Freewill vs. God's Sovereignty, Pt. 2

If I had to guess, I'd say one of the biggest reasons this debate is even out there is because people completely misunderstand what it means to follow "God's Will."  You know how I know?  Because we use the term "God's Will," as if there is one single, set Will of God.  In other words, we have made God's Will to be a singular thing when, in fact, God has numerous wills.

That's because the word "will" was, historically, a verb; we've turned it into a noun, but it was a verb, initially.  Our English word "will" comes from the Old English word - sorry, I'm geeking out on you here - wyllan, and means "to want, desire, or wish."  We have turned it into a noun, as I said, but even in its noun form, it still means "a want, desire, or wish."  We do see this in our modern language today:  a person's last will and testament is his or her stated desire for what should be done with all of his or her stuff.  We actually see it in the future tense of the verb "to be," as well.  If I say, "I will go to the store tomorrow," what that more literally means is, "I want to go to the store tomorrow."  It used to carry with it the recognition that future plans were merely based on our desires, not a guaranteed outcome.  I cannot, in all honesty, claim that I will successfully be able to go to the store tomorrow, because I do not know what the future holds.  So, if this were 900 A.D., I would be saying that, if all goes well, my desire to go to the store tomorrow is going to be successful.  I will to go to the store.  Oh, and in German (our sister language with the same linguistic roots), if I wanted to do something, I'd say, "Ich will . . . ."  I want.

Now, do any of us go through life with but one will and desire?  No, of course not.  We have multiple wills and desires as we go through life.  For example, I want different things for my daughter than I do for my wife.  I want different things for my wife than I do for my neighbor.  I want different things for my neighbor than I do for his dog.  Furthermore, my desires for each of these individuals can change from day to day, moment to moment.  In the morning, I desire my daughter to eat breakfast.  In the evening, I desire that she go to bed.  I do not, however, desire that my daughter go out to the backyard to pee, as I want for my neighbor's dog when I am dog-sitting.  I have multiple wills - sometimes for the same person (or pet).


And just as we - who are made in God's image - have multiple desires and wants in life, so does God.  We looked at I Thessalonians in the last post, but we know that God desires for us to avoid sexual immorality, but it would be quite ridiculous to say that - though this is God's will, as Paul puts it - it would be quite ridiculous to claim that this is "God's Will."  That is, to claim that God's entire purpose and plan for every person, without anything else at all on His mind, is that we avoid sexual immorality, is quite ridiculous.  No one claims that, of course, so we instinctively recognize that God has multiple wills, and yet, many can stand at a pulpit or sit in front of a computer and claim, "Nothing can thwart God's Will!"  Well, which will are we talking about there?  Which desire of God are you referring to, if we all recognize that God has numerous desires?  Because the Scriptures reveal numerous times where God's desires are thwarted.

The same Paul who told the church at Thessalonica to avoid sexual immorality also told numerous other churches and groups of believers to stop being sexually immoral.  Well, if they were being sexually immoral, then they were not enacting God's Will - they were going directly against it, in fact.  We can push this further and say that any time we sin, we are going against what God wants.  Why?  Because God never wants us to sin - sin is never God's Will.  Here's the really - to me - odd thing:  I have heard numerous pastors and theologians (read:  Calvinists) assert that sin is never God's Will in one breath, but in the next, they will pronounce that nothing can thwart God's Will, because His Will is Sovereign.

That is utter insanity, as it is - quite literally - self-contradicting.  It is a bizarre attempt to make two inherently contradictory statements agree, but it doesn't even actually make them agree - it just declares them to both be right.  This is the foundation of Hinduism, on a side note.  In Hinduism, the basic thought process is that everything in the world is valid and right.  All gods are valid - even the ones who claim to be the only gods; all beliefs are valid - even the ones that contradict each other; truth is in the eye of the beholder - therefore contradictions don't matter.  What we're seeing here is very cleverly disguised version of Hinduism - a version of Hinduism that has been dressed to look like Biblical Christianity.

