# Piper- solas- "Shepherdism"?



## lynnie (Oct 11, 2017)

Question.

This was posted on the Aquila report today.

https://www.heartandmouth.org/2017/10/08/rachel-miller-contra-mundum-5-solas-john-piper-part-1/

I am wondering if this is the same as Norman Shepherd, or if it is farther to the infused righteousness side, and actually shall we say off the Reformed cliff. 

If Ed Clowney thought NS was within confessional bounds on justification but not on perseverance, whether or not you agree with Clowney, would this be the same thing? Would there be men like Clowney who would say it is within confessional boundaries? 

I am not asking for debate on what Piper is saying, because when I read this article I have to agree with this article. But I am just wondering if it is Shepherdism, or more extreme than Shepherd. 

Thanks.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 11, 2017)

My gut response is "no." I believe Shepherd held that James 2 was forensic in a sense, something I am sure Piper rejects.

I am going to wait until a more substantial voice weighs in. I take RM with a big grain of salt.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Justified (Oct 11, 2017)

Mark Jones seems to be in the right (if he'd just provide citations for the quotes he's given). He quotes Zanchi as saying,

“Good works are the instrumental cause of the _possession_ of eternal life; by these indeed, just as by an obvious and legitimate way, God leads us into the possession of eternal life.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerome Rosana (Oct 11, 2017)

https://heidelblog.net/2017/10/believers-are-saved-and-sealed/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## augustacarguy (Oct 11, 2017)

I am going to wait until a more substantial voice weighs in. I take RM with a big grain of salt.[/QUOTE]

Could you elaborate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 11, 2017)

augustacarguy said:


> I am going to wait until a more substantial voice weighs in. I take RM with a big grain of salt.



Could you elaborate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[/QUOTE]

She comes across as doing theological hit-jobs on people who don't line up with her, and then unfriend them on facebook. Mind you, the exposes on the Canon Press plagiarism was good and needed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Oct 11, 2017)

Rachel Miller did not write the article I posted. The one I posted used her original article as a stepping stone to disagree with Piper. What you think of her isn't really relevant; the author has his own set of opinions. 

Jerome- nice link. Thanks. 

But I am still primarily trying to assess if this is your basic Norman Shepherd position, or more to the FV side.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 12, 2017)

lynnie said:


> Rachel Miller did not write the article I posted. The one I posted used her original article as a stepping stone to disagree with Piper. What you think of her isn't really relevant; the author has his own set of opinions.
> 
> Jerome- nice link. Thanks.
> 
> But I am still primarily trying to assess if this is your basic Norman Shepherd position, or more to the FV side.



Sure, but RM was a stepping stone for the author. In any case, you can find Reformed divines through the centuries making the same statements Piper made.

William Twisse: Good works are the dispositive [Lat: dispositiva] cause of salvation” Or, “as for the causes of salvation, not only faith, but also repentance and good works go before … as preparative causes …” Or, “It is incumbent for all the elect to seek salvation not only by faith but by works also.”

Zanchi: Good works are the instrumental cause of the _possession_ of eternal life; by these indeed, just as by an obvious and legitimate way, God leads us into the possession of eternal life.”

Michael Horton: The New Testament lays before us a vast array of conditions for final salvation. Not only initial repentance and faith, but perseverance in both, demonstrated in love toward God and neighbor…Holiness, which is defined by love of God and neighbor…is the indispensable condition of our glorification: no one will be seated at the heavenly banquet who has not begun, however imperfectly, in new obedience.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## earl40 (Oct 12, 2017)

Interesting is I first heard of this controversy with Piper and Clark on FB, the great source of what is going on in the church.  I wonder if this is a result of the problem of how the word "salvation" is used solely for the doctrine of Justification. In other words, "salvation" entails not just justification but also sanctification.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 12, 2017)

Neither position seems to me to be Shepherdism. Shepherdism reintroduces works to justification itself. The debate in the OP is about regeneration/sanctification, specifically about faith's relationship to sanctification, and the relative position of works. Neither side in this dispute seems to be advocating a position wherein faith has no relationship at all to sanctification. Faith is related to sanctification, necessarily so. The question is the nature of its relationship to sanctification and good works. 

The best articulation of the relationship of faith to sanctification (and works, for that matter) is that of Turretin, who argues that God's grace produces good works in us, and that therefore our works are a necessary part of sanctification, but NOT as an effective cause, but as a necessary result. An analogy I often use is that of a cannon. Does the sound produce the explosion of a cannon shot, or does the explosion produce the sound? You cannot have a cannon fire without a loud sound. The sound is a necessary part of the cannon shot. But it does not _cause_ the cannon to fire. It is necessary in a resultative way, not a causative way. You cannot separate the sound from the explosion, but you can distinguish it. So also God's grace enables faith to be active in sanctification, and our works make a big noise. 

I looked up his quotation of Ursinus (which is on page 113 of the commentary, not page 224 as indicated). I flat out disagree with Ursinus here. How can regeneration be an effect of faith without faith coming before regeneration? Faith cannot possibly cause regeneration. And yet almost all Reformed authors would agree that regeneration has to come before faith. If the author of the OP is correct, then faith has to come before regeneration. 

What the author of the OP is missing is this key fact: faith acts differently in justification as contrasted with sanctification. In justification, faith receives and rests on Christ alone for salvation. In sanctification, God's grace enables faith to be active, not merely passive. The passive parts of faith's receiving and resting continue on in sanctification. But added to that is now an active component. 

