David Allen Soundly Refutes John Piper’s View on Limited Atonement and the Genuine Offer of the Gospel

Review of John Piper’s chapter in “From Heaven He Came and Sought Her” Part 1

Review of John Piper’s chapter in “From Heaven He Came and Sought Her” Part 2

Related posts:

Provisional Atonement Part 2: Provision is Consistent with Foreknowledge

Provisional Atonement Part 3: The Integrity and Justice of God in the Gospel Offer

1 Corinthians 15 and the Claims of Calvinism

When Calvinists Defend Arminianism…

A big thank you to John Piper for doing the honors again,

John Piper, “Is Faith Meritorious?”

Troubling Trends Among YRR Calvinists

The troubling trend in America’s “Calvinist Revival” 

HT: Dale V. Wayman

Is God Like a Black Hole in Calvinism? Ex-Calvinist Austin Fischer Responds to John Piper

Austin Fischer Responds to John Piper About Leaving Calvinism

I think Mr. Fischer makes a valid point about how Piper’s claims do seem to plainly paint God in a way that seems at odds with Scripture and seems to threaten His aseity.

Here are a few other posts that make similar observations:

Dr. Thomas McCall Takes on John Piper And The Calvinistic View of God’s Sovereignty

Big Trouble in Little Geneva

John Piper on God Ordaining All Sin And Evil Part 1: An Arminian Response to Piper’s First “Question”

Arminianism, Calvinism and Atheism

The Arminian perspective provides a convincing framework for dismantling the atheist argument against God based on the “problem of evil”

The Problem with Using the Logical Problem of Evil

However, the Calvinist framework seems to only compound the problem of evil and create unnecessary difficulty in defending Christian Theism:

Be an Atheist for an Hour

Calvinism on the Horns: The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge in Calvinism And Why You Should be an Arminian

The Calvinist? What?

Here is a video poem by John Piper called “The Calvinist.”  I honestly don’t get it.  Does anyone else?  What does this have to do with Calvinism and why should any of what is said be thought to apply only to Calvinist Christians? It seems like bizarre propaganda of some sort, but it is hard to figure out what it might be.  Color me confused.

http://vimeo.com/80146031

Big Trouble in Little Geneva: Good Series Exposing the Major Theological Problems Inherent in John Piper’s Calvinist Theodicy

Be sure to check out Matt’s concise and devastating critique of Calvinist Theodicy as expressed by John Piper.  Make sure you have a look at the comments after the posts as well.

A Critique of John Piper’s Theodicy: Purposing Evil for the Purpose of Good?  Part 1

A Critique of John Piper’s Theodicy: Is God Morally Color Blind? Part 2

A Critique of John Piper’s Theodicy: Are we God’s evil Contract Assassins? Part 3

A Critique of John Piper’s Theodicy: Calvinism’s Cognitive Dissonance. Part 4

Related Posts and articles: 

Thomas McCall’s “We Believe in God’s Sovereign Goodness: A Rejoinder to John Piper (A truly devastating critique of numerous aspects of Piper’s Theology and his attempts to rescue his Theology from inevitable logical contradictions)

John Piper on God Ordaining All Sin and Evil Part 1: An Arminian Response to Piper’s First “Question”

Calvinism on the Horns: The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge in Calvinism And Why You Should be an Arminian

Who Authored the Crime?

The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics- Fallacy #8: “Calvinism Doesn’t Charge God With the Authorship of Sin”

More on the Authorship of Sin

More on the Authorship of Sin (Part 2)

More on the Authorship of Sin (Part 3)

 

John Piper Tweets Out An Already Refuted Calvinist Argument on 1 John 5:1

John Piper recently made the following Tweet:

Unfortunately for Piper, this erroneous argument has been soundly refuted.  John Piper and all Calvinists still making this false claim regarding 1 John 5:1 should save themselves some unnecessary embarrassment by reading Brian Abasciano’s article: “Does Regeneration Precede Faith? The Use of 1 John 5:1 as a Proof Text”

Here is the author’s abstract of the article:

A number of scholars have appealed to the Greek tenses of 1 John 5:1 as definitive proof that the verse teaches that regeneration precedes faith. But this argument is untenable. The purposes of the present article are (1) to draw attention to the falsity of the argument and to explain why it is invalid, and (2) to counter the contention that the underlying concern of the grammatical argument (i.e., that 1 John 5:1 implies that regeneration precedes faith) can be rescued by appeal to a pattern in 1 John of indicating the results of regeneration. It is questionable whether the tenses in 1 John 5:1 suggest any chronological or causal relationship between faith and regeneration since some grammarians deny that Greek tenses grammaticalize time, and more importantly, one of the tenses in the passage occurs in a substantival participle, which can be devoid of time significance. If the tenses are temporally related, as seems most probable, then Greek grammar suggests either that believing and being begotten of God are portrayed as contemporaneous, or perhaps more likely, that believing logically precedes being begotten of God. Invocation of statements elsewhere in 1 John indicating the results of regeneration does not rescue 1 John 5:1 as a proof text for regeneration preceding faith because of, inter alia, the distinctive and crucial role of faith in the epistle and Johannine theology.

