Skip to main content

Bahnsen vs. Zanchi | Scriptural Law vs. Natural Law – Part 2 of 2 – Zanchi

 


Zanchi: Natural Law

The introduction in Part 1 of this series provided a brief historical background on Girolamo Zanchi and his contribution to the Protestant Reformed Tradition’s view of Natural Law. Part 1 introduced and structured this 2-part series, so please read it before reading Part 2.

I will summarize Zanchi’s Natural Law theory from On the Law in General in this essay. As noted in Part 1, On the Law is a chapter from his extensive work, Theological Writings. All page references from On the Law are parenthetically notated in the essay.

In the first chapter of On the Law, Zanchi provides seven theses setting forth the Law and its classifications. I will only summarize the theses pertinent to understanding the grounding principle of Zanchi’s Natural Law theory.

On the Law through which Comes Knowledge of Sin

Thesis 1: “For all good laws, there are two chief functions: Teaching human beings what should be done or what should be avoided, and prodding and obligating them to do what should be done and to avoid what should be avoided” (1). The Law is essential to separating the good, right, and just from the evil, shameful, and unjust. The most critical function of the Law is that it shows us what man should do and avoid (2).

Thesis 2: “The most important things that the law teaches and commands, however, are that all should get what they deserve and serve whom they should serve, both God and human” (2). Simply put: “We render to God what is owed to him alone and that we do not refuse to our neighbors what they deserve” (3).

Thesis 4: “In the past, all good laws flowed out from a good and omnipotent God as its primary origin and source. ‘All laws have flowed down from the eternal law of God’ [Cited from Augustine, On Free Will, 1.1 and 2.93.3] (Cicero concludes the same thing in his On the Laws)” (4). Zanchi lays out seven justifications to support this thesis.

1) A good law is “the revealed will of God, which teaches and commands what should be done and what should be avoided” (4). We see that he is connecting it back to thesis 1. It is important to observe that Zanchi links good laws with the revealed will of God.

2) No one has the right to enact laws; princes and magistrates do. However, they can only do so because God ordained it (Rom 13). Zanchi writes, “Whoever opposes this authority, opposes the arrangement of God” (5).

3) Zanchi sees typology in this arrangement. Humans establish laws according to the wills of men, modeled after the will of God as the source of all laws.

4) Zanchi finds biblical support for this thesis in James 1:17 (though he doesn’t cite it), in that “wisdom and all good things are lights from the Father above, [thus] all good laws also come from him.”

5) Also, from James (4:12), God is the “one lawgiver and judge, who is able to save and destroy.” Zanchi writes, “All other lawgivers derive from this one; thus, every law has its origin in God” (5). 

6) As the fount of blessing, the ruler of all, God manages all things. The goal of Law is God’s glory, the welfare of mankind, and the church.

7) Zanchi concludes, that if one admits that God providentially governs the earth and every politic on it, then all just laws necessarily come from him. Zanchi references Augustine and Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, I-II, 91), who agree that “first an eternal law dwelt in God who is the most perfect embodiment of reason, and by this reason, God rules the world and thus is the reason for all things that happen. Then, they argue, this reason was imparted to human beings and by it we rule our own activities, and from it flow out our laws” (5, emphasis added).

Thesis 5: “The law is the divine and eternal revelation of God’s will, through which he teaches what he wishes human beings to do and avoid, and by which he warns that it be done or avoided for his own glory and for the good of the human race both in private and most of all in public” (6, emphasis added). This thesis stands by itself.

Thesis 6: “In the past, God did not reveal his will at all times in the same way or to all people, and he does not do so today. Instead, he reveals to some people in their own particular fashion and to others in different ways. To some, he reveals his will without words; to others through words—some spoken, some written” (6). Zanchi’s thesis acknowledges the different ways God has revealed his will to early human beings, their descendants, and the church. These differences between people to whom God has revealed his will, Zanchi says, are from where “the primary classification of law arises” (i.e., Natural Law, human laws, and divine laws) (7).

