Let it be known that I will take on John Piper anywhere, anytime (providing my availability), in a formal debate, under a few conditions
1. The topic stays on Calvinism
2. It's moderated by a 3rd party
3. We get equal time to talk
4. It will be recorded, rebroadcast, sold, or otherwise transfered through media exclusively in its entirety. This inlcudes providing it on websites.
Total Depravity
"There is no doubt that man could perform more evil acts toward his fellow man than he does. But if he is restrained from performing more evil acts by motives that are not owing to his glad submission to God, then even his "virtue" is evil in the sight of God.
Romans 14:23 says, "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." This is a radical indictment of all natural "virtue" that does not flow from a heart humbly relying on God's grace."
What Piper has committed here is one of the most common errors of anyone reading the Bible, he has missed the context of the verse. What the entire chapter of Romans 14 is referring to is in regard to offending peoples customs and traditions, namely the jews. If someone believes eating meat is sinful, then to him it is sin, but if you have the faith of Christ, then you know nothing like that is sinful, so don't be superstitious about it, but yet, don't offend people when you are their guest. Verse 23 is made very plain in other translations of the Bible, but we don't even have to go there, since it's the whole context of Romans 14.
Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
How Piper could miss the context of the same chapter as these oft quoted verses is beyond me. Paul repeats the message in Timothy as well.
1Tim 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving.
Piper continues to say in following paragraphs that nothing an unsaved man does is any good, nor can it be, and disregards any examples by referring back to his interpretation of Romans 14:23. So goes the web spinning of Calvinism. Though I must point out more of his statements regarding total depravity.
So many people who believe this doctrine have never read John 1:9 "[Speaking of Jesus] was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." If the light of Christ now lights every man that comes into the world, as John 1:9 states with great clarity, then how is one doomed from birth as of the New Testament times? The great Calvinist verse on this is Romans 3:10, perhaps without knowing that Paul was quoting Psalms 14 and 53. Paul quotes them because he is making a point about being under the law, but why did David say those words in the first place?
In Psalms 14/53, David is speaking in contempt, and in a very present tense about the wickedness of his people, and even implies that they WERE righteous, but are not anymore. This effectively nullifies using these verses to prove total depravity, as they are not related. I go into more detail about Piper's dissertation on depravity in part 2.
"We find Paul declaring it to be totally enslaved to rebellion. Romans 8:7-8 says, "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."........ So natural man has a mindset that does not and cannot submit to God. Man cannot reform himself.
Ephesians 2:1 says that we Christians were all once "dead in trespasses and sins." The point of deadness is that we were incapable of any life with God. Our hearts were like a stone toward God (Ephesians 4:18; Ezekiel 36:26). Our hearts were blind and incapable of seeing the glory of God in Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4-6). We were totally unable to reform ourselves.
I removed much of the Calvinistic spin but left in the essential phrases of "we could not submit to God or reform ourselves", that he seems to want to hammer into the reader. This is where you run straight into another web, along with the Big Assumption #1.
Man's Nature Negates Free Will. Calvinists get an A+ for consistency. As with other Calvinists, such as Matt Slick, whom you will see refuted in this section, the total depravity topic will inevitably delve into declaring that because of our sinful ways, we therefore cannot choose anything else. I will go more into detail about Piper's take on it in part 2. Please refer to Refuting Matt Slick for the final blow to this petal of the TULIP, to avoid redundancy.
Unconditional Election
"If all of us are so depraved that we cannot come to God without being born again by the irresistible grace of God, and if this particular grace is purchased by Christ on the cross, then it is clear that the salvation of any of us is owing to God's election"
See previous response. Realize how each petal of the TULIP leans on the one next to it.
"Election refers to God's choosing whom to save. It is unconditional in that there is no condition man must meet before God chooses to save him. Man is dead in trespasses and sins. So there is no condition he can meet before God chooses to save him from his deadness.