The counter-argument to all of this is rather interesting, because the argument is that, if God's will can be thwarted, then God isn't really in control.  But that's because we confuse "being in control" with "being controlling."  These two things are not the same.  Look at a manager who attempts to dictate every thought, word and action of his or her employees.  We call that "micro-managing," and it doesn't work.  That is an employer who, while he or she may control the employees, actually has no control whatsoever.  Morale is always low, grumbling and rumors abound, and, eventually, people stop listening and caring, and do whatever they want.  The more controlling an employer becomes, the less in-control that same employer is.

As another example, you are controlling of your car when you drive:  you steer, you accelerate, you break, you turn on your blinkers, you stop at (or run!) red lights, etc.  You are, quite literally, controlling your car.  But you are not in control of driving.  Why?  Because you cannot predict the other guy who runs a red light, or the girl texting on her phone who swerves into your lane.  You may be controlling, but you are not in control.  These two things are separate ideas, and it is so with God.

God does not control everything, but He is in control. Why? Because we know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love God and are called according to His purpose.  God works things for good.  No matter what our free will throws at God, He can still work with it - because He's God.  He does not need us to be obedient in order to accomplish His purposes.  He wants (wills) us to be obedient, He commands us to be, but when we're not, He is still God.  He is still in control, even though He is not controlling, and even though we went against His desire for our lives.

Why There Are Some Christians Who Deny Free Will
Okay.  This is a tricky thing, because it may require me to throw some people under the bus.  I'm going to try very hard not to, and I'm going to try very hard not to be facetious, but I may not have a choice (Ha ha!  See what I did there?).

If you go to your favorite search engine and type:  "Do we have free will?" or some variation of that, you get quite a few hits - I found 911 million results - many of them secular.  If you do a little bit of digging, however, you will come to some that are written by Christian groups who deny the existence of free will.  And all of them - all of them - refuse to answer the question simply.  Almost without exception, they all begin by throwing around theological jargon and fifty-cent words.  For example, www.reformation21.org begins this way:

"Studying 'free will' is challenging because it is not defined in Scripture.  Further, it is complex because it connects to many other larger theological issues; it intersects with philosophy, historical theology, and systematic theology"

"What is 'free will'?

"We should start by learning the standard terminology associated with the 'free will' debate. 

1. 'Will' means the function of choosing.
2.  Constraining forces cause people to act against their will.  For example, a person being robbed at gunpoint is constrained in this sense.  Non-constraining forces do not cause people to act against their will but are sufficient to cause an action.  For example, if you have a fear of heights, you probably will not want to talk on the edge of a tall building's roof; that fear is a non-constraining cause.
3.  Indeterminism holds that genuinely free acts are not causally determined.  Determinism holds that everything is causally determined (i.e., that prior events and conditions necessitate every event).
4.  Incompatibilism holds that determinism and human freedom are incompatible; it rejects determinism and affirms human freedom.  Compatibilism holds that determinism and human freedom are compatible.
5.  Libertarian free will is the ability to either do something or not.  Free agency is the ability to do whatever a person wants to do (apart from constraining causes).  This difference is not a small one.  For example, do non-Christians have the inherent ability either to choose to trust Christ or not?  Is such a decision ultimately dependent on their will." . . . 

The site goes on from there, but that's the start of it.  Confused?  Well, maybe you should see what The Village Church (the church run by Matt Chandler) has to say on the topic.  After a brief introductory discussion of slavery (both in the Bible and in America), the author of the article writes:

"What Types if Freedom are We Considering?
When speaking of free will, one is not typically referring to the freedom to make mundane daily decisions.  There is instead a more nuanced realm in which theological free will is discussed.  Theologians call this area soteriology, the study of salvation.  In this discussion, I want to limit our focus to this realm.

"I am explicitly asking about the role of the human will in coming to Christ.  Will an unregenerate person trust Jesus without any external compulsion or must there be a prior work done in us to allow us to come?  Furthermore, if there is this prior work, is it granted by God to all or only to some persons?

"Therefore we should bear in mind that this discussion of "free will" is not concerned with mundane daily choice or decisions believers make.  It is concerned with the choice of an unbeliever to believe in Christ."