Thesis 7: “Even if, in fact, all just laws come from God, and have been established by the eternal reason of his will and even if in this respect, they are all divine, still because of the variety of people and of methods by which they have been revealed and spread, they occur in three types: natural law, human laws, and divine laws.” Zanchi sees his classification is superior to Gratian’s Decretum. The Decretum was the standard canon law text written in the 12th century. Gratian’s classifies divine and human; whereas Zanchi’s “accounts for all peoples and every method by which laws are transmitted” (7). Zanchi’s consideration of the different ways God has revealed his just laws frames his classification ordering. The significant classing of Natural Law in his scheme is because it “applies to all people.” Zanchi writes, “It is inscribed on every heart by God himself almost from birth.” Divine laws are specific to the church; human laws apply to those outside the church, “the remaining peoples who derived their own ordinances from natural law for their own reasons.” Interestingly, Zanchi says Natural Law exists alongside divine and human law, depending on whether God wants his church to follow human laws (i.e., wicked magistrates’ laws or customs) (7).

Thesis 7 concludes Chapter 1. Next, Zanchi will examine each type of Law to determine precisely what it is and to what extent we are subject to it. For the purposes of this essay, I will only examine his arguments about Natural Law, which we find articulated in the next chapter.

On Natural Law

Zanchi begins this chapter by examining different ways Natural Law has been understood. In his context, standard definitions of Natural Law indicate it is “what nature teaches to animals” (9, citing Justinian’s Digest, 1.1.1.3 and Institutions 1.2). This way of application primarily pertained to animal sexual and social behaviors. On the other hand, “Canon lawyers and theologians restrict natural law to human nature, defining it in this way, ‘Natural law is the law common to all nations and that is obeyed everywhere by natural instinct not by any statute’” (9, citing Gratian, Decretum, 1.7). Zanchi observes these definitions had more comprehensive application in matters of religion, worship, what God is, and civil matters (i.e., obedience to one’s parents or the State, violence, protection of a person, family, and the State) (10).

Zanchi contrasts the above understanding of Natural Law with what Paul says about it. In Romans 2:14–15, Paul writes,

So, when Gentiles, who do not by nature have the Law, do what the Law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the Law. They show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts. Their consciences confirm this. Their competing thoughts either accuse or even excuse them.

Zanchi comments, “Surely, the requirements of divine and Scripture have not been ‘written on the hearts’ of other animals” (10). Zanchi then notices Paul recognizing a “time-honored custom” of a particular people (Greeks) in First Corinthians 11:14–15, writing, “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering.”

To support his argument for a restricting idea of Natural Law, he appeals to Aquinas, who affirms that “whatever we find commonly inside the human heart belongs to a part of natural law” (10, citing Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, 94, 2.).

Natural Law has three levels. First, the right to protect oneself from violence, as it “is a natural reaction for all things” (10). It is this natural reaction or “instinct,” Zanchi writes, from which come the laws of nations permitting them “to repel force with force” (10). Second is human advancement through procreation and education (i.e., marriage, reproduction, and child-rearing). Third, Zanchi says, “Human beings must recognize their inclination to God and worship him as they do good to those with whom they live, and they must know justice and honesty and turn to them naturally” (11). Zanchi, citing Aquinas, writes, “Someone who follows natural law lives with all people in accordance with what is just and good” (Summa Theologiae, I-II, 94.3) (11).

Before the Fall, God breathed “the spark of reason” into Adam. After the Fall, “the entire image of God that stood firm in justice and holiness was lost,” as mankind “became completely blind in their minds, totally depraved in their hearts.” Zanchi says, “Human beings warped this instinctual natural law, rushing now to injustice or violence” (12). Zanchi sees mankind’s loss of this perfect image even permeating the essential aspects of human survival, eating and drinking, which mankind cannot do without overindulgence or vice. The Fall corrupted the three levels of Natural Law, with the third level—humanity’s mandate to recognize and worship God–being—“almost entirely destroyed.” If one ever saw a sliver of it in a human being, “we must believe that it was written into that person’s soul a second time in its entirety by God himself, as the apostle writes in Romans 2:15” (12).

