRISTIANITY, and what it says in Romans 9 and other places.
The decree of election only makes the repentance and faith of the elect certain. But the antecedent certainty of a free act is not inconsistent with its freedom, otherwise the certain foreknowledge of a free act would be impossible. The decree of election does not cause the faith, and it does not interfere with the agent in acting, and certainly it does not supersede the absolute necessity of it. (228)
This paragraph made me laugh out loud, and I couldn't help but smile even looking at it again just now — it so badly begs the question. He says that certain foreknowledge must be compatible with human freedom, or else certain foreknowledge would be impossible. So the compatibility of the two are not logically demonstrated, but asserted by force because he is unwilling to let go of either divine foreknowledge or human freedom. As for "The decree of election does not cause the faith," either he has something very peculiar in mind that he fails to explain (I can't imagine what), or it is an outright denial of Calvinism.
There is just as great an apparent difficulty in reconciling God's certain foreknowledge of the final impenitence of the great majority of those to whom he offers and upon whom he presses, by every argument, his love with the fact of that offer; especially when we reflect that he foresees that his offers will certainly increase their guilt and misery. (229)
This is just a convoluted way of admitting that the unbiblical doctrine of the "sincere offer" is incoherent. Since Hodge falsely thinks that it is taught in Scripture, he is compelled to swallow it. But it is not an "apparent difficulty" — the problem is called schizophrenia. For Hodge, the difficulty is compounded when he considers that God foresees that the non-elect's rejection of the gospel will increase their guilt.
But the biblical doctrine is straightforward and coherent. There is no "sincere offer." God commands men everywhere to repent — the elect will obey and be saved, but the reprobates will disobey and be damned. Moreover, the reprobates were already sinful and destined for hell, and the hearing and rejection of the gospel increases that guilt, and this is exactly what God wants (2 Corinthians 2:14-16). There is no "apparent difficulty."
(to be continued)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, "The Problem of Evil"
(See www.rmiweb.org)
Vincent Cheung, The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 1
Vincent Cheung, The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 2
Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will
(See www.monergismbooks.com)
"Forced to Believe" (2)
NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. It may be removed at any time without notice.
The article was released as a draft/preview to The Author of Sin. For the current and official version, please download the book from the online library.
I have decided to cite more examples from Hodge. Again, this is not to single him out for criticism, as if he is especially wrong or incompetent — no, his errors and inconsistencies are very widespread, and common to most Calvinists that I have read, and I read only the best. So I am saying that this is a serious problem, and I would like to give more examples so that readers will know what to look out for when studying theological works.
However, since in my own writings I have already addressed all the problems that are present in Hodge, I will offer only very brief comments for each example, and sometimes I will just state my position and move on, lest this series of articles become annoyingly long.
You can find my explanations and arguments to everything brought up in this series in my Systematic Theology, Ultimate Questions, Commentary on Ephesians, and the articles, "The Problem of Evil," "Arguing by Intuition," and "The Sincere Offer of the Gospel."
The permission of sin, in its relation both to the righteousness and goodness of God, is an insolvable mystery, and all attempts to solve it only darken counsel with words without knowledge. It is, however, the privilege of our faith to know, though not of our philosophy to comprehend, that it is assuredly a most wise, righteous, and merciful permission; and that it shall rebound to the glory of God and to the good of his chosen. (160)
Sin occurs not just by bare permission. Sin is not "an insolvable mystery," since Scripture does explain it. Hodge makes the issue "dark" enough already without help.
God possessing infinite foreknowledge and power, existed alone from eternity; and in time, self-prompted, began to create in an absolute vacuum. Whatever limiting causes or conditions afterwards exist were first intentionally brought into being by himself, with perfect foreknowledge of their nature, relations, and results. If God then foreseeing that if he created a certain free agent and placed him in certain relations he would freely act in a certain way, and yet with that knowledge proceeded to create that very free agent and put him in precisely those positions, God would, in so doing, obviously predetermine the certain futurition of the act foreseen…. (203)
Yet God's permissive decree does truly determine the certain futurition of the act; because God knowing certainly that the man in question would in the given circumstances so act, did place that very man in precisely those circumstances that he should so act. (210)
This is exactly how many Arminians and Open Theists explain God's sovereignty, that God exercises his "sovereignty" over men merely by placing them in certain situations in which God foreknows how they would think and act, rather than directly acting upon their minds to determine their thoughts and actions. What Hodge says here is not just inconsistent Calvinism — it is not Calvinism at all.