Justification and sanctification do not behave the same way. There are many differences, however inseparable they are. For instance, justification is a one-time act of God's declaration, whereas sanctification is a work in progress until glorification. The righteousness in view differs: in justification, the righteousness is the perfect righteousness of Christ, whereas in sanctification, it is our own grace-enabled imperfect righteousness. Justification happens outside of us, whereas sanctification happens inside of us. 

As to the question of the five solas, and whether they apply only to justification, or to salvation as a whole, here we must be careful and distinguish. Grace, to take one of the solas, applies in different ways in justification and sanctification, however inseparable they may be. God, in His grace, applies the finished work of Christ to our guilt in justification, but applies the Spirit to our dead hearts in sanctification. Grace has different effects. The _sola gratia_ can only apply to justification, because grace is not alone in sanctification. Grace enables our works in sanctification as the result of grace. Similarly faith. Faith is completely alone in justification; no works of ours are considered whatsoever. Faith is not completely alone in sanctification, but has all other saving graces working closely with it. _Sola Scriptura_, _Solus Christus_, and _Soli Deo Gloria_ can apply to both justification and sanctification. _Sola Scriptura_ was not, in the time of the Reformation, as directly tied to the salvation question, though, as it was tied to the authority question. They are related, in the sense that both have to do with God's declarative word, and the authority of that word. It's more complicated than an all-or-nothing. So in this, I would say both Piper and the OP are wrong. 

If you have more questions, Lynnie, keep asking.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## lynnie (Oct 12, 2017)

Thanks for a beautiful post GB. 

Several years ago I listened to a message by Piper titled something along the lines of "This Man went Down to his House Justified." It was an FV rebuttal. It was about how the Pharisee thanked God for not being like other men- he gave the glory and thanks to God for his infused righteousness. He didn't take credit for it, he attributed it to God. 

But, it was the other guy ( God be merciful to me a sinner) who was justified. It was a full length sermon and I don't want to do it an injustice with a poor synopsis, but the main idea was that we don't rely at all on infused righteousness. Zero. Even knowing our infused righteousness is all by God's grace and thanking God for it does not justify us.

So when I read things that sound like Piper is subtly or overtly saying that infused righteousness is part of what enables us to be saved, I start to wonder if he has really changed, or is being misunderstood, or if he is trying to figure out the place of works himself- and bloggers are trying to figure it all out as well- and to be honest it is easier to ask here what is going on, than go down the blogger rabbit trails . 

Thanks to all.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 12, 2017)

Lane,
If you attend to the author's comment, he accurately describes Ursinus' (and others of that age) use of "regeneration" as an enlarged term:


> they mean all that Christ works in us by the Spirit in answer to the _corruption_ of our fallen nature. Regeneration includes illumination, the death of the old man and resurrection of the new, sanctification, and ultimately glorification—the complete and final regeneration of our nature, the full and complete healing of our corruption.2


and his footnote refers to other passages where this use is plainly demonstrated.

Ursinus is _moving ahead _in his exposition. An initial, unprompted act of God toward man in regeneration, results in faith and justification; which then produces further effects: including faith, and _regeneration_ in the total-sense of that word.

What we in post-reformation language typically reduce _regeneration _to: viz. that infinitesimal moment of first-vivification, the quickening enablement of mind and will; is clearly set forth in WCF X "Of Effectual Calling." It is worth noting that the one use of "regeneration" in that chapter is in para.3, where elect infants dying in infancy are said to be regenerated; which in their case is rather a fulsome yet compressed treatment of their _whole progress_ unto glory.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 12, 2017)

Bruce, even if I grant that such is the case (and I have no reason not to grant the point), it still indicates fuzzy thinking, since some of the "enlarged" definition would occur prior to faith, and other parts of the "enlarged" definition would follow faith.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 12, 2017)

Really, Lane? Ursinus is "fuzzy?" Having gone through his CHC, I'd have to say that the only fair way to judge the man is in his complete context, literarily and historically.

I've seldom encountered a more precise and total treatment than the CHC. Turretin is the same, only moreso. They speak with precision; they define their terms; and they deal with questions and objections raised.

Again, I point to the fact that "regeneration" as we tend to use the word exclusively, is hardly considered _precise _by those scholastic precisionists; who are more wont to use the vocabulary of effectual calling: enlightening, renewing, quickening, etc., to describe that starting event.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 12, 2017)

Bruce, I only think Ursinus is fuzzy on _this_ point. I have read the entirety of his commentary, and, as a whole, I think it is amazingly helpful and precise. I just do not think that he is that helpful on this particular point. He did not define his terms very well in this one instance, and left me with a lot of questions.


----------



## tangleword (Oct 12, 2017)

I thought Clark's post was really spot on, and Piper's view on this is a little concerning as is his relationship with Douglas Wilson. It makes me wonder how closely he now lines up with Wilson's Federal Visionish theology that Wilson says now is not Federal Vision theology. (somewhat similar concern with Mark Jones who even speaks at Wilson's stuff). It has surprised me recently after joining a "reformed" facebook group (that seems to exist in part to have a place where Wilson can't be talked about negatively, which I didn't know before joining) how many reformed pastors and elders seem to be still enthralled with Wilson and somewhat supportive of Federal Vision, or at least belittling concerns about Federal Vision. All of these people also seem to be very on the Piper side of this issue, whereas other groups of reformed Christians on Facebook/twitter, who I know oppose Douglas Wilson and FV, have been very critical of what Piper said.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 12, 2017)

My own take:

Piper's words are fine, if poorly stated (unless Rachel Miller wants to throw Ursinus under the bus, too). I do have problems with Piper's past associations with Wilson.


