Does God Count the Apology as the Cleaning?
From Facebook’s Preaching Christ Crucified discussion:
Is a symptom of Piper’s error the way he speaks of the atonement and/or who it’s for – making faith the righteousness? Seems you told me in times past that this is what Piper does in his book on imputed righteousness.
I am serious. Murray’s reasons why faith is not the righteousness are excellent. But then he takes it all away: my theology say but the text says. He needed to ask himself again if he was right about what the text said. The object of faith is what is imputed, not the message but the righteousness that the message talks about.
The worst part of Piper is his illustration. Son fails to clean the room. Dad cleans the room for the son. Thenthe son apologises. Therefore, Piper says, dad’s cleaning is the righteousness and not the apology, therefore I will count the apology as the righteousness. Makes no sense…
Wow, Piper blows it on the example. That’s just plain and simple conditionalism, like Arminians do. So much for him being a ‘7 pointer’. That’s what I can’t figure. You mentioned his work on Romans 9 was great and he claims to believe in double predestination but yet has this 2 wills of God thing goin on.
Though people hold a mix sometimes of good and error, BUT it seems the shift is from the cross to preaching it to shave off the offense of it.
There seems to be a big concern in the minds of some to want to psychologically condition the mind of the hearer to feel more comfortable about the cross instead of offended by it. There is no doubt that the Spirit of God uses the offense of the cross in true preaching.
The Amyraldian gives lips service to sovereign grace and widens the door of the Atonement more than God Himself does and he thinks he is actually helping the sinner. They think if Christ only died for the elect how can the hearer know he is elect and thus they adjust their message and it does not become about the cross and Christ anymore, it becomes what is available on conditions.