That was a bit better.  But only a little bit.  Notice how, with a wave of his hand, the author literally dismisses any and all examples of free will in our lives, focusing instead on what he considers to be the lack of free will in the most important aspect of life (as you'll see if you continue to read the article).

We could look at John Piper, Tim Keller, or the like, but we would find the same arguments, the same jargon, and the same dismissal of practical, real-world experience.  But more than that, we find a dismissal of Scripture and a very zealous hold on a small, select number of passages that are being taken completely out of context.  So, as I promised in the last post on this, let's take a look at some of those passages that people decide to use in order to argue against free will.

"I will make you into a great nation
   and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
   and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
   and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
   will be blessed through you."

God is speaking to Abraham here, having just called him out from Ur (see Genesis 11:28,31), and this is a pretty big deal for Calvinists - as well it should be.  God, Creator of the heavens and the earth, is calling to a specific person, and He's doing so for a very specific purpose.  Here's the issue, however:  most Calvinist theologians equate God's calling here with Abraham's salvation.  This is not true, however.  Why?  Because not once did God, in any of this, say, "I will give you eternal rest in My presence."  God said, "Get up and move, and I will make your descendants numerous."

Right?  That's exactly what God says.  This isn't a promise of salvation that God is making, but a promise of action.  How can I claim this, aside from the obvious statement of the text?  Several reasons.

First, Abram obeyed and moved, but brother man split the scene as soon as the going got tough.  See, what some theologians do is talk about Abram's great faith when he moved, and that his trust in God revealed his salvation.  But Abram didn't trust God - he obeyed, but only temporarily.  He heard a Voice speak, and he did what It said, but that doesn't mean he acknowledged the voice as the One and Only God, or the Creator of the Universe Who knows the end from the beginning.  This interpretation is one that is being shoe-horned into a text that reveals the opposite.  Notice:

Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while because the famine was severe (12:10).

God said, "Here's your home; I'll take care of you."  Then the grocery store closed, and Abram left.  "I'll take care of you" didn't resound anymore.  Abram obeyed, but he didn't trust. 

Further proof?  What does he do with Sarai?  Check out 12:11-16:

As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, "I know what a beautiful woman you are.  When the Egyptians see you, they will say, 'This is his wife.'  Then they will kill me but will let you live.  Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you."

When Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw that she was a very beautiful woman.  And when Pharaoh's officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and she was taken into his palace.  He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, menservants and maidservants, and camels.

Dude pimped out his wife to save his own skin.  God had promised to make him into a great nation, but he was afraid of dying.  He didn't trust God.

Now, some may point out that, as believers, we often don't trust Him when we should.  And I would agree with this; the letters of the apostles are filled with encouragement and reminders to trust in God, which would be completely unnecessary if wavering trust weren't an issue.  But there's a second reason we know Abram wasn't saved when God called to him:  because we're told when Abram was saved, and it didn't happen until Chapter 15:

Then the word of the LORD came to him:  "This man [see 15:1-3] will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir."  He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars - if indeed you can count them."  Then He said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

Abram believed the LORD, and He credited it to him as righteousness.

He also said to him, "I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it" (4-7).

God called Abram to move to the land of Canaan in Chapter 12, but Abram wasn't saved until he trusted in God in Chapter 15.  How do I know?  Because it's what the Bible says.  To interpret this any other way is to deny the plain statement of Scripture.  Furthermore, God did not enter into a covenant with Abraham until Abraham was saved.  Check out 15:12-19:

As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him.  Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years.  But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will  come out with great possessions.  You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age.  In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.

When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces [see 15:9-11].  On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates. . . ."

So what happened here?  God called Abram in Chapter 12, but did not enter into a covenant with him until after he was saved, which only happened after he believed. Abram was called by God, yes, but he had to believe before receiving the righteousness of God, and he had to be saved before being part of the covenant.  Calvinism reverses this, saying that God makes a covenant with us from eternity past, choosing us and not others, so that WE are saved in order for us to believe, and others will NEVER believe because God has rejected them from eternity past, and any apparent "decision" we make to trust God is only an illusion, because God has decided for us.