----------



## Brad Mason (Oct 13, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Bruce, even if I grant that such is the case (and I have no reason not to grant the point), it still indicates fuzzy thinking, since some of the "enlarged" definition would occur prior to faith, and other parts of the "enlarged" definition would follow faith.



Hello. After hearing this and similar a couple times, I added this blurb at the beginning of Part 2:

_A quick note on our previous post, Part 1. It seems that many take exception to Ursinus’ use of the word “regeneration.” I am not suggesting we change our current use, but rather just pointing out that when we read what he has written on the subject, Regeneration is used simply to denote all that is the second benefit in the duplex gratia. It represents all that answers to our corruption received from Adam in distinction to our guilt derived from the same. And this was the common usage of the word prior to the tidier ordering and parsing of benefits that came later. For example, Witsius writes,_

_“For really, sanctification differs no other ways from the first regeneration and renovation, than as the continuance of an act differs from the beginning of it.” (Bk. 3.8.10)_

_And as to the concern that Ursinus is saying faith precedes Regeneration in time, that is not at all what he is saying. Rather, the Holy Spirit is working Regeneration when He works faith in the heart. As the Catechism says,_

_Q.65. Since, then, we are made partakers of Christ and all His benefits by faith only, where does this faith come from?_

_A. The Holy Spirit works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the Holy Gospel, and confirms it by the use of the holy sacraments._

https://www.heartandmouth.org/2017/...a-mundum-5-solas-john-piper-part-2-salvation/

I think our use of "regeneration" comes to the same problem when we examine it with respect to time. Does God not use the preaching of the Word as the means of Regeneration? And is it not the hearing and believing of the Word together the first act of faith and the beginning of Regeneration? I don’t think we would say we are Regenerated and then hear the Word and believe it. Seems to me they are the same event, in terms of time. Witsius (and others) even speaks of the Word being coactive in the Regeneration of infants, but the implanted Word. Difficult stuff.

Sometimes I think our “regeneration” is simply the “illumination” of the Fathers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## tangleword (Oct 13, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> My own take:
> 
> Piper's words are fine, if poorly stated (unless Rachel Miller wants to throw Ursinus under the bus, too). I do have problems with Piper's past associations with Wilson.



I don't think Piper's words are fine in the context of the Federal Vision issues going on and his association with Wilson. Those words in a different time and circumstance are easier to ignore, those words when so much has been written about this, and when he has been criticized for associating with someone from a denomination that teaches FV convey a different message. We can't compare his words to others from a different era without taking into context the era and situation he is writing them in.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 13, 2017)

tangleword said:


> I don't think Piper's words are fine in the context of the Federal Vision issues going on and his association with Wilson. Those words in a different time and circumstance are easier to ignore, those words when so much has been written about this, and when he has been criticized for associating with someone from a denomination that teaches FV convey a different message. We can't compare his words to others from a different era without taking into context the era and situation he is writing them in.



True enough on the bad associations, but does that change the meaning of, say, Ursinus?


----------



## tangleword (Oct 13, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> True enough on the bad associations, but does that change the meaning of, say, Ursinus?


No, doesn't change the meaning of Ursinus, but Piper can't say the exact same words as Ursinas and have them taken the way we do/should take Ursinas because of his associations and the context. Same way FV people quote historic reformers and church fathers, who were not in err in what they said then, but taken now, out of the original context, and into the current context, they make them sound as if they support FV, and thus now saying those things is a problem even if it wasn't when the original church father said them.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie (Oct 13, 2017)

tangleword said:


> I don't think Piper's words are fine in the context of the Federal Vision issues going on and his association with Wilson. Those words in a different time and circumstance are easier to ignore, those words when so much has been written about this, and when he has been criticized for associating with someone from a denomination that teaches FV convey a different message. We can't compare his words to others from a different era without taking into context the era and situation he is writing them in.



Really good point.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 13, 2017)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Daniel Fuller yet. Piper studied under Fuller, and counts him one of his greatest influences, and a sound evangelical. Fuller's doctrine of justification, from what I understand, is essentially the Baptist version of Shepherdism.

Scott Clark, interestingly, just did a blog post on this subject, and in it he quotes his pamphlet entitled Baptism, Election, and the Covenant of Grace:
_



One consequence of obliterating the distinction between the covenants of works and grace is that the covenant of grace becomes a covenant of works. This is what has happened in the theology of Daniel Fuller, Norman Shepherd, and others who have followed in their footsteps.

Click to expand...

_
I don't mean to say that Piper holds to Fuller's doctrine of justification--I don't know if he does or not; however, I have heard him accused of it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 14, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> I'm surprised no one has mentioned Daniel Fuller yet. Piper studied under Fuller, and counts him one of his greatest influences, and a sound evangelical. Fuller's doctrine of justification, from what I understand, is essentially the Baptist version of Shepherdism.
> 
> Scott Clark, interestingly, just did a blog post on this subject, and in it he quotes his pamphlet entitled Baptism, Election, and the Covenant of Grace:
> _
> ...