Zanchi offers a handful of definitions of Natural Law issued by others but prefers his definition of it:

Natural law is the will of God, and, consequently, the divine rule and principle for knowing what to do and what not to do. It is, namely, the knowledge of what is good or bad, fair or unfair, upright or shameful, that was inscribed upon the hearts of all people by God himself also after the Fall. For this reason, we are all universally taught what activities should be pursued and what should be avoided, that is, to do one thing and to avoid another, and we know that we are obligated and pushed to act for the glory of God, our own good, and the welfare of our neighbor both in private and in public. In addition, we know that if we do what should be avoided or avoid what we should do, we are condemned; but if we do the opposite, we are defended and absolved. (13–14)

Zanchi calls Natural Law “the will of God” because it is the foundation for justice and, thus, the standard rule for all mankind. Natural Law, Zanchi writes, is called natural, not because Adam passed it down through procreation, but because “God has impressed it upon our very souls” (14). Interestingly, Zanchi notes that “we are, indeed, by nature blind and depraved toward true goodness.” He cites Romans 2:14–15 as a proof (quoted above). By expounding this text, Zanchi recognizes that no one would think they innately have this Law, but God wrote it on their hearts. The promise of the New Covenant God issued in Jeremiah 31:31 is that he would write his Law on the hearts of the elect (15). Natural Law demands worship of the True God “when someone comes to know him.” Zanchi asks, “Where do the nations get this? From God himself, as Paul writes in Romans 1:19, ‘God has shown it to them’” (15).

In his second proof, Zanchi cites passages demonstrating the utter wickedness of the human heart (i.e., Ge 8:21, Je 17:9, Jn 3:6, 1Co 2:14, and Ro 7:18). In contrast, Natural Law “is a principle of reason, is a good, divine, and spiritual thing” (15). Therefore, Zanchi argues, Natural Law must come from God. In his third proof, Zanchi claims if Natural Law came from nature, it would be equally manifest in all people. However, that is not what we see among various peoples, as some are wiser, have a stronger sense of justice, and have a zeal for God. God, therefore, doesn’t write his Law equally on everyone’s heart.

Zanchi writes, “But one would never find a people who deny that God exists and who could not differentiate between right and wrong. Therefore, it is God’s gift that some come to him by the light of reason and justice so that they know that God exists and ought to be worshipped, that they must determine right from wrong, justice from injustice, and honesty from shame, and that in every way they should lean toward good and shy from evil” (16). In the following eight pages, Zanchi restates much of what he laid out in the previous sections, with a few pages dedicated to demonstrating that God’s Natural Law is unchangeable. He then offers evidence for his thesis that God does not write his Law equally on everyone’s heart, as indicated by different people’s behavior in various times and places, showing that some have a stronger conviction to upholding Natural Law while others do not.

In his concluding thesis statement on Natural Law, Zanchi writes, “In the past, all human beings were so dependent upon natural law that anyone who acted against it was convicted of sin” (24). He notes Paul’s indicting statements in Romans 1:21 and 2:14 to the Gentiles for their lack of conviction to follow Natural Law. Paul then points out other sins for which he condemns the nations (i.e., disobedience to parents, injustice, sexual immorality, dishonesty, greed, hatred, and envy). Zanchi then unifies the Natural Law and the Ten Commandments, stating, “The Decalogue defines and describes the same things that are called the natural law.” Christ is the fulfillment of both in that “as human beings are convicted of sin through the law, they flee to Chris for forgiveness” (24–25).

Jumping forward a bit, in his chapter on human laws, Zanchi notes two differences between human Law and Natural Law. The first difference is that while human law derives from Natural Law, human laws are cultural and circumstantial (38). Natural Law is eternal and unchanging. However, “anything human laws retain from natural law cannot be changed.” Zanchi sees that human laws, by nature, have their circumstances; therefore, they change. Still, Zanchi writes, “Natural law maintains its general principles without any particular circumstance” (40). The second difference is that “Natural Law prohibits all vices and crimes, in general, both internal and external ones” (40). Zanchi says knowing and worshipping God is external and internal because we worship, love, and fear God in our hearts.