We have the fact distinctly revealed that God has decreed the free acts of men, and yet that the actors were none the less responsible, and consequently none the less free in their acts. — Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:27, 28; Gen. 50:20, etc. (210)
He talks like this throughout the book, but whereas some of these passages explicitly state that the acts were predetermined by God, none of them say that those acts were free. In fact, it is rather obvious that these passages explicitly prove the very opposite of what Hodge claims, that all those acts were predetermined by God in a way that the men were not free. The "freedom" thus revealed is purely in Hodge's question-begging imagination.
Moreover, Hodge never proves that responsibility presupposes freedom, an unbiblical premise that has tainted most Calvinistic writings, and one that I have repeatedly and conclusively refuted.
The admission of sin into the creation of an infinitely wise, powerful, and holy God is a great mystery, of which no explanation can be given. But that God can not be the author of sin is proved –
1st. From the nature of sin, which is, as to its essence, want of conformity to law, and disobedience to the Lawgiver.
2d. From the nature of God, who is as to essence holy, and in the administration of his kingdom always forbids and punishes sin.
3d. From the nature of man, who is a responsible free agent who originates his own acts. The Scriptures always attribute to divine grace the good actions, and to the evil heart the sinful actions of men. (211)
Just because Hodge cannot solve something does not mean that it is a "great mystery, of which no explanation can be given." It is not a mystery if the Scripture clearly explains it, and it does.
Then, none of the three points prove that God cannot be the author of sin.
Point #1 does not show that God cannot be the author of sin; rather, if God is the author of sin, Point #1 just shows us what he has authored.
Point #2 also fails. It does not even begin to tell us why God cannot be the author of sin; rather, if God is the author of sin, it tells us that his act of authoring sin is a holy act. To "author" sin is not the same thing as to sin.
Point #3 begs the question, because in the previous pages of the book, he has tried but failed to show that man is a "free agent who originates his own acts." Then, the second part of Point #3, although commonly assumed, is outright false. Yes, Scripture blames sinful actions on men, and says that God will judge them, but it does attribute them to the sovereign decree and active power of God.
**
In the best Calvinists, you will usually find at least one such major blunder every several pages; in the average Calvinists, you will sometimes find several such major blunders on every page; and the worst Calvinists are really Arminians. I am not exaggerating — this is a serious and pervasive problem.
If we are going to be Christians, then let's discard all non-Christian premises, and if we are going to be Calvinists, then let's renounce all Arminian assumptions. Hodge is so severely crippled in his reasoning because he is dragging all the weight of Arminianism and humanism with him while he tries to be a Calvinist. Most Calvinists have been doing the same thing.
There will be two more articles in this series in which I will provide additional examples from Hodge.
(to be continued)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
(See www.rmiweb.org/books.htm)
Vincent Cheung, The Problem of Evil
Vincent Cheung, Arguing by Intuition
(See www.rmiweb.org/other.htm)
Vincent Cheung, The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 1
Vincent Cheung, The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 2
Gordon Clark, Predestination
Gordon Clark, God and Evil
(See www.monergismbooks.com)
"Forced to Believe" (1)
NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. It may be removed at any time without notice.
The article was released as a draft/preview to The Author of Sin. For the current and official version, please download the book from the online library.
I have talked much about "inconsistent" Calvinism, both in my books and articles, and on this blog. Here I would like to use A. A. Hodge to give you an example of what inconsistent Calvinism can make you say.
But first let's get something out of the way. In using Hodge as an example, I am not challenging his orthodoxy, or his dedication to Scripture, Christianity, and Calvinism. In fact, it is precisely because his orthodoxy is generally unchallenged that I prefer to use him as an example, so that you will see that the problem is not found only in crazy heretics or bumbling idiots.
So here is our example. In the context of discussing creation ex nihilo, Hodge writes:
Although the absolute origination of any new existence out of nothing is to us confessedly inconceivable, it is not one whit more so than the relation of the infinite foreknowledge, or foreordination, or providential control of God to the free agency of men, nor than many other truths which we are all forced to believe.
A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology,
(The Banner of Truth Trust, 1999 reprint), p. 240.
In other words, the biblical doctrine of creation is "inconceivable," but that's all right because many other biblical doctrines are also inconceivable — and that makes it all better!
Are we expected to swallow this? The better question would be whether the Bible talks about its own doctrines this way. Does the Bible say that its own doctrines are rationally inconceivable (I add "rationally" because this is the sense in which Hodge meant it)? Does the Bible say that its own doctrines are rationally so difficult to accept, that we must be "forced to believe" them?