I wondered about that, too. I thought I read that Piper threw Fuller under the bus about five years ago on this topic.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 14, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I wondered about that, too. I thought I read that Piper threw Fuller under the bus about five years ago on this topic.


Perhaps the concern is that he has returned to that old vomit or else never repudiated it to the degree that some hoped. 

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## lynnie (Oct 14, 2017)

This is an old post by Puritan Covenanter with the text of Clowney's statement on Shepherd.

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...herds-distinctive-theology.66458/#post-852832

When you read through all the ins and outs and terms and trials and corrections and modifications of the saga that Clowney details- and he tries to be as fair and gracious as possible for the sake of both Shepherd and the Seminary- it seems that the bottom line at the end is that Shepherd did hold to the imputation of Christ's active and passive obedience to us as the only ground of our salvation and merit before God. No infused righteousness grants us any standing or merit with God. It is all Christ.

Now you can read it and see that with regards to the Reformed doctrine of perseverance Shepherd departs from Confessional standards, and hence lost his faculty teaching position. But he was OK on justification when he was pushed. Some problematic terminology about works for a while that was OK when the dust settled. (don't flame me, I am trying to read Clowney correctly). When Lane says that Shepherd reintroduces works to justification itself, I am not sure Clowney would agree.

_( Faith, repentance, and obedience are regularly linked in Prof. Shepherd’s teaching as the covenantal response. Although he no longer teaches that works, like faith, are an instrument of justification, and although he is willing to think of good works as the fruit of faith, nevertheless the effect of the covenantal obedience package is to keep this question alive._)

So anyway, back to my original question. FV would say that infused righteousness is necessary as merit before God. It is not 100% the work of Jesus Christ, it is Jesus plus the infused righteousness. And that is not what Shepherd holds to. 

So I was trying to figure out where Piper was at these days. My guess is that he still holds to infused righteousness as contributing nothing at all to our standing before God, the way FV erroneously does, and Roman Catholics do, but his terminology is getting fuzzy as he tries to teach complicated subjects. But I don't really know to be honest.


----------



## zsmcd (Oct 14, 2017)

This may be of some help to you. https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ith-alone-eternal-life-by.87790/#post-1087374


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 15, 2017)

Shepherd rather explicitly said that our works play a part in procuring our justification. You can find it in quite a few places in his published works. For instance, in his The Way of Righteousness, several places find Shepherd advocating a position wherein our obedience plays a role in justifying faith. For example, page 57, "Neither obedience without faith, nor faith without obedience will justify or save." Page 59: "_n the proclamation of the gospel, our Lord makes justification and salvation contingent upon obedience." O. Palmer Robertson's The Current Justification Controversy sheds much light on Shepherd's neonomianism._

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## tangleword (Oct 16, 2017)

Looks like Desiring God took it further, especially with their tweet that said "You’re not saved through faith alone. Be killing your sin." introducing this article: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-to-train-your-dragons particularly concerning are quotes such as "If you have a pet sin, you must renounce it at once. _Your salvation depends on it." _and "_But what about being saved by faith alone_? You’re not. You’re _justified _through faith alone."

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## lynnie (Oct 16, 2017)

Lane, you most probably know time lines better than me. I was under the impression that after the meetings and trials and talks, he had sufficiently truly changed his problem terminology about justification and good works, even if Clowney details why he falls short of Reformed doctrine on election.

"Faith, repentance, and obedience are regularly linked in Prof. Shepherd’s teaching as the covenantal response. Although he no longer teaches that works, like faith, are an instrument of justification, and although he is willing to think of good works as the fruit of faith...."

"Although he no longer teaches" being the key phrase. I thought he had responded well to the concerns and corrections brought to him about justification. Wasn't that after the book? I hope so. And I haven't followed it since it came up here some time back. So yes, he did teach something in error, but thank God the brethren at WTS helped him out. We need to pray for these modern FVs to be rescued out. ( I hope NS is still out!)

Zach, that is a great link. I thought this was particularly good:

https://heidelblog.net/2015/09/we-attain-heaven-through-faith-alone/

I didn't realize that this concern with Piper was ongoing; I had missed that thread you posted. Same song, second verse, as the saying goes. I thought this was the first time it had come up. Obviously the problem goes back farther than I knew when I started this thread. One can only hope it is well meant confusion and a genuine heart to resist antinomianism and see people lead holy lives, and that in time they will be corrected.

Thanks again for all the replies.


----------



## zsmcd (Oct 16, 2017)

I found this distinction to be helpful in understanding Piper and others who are defending him:



> In our own reading of Piper it is clear to us that he:
> 
> 
> Believes justification is a once-for-all act.
> ...



I have added in italics the emphasis on the fact that these goods works are a part of our sanctification. Correct me if I am wrong but, as I understand it, each step in the "ordo salutis" both necessitates the next "step". Thus, those whom he predestines will be effectually called, and those whom he justifies will be sanctified, etc. One cannot be justified without first being effectually called. In a similar manner, one cannot be glorified without first being predestined, called, justified, and _sanctified - _and sanctification includes Spirit wrought good works that flow from the justified person who has already been united to Christ and stand's before God as judicially righteous_._

This is what I understand Piper's point to be. In one sense, the elect were guaranteed eternal life before the foundations of the world - they were predestined to it. In another sense, the elect were guaranteed eternal life at the moment when, in history, they were justified by faith before God and were counted as righteous.