In his chapter on divine laws, Zanchi identifies three categories. Only the third type is relevant to our discussion. This type includes “the laws of the Spirit and of life inside the Christian Church, which Paul sets against the law of sin and death in Romans 8:2,” “. . . the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death” (75). Zanchi distinguishes between the Natural Law, which God inscribed on man’s heart, and the Law of the Spirit, which does the sanctifying work in the believer. Natural Law only teaches man what he should pursue and avoid; it allows man to see what is naturally better and follow it. The “Spirit, however, not only teaches but also lives and effectively moves us to obedience to God” (76). The Spirit’s living in and moving man is what Jeremiah taught in 31:33; God promises to put his law in writing on the hearts of the elect. Zanchi writes, “The law of the Spirit is simply the will of God, impressed on our hearts through the power of the Holy Spirit.” Zanchi says the laws of each are the same; the difference is the law of the Spirit is effective, but the spirit of the earlier law is not (76). God inscribes the same law on the hearts of the elect in a new way. The Spirit reveals the true God to man, compelling him to trust, love, worship, and obey him. It compels man to love his neighbor, die to self, persevere against all evil through God’s strength, and live one’s life in Christ alone. The “new commandment” (1Jn 2:7) Christ gives to the elect “is the domain of the New Testament and the law of the Christian Church” (77).

Zanchi expounds the Law of Moses, also called “the written law.” He sees a two-part division in the Law: the judicial law (Exo 21–25) and the ceremonial and ritual laws (Exo 25–32). Zanchi says God only gave his Law to the Jews, not Gentiles. Zanchi addresses why nations obey many things from the Law, stating they learned them from Natural Law, although some borrowed ideas from Mosaic Law (as Justin Martyr proved about Plato) (81). Citing Romans 2:12–14, Zanchi notes God never made the Law of Moses binding on Gentiles because he did not give it to them. Therefore, Paul condemns the Gentiles for violating the Natural Law because only those under the Mosaic Law can violate it (81). Zanchi, then, sees it iniquitous for Christians to subject Gentiles and magistrates to Judaic Law. He writes, “As long as those laws were handed down to the Israelites, they did not apply to the Gentiles. It is only when they coincide with Natural Law and were confirmed by Christ himself that they apply to all people” (81). As to the ceremonial laws, Zanchi writes that they were given not for justification but instead to abstain from cultic practices the Gentiles observed (De 14, 16, 18) and not devise their own cultic practices (De 12). Most importantly, God wanted the Jews to contemplate upon the hope of the coming Christ, as Paul says (Ga 3:24). Quoting Thomas Aquinas, Zanchi concludes, “Some judicial commands are dead; ceremonial law, however, is deadly if anyone wanted to reinstitute it as a necessary thing because this would be nothing else than a denial of Christ” (Summa, III, 103, 3, 4).

 

Conclusion

Key to Zanchi’s Natural Law theory is the understanding that Natural Law is a supernatural work of God on the depraved heart of man. God’s promise to mankind of the New Covenant to come means he did not leave humanity in utter destitution. He wrote his Law on the heart of every person, though not everyone equally, as a guide to show us what is unjust, just, good, wrong, upright, shameful, what to pursue, and what to avoid. “Natural law,” writes Zanchi, “unites only those general principles of goodness and justice in our hearts.” These principles should push us to act for God’s glory and man’s good. Zanchi distinguishes between the Natural Law and the Law of the Spirit, also observing a two-part division in the Law of Moses, which God placed the Jews under, not the Gentiles.

My assessment: As stated in part 1, I find Bahnsens approach more biblically consistent than Zanchis. Natural Law, in the way Zanchi defines it, seems to function similarly to the Wesleyan/Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace. Mans Fall was so radical that God graciously imparted humanity with a spark of reason to keep him from devolving into brute beasts. Zanchi muddies the waters when he cites Jeremiah 31:33 as a text to support Natural Law, which the Christian tradition has understood it as a prophetical passage about God giving his people the Spirit, so that they will walk in his ways from the heart. However, later Zanchi, correctly, refers to that passage in support of the Law of the Spirit, which only makes his argument more confusing. Natural Law seems to occupy a place in his theology that Scripture doesnt intend for it. It is almost a numinous, tertium quid that lacks a firm grounding in Scripture. Furthermore, more puzzling, is that Zanchi says God did not write his Natural Law on everyones heart, equally. Such a claim is too subjective, allowing one to argue that those who seem to be brute beasts are inculpable for their behavior because God did not give them a spark of reason. I think Zanchi confuses Natural Law and the Law of the Spirit, where, I would say, Scripture indicates Natural Law (to use Zanchis term) is purposed to show man he is a sinner, having committed cosmic treason before a holy God. The Law of the Spirit (to use his term again) is the supernatural work of God, bringing dead hearts to life, so that they can obey Gods commands from the heart. Humans are moral and reasoned beings because they were made in Gods image. Adam's disobedience tainted humanity, corrupting mans heart and faculties, which only the Spirit can restore. It is because God made man in his image that he sees that he should obey Gods laws, but his love for sin blinds him, and he does not desire to do so. Natural Law does not guide man to do what is righteous, because mans sin blinds him. Natural Law is powerless to steer man to obedience. The Spirit awakens man and sets him free to obey and enjoy God forever.  