If we answer in the negative, then in this instance, and in all other instances when Hodge writes this way, he is not representing what the Bible really teaches. Rather, he is measuring biblical doctrines against some anti-biblical standard, and since what is biblical is incompatible with what is anti-biblical, then if he insists on affirming both, then of course the biblical doctrines all of a sudden become "inconceivable," and of course one would feel as if he is being "forced to believe" them. But the problem is in Hodge's own mind, and not in the biblical system of doctrines.
Many Calvinists talk like Hodge does — STOP IT! It is not a sign of faith and reverence to sound like a lunatic and then drag God into it.
What? You are trying to defend Christian doctrine, and you are calling your own worldview "inconceivable," and that you are "forced to believe" it? It is this kind of unbiblical and irrational statements that non-Christians often exploit. Now, what do you think I should do if someone were to bring this quote up in a debate? For the proper defense of the gospel, I must renounce Hodge, at least on this point. I must say that, at least on this point (and in reality also on many other points), he neither speaks for me nor for Scripture; he is wrong.
In contrast, I say that although they might not be exhaustively grasped (since God's mind is infinitely greater than ours, and therefore we cannot exhaustively learn all its contents), all that God has revealed — all biblical doctrines — are conceivable, understandable, reasonable, defensible, and undeniable.
Because unbelievers are sinful and irrational, it is impossible for them to affirm that which is holy and rational, and therefore unless God directly acts upon their minds and changes them, they will never believe. However, all the biblical doctrines are easy for the elect to believe because God has granted them the gift of faith.
Biblical doctrines are only inconceivable if measured against some irrational premise or standard. What we need to do is to cast aside these false principles and assumptions that are not part of our worldview in the first place. But if you are going to take principles and assumptions from two contradictory worldviews and try to jam them together, then, yes, you are going to end up with something inconceivable. Just don't call that Christianity or Calvinism.
(to be continued)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, More on "Apparent" Contradictions
Vincent Cheung, Comments on "Why I am not a Calvinist"
Gordon Clark, Predestination
Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue Theology
John Hendryx of Monergism.com contacted me today. It appears that someone has illegitimately associated me with Auburn Avenue, so John asked me to clarify my stance toward the movement. We agreed that I should make a public statement, and he has granted me permission to revise our correspondence for this purpose.
Hendryx:
Vincent:
When you have a moment, I would be interested to know what you think of the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue theology. You don't have to go into great detail, but I am curious because some people have pointed out to me that several folks in that movement are interested in your theological views. I am wondering why this is.
John
Cheung:
"When you have a moment I would be interested to know what you think of the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue theology."
I think that it is heretical.
I am with John Robbins on this when he says that they are "Not Reformed At All."
I affirm that we are justified from beginning to end by a sovereign act of God imputing the righteousness of Christ to our account, through (God producing and sustaining our) faith in the gospel.
I also think that their view of the covenant is unbiblical, that is, if you can understand their often ambiguous and confusing explanations at all.
"I am curious because some people have pointed out to me that several folks in that movement are interested in your theological views. I am wondering why this is."
I have no idea. I have no contact with any of them, and until now I was unaware that any of them even know about me.
What exactly have you heard?
Hendryx:
Vincent:
I am glad to hear it and I figured as much.
Some guy wrote to me and said that there are devotees to FV on the Puritan board who also promoted your views at the same time, and he was speculating that there were good reasons for the connection. I also know a guy who used to go to my church who is a fervent devotee to Douglas Wilson. He also used to read you frequently but I did not make any FV connection at the time.
I wrote you just to make sure. Perhaps you should clarify at some point what you think.
Blessings,
John
Cheung:
Yes, I will probably make a brief statement about it on my site this week.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, because I had no idea.
Perhaps those individuals were interested in some of the things that I say that are not directly related to justification, covenant, etc., or perhaps they misunderstood some of the things that I say as being consistent with them.
I don't know. I will tell you if I ever find out, and please tell me if you do.
Thanks.
Maybe a few people have wrongly inferred that my theology might be supportive of or consistent with FV/AA because some of those who adhere to the distinctives of FV/AA at the same time like what I teach on apologetics, or on some theological topics other than justification and covenant.
So let me make this clear: I REJECT and OPPOSE the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue theology, such as that espoused by Douglas Wilson.
Again, thanks to John Hendryx for bringing this to my attention, and for directly requesting my confirmation.
Recommended:
O. Palmer Robertson, The Current Justification Controversy
John W. Robbins, A Companion to the Current Justification Controversy
John W. Robbins, "The Justification Controversy: A Guide to the Perplexed"
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Philippians
Comments on "Piper and Justification"
One reader, Dustin Curlee, has already sent in a response to today's article on Piper. I will reproduce a condensed version of our correspondence below.