God uses "means" to carry out our Christian life that leads to eternal life with him in the New Heavens and New Earth. One of those means is justification. Another is sanctified, which includes good works. Theoretically, if the fall would not have occurred than _technically_ none of the elect would need to be justified in the sense that we understand it - forgiveness of sins, imputed righteousness of Christ, etc.. However, the fall did occur according to God's plan and his plan also includes that the way we get "back to the Eden" is by means of justification. It is also, however, by means of _sanctification, _and sanctification includes the good works that he has prepared for us before the creation of the world.

Thus, yes, in order to experience "final salvation," meaning _glorification_, we have to have Spirit wrought good works produced within us. This is, again, the simple assertion that those who have been justified _must be_ sanctified in order to be one day glorified. Even the thief dying on the cross next to Jesus produced some sort of good works between his justification and glorification. These good works, however, are not the _grounds_ for our salvation, eternal life, glorification, etc. The grounds is the predestinating grace of God, the work of Christ, and the application of the Holy Spirit in imputing to us the righteousness of Christ by faith. But if we are to one day experience eternal life, both in the temporal heavenly state and in the future new heavens and new earth, we must be sanctified in this life.

Someone please correct me if I am saying anything stupid.

Another point of confusion: it seems to me that some are missing the point of glorification. Correct me if I am wrong but, Scripturally and confessionally, when we die our souls are made entirely perfect, and in the resurrection we receive entirely new and spotless bodies - both body and soul without blemish. Thus, when we stand before Christ on judgment day we do so as predestinated, called, justified, sanctified, and _already _glorified men and women. The good works that were produced in our sanctification are vindication for God that the work that God started in our predestination all the way through our glorification actually occurred. There is a check mark next to sanctification, if you will.

But, back to my point about glorification, it is not as if we will be spiritually "standing" before Christ after death with sinful souls needing to have enough good works to tip the scales. God completes the work he started, thus we "stand" before Christ justified, sanctified, and having souls that have _already_ been glorified (made perfect). Likewise, in our resurrected bodies we will stand before Christ with our perfect souls joined together with our new and perfect bodies. We stand before Christ in judgment as glorified men and women who have also been justified and sanctified.

The moral of the story is that _God completes what he starts in eternity past and in history. _Those who are going to be glorified _must be_ sanctified.

Am I understanding correctly?

Edit: I haven't read the most recent Piper article that was just posted above.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 16, 2017)

tanglewood....that post was only 2 days ago. Get out the popcorn, I doubt the show is over on that one. If there isn't a blog backlash I will be surprised.


----------



## tangleword (Oct 16, 2017)

Zach, I understand what Jones is saying (though he is one who also straddles the FV line too close for comfort, speaking at the their seminary) but especially the recent post on DG, seem to say differently from their charitable read, and especially different from a protestant non-FV understanding of salvation. Saying "If you have a pet sin, you must renounce it at once. _Your salvation depends on it."_ makes our salvation conditional on our actions, and implies that our justification can be nullified by our lack of action. It contradicts point 2 they make above, that it can never be revoked. Here it says that your salvation is dependent on this work, not that this work will be part of the path towards glorification, and is a necessary part of your salvation, but that you have to choose to do something in order to be saved, this is a real issue, and is very FV.


----------



## zsmcd (Oct 16, 2017)

tangleword said:


> Saying "If you have a pet sin, you must renounce it at once. _Your salvation depends on it."_ makes our salvation conditional on our actions, and implies that our justification can be nullified by our lack of action. It contradicts point 2 they make above, that it can never be revoked.



Did Piper or anyone else (Mark Jones, etc.) say that if you don't kill your sin your justification will be revoked? Or do they mean that if you are not renouncing your sin (being sanctified) than you should doubt whether or not you were ever called and justified in the first place? Thus, your salvation (glorification) depends on it in some sense.

This does not make killing your sin the grounds for your right standing before God, nor does it say that your justification will be revoked in some way (as in some FV teaching). It simple means that if you are not being sanctified than your salvation (glorification) is at stake because you may have never been saved (justified) in the first place.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 16, 2017)

Lynnie, the quotations I gave were from Shepherd's book published in 2009. I don't think he has changed his position for the better.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 16, 2017)

Lane- I looked up the Clowney paper. 1981.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I am sorry to hear it.

I'm waiting for some sort of retraction or adjusting and clarifying type of response from Desiring God about that blog post. (https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-to-train-your-dragons)

Depending on what it is, my original question wondering where Piper is at will be answered. I seriously don't think he would support that entry at DG as stated...but if I am wrong, he has gone FV. Make that Rome.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 16, 2017)

lynnie said:


> Lane- I looked up the Clowney paper. 1981.
> 
> Ok, thanks for clarifying. I am sorry to hear it.
> 
> ...



Since he is a Baptist I am sure we can rule out FV, at least on church authority and sacraments.


----------



## tangleword (Oct 16, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Since he is a Baptist I am sure we can rule out FV, at least on church authority and sacraments.


Maybe not on church authority, he does love CJ and SGM, and often spoke of how he loved their churches and they were the best run churches. (somewhat tongue in cheek, though he did often commend their churches).


