Is Piper teaching a Works based righteousness here?

[Pilgrim72]

Well, it sounds like Piper anyway. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, there's a part right towards the beginning of this video where he says "There is a practical daily lived out righteousness without which nobody gets to heaven".
What is he saying there? I thought he was pretty orthodox, yet this sounds just wrong to me. Our justification is based on Christ's righteousness alone.

I will note that at the end of the video Washer clears up any misconceptions about what is being taught, but I'm somewhat concerned about the earlier quote. What is meant by that, and should we be concerned by this? Because my practical daily lived out righteousness will always fall short, even as a Christian...

Your thoughts please.

Thanks.

[video=youtube;HkLLOH7qXPg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkLLOH7qXPg[/video]


PS: Oh, and if this was brought up in another thread somewhere, please post the link for me. Thanks!

 

[Prufrock]

"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." Heb. 12.

I have not listened to the Piper video above, but there is by no means anything unorthodox in the quoted portion. Works are not meritorious for salvation, nor do they contribute to our justification (either instrumentally, efficiently, etc.) nor to the righteousness whereby we stand before God; nevertheless, sanctification is a necessary fruit of the union which we have with Christ by faith. There is an evangelical righteousness: it is not perfect by any means, but it is pleasing unto God in and through Christ; the works are spiritual or gracious in origin, and not natural, and they flow forth from a man or woman who antecedently stands justified.

 

[Mushroom]

Paul on justification-
Eph 2:8-10 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast. (10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

James on sanctification-
Jas 2:14-18 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? (15) If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, (16) And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? (17) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. (18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Both a part of the work of Christ in His people.

 

[TaylorOtwell]

Dr. Piper is probably pointing out the fact that justification and sanctification are never separated. In other words, there is not a justified person who is not sanctified. I know he would not affirm that our good works are the basis for our entrance into heaven, but they demonstrate that we have truly received Christ's righteousness by faith.

Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification... (Westminer Larger Catechism Answer #77)

 

[Pilgrim72]

Thank you for your replies. Each has helped put me at ease with that statement.

I see that the point that is being made throughout the video is aimed at nominal Christians, and they are trying to show them that they are still in need of Christ.

 

[Idelette]

From the video, it seems to me that Piper was first setting forth the truth that no one will see God apart from holiness. It is a call to repentance, particularly to those within the christian church. The video is addressing an insincere easy-believism faith, he's not advocating a works-righteousness apart from Christ, but more the examination that Scripture calls us to:


" Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you (G)fail the test?"- 2 Corin

 

[lynnie]

Piper has a powerful CD entitled "this man went down to his house justified" which is a response to the Federal Vision teaching.

Believe me, he is not into works righteousness.

 

[MW]

Anyway, there's a part right towards the beginning of this video where he says "There is a practical daily lived out righteousness without which nobody gets to heaven".

There is nothing inappropriate with "practical daily lived out righteousness;" the problem is to be found in the dregs of fundamentalism being expressed in the phrase "gets to heaven."

On a pastoral level I found the video quite disturbing. There is no nurture in the faith, but mere denunication. That is not how the New Testament epistles address the need for practical godliness in the lives of Christians. They begin with what the believer is in Christ and encourage him to live out the grace he has received.

 

[CharlieJ]

To answer the OP, it sounds like Piper was about to expound more on how not to pursue righteousness, setting up for the correct way to pursue righteousness. So, the video editor definitely bears the blame for any ambiguity.

 

[Andres]

at 2:44 they spell pursue wrong.

Edit: just watched that part again. they also spell righteousness incorrectly.

 

[DouglasGregory418]

It is good to remember that He is more friendly to Doug Wilson (DG National 2009) because he already had the view (from Future Grace) that Sanctification more than proved Justification, but had some basis in it also

I am much more wary and have less respect for Piper these days

 

[LawrenceU]

Before casting stones at the preachers in the video, and others like them, please remember that these 'remixes' are cut and paste jobs and often don't portray the actual speakers full intent.

 

[nnatew24]

There is nothing inappropriate with "practical daily lived out righteousness;" the problem is to be found in the dregs of fundamentalism being expressed in the phrase "gets to heaven."

I tend to agree with the problem you mention in this statement, but I wish you would expound on this a little more. What do you refer to when you use the term 'fundamentalism'? What sort of presuppositions fuel the fundamentalist view on sanctification?

I ask because I know a good bit of Reformed Christians who have come out of a 'fundamentalist' background, and at times I struggle in pinpointing their exact error. For example, a point often propounded is taken from 1 Cor 6:9-10:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

The argument from this text is that if one is 'habitually' committing one of these sins, they will be left out of the kingdom. Seems to me that JC Ryle, one of my favorites, says similar statements. But I'm not quite sure I agree with this exact terminology. I think I'm more comfortable wording things as you did, in that it is mere denunciation. Could you offer any help here? Thanks

 

[MW]

I tend to agree with the problem you mention in this statement, but I wish you would expound on this a little more. What do you refer to when you use the term 'fundamentalism'? What sort of presuppositions fuel the fundamentalist view on sanctification?