Curlee:
I just read your blog on Robbins, Piper, and justification. I thought you might be interested in reading this short interview where Piper explains his view on justification. Unless I am missing something, I don't see him amiss.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library
/topics/justification/cb_interview.htmlPlease let me know your thoughts on Piper's comments.
Cheung:
I skimmed through the page you sent me, and as far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with what Piper says there. But the interview does not get into what Robbins considers problematic.
On the page that Robbins cited, Piper says:
God justifies us on the first genuine act of saving faith, but in doing so he has a view to all subsequent acts of faith contained, as it were, like a seed in that first act.
What we are trying to do here is own up to the teaching of Romans 5:1, for example, that teaches that we are already justified before God. God does not wait to the end of our lives in order to declare us righteous. In fact, we would not be able to have the assurance and freedom in order to live out the radical demands of Christ unless we could be confident that because of our faith we already stand righteous before him.
Nevertheless, we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith. The way these two truths fit together is that we are justified on the basis of our first act of faith because God sees in it (like he can see the tree in an acorn) the embryo of a life of faith. This is why those who do not lead a life of faith with its inevitable obedience simply bear witness to the fact that their first act of faith was not genuine.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library
/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.htmlI wish the language is more clear here, but I hope you can see why Robbins finds it problematic.
Also, if you have not yet done so, you might want to read the article "Pied Piper" by Robbins, in which he provides additional examples.
I am not a follower nor an opposer of Piper; it just happens that he has no prominent place in my life or theology. So I am not interested in Piper the person so much as I am interested in the doctrine itself, and what formulation best reflects the biblical data.
My position is that my summary to Robbins is the biblical view of justification. If Piper deviates from it, then he is wrong; if not, then he is right.
Scripure DOES teach that a real faith (assent to truth) will produce a life of good works, and if sanctification does not follow justification, there was never justification in the first place.
HOWEVER, even though this is true (that works follows faith), we are STILL not justified on the basis of these good works that genuine faith produces; rather, from the beginning to the end, we are justified only by the works of Christ imputed to us.
I will add our correspondence to the blog to encourage readers to give Piper a fair hearing.
Curlee:
You say:
Scripture DOES teach that a real faith (assent to truth) will produce a life of good works, and if sanctification does not follow justification, there was never justification in the first place.
HOWEVER, even though this is true (that works follows faith), we are STILL not justified on the basis of these good works that genuine faith produces; rather, from the beginning to the end, we are justified only by the works of Christ imputed to us.
I agree wholeheartedly, Mr. Cheung. And as best I can tell, so does Piper.
Here is another short piece by Piper on the topic of justification AND works.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/99/082299.htmlYes, the wording was ambiguous and I can see how someone might take it wrongly. Maybe Piper should have been a bit more clear. However, and again, I've never heard him promote anything like what Robbins was insinuating.
Here is a succinct (3 bullet points) outline of Piper's view of justification. It explains the "seed" analogy he used. What are your thoughts of this?
http://www.desiringgod.org/library
/theological_qa/justification/justification.html
Cheung:
I agree with the three points, and if this is what Piper CONSISTENTLY affirms, then I would have no problem with him.
Robbins is accusing Piper of denying the second point. I am not an expert on Piper, so I can't tell you whether Piper is always consistent. So far, I can certainly fault him for sometimes being ambiguous, though.
Curlee:
Yes, ambiguity may have been his only error. As I said, I've never heard Piper teach anything inconsistent with those 3 points. Then again, I've not been everywhere all at once and in every dispensation of time to know if he has, or has not, been consistent. So I guess the possibility is there.
Cheung:
I will encourage the readers to be cautious but fair.
If you are a follower of Piper's ministry, please pay attention to his doctrine of justification and make sure that it is in line with biblical teaching.
But while we must zealously affirm and guard the truth, we must also take care to avoid the sin of slander.
Piper and Justification
Yesterday, John Robbins sent out a message to his mailing list to explain and illustrate some of the problems that he finds in John Piper's doctrine of justification.
I sent an email to Robbins asking him to confirm that I have correctly understood his position.
He has granted me permission to reproduce our correspondence.
Robbins:
Dear Friends,
From time to time we receive feedback from fans of John Piper who say that we have misunderstood him on justification and that he is sound as a dollar used to be on that topic.
Today a friend called our attention to some statements that appear on Piper's website that demonstrate how far from Biblical Piper's views are:
"God justifies us on the first genuine act of saving faith, but in doing so he has a view to all subsequent acts of faith contained, as it were, like a seed in that first act. What we are trying to do here is own up to the teaching of Romans 5:1, for example, that teaches that we are already justified before God. God does not wait to the end of our lives in order to declare us righteous. In fact, we would not be able to have the assurance and freedom in order to live out the radical demands of Christ unless we could be confident that because of our faith we already stand righteous before him.