" The term "election" occurs a mere 6 times in the Bible, most of which are in the book of Romans. I agree there is a special and unique election for certain people in the Bible, no doubt about that, John the Baptist is a good example of one. However, you would think that if election were equated with salvation, there would be much more said about it, especially from the mouth of Jesus Christ Himself. You would furthermore think that if election was so joined-at-the-hip with salvation, that there would be a verse about it. Nevertheless, this does not stop the Calvinist from doing what all Calvinists do, right off the bat. If they can get you to agree with their terms in definitions, they will win the debate.
"Acts 13:48 reports how the Gentiles responded to the preaching of the gospel in Antioch of Pisidia. "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Notice, it does not say that as many believed were chosen to be ordained to eternal life. The prior election of God is the reason some believed while others did not."
As with Matt Slick, it seems Piper is using the same example. Notice how the Calvinists throw the verse out there along with their interpretation in the same breath, expecting you to agree with them. The Calvinist assumes that "ordained" was something that happened in the past, or in their terminology of 'eternity past', instead of something that occurred right there, even though the text does not indicate such. And yes, being fluent in English, it CAN be taken as "those who believed were ordained to eternal life".
"All those who won, ran the race."
"As many as graduated, paid their dues."
"All that sneezed, inhaled the feathers."
Even though these sentences are in reverse order to how we commonly speak, it is easily understood by the reader.
"Similarly Jesus says to the Jews in John 10:26, "You do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep." He does not say, "You are not my sheep because you do not believe." Being a sheep is something God decides for us before we believe. It is the basis and enablement of our belief. We believe because we are God's chosen sheep, not vice versa. (See John 8:47; 18:37.)"
Again, he is Since the question here is "Why were they not His sheep?" Piper asserts that it's because God decided beforehand, but notice that he provides no verse supporting this belief. In fact, very little is said in the Bible about Jesus being the shepherd and we the sheep, merely a handful of verses in the gospels, and one in Hebrews, and 1st Peter. I would assert that it was because the Scribes and Pharisees had already made up their minds about who and what God is, and a significant part of His ministry was about proving them wrong and showing the error of their ways. I would then direct you to my articles on Judaizers, and Replacement Theology. I assume a Calvinist would go on to say the Scribes and Pharisees were that way because they were predestined to be or other possible objections ("vessels of destruction-Romans 9"). I could then go on a tangent into context and demand that the Calvinist provide proof that these circumstances apply to every living being and not merely special occasions in a historical sense (Pharoah, Esau). Is this all a moot point? No, because these verses and examples are the very next thing Piper goes into....like Romans 9:11...I will skip it, since I already gave my response, and Piper's only effort to prove his point on Romans 9:11 is to recommend his book.
"The unconditionality of God's electing grace is stressed again in Romans 9:15-16, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy."
Like with Matt Slick, Romans 9:15-16 is not a problem since we know what God really wants for all people.
2nd Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
Calvinists cannot twist this verse and say that it only applies to believers, since believers have already come to repentance, and as the context around it is in reference to the worldwide flood of Noah's day, when all the people were continually evil.
10+ paragraphs of Piper arguing the Calvinist position of Ephesians 1:4,5,11, Romans 11, and Romans 8:29 aka 'Predestination verses'. This was already addressed in Response to Matt Slick. It's the textbook Calvinist position, so I see no need to repeat myself, although he does finish it with Romans 8:38-39, using it to prove those who are saved are eternally secure. All the verses say is how nothing can separate us from the love of God. I agree, because:
1. God is love
2. God is omnipresent
3. Therefore, you cannot go anywhere that God/His love is not. This says nothing of eternal security. Even the context around these verses speaks of the matters and trials of this world pertaining to Christians, to assure us of His omnipresence and love. See the heresy of OSAS for more.
Limited Atonement
"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. This does not mean that Christ died with the intention to appease the wrath of God for every person in the world, but that the "sheep," "the children of God" scattered throughout the whole world, "from every tongue and tribe and people and nation" are intended by the propitiation of Christ. In fact the grammatical parallel between John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2 is so close it is difficult to escape the conviction that the same thing is intended by John in both verses.
Notice Piper has injected his private Calvinistic interpretation at the very end, he has to, because the emphasis doesn't exist in normal reading comprehension. Any average person will not associate the two verses and say to themself "I see no difference". This one is of his own creation.