~ Romans 11:36 ~

 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gregory of Nyssa: Trinity–Not Tri-deity

Gregory, a bishop of Nyssa in 371, was part of the Cappadocian trio, and was instrumental in the development of Trinitarian orthodoxy. His theological prowess proved vital in response to the Arian and Sabellian heresies. Key to Gregory’s theology we find “an emergence of a pro-Nicene ‘grammar’ of divinity through his developed account of divine power,” [1] conceived through a nature-power-activity formulation revealed in the created order and articulated in Scripture. Understanding the Triune God in this manner afforded a conception of the Trinity that was logical and thoroughly biblical. And this letter is paradigmatic on Gregory’s account of the divine nature. (* This article was later published with Credo Magazine, titled, “ The Grammar of Divinity (On Theology). ” See link below) To Ablabius, though short, is a polemical address whereby Gregory lays out a complex argument in response to the claim that three Divine Persons equal three gods. Basically put, Ablabius (his opponent,

St. John Chrysostom — for God is simple

Below is part of the introductory section to my exposition of John Chrysostom’s doctrine of God. I posted it because I thought it was fascinating to find such an important theologian known for avoiding (even having a disdain of) speculative theology refer to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity as common place in his thoroughly biblical doctrine of God. Toward the end I include a link to my full exposition. John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407) was the archbishop of Constantinople. Being the most prolific of all the Eastern fathers, he fought against the ecclesiastical and political leaders for their abuse of authority. He was called Chrysostom (meaning “golden-mouthed”) for his eloquent sermons. [1] This most distinguished of Greek patristic preachers excelled in spiritual and moral application in the Antiochene tradition of literal exegesis, largely disinterested, even untutored in speculative and controversial theology. [2] On the Incomprehensible Nature of G

John 17:3 – Eternal Life is Knowing God and Christ–the One, True God

    John 17:1–5. “ Jesus spoke these things, looked up to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and the one you have sent—Jesus Christ. I have glorified you on the earth by completing the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, glorify me in your presence with that glory I had with you before the world existed .”

A Brief Exposition of Augustine's Doctrine of Divine Immutability

To much of the Western world, Augustine has no rival. He is the preeminent—uninspired—theologian of the Christian faith. When reading the titans of the church—i.e., Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin—Augustine’s theology and ideas are voluminously parroted all throughout their writings. His influence is unparalleled. Even the secular world sees Augustine as a mammoth figure in the shaping of human history. And its Augustine’s doctrine of God we will divert our attention to, looking specifically at his articulation of divine immutability Augustine’s doctrine of God is classical, through and through. He writes, “There is One invisible, from whom, as the Creator and First Cause, all things seen by us derive their being: He is supreme, eternal, unchangeable, and comprehensible by none save Himself alone” ( Ep . 232.5).[1] When reading his works, the doctrine of immutability is paramount, coming forth repeatedly. For Augustine, immutability, or God’s unchangeableness, is consequential

Gregory of Nazianzus: The Trinity - Not a Collection of Elements

Gregory of Nazianzus   One of the Cappadocian fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus (c.330–389), given the title, “The Theologian,” was instrumental in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically the distinct terms to describe the Persons of the Godhead (Unbegotten, eternally begotten, and procession). Gregory’s main contribution to the development of Christology was in his opposition to Apollinarius. He argued that when Adam fell, all of humanity fell in him; therefore, that fallen nature must be fully united to the Son—body, soul, and mind; ‘for the unassumed is the unhealed’.   Gregory’s Doctrine of the Trinity His clearest statement on the Trinity is found in his Oration 25.15–18. Oration 25 is part of a series of sermons delivered in 380. As a gesture of gratitude, Gregory dedicates Oration 25 to Christian philosopher Maximus the Cynic, as a sort of ‘charge’ for him to push forward and remain strong in the orthodox teachings of the faith. And these sections are that or