I ask because I know a good bit of Reformed Christians who have come out of a 'fundamentalist' background, and at times I struggle in pinpointing their exact error. For example, a point often propounded is taken from 1 Cor 6:9-10:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

The argument from this text is that if one is 'habitually' committing one of these sins, they will be left out of the kingdom. Seems to me that JC Ryle, one of my favorites, says similar statements. But I'm not quite sure I agree with this exact terminology. I think I'm more comfortable wording things as you did, in that it is mere denunciation. Could you offer any help here? Thanks

By fundamentalism I mean the separatist ideal which tends to see institutions and things as evil in themselves. In alluding to the dregs of fundamentalism I was indicating that the phrase itself reflects an attitude that conveys the Christian message in terms of an individual trying to get his pass into heaven. A futurist eschatology combined with sentimental hymns of heavenly life are key contributors to this mindset. We should be aware that, while there is a future element to the kingdom of heaven, the reality is that the kingdom has been established on earth and Christians are to be living the heavenly life here and now, with the heavenly rest serving as the consummation of an earthly fight of faith. The Psalms provide an antidote to the sentimental hymns in that they locate the worshipper's desire for nearness to God in this life amidst the congregation of God's people, and place his spiritual warfare within the social interactions of ordinary human life.

 

[KMK]

I tend to agree with the problem you mention in this statement, but I wish you would expound on this a little more. What do you refer to when you use the term 'fundamentalism'? What sort of presuppositions fuel the fundamentalist view on sanctification?

I ask because I know a good bit of Reformed Christians who have come out of a 'fundamentalist' background, and at times I struggle in pinpointing their exact error. For example, a point often propounded is taken from 1 Cor 6:9-10:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

The argument from this text is that if one is 'habitually' committing one of these sins, they will be left out of the kingdom. Seems to me that JC Ryle, one of my favorites, says similar statements. But I'm not quite sure I agree with this exact terminology. I think I'm more comfortable wording things as you did, in that it is mere denunciation. Could you offer any help here? Thanks

By fundamentalism I mean the separatist ideal which tends to see institutions and things as evil in themselves. In alluding to the dregs of fundamentalism I was indicating that the phrase itself reflects an attitude that conveys the Christian message in terms of an individual trying to get his pass into heaven. A futurist eschatology combined with sentimental hymns of heavenly life are key contributors to this mindset. We should be aware that, while there is a future element to the kingdom of heaven, the reality is that the kingdom has been established on earth and Christians are to be living the heavenly life here and now, with the heavenly rest serving as the consummation of an earthly fight of faith. The Psalms provide an antidote to the sentimental hymns in that they locate the worshipper's desire for nearness to God in this life amidst the congregation of God's people, and place his spiritual warfare within the social interactions of ordinary human life.

Still looking forward to your commentary on Revelation, Rev Winzer, especially concerning Rev 5:10.

 

[MW]

Still looking forward to your commentary on Revelation, Rev Winzer, especially concerning Rev 5:10.

Pastor Klein, I hope you're not waiting with bated breath.

I may have noted before that I think Revelation only makes sense when it is read from the perspective of the seven churches. I take it that earthly ruling is part and parcel of overcoming the kinds of earthly forces which the churches encountered. Therefore, although Rev. 5:10 contains a future verb (with a variant reading in the present), I interpret it to refer to that which follows from the redemption-work of the lamb rather than some temporal point which remains to be seen. Amidst false teachers, deadly persecutors, and the like, the saints yield all power, blessing, and glory to the lamb and are victorious as a present reality. At the same time, there is no doubt that a glorious future is promised to all those who overcome, and this will reach its culminating point in the consummation of all things when all forces of opposition have been destroyed.

 

[KMK]

Still looking forward to your commentary on Revelation, Rev Winzer, especially concerning Rev 5:10.

Pastor Klein, I hope you're not waiting with bated breath.

I may have noted before that I think Revelation only makes sense when it is read from the perspective of the seven churches. I take it that earthly ruling is part and parcel of overcoming the kinds of earthly forces which the churches encountered. Therefore, although Rev. 5:10 contains a future verb (with a variant reading in the present), I interpret it to refer to that which follows from the redemption-work of the lamb rather than some temporal point which remains to be seen. Amidst false teachers, deadly persecutors, and the like, the saints yield all power, blessing, and glory to the lamb and are victorious as a present reality. At the same time, there is no doubt that a glorious future is promised to all those who overcome, and this will reach its culminating point in the consummation of all things when all forces of opposition have been destroyed.