"Nevertheless, we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith. The way these two truths fit together is that we are justified on the basis of our first act of faith because God sees in it (like he can see the tree in an acorn) the embryo of a life of faith. This is why those who do not lead a life of faith with its inevitable obedience simply bear witness to the fact that their first act of faith was not genuine."
(Source: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics
/doctrines_grace/tulip.html)Here are Piper's errors:
1. God does not have in view "all subsequent acts of faith" and obedience when he justifies us; he has in view only the objective work of Christ outside of us, his perfect righteousness. If God had in view our acts of faith and obedience, we would never be justified.
2. It is not "because of our faith that we already stand righteous before him." It is only because of the active and passive obedience of our substitute and representative, Jesus Christ, imputed to us freely, that we stand righteous before God.
3. It is false that "our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith." This is the doctrine of Rome. Our final salvation is sealed from the moment of first belief.
It is not contingent on anything we do or don't do. The sole ground of justification is the obedience of Christ extrinsic to us.4. We are not "justified on the basis of our first act of faith." Piper turns faith itself into the ground, reason, basis, and cause of our justification. The ground, reason, basis, and cause of our justification is wholly outside of us, in Jesus Christ.
5. Piper says that the reason that some are damned is their "ingenuine faith." He writes: "This is why those who do not lead a life of faith with its inevitable obedience simply bear witness to the fact that their first act of faith was not genuine." How ingenuine faith differs from genuine faith he does not say, probably because he has no clear idea what faith is. Like so many misinformed Protestants, Piper focuses on psychology and makes saving faith differ from generic faith, not because of its object, but because of some alleged difference in psychology, which is never made clear. That is to miss the Gospel entirely.
For a fuller account of Piper's fatal errors on justification, please read "Pied Piper" at:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=113Cordially,
John Robbins
The Trinity Foundation
April 8, 2005
www.trinityfoundation.org
Cheung:
I have also mentioned Piper in relation to the doctrine of justification, but since I did not include any details, I put it very softly and just said that he affirms some "questionable" ideas on the subject, with a link to your "Pied Piper" article.
**
Please confirm my understanding of the point that you are trying to make:Scripture DOES teach that a real faith (assent to truth) will produce a life of good works, and if sanctification does not follow justification, there was never justification in the first place.
HOWEVER, your point is that even though this is true (that works follow faith), we are STILL not justified on the basis of these good works that genuine faith produces; rather, from the beginning to the end, we are justified only by the works of Christ imputed to us.
Thus to put it mildly, Piper (following Fuller) has confused the EFFECT of justification with the BASIS of justification.
And this explains your reference to Rome, since this is essentially also Rome's error when it comes to justification.
Is this clear and accurate?
**
And since I already mentioned your article on Piper, would you grant me permission to post your email on my blog, so that my readers can see your additional explanation?If you agree with what I wrote above, I will also include it, since I think that some of the readers might not see the distinction.
–
Vincent Cheung
http://www.vincentcheung.com
Robbins replied and confirmed each of the points that I made in the middle section above, and adding (in reference to my final statement), "The distinction is crucial."
Comments:
I have almost all the books by Piper — certainly all the major and representative ones. From his own admission, I know that he endorses and follows the theology of Daniel Fuller, with whom I am also familiar, and Fuller's views on justification and the law are not exactly on target.
I understand that Piper is beloved and respected by many people, including Reformed Christians, but it would be irresponsible to assume that his stance on the subject is correct, and it would be irresponsible for me not to say anything if I think that there might be a problem. Yet, since I am not offering clear examples, I will not say more about my personal view regarding his doctrinal purity.
The main purpose of this post is not to directly attack Piper, but to present and explain why Robbins thinks that there is something wrong with Piper's doctrine of justification. Nevertheless, I will say this much: If Robbins has correctly interpreted Piper and if Piper indeed believes what Robbins says that he believes, then Piper's doctrine of justification is indeed false and unbiblical, and we must reject and even oppose it.
The reason why I took it upon myself to clarify what Robbins is saying is that some readers might think that Robbins is opposing the teaching that a life of good works necessarily follows genuine faith, so that he is in fact promoting antinomianism. But my message to Robbins confirms that he is not promoting antinomianism, but he is trying to defend the biblical doctrine of justification by imputation alone. That is, we are justified and remains justified by the works of Christ imputed to our account — the basis of justification never switches from Christ's works to our works.
Now, Piper also speaks in terms of "imputed righteousness." The question is whether he considers our works as part of the basis of our continual state of justification before God.