In other words, our entire existence and faith is a farce and a sham.

As I said, eliminating free will makes God out to be a liar.

Genesis 20:1-6:

Now Abraham moved on from there into the region of the Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur.  For a while he stayed in Gerar, and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, "She is my sister."  Then Abimelech king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her.

But God came to Abimelech in a dream one night and aid to him, "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman."

Now Abimelech had not gone near her, so he said, "Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation?  Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister,' and didn't she also say, 'He is my brother'?  I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands."

Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against Me.  That is why I did not let you touch her."

For those who deny free will, there are eight words in this entire passage that they latch onto:  "I have kept you from sinning against Me."  The argument is that God kept Abimelech from doing what he wanted, thus proving we have no free will.  But the entire point of prevention is because Abimelech has the option of acting out his desires.  I do not have to prevent my daughter from flying away because she doesn't have that option.  She may desire it, but she can't do it, and I therefore do not have to prevent her.  Prevention is only necessary if free will exists.  If God controlled our wills, then Abimelech would not have even taken Sarah to begin with.  

Now, what I just wrote was an awful lot of speculation, I admit, but I have a second reason for claiming this:  verse seven.  Check it out:  "'Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live.  But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die.'"  What's God doing here, in light of His next proclamation?  He's giving Abimelech the choice of repentance, providing him with the consequences of either choice.  This is meaningless posturing if God has already determined Abimelech's choice for him, and is, once more, deceptive on God's part.

Once again, using this text as "proof" that we do not have free will is blasphemous to God, and denies the clear teaching of the Scriptures.

Okay, so this went on for far longer than I had anticipated.  Therefore, I will wrap this up today, and the next post will deal with a few more passages commonly used to defend the non-existence of freewill.  In the meantime, if you have a passage that you believe proves, without doubt, that free will doesn't exist, sound off below! 

Piper on Limited Atonement

Like the discussion on Freewill (which I still need to finish - sorry!), this is a touchy subject.  I realize that John Piper is extremely popular.  I get it.  I also realize that Calvinism (of which Limited Atonement is a facet) is rapidly gaining traction, spreading from Lutheran, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian churches into Baptist and non-denominational churches.  I recognize that people like Paul Washer, John Piper, and the late R.C. Sproul are (or, were) champions of this doctrine, and that many, many people have been deceived by these apparent preachers of the Gospel.

But Calvinism is a lie.  It is an anti-Biblical farce that makes a mockery of Jesus' death, and undermines the very character and nature of God, and Piper is one of its most vocal proponents.

So in this post, I'm going to look at one of Piper's sermons, one in which he expounds the "Biblical" reason behind Limited Atonement.  Then we're going to see why this is so wrong.

Piper begins his sermon by musing on one line from the song, "Crown Him with Many Crowns."  Interesting to note that his sermon did not start with Scripture, but a hymn.  And not even just a hymn, but his musings on the hymn, and how many people, he wonders, are wrong in their interpretation of its line.  Right off the bat, he turns to, not Scripture, but a line from a hymn, and he approaches it with the attitude:  "Most people are wrong about this line."  Now, in starting with that, in what kind of mindset does that put his listeners?  John Piper, spiritual and Biblical guru, has just told you that how you listen to a hymn is probably wrong, and he can provide the remedy.  This is called psychological programming, because it sets you up to more readily accept the alternative that you are about to hear.  Just throwing that out there.

Piper then moves on, stating that he would suppose that the majority of evangelical Christians in the United States believe that Jesus died for everyone.  He then unpacks why this is false (spoiler alert: it isn't).

What the argument boils down to is that Jesus died for a very specific group of people - people He had chosen to save - and He did not die for anyone else . . . because He has chosen not to save them.  Let’s see what he says:

“There are lots of reasons why this answer (that Jesus tasted death for everyone) is a sign of spiritual health.  One of the most obvious reasons is right here in our text, Hebrews 2:9:

               

                But we do see Him Who has been made for a little while lower

                than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of

                death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God

                He might taste death for everyone.