John 11:51-52, "He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."
1 John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
The "whole world" refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world.
If "the whole world" referred to every individual in the world, we would be forced to say that John is teaching that all people will be saved, which he does not believe (Revelation 14:9-11)."
Again, Piper is forced to inject his own Calvinistic interpretation into the scene...But did you catch what else he did? Remember the sticky web of Calvinism gets you to agree with their definitions without even knowing it. Just above, Piper asserted that Christ's sacrifice literally brought salvation, and did not merely open the door for anyone to walk through. He did this by fusing his interpretation of "propitiation" to the common understanding of "salvation" to make them one and the same, and used it to prove his point.
The fact of the matter is, that yes, Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the entire world, but no, that does not mean salvation is automatically thrust upon the propitiated for. Piper is arguing from a false presumption that propitiation=salvation, and he provides no verses to support this. To understand flawlessly what Christ's payment on the cross was really about, see Sacrificial Confusion.
Piper's remaining arguments, such as Romans 8:32, and Titus 2:14, are all based on this presumption--that propitiation automatically forced salvation onto the Calvinist's interpretation of the elect.
This is a classic argument by Calvinism, which I have also answered in refuting Matt Slick. Like Slick, Piper also uses elsewhere the old "Not for the world, but but them that thou has given me" verse, which again, is answered thoroughly here.
But one more thing on the L of the TULIP.
So how can someone, in this aspect of the doctrine, have been bought by Christ, regenerated, and yet end up denying Him and destroying themself? Mighty big contradiction there.
2nd Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
Irresistible Grace
I actually agreed with Piper through much of this section and that God can make what He wants to happen, one way or another. I didn't start disagreeing with him until he tried to imply that when it's time to be saved, God's will directly overpowers our will inside, and makes Him irresistible. The few verses that Piper used to illustrate this all spoke of God's omnipotence over corporeal matters, not of personal free will.
"In John 6:44 Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." This drawing is the sovereign work of grace without which no one can be saved from their rebellion against God. Again some say, "He draws all men, not just some." But this simply evades the clear implication of the context that the Father's "drawing" is why some believe and not others.
John Piper is simply evading the verse that he dared to bring up but not quote, it specifically says in John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. Notice what Piper is ignoring is that the drawing would be happening after His crucifixion, indicated by the verse, and confirmed in the next one. This nullifies Piper's point, which he is guilty of committing eisegesis with. Most Calvinists don't realize that there is a prophecy in the background of John 6:44, and that Jesus was responding to the scoffing Jews. It was necessary that they not be drawn so that ultimately the gospel could open to the Gentiles, but WHY specifically were they not being drawn?
The answer can be found in Psalm 25:14 and mainly Proverbs 1:29. In these verses we find that God reveals Himself to them that fear Him, and that God will draw those who "choose" to fear Him. Choosing to fear the Lord is a God-given ability, as the context of Proverbs 1 shows, since it is speaking of heathen wicked sinners, in very descriptive terms. Also, a Calvinist cannot say that fearing the Lord is something that requires faith or would delight God, because we know from the Bible the things that the Lord finds pleasing. Fear of the Lord is not in any of the enumerated lists. Fear period isn't there either.
So the scoffing Jews of Christs day had turned cold to God, they chose not to fear the Lord, and Jesus rebuked their pitiful understandings many times, ending in His total rejection, which opened the door for salvation to the Gentiles. You can find out more about how this came about Here and Here.
The only thing else to say is THANK GOD the disciples, Paul, and the early church didn't take Christ's words in John 6:44 the way modern day Calvinists do, else the Great Commission may never have been spread and gotten to where we are today.
"Specifically, John 6:64-65 says, "'But there are some of you that do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.'""
Again Piper is ignoring what is clearly indicated by the very verse he is trying to prove his point with. That it was to those people at that time ("knowing who would betray Him"). He cannot escape the post-crucifixion context of John 12:32.
"2 Timothy 2:24-25 says, "The Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth."