Note: Again, I am merely trying to make sure people understand what Robbins is saying about Piper. So, please try not to email me about this, whether to defend Piper, attack Robbins, or obtain more details. I have other things to work on and don't want to spend time answering questions on this subject. But please try to understand the theological distinctions involved and pay attention to the details even when reading someone so widely regarded as theological reliable as John Piper.
See also:
Few are Chosen, Part 3
There are other arguments that people use to show that the number of the saved will be greater than the number of the unsaved, but almost all of them are ineffective, if not entirely absurd.
I say "almost" all of them are ineffective, because there is one doctrine that, if shown to be biblical and relevant, could establish that the number of the saved will indeed be greater than the unsaved. I am referring to postmillennialism. The doctrine teaches that, according to numerous prophecies in both the Old and New Testaments, before the return of Christ, the gospel will increasingly become successful and influential, not only in the social and political spheres, but especially in the hearts of men, so that it will dominate the world for an extended period of time. The most biblical and coherent version of postmillennialism affirms that the "millennium" began in the first century, and will terminate at the return of Christ. Meanwhile, although the influence of the gospel will fluctuate, it will eventually overcome all oppositions to become the dominating force in the hearts of men, and thus also in society in general.
Now, if postmillennialism is correct, then it is indeed possible that more people will be saved than unsaved, that more will end up in heaven than in hell. But I say "possible" because we must still establish two things to make way for such a conclusion.
First, we must establish that the two passages from Matthew (and all other similar passages) are indeed referring to the first century situation, and not for all time.
Second, we must establish, if at all possible, that the period of time during which the gospel will dominate the hearts of men, and during which more people will become Christians than those who will remain non-Christians, will be very long — long enough to compensate for all the previous centuries in which more people remained non-Christians (including false converts) than those who became Christians.
This is why I said that postmillennialism must be both biblical and relevant to our question for it to be an effective argument in favor of more people ending up in heaven than in hell. If the period in which the gospel will dominate the world is not long enough to compensate for all the previous centuries of relative darkness, then the number of unsaved people could still be greater than the number of those who will be saved.
Of course, if it is impossible to satisfy the first condition above, then the second one is also excluded. In other words, if the two passages from Matthew are indeed saying that, as a general rule for all time, more people will remain unsaved than those who are saved, then by necessary implication, the period during which the gospel will dominate the world in the hearts of men will not be long enough to put more people in heaven than in hell.
We can be certain about one thing, that all things will happen exactly as God has predetermined, and therefore he "wins" even if more people will end up in hell than in heaven.
(end of series)
The Imprecatory Psalms (1)
David observed the same principles in his time as Paul did later. The Lord's anointed of the Old Testament and the apostle of Chrst in the New Testament are in complete friendship. The rule for both is stated well by David, the author of the great majority of the psalms of imprecation. First Samuel 24:12 records his words to his deadly enemy Saul who has been hunting David to kill him (see v. 11): "May the Lord judge between you and me. And may the Lord avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you.""Vengeance belongs to the Lord" is the rule for all times.
Then where do we get the idea that it is wrong to ask God to bring judgment on the wicked? That mentality creeps up on us so subtly that it has become a very common idea in our day. You may even have heard a fellow Christian express such an intense love for friends or relatives that God's judgment against their evil deeds is rejected. It is possible to perceive such deep feeling of love for another as very "Christian" while failing to realize that what is being expressed actually evidences a lack of love for God. In addition, such ideas demonstrate a woefully inadequate comprehension of the seriousness of man's sin against a holy God.
James E. Adams,
War Psalms of the Prince of Peace
(Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1991),
p. 46-47.
The legitimate use of imprecatory prayers and psalms has been neglected. Very few authors have addressed the subject, and almost all of those who try either completely misrepresent the biblical position or end up attacking the Bible itself. I have always held the position represented by the above book, and since I have yet to address this topic in my own books and articles, I might present more quotes from this book in the future. I do urge everyone to get it, especially if you are a pastor. As the author writes in his preface:
Many ministers have cast off these psalms and have abandoned this part of God's Word, with deadly results in the churches. I believe with all my heart that embracing and proclaiming anew the essential truths taught here will climax in the prosperity and advancement of the kingdom of God on the earth. When these holy prayers are again prayed in the Spirit and with understanding, there will come unsuspected power and glory to the church of Christ. (xiii)
"Few are Chosen" will continue on Monday.
Few are Chosen, Part 2
In considering our question, it is important to dismiss right away some of the popular but empty arguments. For example, it is popular to argue that the number of the saved will certainly be much greater than the unsaved because God will surely seize the "victory" in the end; that is, he will never "lose" to Satan in the battle between good and evil, and over human souls. Some of the most prominent Reformed theologians of the past and the present have argued this way.