The answer that 95% of evangelicals would give is a healthy sign of desire to say what the Bible says.

But to say what the Bible says and to mean what the Bible means are not necessarily 

the same thing.  Which is why I said that there is something unhealthy about
answering the question, “For whom did Jesus taste death?” by simply saying
“everybody.”  What’s unhealthy about it is not, first, that it’s wrong.  It might not be

wrong.  It depends on what you mean by saying that.” 

Okay.  Let’s stop here and examine something.   Piper calls believing that the Bible says “everyone” a sign of spiritual health.  Why?  Because that’s what it says.  But he then turns around and says that to believe what the Bible says (i.e., “everyone”) is “unhealthy.”  In other words, it’s healthy to want to believe what the Bible says, but it’s unhealthy to actually believe what the Bible says.  This is a grievous contradiction.  Piper, in other words, contradicts himself, for it is utterly impossible for this answer to be both healthy and unhealthy.  If I have a cold, I am not healthy (I have a virus), but unhealthy.  I am not both.  To believe what the Bible says is healthy, and cannot be unhealthy at the same time. 

So the first thing Piper does here is acknowledge that the Bible says that Jesus tasted death for everyone, and he says that believing this plain and clear statement is a sign of spiritual health.  But then he turns it around and states something quite dangerous.  He makes a statement that, on the surface, seems okay:  “But to say what the Bible says and to mean what the Bible means are not necessarily the same thing.”  We may respond to that with a, "Sure, makes sense.  Sometimes the Bible means something a little different than what it is taken as."  But that's not actually the case, ever.  For if we cannot determine what the Bible means by what it says, then we cannot understand the Bible at all, for how could we ever confirm anyone's interpretation?  And what Piper is saying, here, is that the Bible may say “everyone,” but it doesn’t mean “everyone.”  As a question, Piper might phrase it like this:  “Did God really mean ‘everyone’?” 

A similar question has been asked before.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the other wild animals the LORD God had made.  And the serpent said to Eve, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’” (Gen. 3:1-2).

What was Satan’s tactic here?  To distort God’s Word and place a seed of doubt in the mind of Eve.  John Piper is doing the exact same thing.  Let’s read a bit further in his argument, and then we’ll see what I mean by that.

          "It depends on what you mean by saying that [everyone]."

In other words, if you define "everyone" as "everyone," you're wrong, but if you define it differently, you might be right.  This is more conditioning, because it sets you up to either affirm yourself and your beliefs - confirming that you are in agreement with this "spiritual giant" thus giving you what you want to hear - or it will guilt you into changing your belief so that you can align it with what he teaches, which  also cements his status as a man of God.  Interesting how, in both of these scenarios, John Piper - rather than Scripture - is the spiritual authority to whom the listeners must align themselves.  Right?  You either agree with him - go you! - or you're told that you're wrong to disagree ("spiritually unhealthy" are the words he uses).  Let's continue:

           "It depends on what you mean by saying that.  What's unhealthy is that it stops short of
            asking what Jesus really accomplished when he died." 

Actually, since Piper's the one who asked the initial question, then when he criticizes it ("What's unhealthy is that it stops short of asking what Jesus really accomplished when he died"), it's an argument he set up himself.  This is a clever misdirection, because it reveals a flaw in the premise that he can then "solve," but it's only a flaw because he's the one who designed the flaw.  The question comes up short because he stopped it where he did, not because the hypothetical believers he is addressing stopped short.  It's easy to dismantle something you invented, and Piper is dismantling a purely hypothetical situation, a situation that he "guesses" is held by 95% of Christians who believe "everyone" means "everyone."

I call this process "manufacturing theological inconsistencies," and that is what he is doing.  Why?  In order to easily dismantle the problem, and, thus, appear to be speaking truth.  He's manufacturing theological inconsistencies, and then dismantling them.  This should be the second sign that there's something deceptive going on.

It assumes that we all know what he accomplished and that this he accomplished for everybody in the same way.  That is not healthy, because it is not true.  

In other words, what the Bible says is untrue, according to Piper.

