6 comments

1. “We’re not out on bail!”. – brilliant! We’re found guilty on all counts yet acquitted. I can’t help feel many of these faith plus works solutions come directly from the devil, that exercising our free will we can assist God. These ideas. also directly contradict God’s fore ordination. Predestination’s reality, or denial of predestination is the root issue of most, in my opinion, non-reformed Christians. The same old devil’s thinking is applied. We can be as God.

   Reply ↓

   • Helpful insight, Dale.

     Yet Piper has heartily affirmed and defended predestination throughout his ministry—which may be why his puzzling view here (which, as you rightly point out, ultimately undermines God’s eternal decree in the predestination and preservation of the elect) often goes undetected by many in the “Reformed = TULIP Only” crowd, but raises deeper concerns for those in the confessionally Reformed (P&R) tradition.

     Reply ↓

2. Hi, superfriends. May I ask then why RC Sproul said in his book “Everyone is a theologian” the next thing: “There is another element to fiducia besides trust, and that is affection.” (Chapter 42 titled “saving faith”, subtitled “essential elements of faith”)? And in his commentary to Westminster confession he says ““But until we put our personal trust and reliance in Him, He is not saving us. Fiducia has to do with the personal trust and reliance, as well as the state of the heart or the soul, which we call religious affection.” (Chapter “of justification”, under subheading 2 just two paragraphs behore subheading 3)? He does say that assurance is only given through the gospel promise in that same commentary but he introduces the affectionate element to faith, is it also Edward’s influence on him (knowing his mentor was Edward’s scholar John Gerstner)?

   Reply ↓

   • Caleb,

     Yes, you’re supposition is correct. R. C. was reflecting the influence of Edwards there.

     New life and true faith necessarily and inexorably lead to a change in affections but we dare not fold new affections into faith in the act of justification.

     I would go so far as to posit two RCs, the first with Luther’s in his head and the second with Edwards/Gerstner in his head. They are incompatible. I’m grateful that, when the FV controversy arose, RC went to GA, stood up and spoke like Luther rather than like Edwards.

     Reply ↓

     • I got it now, thank you for all the work Dr. Clark, God bless you and the rest of the heidelteam!

       Reply ↓

     • Well, that’s rather disheartening. Seeing as he posits a non-confessional view of sanctification I guess it’s not extremely surprising. But glad that he spoke up like Luther when the time came.
       I guess I’ll stick with Van Dixhoorn on the WCF commentary.

       Reply ↓

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