Here, as in John 6:65 repentance is called a gift of God. Notice, he is not saying merely that salvation is a gift of God. He is saying that the prerequisites of salvation are also a gift. When a person hears a preacher call for repentance he can resist that call. But if God gives him repentance he cannot resist because the gift is the removal of resistance. Not being willing to repent is the same as resisting the Holy Spirit. So if God gives repentance it is the same as taking away the resistance. This is why we call this work of God "irresistible grace". " The context of 2nd Timothy is a little hard to understand on it's own. There is only one other place in the Bible where the giving of repentance is mentioned. Acts 5:31 makes the giving of repentance clear as simply making the path possible, or providing the opportunity, since we know that Israel did not repent. They would have had no choice in the matter, if Piper's interpretation of the granting of repentence were true. "1 Corinthians 1:23-24 says, "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jew and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." Notice the two kinds of "calls" implied in this text.
First, the preaching of Paul goes out to all, both Jews and Greeks. This is the general call of the gospel. It offers salvation to all who will believe on the crucified Christ. But by and large it falls on unreceptive ears and is called foolishness.
But then, secondly, Paul refers to another kind of call. He says that among those who hear there are some who are "called" in such a way that they no longer regard the cross as foolishness but as the wisdom and power of God. What else can this call be but the irresistible call of God out of darkness into the light of God? If ALL who are called in this sense regard the cross as the power of God, then something in the call must effect the faith. This is irresistible grace."
As mentioned many times previously, it is up to the Calvinist to prove how the "elect" or in this case "called" means every single believer, rather than special exceptions.
"Another example of it is in Acts 16:14, where Lydia is listening to the preaching of Paul. Luke says, "The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul." Unless God opens our hearts, we will not heed the message of the gospel. This heart-opening is what we mean by irresistible grace"
Piper should read his verses a little more carefully. If you notice, Lydia was already a worshipper of God, as the verse literally says, before her heart opened to Paul and she became baptized. This verse is in fact very damaging to Calvinism, and some sects of mainstream Christianity. I find it bizarre that he would even mention it. Piper finishes this section by quoting JOhn 1:12-13 which I answered on Refuting Matt Slick.
Perseverance of the Saints
"There is a falling away of some believers, but if it persists, it shows that their faith was not genuine and they were not born of God.
1st John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be made plain that they all are not of us."
As always, the P of the TULIP is OSAS, no matter which way you slice it, it's OSAS through and through. Piper is making a good effort at defending OSAS Lite with the only substantial verse in existence for the doctrine. Unfortunately, the verse doesn't say what many people try to make it say. It is merely an explanation of why people left the faith, it does not say they were never 'saved' to begin with. Let us read.
In 1st John chapter 2, John writes to fellow beleivers in Christ, distinguishing the different stages of maturity in the faith, and telling them all about the coming times and warning about what was ahead. Piper is using verse 19 to try to say that John is explaining that some people left the faith because they WERE NEVER SAVED to begin with. Not only is this part of OSAS Lite up against a mountain of verses here, but one of the best verses against the doctrine comes just a few lines after 19, in verse 24. First,I'm going to establish proof of this now. It may be good to have a Bible open.
In verse 18 John warns us of all the antichrists in the world, then comes 19 where he tells us people have left the faith because they were not of us. The issue here is why were they not of us? The Bible establishes that anyone who is not for Christ is against Him, via definition of "antichrist" so if 'they' were not of us, then they are anti, or against Christ, and do not have the truth. This is shown in the next verses. In verse 21 we are told that we have the truth and that there is no lie in the truth. In verses 22-23 we are told that antichrists don't have the truth, but are liars because they deny the Father and the Son, but those who acknowledge the Son have the Father also. Finally, in verse 24...
Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
So the context from 18-24 is clearly not promoting Piper's perseverance of the saints, nor OSAS Lite. 'They' of verse 19 were anti-Christ, because they did not let the truth of the Father and the Son remain and abide in them, hence the reason 'they' were not of us, proving that it's not because they were never saved to begin with.
For all remaining P. arguments, see the heresy of OSAS. Piper finishes with touching on the common and classic mistake of greasy gracer's interpretation of Romans 4 which is best debunked by my article on Salvation by Works.
Continued in Part 2 on Piper
back