First Timothy 2:12 - On Women in the Pastorate - A Critical Response to Nijay Gupta

Does 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibit women from leading and preaching over men in the church? I recently posted an article examining an approach to this question, specifically evaluating interpretive consistency. In the article, I looked at two passages that appealed to the Old Testament to support the claim being made in the text. The point of the blog post was to shed light on an inconsistency of interpretation by looking at one common argument from the Bible in favor of women in the pastorate and another biblical argument supporting the view of monogamous marriage, between one man and one woman. My general observation is that many Christians who advance this particular argument, allowing for women in the pastorate, also affirm the particular argument for the biblical view of marriage. They both have the same methodological starting point; however, both arrive at their conclusions in completely different ways, demonstrating interpretive inconsistency, which I conclude ste

Ambrose: A Nicene Defense of Jesus Not Knowing the Day or the Hour ~ Mark 13:32

Ambrose (c. 339–397), was Bishop of Milan (northern Italy). His name is familiar to many because of Augustine, in that it was through Ambrose’s preaching that Augustine was saved by the gospel. Ambrose was a rigorous exponent of Nicene orthodoxy, and as with his other contemporaries, he was an ardent opponent against Arianism. His works, therefore, were aimed at refuting Arian heresy, paying special attention to the exposition and defense of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. In his most prominent work, The Exposition of the Christian Faith (abbr. De fide ), Ambrose makes a lucid, scripturally saturated articulation of the Christian faith couched in Nicene orthodoxy. De fide is devoted to proving the full divinity of Christ, co-equal in substance, wisdom, power, and glory as God the Father, derived through elucidating the plain sense of the text. Ambrose’s aim is polemical and apologetic, addressing and refuting objections from the Arians. This post will ex

Isaiah 45:7 - “ . . . I make peace, and create evil.” — Does God create evil?

My daughter watched a video this morning where a deconstructionist, an ex vangelical, was attempting to profane the goodness of God, by pointing out that Isaiah 45:7 says God creates evil. She was referring to the KJV version of this passage which says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” So, what do we do with that? Below is a brief response. Proper biblical interpretation considers context when seeking the meaning of a passage. Furthermore, when it comes to difficult or obscure passages, a helpful rule of interpretation is to look to the plainer passages of the Bible and draw examples from them to shed light on the more obscure passages ( thanks Augustine ). We let Scripture interpret Scripture. The point is to remove all hesitation on doubtful passages. So, in this passage, on the face it seems to imply that God creates evil, thus making God evil. But is that what the Bible teaches about God? The plainer passages te

Boethius: The Logic of Unity and Plurality in One God

In the “Introduction” to a standard English translation of Boethius’ Theological Tractates and the Consolation of Philosophy , it is stated that “Boethius was the last of the Roman philosophers, and the first of the scholastic theologians” (X).  Philosophy is aimed at explaining the nature of the world ( the natural ). Theology’s aim is to understand and explain doctrines delivered by divine revelation ( the supernatural ). Boethius was the seminal figure in preparing the way for the synthesis of these two disciplines, with philosophy serving the task of theology (i.e., the handmaiden to the King of sciences) .

Piper vs. Calvin: The Role of Good Works in Salvation

In his book Future Grace , John Piper writes, “Faith alone is the instrument that unites us to Christ who is our righteousness and the ground of our justification. But the purity of life that confirms faith’s reality is also essential for final salvation , not as the ground of our right standing, but as the fruit and evidence that we are vitally united by faith to Christ who alone is the ground of our acceptance with God.” [1] His purpose in writing that statement is to “explode the great error that says . . . [y]ou get your justification by faith, and you get your sanctification by works. You start the Christian life in the power of the Spirit, you press on in the efforts of the flesh.” [2] The emphasized portion above (and other such statements) has raised critical concerns over Piper’s Reformed theology in that his words seem to veer away from orthodox Reformed teaching. These critics contend Piper teaches a two-stage justification where one is “ initially justified by grace alon