My guess is that most of those 95% who say Jesus died for everybody would have a hard time explaining just what it is that the death of Jesus really, actually accomplished for everybody - especially what it accomplished for those who refuse to believe and go to hell."

Not if you know your Bible.

In other words, it's unhealthy to say that Jesus tasted death for everyone and not to know what Jesus really accomplished by dying.  Suppose you say to me, "I believe that Jesus died for everyone," and I respond, "Then why is not everyone saved?"  Your answer probably would be, "Because you have to receive the gift of salvation; you have to believe in Christ in order for his death to count for you."  I agree, but -

Then that means you don't agree.  If you say something positive, and then follow it with a "but," it means you don't actually agree.  "I liked the Star Wars prequels, but. . ."  It doesn't matter what follows, you just know I'm about to present something I didn't like about them (in this case, it would be followed with "almost everything.").  What I'm saying is, I liked aspects of them, but not everything.  What Piper is saying is that he only partially agree with the fact that you have to believe in Jesus in order to receive salvation.

I agree, but then I say, "So you believe that Christ died for people who reject him and go to hell in the same way that he died for those who accept him and go to heaven?"  You say, "Yes, the difference is the faith of those who go to heaven.  Faith connects you with the benefits of the death of Jesus."

There are several problems here.  I will mention only one. 


Let's stop here for a bit.  Piper gives the hypothetical discussion in which "you" comment that, "'Faith connects you with the benefits of the death of Jesus.'"  Piper then asserts that "there are several problems here."  Oh, really?  "Problems"?  Sure about that, John? Let's see what the Scriptures say, then we'll return to Piper's argument.  Let's start in the Old Testament.

"Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God" (Genesis 6:9).  That term "walked with God" refers to a deep relationship of trust and obedience on the part of Noah, and - as the ark indicates - salvation from God.

"Abram believed the LORD, and He credited to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6).  Abram believed, and received the righteousness of God.  This is not my interpretation of the text - it's what the text physically says.

"This day I call heaven and earth  as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses.  Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to His voice, and hold fast to Him" (Deut. 30:19-20).  God Himself tells the Israelites to choose to follow His law, so that they may love Him, listen to His voice, and hold fast to Him.  In other words, He is urging them to trust Him, in order that they may have a relationship with Him.

Now, let's see what Jesus has to say:

"Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.  On Him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

Then they asked Him, "What must we do to do the works that God requires?"

Jesus answered, "The work of God is this:  to believe in the one He has sent"  (John 6:27-29).

Jesus told them to work for that which leads to eternal life, which He will give.  They asked him what that work was, and He told them it is to believe in Him.  Really straightforward, right?  Salvation - eternal life - happens when we believe.  So when Piper says there are problems with this view, what he is really saying is that there are problems with what the Scriptures say (which makes sense, I guess, since he can simply tell us that believing what the Bible says isn't necessarily accurate).

And I dwell on this because, if this is what you believe, then you are missing out on the depths of covenant love that God has for you in Christ by understanding it to be same as the love he has for those who reject him.  And you are, in one serious way, "neglecting your great salvation," which, we saw in Hebrews 2:3, we must not do.  There is a greatness about being loved with Calvary love that you will never know if you believe that those in hell were loved and died-for the same way you were.

Ah.  So the meat of this, here, is that if you believe God loves and died for all of the "sinners" in Hell, then you are missing out on how special and loved you are, because God loves you better and more than he does all of the other sinners.  Right?  If you believe, Piper argues, that Jesus died for all, then you are missing out on a deeper spiritual truth (maybe even neglecting your salvation!  Oh no!).  In other words, if you believe in Jesus, you should be thanking God that He loves you, and doesn't treat you the way He treats other sinners.

The "great" Calvinist preacher Charles Spurgeon once wrote:

Sometimes when I see some of the worst characters in the street, I feel as if my heart must burst forth in tears of gratitude that God has never let me act as they have done ("If God Had Left Me Alone").

The idea, obviously, is that we should be grateful that we are more loved - and as a consequence, more righteous - than those who do not believe.  What does the Bible say, though?