That sounds like a pretty optimistic amill position.

 

[Augusta]

Anyway, there's a part right towards the beginning of this video where he says "There is a practical daily lived out righteousness without which nobody gets to heaven".

There is nothing inappropriate with "practical daily lived out righteousness;" the problem is to be found in the dregs of fundamentalism being expressed in the phrase "gets to heaven."

On a pastoral level I found the video quite disturbing. There is no nurture in the faith, but mere denunication. That is not how the New Testament epistles address the need for practical godliness in the lives of Christians. They begin with what the believer is in Christ and encourage him to live out the grace he has received.

While I agree with you Rev. Winzer, do you give any credence to the idea that the modern church needs a wake up call to shake them out of their anesthetized (or anesthetised ) religion? I agree this video is over the top, and as Lawrence says, someone took the harsh points of several Minsters sermons and made a sort of "shock" video out of it. However, these shocking statements are scriptural statements and although no Minister would use a video like this (here's hoping) it just might force someone to your church where they can hear the gospel preached and be saved, and there receive the true shepherding. I know that in my "cage stage" I would have eaten this up. It is probably made by someone who was just introduced to the doctrines of grace.

at 2:44 they spell pursue wrong.

Edit: just watched that part again. they also spell righteousness incorrectly.

They also spelled emphatically as infantically twice. I thought it was infanticide but it didn't match the context.

 

[jogri17]

Absolutely there is a daily lived out righteousness that needs to be held inorder to see Heaven. That is just biblical fact. Remember you cannot have sanctification without first being justified and you can't have justification without sanctification following. The two go together in that order and cannot be separated. And I do contribute something to my sanctification. It is synergestic in a sense (to paraphrase RC Sproul jr). But our justification is based on the imputed righteousness of Christ alone by faith alone. In other words: there is nosuch thing as an unsanctified christian.

 

[p.mitch3]

Asking for some clarification, how can I contribute to my sanctification? I always thought that I was sanctified by the Spirit, not by anything that I could add.

 

[jogri17]

Asking for some clarification, how can I contribute to my sanctification? I always thought that I was sanctified by the Spirit, not by anything that I could add.

Sure. Our Sanctification is of course done by the work of the Holy Spirit but this work is not done usually directly/immediate but rather it is progressive and the spirit works through means (à la ordinary means of grace) plus other things God has given us in providence. Sanctification is of course special but it is not special grace in the same sense as regeneration is. For example, a married man who is a non-christian may fight years against p0rnography because of his love for his children and his wife and do all the usual steps. A Christian can do the exact same thing and on the surface the same moral result may come about. And while we all know the Holy Spirit gives the credit (common grace and sanctification in the latter), we also know that both persons did do things that they do share in the merit in some sense. What is the difference between the two? In the first person it is God's working for the betterment of a family or whatever reason he has inmind (we don't know for sure). But in the second is to make that man more like Christ until the day of consumation when sin in his life is finally destroyed. The works that we do as apart of our sanctification are legitamely ours because of the Holy Spirit are only made possible by the free grace given in regeneration and justification and they flow out of from union with Christ. As we are united to Christ the more we will act like HIm.

 

[Andres]

Asking for some clarification, how can I contribute to my sanctification? I always thought that I was sanctified by the Spirit, not by anything that I could add.

Here is an excerpt from a brief section on sanctification by J.I. Packer. You can read the rest here.

Regeneration was a momentary monergistic act of quickening the spiritually dead. As such, it was God's work alone. Sanctification, however, is in one sense synergistic - it is an ongoing cooperative process in which regenerate persons, alive to God and freed from sin's dominion (Rom. 6:11, 14-18), are required to exert themselves in sustained obedience. God's method of sanctification is neither activism (self-reliant activity) nor apathy (God-reliant passivity), but God-dependent effort (2 Cor. 7:1; Phil. 3:10-14; Heb. 12:14). Knowing that without Christ's enabling we can do nothing, morally speaking, as we should, and that he is ready to strengthen us for all that we have to do (Phil. 4:13), we "stay put" (remain, abide) in Christ, asking for his help constantly - and we receive it (Col. 1:11; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 1:7; 2:1).

 

[MW]

While I agree with you Rev. Winzer, do you give any credence to the idea that the modern church needs a wake up call to shake them out of their anesthetized (or anesthetised ) religion?

There is a a place for fear, Philippians 2:12, Hebrews 4:1; but this must always be accompanied by an understanding of grace, Philippians 2:13; Hebrews 4:13-16. I would maintain that the insensibility is due to the fact that modern "church-goers" have never learned Christ, Ephesians 4:20, and therefore have no understanding of putting off the old man and putting on the new; they have never received Christ Jesus the Lord, Colossians 2:6, and are therefore unable to walk in Him. The answer to this problem is not denunciation but proclamation. They need to be taught what it means to be dead in trespasses and sins, that God's purpose is at the forefront of salvation, how Christ puts away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, what is effectual grace and true regeneration, and the true nature and import of perseverance. In other words, they need to be taught the doctrines of grace. And by the doctrines of grace I mean the pure Calvinism of the past, not this mixed form of Calvinism which tries to make the dead sinner feel good about God by teaching him a gospel love that is not particular and saving.

