Council of Google Plus: PSA & the Piper Permutation

1. 

   Coleen Sharp 5 years ago

   Sorry to keep commenting, but one more thing:

   I’ve known about Piper’s view for a long time (along with Mark Jones who has defended him) This isn’t something new. When Piper’s forward to Thomas Schreiner’s book came out a while back, those online discussed it then. Before that it was in books he wrote.

   Really the debate has been going on for quite some time and there’s a lot more to it. It is clear what those on the Piper/Jones side are saying, which is why people like R Scott Clark have written extensively about it.

   Log in to reply.
2. 

   Coleen Sharp 5 years ago

   I know this wasn’t the point of the episode, but since it was brought up…

   Just for the record, regarding Lordship Salvation, as we explained on our episode about Lordship Salvation, it was a debate within dispensationalism. It’s built on a dispensational theological framework, not a Reformed one. In Reformed theology we have a robust doctrine of progressive sanctification, an emphasis on union with Christ.

   As Michael Horton says regarding Lordship Salvation:

   “. .. it’s really hard to know exactly how to evaluate the participants in this debate because on both sides they’re working from a non reformed view…. not that we disagree on everything, but the way we put things together, the categories we use are so different, we (on the reformed side) are going to talk about for instance being united to Christ by faith and receiving the whole Christ for justification and sanctification.”

   In recent years some have redefined Lordship Salvation as some form of progressive sanctification. That’s simply not what it originally was. From a Reformation Theology prospective, one thing within Lordship Salvation which is problematic is the confusion of law and gospel. In the book edited by Michael Horton, Christ the Lord:The Reformation and Lordship Salvation, my friend Rick Ritchie writes:

   “When we witness MacArthur and his adversaries using Luther and other Reformation theologians to support their respective positions, we might be tempted to think that they are our cousins in the Reformation faith; however, even when they use the same vocabulary as the Reformers, their interpretive grid has already given to certain key terms a meaning that is foreign to the theology of the Reformation. This is never more evident than where they speak of “law” and “gospel.””

   We talked extensively about it on our episode.

   Now I would never call proponents of LS Salvation heretics, but I’ve seen that accusation from various hyper Calvinists.

   I think it’s important to note that Lordship Salvation was a reaction to easy believism which in some cases was outright antinomianism, which is a serious error. So a response was justified. We would disagree with that response.

   Log in to reply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.