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 16, 2017)

tangleword said:


> Maybe not on church authority, he does love CJ and SGM, and often spoke of how he loved their churches and they were the best run churches. (somewhat tongue in cheek, though he did often commend their churches).



And neither of those guys are FV, and they probably have a Zwinglian view of the sacraments.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 16, 2017)

Dropping a public declaration, "Your salvation *depends* on it," is either
a) wrong simply put, or
b) sloppy to the point of malpractice.​
If it should be argued: "Hey, it's twitter; it's an attention-getter, provocative, that sort of thing," then it's still (b), it's just _intentional, _so we're supposed to feel bad that we didn't catch the wink.

At some point, certain men, "pillars" by reputation (Gal.2:9, if you will), have to function consistently as such. Or else, abandon that standing and take up the court-jester post. Then, everyone expects them to wink and spout provocation, and once in a while pause and drop a profundity that's "out of character" and gets people's attention. That's what the great comics on tour do. But no one confuses them for philosophers.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 2


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 19, 2017)

Scott Clark posted a helpful article on Fuller and Piper on his blog today:
Background On The Current Salvation Controversy

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Oct 19, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Dropping a public declaration, "Your salvation *depends* on it," is either
> a) wrong simply put, or
> b) sloppy to the point of malpractice.



Excellent analysis. 

I much prefer what I heard a few years back from Dr. Derek Thomas. I heard an illustration about Dr. Thomas dealing with a young believer who was caught in a known sin that he didn't want to put aside. Dr. Thomas told him, "Son, if you don't repent of this and break from this sin, _you'll never know for sure if you're saved_."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 19, 2017)

Nothing I've read on this discussion from the Mark Jones side (Piper is kind of irrelevant now to the discussion since it is moved to a question of Federal Vision, which is kind of moot for a Baptist, especially one who is not a Federalist of any stripe) tells me that he is saying anything different than what WCF 16.2 says:



> "These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the Gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life."



Part of the problem is also one of personality.

Mark Jones obviously enjoys the tussle. He gets energized by it. He also has a cadre of fans who encourage this behavior. The initial foray into this particular disagreement was because Mark Jones posts at the Desiring God blog.

Scott Clark sees himself as a valiant defender of the Reformed and Reformational understanding of Justification by Faith Alone. Anyone who has watched on him on the internet, especially on Twitter, has seen this strident desire to be understood as such. One also sees his massive dumping of links to the Heidelblog, subtweeting Mark Jones (who is no longer on Twitter) on Twitter, over the past several years on this and other related subjects. Scott Clark without question has and does see Mark Jones as "FV-curious" if not a silent defender of them because he has spoken at New Saint Andrews and at times had articles published on The Calvinist International (run by Steven Wedgeworth, who though himself not FV, is a minister in the CREC). Scott Clark also has his own supporters on Twitter (especially) who also likewise encourage his (in my opinion) poor behavior on that medium.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 19, 2017)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Nothing I've read on this discussion from the Mark Jones side (Piper is kind of irrelevant now to the discussion since it is moved to a question of Federal Vision, which is kind of moot for a Baptist, especially one who is not a Federalist of any stripe) I don't see him saying anything different than what WCF 16.2 says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Social media is the ground zero of the proxy war between Jones and Clark.


----------



## zsmcd (Oct 19, 2017)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I don't see him saying anything different than what WCF 16.2 says:



The WCF quote is helpful.

""These good works . . . are the_ fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith_: and by them believers . . . _strengthen their assurance_ . . . glorify God whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, _having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life_."


----------



## zsmcd (Oct 19, 2017)

I know Piper isn't a 1689 guy, but just for good measure I'd like to point out that the Baptists kept the same wording as the WCF on that section of good works.

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc16.html


----------



## Ron Henzel (Oct 20, 2017)

This is a topic I care deeply and passionately about. I have been following the debate as closely as possible (which has been a bit of a challenge for me given the number of web sites covering it) and scrupulously clipping every pertinent blog post I find to my Microsoft OneNote files. But I have to admit, sometimes I feel a bit like Tevye in one of the early scenes from Fiddler on the Roof.
_
*Townsperson:* Why should I break my head about the outside world? Let the outside world break its own head!
*Tevye:* He is right. As the Good Book says, if you spit in the air, it lands in your face.
*Perchik:* Nonsense. You can’t close your eyes to what’s happening in the world.
Tevye: He’s right.
*Rabbi’s pupil:* He’s right, and he’s right. They can’t both be right!
*Tevye:* (Pause). You know, you are also right._

Scroll to 2:20 to see it here:





But as I see it, in the final analysis, to write, as Piper did, "In final salvation at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith," is different from simply saying we are saved through faith that is not alone. It is good that he wrote, "faith is confirmed." It is not so good that we wrote, "we are saved _through that fruit_ and that faith." I think his wording was, at best, imprudent.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie (Oct 20, 2017)

This was on the Aquila report today. 

http://theaquilareport.com/piper-debate-federal-vision-controversy/


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 21, 2017)

Turretin writes in Topic 17 Question 3,

"XIV. Works can be considered in three ways: either with reference to justification or sanctification or glorification. They are related to justification not antecedently, efficiently and meritouriously, but consequently and declaratively. They are related to sanctification constitutively because they constitute and promote it. They are related to glorification antecedently and ordinatively because they are related to it as the means to the end; yea, as the beginning to the complement because grace is glory begun, as glory is grace consummated....