 

A Telling and Ironic Tweet by John Piper on “Waking up in the Morning” as a Believer

Calvinist John Piper recently gave the following Tweet:

 I fall asleep quietly confident that I will be a believer in the morning not because of my free will but God’s free grace. 

This is an obvious attack on Arminianism and those that reject Piper’s Calvinistic presuppositions, though it is misplaced.  While Arminians do believe that our will plays a part in our continuing to trust God and remain a believer, it is inaccurate to suggest that Arminians believe our wills are the only factor.  Our wills must be continually empowered and enabled by God’s grace in order for us to continue to trust, obey and remain in Christ, for without Him we can do nothing (John 15:5).  Thankfully, God has provided us with everything we need in order to continue to trust in Him and strengthen our faith so that we will not “stumble.” (2 Peter 1:2-11).  But it is also true that God’s empowering us to believe and continue to believe can be resisted.  While we cannot believe or continue to believe unless God empowers us, we are still capable of walking away and resisting the abundant grace He provides.

Piper seems to see this fact as some sort of reason for insecurity.  But that is not the case at all.  It is similar to the security that would accompany any relationship that involves a level of commitment.  Marriage is a prime example.   I acknowledge that I need to guard and protect my marriage by the choices that I (freely) make that will either strengthen that relationship or weaken and harm it.  I must concede that it is possible for me to neglect that relationship, even to the point of infidelity.  It would be presumptuous to assume such a thing were not possible.  However, I don’t live in fear and terror and insecurity over my marriage, always thinking about how it might not last, and I certainly don’t go to bed at night fearing that I might wake up and no longer love my wife or want anything at all to do with her.

Does Piper really think that those who fall away go to bed believers and suddenly wake up “in the morning” as hardened unbelievers?  It is hard to even imagine such a case.  Such a scenario presents a rather silly, simplified and unrealistic way of speaking about  someone leaving the faith.  Nobody who falls away just wakes up one morning an unbeliever after having gone to bed a believer.  The road to unbelief is gradual, at least to some degree, and it typically involves many (free) choices along the way.   But of course, since Piper rejects the possibility of apostasy from genuine faith, he can only hold that deluded hypocrites can go to bed thinking they are saved and that their faith is real only to apparently wake up in the morning in a more honest frame of mind, finally embracing their unbelief instead of clinging to their false fleshly hypocritical faith that was never real in the first place.  And that leads us to the most problematic difficulty in Piper’s trite little Tweet: As a Calvinist, John Piper can have no assurance that he is saved when he goes to bed or assurance that he will be saved when he wakes up!

Calvinists, like Piper, believe that those who have been truly regenerated will inevitably persevere to the end in saving faith.  But how does one know that he is regenerate?  The only true test is to persevere to the end in saving faith.  If one fails to persevere, that person only reveals that while he may have thought his faith was real, it was only a case of self deception, or even worse, divine deception.  John Calvin called this divine deception “evanescent grace”.  It was his answer to the problem of so many real life cases of those who lived for many years seemingly loving and trusting in God and producing godly fruit, only to eventually fall away and abandon the faith.  According to Calvin, God gave such people a delusion that made them think they were saved, and even feel like they were saved, only to eventually remove this fleeting grace and reveal that they were just deluded hypocrites that God had never regenerated and whose faith, while it seemed very real to them, was not real faith at all.  For a more detailed look at Calvin’s evanescent grace and the way that Calvinism undercuts Biblical salvation assurance, see the first link given at the end of this post.

So for Calvin and Piper, confidence of perseverance is tied up in being regenerate, and it is not at all clear how one can be sure she is regenerate unless she perseveres (to the end) in the faith (a problem of circularity that effectively kills assurance).  So the bigger problem for Piper is that he cannot be sure that he will wake up every morning as a believer because his faith may, in fact, be spurious.  The only way that he can have confidence that his bedtime faith is not spurious and that he will wake up each morning as a [true] believer is if he in fact wakes up each morning as a [true] believer.  So he can have no real confidence at all that he will wake up tomorrow morning, or any other morning, as a believer.  In short, he is guilty of wishful thinking and nothing more. Again, the main problem for Piper is how he can know that he is even going to bed a true believer and not a deluded hypocrite.   There is simply no way to be sure of this if Calvinism is true.

The irony is obvious.  While the Arminians that Piper wanted to discount can have significant salvation assurance while going to bed and in day to day life, Piper’s theology effectively undermines and makes such assurance impossible and, in so doing, nullifies the promises of Scripture that we can indeed know that we presently have eternal life (1 John 5:13).  While the Arminian could rightly say what Piper says in his tweet, John Piper cannot.

For more on the problems with Calvinist assurance in contrast with the strong basis for assurance that Arminians possess, see the following posts:

Perseverance of the Saints Part 13: Salvation Assurance

An Important Admission on Salvation Assurance from Prominent Calvinist C. Michael Patton 

Does Believing Apostasy is Possible Lead to Insecurity, Lack of Assurance and Anxiety?

Does Calvinism *Really* Teach That God’s Decree Is the Cause of All Things, Including Sin?

Uh….Yeah.

Calvinist Quotes on God Determining All Evil