But this argument is silly — it is arbitrary and self-defeating. It is arbitrary because it assumes that "victory" in this situation is determined by numbers, but they fail to produce biblical evidence or any kind of rational support for using this premise or standard. Then, the argument is self-defeating because if we were to determine "victory" by sheer numbers, then even if one person ends up in hell, it would necessarily mean that God fails to obtain total victory over Satan and evil. But many people are already in hell.
Although it is used by more than a few Reformed theologians, this argument carries a certain dualistic flavor with it — that is, it implies that Satan is a powerful evil force with whom even God himself must contend, that God will win some and lose some, only that he will win more than he loses in the end. What a pathetic view of God! What an anti-scriptural understanding of redemptive history! When a Calvinist is using this argument (or any other like it on any other topic), he is being inconsistent with his own otherwise sound and biblical beliefs.
Now, those who end up in heaven are saved because God has predetermined their salvation, and those who end up in hell are damned because God has predetermined their damnation. So how could God "lose" when all those who will end up in hell will be there only because God himself has predetermined to send them there?
God could only "lose" if what he has predetermined to happen fails to happen, or if what he has not predetermined to happen still happens anyway. For example, if some of those whom God has chosen for salvation fail to be saved and end up in hell, then we could say that God loses; or, if some of those whom God has chosen for damnation somehow end up in heaven, then God also loses. But it is plainly stupid to say that God loses if more people end up in hell than in heaven even if this is exactly what he wants, even if this is what he has predetermined to happen. In fact, if God had decided that every sinner should end up in hell, then we could say that he loses even if one person manages to enter heaven.
So, whether more people will end up in heaven than in hell in itself has no direct relevance to whether God "wins" or "loses," but if what happens is exactly what God has predetermined to happen, then he wins.
(to be continued…)
Few are Chosen, Part 1
(The following is an edited response to an inquiry on the topic.)
Does the doctrine of election imply that only a chosen few will end up in heaven, and thus, the majority will go to hell? Does Matthew 7:13-14 conclusively support this notion?
Let us read what the verses say. Since Matthew 22:14 is also often mentioned in connection with this question, we will include it in our discussion.
Matthew 7:13-14
Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it. (NASB)Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen. (NASB)
The doctrine of election does teach that only the chosen ones will end up in heaven, but the concept of election in itself does not necessarily imply whether that number will be great or small, or whether it will be greater than the number of the reprobates.
When it comes to the number of those who have been chosen for salvation, Scripture promises that there will be many saved. For example, God said to Abraham, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars — if indeed you can count them….So shall your offspring be" (Genesis 15:5). Scripture teaches that God is mainly referring to his spiritual offspring, and not his natural descendants.
Then, Revelation 7:9-10 reads:
After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."
So we know that many will be saved in absolute terms, or relative to zero. But this does not tell us whether the number of people saved will be greater relative to the number of people damned. Some people have failed to note this point and thus have mistakenly inferred from these two passages that the number of those saved will be greater than those damned in the end.
The question is how many will be saved relative to the unsaved, not relative to zero. The two verses from Matthew appear very relevant. One says "few are those who find it" and the other says "few are chosen." If these two verses are broadly addressing the question, then here is our answer — not only will the number of the saved be smaller than the number of the unsaved, but it will be much smaller, since Jesus is contrasting between the "many" and the "few."
There are those who assert that these two passages cannot function as a broad answer to our question, because the contexts suggest that they are addressing only the first century situation. At this time, I am unconvinced that this is correct, but I am willing to examine additional exegetical arguments in favor of this position.
(to be continued…)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
"Comfortable with Reformed Theology"
Today I received an encouraging message from Bill Chiu, Professor of Physiology. He agreed to let me share a part of it with other readers. He wrote:
I have been an avid reader of your articles, and thoroughly enjoying them….I am now firmly comfortable with Reformed Theology, and your site has contributed in an important way.
It is indeed a gift of God to be able to perceive the rational perfecton and the moral beauty of the biblical system, and to have it pervade one's thinking.
Why would anyone be unhappy or uncomfortable with the revelation of sovereign grace? It is because, on the one hand, our sinful and unrenewed minds are still holding on to irrational assumptions invented by men; and on the other hand, teachers of the faith who are often bound by the same irrational assumptions tell us that we must hold on to them, and then by these assumptions judge the Bible as "incomprehensible," and after that to believe what the Bible says anyway. According to them, this is faith and reverence. But in reality, it is insanity.