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable:

"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.  The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men - robbers, evildoers, adulterers - or even like this tax collector.  I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

"But the tax collector stood at a distance.  He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

"I tell you this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God.  For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 18:9-14).

You will never understand God's love for you if you don't believe what Piper is teaching.  Those are his words, not mine.  This argument is simply Pharisaical self-exaltation, wrapped under the guise of God's grace.  Jesus is Lord, and Jesus died on the cross for my sins.  I do not deserve it, I cannot work for it, but Jesus does not love me, and He did not die for me, as opposed to my neighbor, whom He does not love and for whom He did not die.  I am not more special than my neighbor because Jesus died for me, and not him.  We are both created in God's image, and we are both loved, and Jesus died for both of us, even though neither of us deserve it.  THAT is true grace.

My neighbor may never accept his need for salvation, and he may never call on the name of Jesus and be saved, but that doesn't mean I am more loved.  To believe that Jesus bore my sins, but not his, is the very definition of self-righteous, ego-centric nationalism.  There is no scripture to support this, and to believe this doctrine is to feed the ego in a way that appears godly, but denies its power.  Piper continues:


Here's the problem with saying Christ died for all the same way he died for his bride.  If Christ died for the sins of those who are finally lost, the same we he died for those who are finally saved, then what are the lost being punished for?  Were their sins covered and cancelled by the blood of Jesus or not?  We Christians say, "Christ died for our sins" (1 Corinthians 15:3).  And we mean that his death paid the debt those sins created.  His death removed the wrath of God from me.  His death lifted the curse of the law from me.  His death purchased heaven for me.  It really accomplished those things!  

"What are the lost being punished for?"  Their sins.  See, this is only a problem if you deny that faith is what connects you to Jesus' atonement on the cross.  If you deny that Biblical truth, which Piper does, in a veiled sort of way, then this is a problem.  But if you accept the Scriptures, and try not to reason your way out of them in order to sound smart, then this is a non-issue.  It's interesting, too, that Piper offers no Biblical answer to his "problem."  That's because there isn't one.  Take four months and read through the Bible, and you will not find it.  

Do you see what Piper is doing in all of this?  I mean, really look.  He is, in essence, telling people who believe what the Scriptures say that they are wrong, because God doesn't mean what He says.

Let's take a look back at Genesis 3 for a second, and see what Satan said to Eve:

And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." . . .

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made.  He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die."

"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.  "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:1-5).


The first thing Satan does is set up a false scenario about God's commands, planting a seed of doubt.  Then, he tells Eve that God did not mean what He said, and that there was a deeper truth there for her to know.

Sound familiar?

John Piper is, literally, using the exact same tactic that Satan used in the garden.  Please listen:  John Piper's argument is Satanic.  Literally.  His argument hinges on something he "guesses," something he "supposes," and something you may "probably say," and he argues against the Scriptures by undermining what we see with Abraham and Noah, and by contradicting the command of Jesus, a command that Jesus Himself tells us is from God.  Piper is teaching a Gospel that is contrary to the Gospel of the Word, and he teaches a Jesus that is contrary to the Jesus whom the Apostles preached.


Paul writes to the church in Corinth, angry that the believers there will easily put up with anyone who comes to them and preaches a different Jesus than the Jesus he preached, someone who gives them a different spirit than the one they received, and someone who delivers a different gospel from the one they accepted (see 2 Corinthians 11:4).  How many of you, upon hearing the Gospel, believed in a Jesus who only died for some?  How many of you, upon accepting the Gospel, accepted a gospel that said that God so loved some of the world, that He gave His Son, that whoever (out of the ones He has chosen) believes in Him, will not perish, but have eternal life?  How many of you came to a saving knowledge and faith in Jesus Christ by believing that when He tasted death, He tasted death for you, but possibly not your neighbor?  How many of you believed a Gospel that said that Jesus died for you, because He loves you more than He loves other, ultimately unsaved, people?

