Skip to main content

Why PhDs In Theology Commit Adultery

It's not rocket science. People desire sexual pleasure, perhaps more than any other natural thing. Since the Fall, we desire wrong sex even more than the right kind. If they don't know about grace, not only as the favor of God, but as the power of God unto right living, they are easy pickings.

John Piper might even agree with this. The galling part is, he's not being a very good Baptist and Protestant in that agreement. The difference between knowledge and love is participation, the very participation the Reformers took great pains to deny.

A great many people who have this pointed out to them are quite annoyed; they have a lot invested in pretending that "monergism" isn't just how it sounds: God does it all, to the praise of His glorious "grace". (Or justice.)

It's very true that we cannot be saved merely by what we do. It's equally true that we aren't saved merely by what we say. If you agree, welcome to the Catholic Church!
Labels:

Comments

Nathan Hall said…
I agree with all of this but I don't think that makes me Catholic. The difference lies in the nature of participation. The Holy Spirit may sometimes show us that the human heirarchs of the visible Church are in the wrong or perhaps not even born again. I would recommend A. W. Tozer's several books on this subject.

By the way, I'm in Italy; any messages for the pope?
9:27 AM
Jason said…
Dear Nathan,

I think it even a high likelihood that a significant percentage of the so-called princes of the Church have not even experienced what we would call an initial conversion. That is not necessarily pertinent to the discussion of theological participation. May I recommend the Catholic Encyclopedia article on participation? (I am not familiar with Tozer, which may be surprising. I'll endeavor to fix that.) If in fact you were able to speak to our pope for me, assure him of my affection and prayers. Hey, you never know.
12:36 PM
Nathan Hall said…
Should I stumble into an audience I will pass that on. Tozer wasn't writing about Catholicism or judging the salvation of others, by the way. He wrote about how to know the Holy Spirit. I would recommend his Mystery of the Holy Spirit, not the most popular of his books, but my favorite. Is the encyclopedia article you mentioned online?
3:05 AM
Jason said…
I have yet to find it, sadly. I'll ask around. It may only be in the print medium at CUA. Boo. But then, it was pure luck that I read it. My instructor has since gone off the grid.
11:33 AM
Timothy R. Butler said…
Actually, I don't think Piper is saying anything that makes him a bad Protestant, unless Luther and Calvin were bad Protestants too. Good Protestants, going all the way back to Luther will eagerly insist that God provides "power" to do good through his Grace.
2:27 PM
Jason said…
Well, Luther talked about grace, but he essentially denied that it comes through means. (You can say "sacrament" until the cows come home, but it's ad hoc without the hierarchy.) P.S. I'm just offended you didn't comment on my Barth post. ;)
3:42 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
17 comments
Read more

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Post a Comment
Read more
My wheelchair was nearly destroyed by a car last night. That's a bit melodramatic, I suppose, because it is intact and undamaged. But we'd left my power chair ("Red Sam" in the official designation) in-between the maze of cars parked out front of Chris Yee's house for Bible Study. [Isn't that a Protestant Bible study?--ed.] They are good friends, and it is not under any official auspices. [Not BSF?--ed.] They're BSF guys, but it's not a BSF study. Anyway, I wasn't worried; I made a joke about calling the vendor the next day: "What seems to be the problem, sir?" 'Well, it was destroyed by a car.' As it happened, a guy bumped into it at slow speed. His car got the worst of it. And this only reinforces what I've said for a solid 13 years [Quickie commercial coming] If you want a power wheelchair that lasts, get a Quickie. They're fast, obviously, and they're tanks. Heck, my old one still would work, but the batteries ar
13 comments
Read more