 

[Pilgrim72]

Absolutely there is a daily lived out righteousness that needs to be held inorder to see Heaven. That is just biblical fact. Remember you cannot have sanctification without first being justified and you can't have justification without sanctification following. The two go together in that order and cannot be separated. And I do contribute something to my sanctification. It is synergestic in a sense (to paraphrase RC Sproul jr). But our justification is based on the imputed righteousness of Christ alone by faith alone. In other words: there is nosuch thing as an unsanctified christian.

But to say it in that way confuses the truth. A Christian's sanctification is dependant upon his justification. His justification isn't dependant upon his sanctification. To say that to see heaven we have to do some sort of extra work would be an altering of the Gospel. Our daily lived out righteous works are still imperfect. What about the Christian who sins? What about the Christian who continually struggles in his growth (which should be all of us to some degree or another).

Because of our justification through the imputed righteousness of Christ alone by faith alone we will see heaven. That should be the end of the discussion on "seeing heaven".

Now when discussing our sanctification, we can talk about the importance of living holily in God's sight. All true Christians will be sanctified. All Christians should live at all times to glory of God. But this "living" doesn't merit us salvation.

I understand that in this video they are concerned with those who are Christian in name only, and at the same time live like the devil. America is filled with people like this. But I think that that statement could've been either worded differently, or not cropped in such a way to make it look like he's saying something he didn't mean.

 

[p.mitch3]

Thank you for the clarification, but I have a hard time saying that sanctification is synergistic. The one passage that keeps coming to my mind is Galatians 3:2-3.

If sanctification were synergistic then we would be adding works to salvation. To me sanctification is as much of God’s work as justification. Now don’t get me wrong, we will produce good fruit, but that is not the cause of our sanctification.

Mitch

 

[KMK]

LBC 13:3 In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome; and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, pressing after an heavenly life, in evangelical obedience to all the commands which Christ as Head and King, in his Word has prescribed to them.

Both Justification and Sanctification are monergistic, yet in the latter there is a certain amount of 'participation' on the part of the saint.

 

[jogri17]

I of course am 100% in agreement with you on justification and the nature of our sanctification but I completely disagree with you about how we talk how the two relates. We must not talk about justificacation as a mere fire insurance as it sounds like you are saying, rather (I thinik) a more biblical discussion in general of salvation encompases all of our salvation from our election to our justification to our sanctification to our glorification. Now we must not make the mistake of the NPP or the RCC, but when you read the puritans they have this so right. They would never see the christian life of one of being justified then being sanctified rather they made the propre distinction and taught that the christian life was that of pilgrimage. For we most often don't know when the holy spirit really regenerates us and unites us to Christ. That work of course will usually manifest itself given time in a verbal profession of some sort but as we all know ''regeneration precedes faith'' and from there The christian FIGHT to make it to heaven like a good pilgrim and at the same time God is faithful and preserves him or her through means. We must not make the mistake of the finnyists and other revivalists and treat salvation as a decision or fire insurance NOR must we err on the side of Kuyper and presuppose regeneration. The happy way between the two is the Reformed way.

 

[KMK]

I of course am 100% in agreement with you on justification and the nature of our sanctification but I completely disagree with you about how we talk how the two relates. We must not talk about justificacation as a mere fire insurance as it sounds like you are saying, rather (I thinik) a more biblical discussion in general of salvation encompases all of our salvation from our election to our justification to our sanctification to our glorification. Now we must not make the mistake of the NPP or the RCC, but when you read the puritans they have this so right. They would never see the christian life of one of being justified then being sanctified rather they made the propre distinction and taught that the christian life was that of pilgrimage. For we most often don't know when the holy spirit really regenerates us and unites us to Christ. That work of course will usually manifest itself given time in a verbal profession of some sort but as we all know ''regeneration precedes faith'' and from there The christian FIGHT to make it to heaven like a good pilgrim and at the same time God is faithful and preserves him or her through means. We must not make the mistake of the finnyists and other revivalists and treat salvation as a decision or fire insurance NOR must we err on the side of Kuyper and presuppose regeneration. The happy way between the two is the Reformed way.

For clarity's sake, could you 'reply with quote' or address the specific post to which you reply?

 

[jogri17]

I was replying to you KMK

 

[KMK]

I was replying to you KMK

Do you agree with the confession? Do you agree with the fact that 'the saints grow in grace' and 'press after an heavenly life' and 'obey'?