XV. ....Good works are required not for living according to the law, but because we live by the gospel; not as the causes on account of which life is given to us, but as effects which testify that life has been given to us."

Dr. Clark has already quoted the other relevant sections in his analysis of Turretin. I personally do not find Turretin at his clearest here and do not find "right" and "possession" helpful to my understanding ("means" and "end" need clarification to my mind too; I think he is saying that without good works we are not holy, so good works are the means to the end of holiness, of which glorification is the consummation and perfection; or maybe he is confining the terms strictly to the order of things: sanctification must occur in order for glorification to occur and is not and end in itself but the means toward the end of glorification, for we must be sanctified before being glorified; he denies good works have a causal relationship). However, I think the above two paragraphs show Turretin at his clearest in this section, and it is clear that, unlike the offending phrase, he connects eternal life with now. Rev. Winzer in a linked thread pointed out the problem with the terminology as suggesting that justification and eternal life are obtained in two different ways, but in reality those who are justified have passed into life from death.

Turretin states that he spoke of the necessity of good works somewhat already in Question 1 of this Topic. I quote below some of the helpful things he says in relation to the necessity of good works and sanctification.**


I think John Colquhoun also has some much useful and careful discussion. See the discussion starting on p. 317, and especially consider what he says in the section labeled 5 that begins towards the bottom of p. 326. He has a lengthy section beginning on p. 342 that explicitly discusses the necessity of good works for "salvation," but his preceding discussion beginning on p. 341 is useful for understanding his discussion there. He dislikes saying that good works are necessary to procure or obtain eternal life (unlike Turretin; don't know if he had Turretin's views in mind specifically).

"Come to the Lord Jesus, and, upon the warrant afforded you, by the unlimited offers and calls of his glorious gospel, place the confidence of your heart in Him for that holiness, which is the beginning, and the very essence, of salvation by him; which, instead of being the proper condition of salvation, is salvation _itself_." p.346

I find Thomas Watson to also be helpful (From his _Body of Divinity_: http://www.apuritansmind.com/wp-content/uploads/FREEEBOOKS/ABodyofDivinity-ThomasWatson.pdf).

"(8.) Holiness leads to heaven. It is the King of heaven’s highway. ‘An highway shall be there, and it shall be called the way of holiness.’ Isa 35:5. At Rome there were temples of virtue and honour, and all were to go through the temple of virtue to the temple of honour; so we must go through the temple of holiness to the temple of heaven. Glory begins in virtue. ‘Who has called us to glory and virtue.’ 2 Pet 1:1. Happiness is nothing else but the quintessence of holiness; holiness is glory militant, and happiness holiness triumphant." (p. 67)

"Sanctification and glory differ only in degree: sanctification is glory in the seed, and glory is sanctification in the flower. Holiness is the quintessence of happiness." (p. 174)

"(4.) There is no going to heaven without sanctification. ‘Without holiness no man shall see the Lord.’ Heb 12:14. God is a holy God, and he will suffer no unholy creature to come near him. A king will not suffer a man with plague-sores to approach into his presence. Heaven is not like Noah’s ark, where the clean beasts and the unclean entered. No unclean beasts come into the heavenly ark; for though God suffer the wicked to live awhile on the earth, he will never suffer heaven to be pestered with such vermin. Are they fit to see God who wallow in wickedness? Will God ever lay such vipers in his bosom? ‘Without holiness no man shall see the Lord.’ It must be a clear eye that sees a bright object: only a holy heart can see God in his glory. Sinners may see God as an enemy, but not as a friend; may have an affrighting vision of him, but not a beatific vision; they may see the flaming sword, but not the mercy-seat. Oh then, what need is there of sanctification!" (p. 176)

"(7.) Sanctification fits for heaven: ‘Who has called us to glory and virtue.’ 2 Pet 1:1. Glory is the throne, and sanctification is the step by which we ascend to it. As you first cleanse the vessel, and then pour in the wine; so God first cleanses us by sanctification, and then pours in the wine of glory. Solomon was first anointed with oil, and then was a king. I Kings 1:19. First God anoints us with the holy oil of his Spirit, and then sets the crown of happiness upon our head. Pureness of heart and seeing God are linked together. Matt 5:5." (p. 179)

"But if God’s decree be unchangeable, and cannot be reversed, to what purpose should we use the means? Our endeavours towards salvation cannot alter his decree. The decree of God does not affect my endeavour; for he that decreed my salvation decreed it in the use of means, and if I neglect the means I reprobate myself. No man argues thus: God has decreed how long I shall live, therefore I will not use means to preserve my life, I will not eat and drink. God has decreed the time of my life in the use of means, so God has decreed my salvation in the use of the Word and of prayer. As a man who refuses food murders himself, so he that refuses to work out his salvation destroys himself. The vessels of mercy are said to be prepared unto glory. Rom 9:93. How are they prepared but by being sanctified? and that cannot be but in the use of means; therefore let not God’s decree take thee off from holy endeavours." (p. 55-56)




**"I. As Christ was made to us of God righteousness and sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30)--not dividedly, but conjointly; not confusedly, but distinctly--so the benefit of sanctification immediately follows justification as inseparably connected with it, but yet really distinct from it."