So if you now believe such a gospel, if you now follow such a Jesus, if you now receive a spirit that teaches such things, have you not accepted a different gospel than the one in which you first believed?  In 11:3, Paul likens such things to Eve's deception by the Serpent.

John Piper's argument is Satanic.  I realize that this is extremely unpopular, since he is a well-respected preacher.  I know his books sell, his church is packed, and his sermons are among the most downloaded sermons on the internet.  But did Piper die for your sins?  Was it Piper who was nailed to the cross?  Did John create the world?  Did he rise from the dead, defeating death?

Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly - mere infants in Christ.  I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it.  Indeed, you are still not ready.  You are still worldly.  For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly?  Are you not acting like mere men?  For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?

What, after all, is Apollos?  And what is Paul?  Only servants, through whom you came to believe - as the Lord has assigned to each his task (1 Corinthians 3:1-5).

If attacking the doctrines espoused by Piper offends you, then you are more interested in Piper than you are the Word of God.

The doctrine of Limited Atonement can only be defended by two methods:

1) Ignoring (or redefining) Scripture, and
2) Being mentally manipulative

Again, I understand that Piper is popular.  I do.  I even understand that he appeals to our intellect, and he gives us the things we want to hear.  But perhaps instead of reading Piper, read the Bible.  Instead of listening to his sermons, get the Bible on audio, and listen to it.  The Apostle John tells us to "test the spirits" (1 John 4), and if a spirit fails the test, we need to eliminate it from our lives.

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.  It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness (2 Corinthians 11:14-15).


Some further Scripture to consider:

-For God so loved the world, that He gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

Re-written from a Calvinist perspective:

For God so loved some of the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever out of a limited group of people believe in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life.

-He is the atoning sacrifice for our sin, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

Re-written:  He is the atoning sacrifice for our sin, because we are His Chosen, and only for ours, and also some others from the world whom He has also chosen, but not everyone else.

-But there were false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.  They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them - bringing swift destruction on themselves (2 Peter 2:1).

Re-written: But there were false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.  They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who didn't buy them, because they were chosen not to believe - bringing swift destruction on themselves.

- . . . and for this we labor and strive, that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially for those who believe (1 Timothy 4:10).

Re-written:  . . . and for this we labor and strive, that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of some men, having died only for those who believe.

-The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness.  He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

Re-written:  The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness.  He is patient with you, not wanting any of you who were already bought and paid for and therefore cannot perish to perish, but everyone out of those for whom He died to come to repentance.

-But we see Jesus, Who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9).

Re-written:  But we see Jesus, Who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death, so that by the grace of God he would certainly taste death only for everyone for whom He actually tasted death.

"But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself" (John 12:32).

Re-written:  "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw only some men to Myself." or, alternatively, "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all, out of the ones that I desire to draw, to Myself."

Prayers Needed

Hey, folks!  I just wanted to write a quick note to apologize for my delay in posting the next section of the End Times series.  It will be up soon, as I am still working on it!

However, at the same time, I have been reading the Scriptures and studying them in regards to Predestined Salvation (typically called Calvinism).  Over the last two months, I've been studying the writings of Calvin, I'm studying the ideas surrounding the Calvinistic acronym T.U.L.I.P., but, above all, I'm studying God's Word.

Look, where I am now is firmly in the belief that Predestined Salvation is a very, very, dangerous heresy.  More dangerous than I think most of us realize.  I do, however, have one desire above all else, and that is to preach and understand the character and nature of God, even if it involves an aspect of Him that I don't typically like.  So what I need, right now, is prayer.  I need prayer that His Word will be revealed, although I have a pretty strong conviction that His Word is against Predestined Salvation.  IF that remains my firm conviction, then I need prayer for another reason:

Opposition to the Truth.  There are many, many people who hold to Calvinism, many of them my friends.  So the current plan is to write a series refuting Predestination, and why it is a false teaching, and for that, I need prayers.  But, I am also open to the Spirit, and if the Spirit is trying to move me away from this plan, then I need prayers that I will be submissive. 

Thank you for your prayers, and thank you, as always, for reading my posts!  Still not sure why so many of you are. . . .