Once God's grace operates on our minds so that we recognize the Bible as the center of our thinking, and in fact as the first principle and starting point for all judgments, then all these irrational assumptions suddenly fall away from us as chains that used to bind our minds from perceiving the truth and its beauty.
Truth is not paradoxial or oppressive — it is simple, direct, beautiful, perfect, and clearly so. To those whose minds God has opened, and whose minds God has sovereignly transformed, truth is "comfortable." Whether we are talking about the doctrine of election, or reprobation, or even hell — the truth that God reveals is perfect and satisfying; it is just right.
I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad. O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. (Psalm 119:96-97, KJV)
The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 2
NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. The article was released as a draft/preview to The Author of Sin. For the current and official version of the article, please download the book from the online library.
Continuing from the previous segment…
It follows that, when preaching the gospel (when we are dealing with the grace that saves), we should not tell our hearers that God loves all of them, but we should boldly declare that God loves only the elect and desires (and thus has decreed) their salvation, and that he hates the reprobates and desires (and thus has decreed) their damnation (Romans 9:13).
Now let me summarize the biblical understanding and approach of evangelism.
We are duty-bound to indiscriminately preach the gospel to all men for at least three reasons: 1. God commands us to preach the gospel to every person, 2. We do not know and should not try to discover beforehand who are the elect and who are the reprobates, and 3. The purpose of preaching the gospel is not only to summon the elect, but also to harden the reprobates.
It is right and proper to announce that God desires to save only the elect and has chosen only them for salvation, and that he will grant faith only to them, so that only they can believe. And it is right and proper to announce that God desires to damn the reprobates and has chosen them for damnation, and that he will not only withhold faith from them, but that he will also actively harden their minds against the gospel, making it impossible for them to believe.
Just as we should not and could not discover beforehand who are the elect and who are the reprobates, neither must our hearers try to determine for themselves whether they are among the elect or the reprobates, and then make that the basis as to whether they should call on God for salvation. In other words, upon hearing the gospel, one should not say to himself, "God saves only the elect, and I am probably among the reprobates anyway, so I should not even try to seek God for salvation." Now, one who stubbornly thinks this way even when confronted with a clear explanation of the gospel of sovereign grace might indeed be one of the reprobates, and God has chosen to confirm this person in his damnation by means of this persistent deception.
Rather than concealing or misrepresenting the eternal decree of God to our hearers, when preaching the gospel, we should explain to them the truths that has immediate relevance to sin and grace, and to election and reprobation. But more than that, we should present to them the whole system of biblical doctrines, as clearly and comprehensively as we can manage and as time allows (Acts 17:23-31; Matthew 28:19-20; Luke 14:27-33). Then, we must admonish our hearers to sincerely and ernestly seek God for salvation through Christ by the means of grace, such as prayer, listening to sermons, and reading the Bible.
Since it would be impossible to sincerely seek or call upon God unless his power is already at work within a person's heart, those who indeed sincerely obey and call out to God to save them through Christ are surely among the elect, in whom God has already started his sovereign work of conversion. But those who insincerely or superficially obey, and who after a while fall away, or those who refuse to obey at all, are among the non-elect, whose minds God has hardened even more by the preaching of the gospel (2 Corinthians 2:15-16; 2 Thessalonians 1:8).
Therefore, in rejecting the so-called "sincere offer" of the gospel, the preaching of the gospel is neither diminished nor rendered narrow and selective. Instead, the above is a consistent and necessary application of the explicit and implicit teachings of Scripture concerning the sovereignty of God, election and reprobation, and the preaching of the gospel. It is a biblical and coherent view that values the preaching of the gospel, and indeed the propagation of the whole system of biblical doctrines, to all men everywhere. Moreover, it acknowledges what Scripture explicitly teaches about the purpose and the effect of the indiscriminate preaching of the gospel, that is, to summon the elect and to harden the reprobates.
(end of series)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations, chapter 2.
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
(See www.rmiweb.org)
Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controversy
(See www.trinityfoundation.org)
David Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel
David Engelsma, Common Grace Revisited
Herman Hoeksema and Henry Danhof, Sin and Grace
(See www.rfpa.org)
Solomon Stoddard, A Guide to Christ
Thomas Watson, Heaven Taken by Storm
William C. Nichols, The Narrow Way
William C. Nichols, Seeking God
Jonathan Edwards, The Manner in Which the Salvation of the Soul is to be Sought
David Engelsma, Is Denial of the "Well-Meant Offer" Hyper-Calvinism?
David Engelsma, He Shines in All That's Fair
Herman Hanko, Is the Denial of the "Well-meant Offer" of the Gospel "Hyper-Calvinism"?