"II. ....[Sanctification] is used strictly for a real and internal renovation of man by which God deliveres the man planted in Christ by faith and justified (by the ministry of the word and the efficacy of the Spirit) more and more from his native depravity and transforms him into his own image. Thus with separation from the world and sin and consecration to the service of God, it implies a renovation of his nature.

III. But because this real change of man is by various degrees, either by efficacious calling (which carries with it the donation of faith and of repentance by faith and a translation from a state of sin to a state of grace); or by regeneration (which bespeaks a renovation of the corrupt nature); or by the infusion and practice of holiness, hence sanctification is now extended widely to the whole state of the believer and embraces also calling itself. In this sense, Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews, often designates believers by 'those who are sanctified' (tous hagiazomenous, Heb. 2:11; 10:14). It is also taken more strictly and properly for renovation after the image of God. This follows justification and is begun here in this life by renegeration and promoted by the exercise of holiness and of good works, until it shall be consummated in the other by glory...."

"IX. .... Sanctification must be carefully distinguished from justification.... [A]lthough they agree in their author (God), in the meritorious cause (to wit, the righteousness of Christ, which purchased for us both these benefits, when he came with water and blood, 1 Jn. 5:6), in the general design (God's glory and our salvation), in the instrumental cause (to wit, faith by the reception of the one and by the production of the other), it is certain that in many respects they differ.... "

"XI. Although Paul does not make express mention of sanctification in the chain of salvation, it does not follow that it is included in the word justification, as if it were identical with it. It is far more fitly included either under calling (which is the beginning of sanctification) or, what we think is truer, under glorification (which is its consummation and complement--as sanctification is the beginning of glory). Hence it is frequently designated by the word 'glory' (Rom. 3:23; 2 Cor. 3:18)."

"XV. Although we think that these two benefits [justification and sanctification] should be distinguished and never confounded, still they are so connected from the order of God and nature of the thing that they should never be torn asunder...."

"XVI ....God joined these two benefits [justification and sanctification] in the covenant of grace.... Nor does the nature of God suffer this to be done otherwise. For since by justification we have a right to life (nor can anyone be admitted to communion with God without sanctification), it is necessary that he whom God justifies is also sanctified by him so as to be made fit for the possession of glory. Nay, he does not take away guilt by justification except to renew his own image in us by sanctification because holiness is the end of the covenant and of all its blessings."

"XIX. The very faith by which we are justified demands this. For as it is the instrument of justification by receiving the righteousness of Christ, so it is the root and principle of sanctification, while it purges the heart and works through love.... [J]ustification stands related to sanctification as the means to the end. And to this tends the whole economy of grace, which for no other reason has dawned upon us, unless 'that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly.' (Tit. 2:12)."

Turretin also claims he explains some of these matters in his section on the perseverance of the saints. Topic 15, Question 16. Here is one useful paragraph in the section.

"XLV. It is one thing to fall from a state of grace, inasmuch as it denotes a blessing of God or the condition of children and a right to life (which God bestows upon them by efficacious calling and adoption); another, inasmuch as it denotes the duty of man or the aptitude and disposition to the kingdom of heaven by the practice of faith and the exercise of repentance, by which the believer is placed in that state that dying in it he will necessarily be saved.... We do not deny that in this latter sense the believer by his sins and especially his most heinous sins falls from a state of grace, inasmuch as he loses his disposition for the kingdom of heaven (for nothing impure can enter there) and enters into a state of condemnation according to the most just judgment of God, by which the unjust, robbers, fornicators, adulterers are kept out of the kingdom of heaven and handed over to eternal punishment. But in the former sense, it is rightly said that the believer does not fall from a state of grace because the right of sons once given to him is never taken away on God's part (although its use and sense can be interrupted for a time) and the seeds of grace and of virtue are never taken away from him."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 21, 2017)

Afterthought said:


> Turretin writes in Topic 17 Question 3,
> 
> "XIV. Works can be considered in three ways: either with reference to justification or sanctification or glorification. They are related to justification not antecedently, efficiently and meritouriously, but consequently and declaratively. They are related to sanctification constitutively because they constitute and promote it. They are related to glorification antecedently and ordinatively because they are related to it as the means to the end; yea, as the beginning to the complement because grace is glory begun, as gloriy is grace consummated....
> 
> ...


Ramon,
I think your post highlights one of the greatest difficulties of the systematician: a precise choice of words. There are many important words which can be used in a variety of ways.

_Sanctification_ is a good example of word that must be handled with care. Here are some possible (and _legitimate_, even) uses:

We are _sanctified_ in our justification, in that we are made legally holy before God.
We are _sanctified_ in our regeneration, in that the principle of holiness is infused into our nature.
We are _sanctified _in the course of our Christian life, in that we make progress in actual holiness.
We are_ sanctified_ at our glorification, in that we are made finally holy, and have no principle of sin remaining in us.
If we get sloppy, and fail to distinguish between the uses, at best, we will sound confusing. At worst, we will sound heretical.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 23, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Ramon,
> I think your post highlights one of the greatest difficulties of the systematician: a precise choice of words. There are many important words which can be used in a variety of ways.
> 
> _Sanctification_ is a good example of word that must be handled with care. Here are some possible (and _legitimate_, even) uses:
> ...


I did a poor job tying my post back in with the rest of the thread. I meant to imply that words like _justification_ and _condition_ are important words in the current discussion that have various meanings and have to be defined carefully.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

