I know it sounds nuts, but stay with me.
First, however, let me say that Piper’s renewal of emphasis on the affections has been very significant. It touches a nerve for people. It gives expression to something that we desperately need. It gives voice to something that some strands of evangelicalism have neglected. So don’t mishear me when I say that it is as important to locate the affections correctly, as it is not to neglect them.
So what do I mean?
Roman Catholic doctrine is that we are justified by faith and love. Make sure you hear this. As my theology lecturer at Moore college stressed, Roman Catholicism is not rankly Pelagian; it knows better than to say we simply earn our salvation. It is more subtle – and more dangerous – than that. It holds that salvation is by grace (the grace of Christ, received sacramentally), but that what unites us to the grace Christ is not bare faith, but faith plus love. In this, as in so many things, Augustine is their teacher.
It was precisely this that the Reformers objected to. The reason is, of course, that faith plus love gives us a boast before God, we can point to something worthy about ourselves, our love.
So here’s the rub. For Piper, is faith one of the affections? Because if it is, then it seems to me that it is dangerously close to being a faith+love complex, a real quality in me. On the other hand, it seems to me that Scripture teaches that faith is ‘bare’.
The key text is Jn 3.14. ‘Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.’ Faith here is depicted not as a thing but, you might say, as a vector; not a real quality in me, but merely the direction of my gaze towards Christ, like Israel in the wilderness – bare faith. If you’ve ever asked the question, ‘Why isn’t faith a work?’, you’ll know something like this is the only answer.
Of course, I may have misheard Piper, and he wouldn’t say faith is an affection like this. Although if that’s the case, then the stress on the affections seems ungrounded.
Faith – bare faith – faith as a vector, a direction of gaze, quite apart from any quality in me – faith is what unites us to Christ. It is through this faith, therefore, that we are justified by Christ; and it is through faith that we are sanctified by Christ, bearing the fruit of the Spirit, including the affections.
Andrew…why does the Apostle Paul say…these three things remain…Faith, Hope and Love…but the greatest of these is love?
Why does he elevate love above faith?
Hi Andrew, this is a question I’ve also wondered about for a while, but haven’t yet had the guts to ask publically. I don’t think I know enough about Piper to give an answer to it, so would appreciate hearing people’s responses.
Andrew, I asked the same question but for different reasons http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/ministry/evangelism/day_three_-_finding_joy_in_gods_glory/
I was not a fan of Piper before O2 (mostly out of ignorance, because I understand his work on justification against Wright is top notch) and I’m in no rush to go back and sit at his feet again. My concerns are growing as I speak with different people about the (otherwise very good) conference. Here are my post conference thoughts (meaning i’ve not read his material or listened to his preaching other than this week).
1. The main cut and thrust of what he said was relatively novel. I’ve never heard any other preacher put it like Piper ‘God is most glorified in us when I’m most satisfied in him’. Sure, many preach and teach about glory and Christ come to give us life to the full, but from what Piper suggested that this is his MAIN thing (‘this may be my only visit to Aus and so I don’t want to waist time… ‘ ‘I want to know ultimate things in my Bible’ etc..). So his main thing is Christian hedonism. Why haven’t I been taught this before if it is the main thing? (Of course I may simply be proving my limited exposure things, or the fact that I’ve fallen asleep at College during the crucial lecture, but I think you get my point). This sounds like novelty rather than correction.
2. So it is curious to me that his main thing did not need a detailed or even cursory description of the cross, resurrection and identity of Christ. I’m wondering is his main thing the gospel or is it something else? So on this, has Piper confused the fruit of the gospel with the gospel itself?
3. I think Piper ‘slips’ between ‘spiritual affections’ and ‘bodily zeal and emotion’, or at least people observing Piper can lead to conflating the two. That is J. Edwards (Piper’s hero) pushed the spiritual affections (love, joy, zeal etc…) but this is not the same as ’emotional’ or ‘enthusiasm’. Put another way you can be a dry old preacher &/or Christian and still have the spiritual affections. So I’m worried when after last night’s ONE event people are saying we need to ‘feel God’ more in our church service. Is this the main thing we are taking away from Piper? Andrew wonders if Piper is an accidental Catholic (still ruminating over that), I’m wondering if he is an accidental charismatic.
I fear to make the comments I have as people I respect hold Piper in such high regard, but this is at least what I’m pondering and am happy to be corrected.
Antony Barraclough
@ Antony Barraclough: I’ve much still to ponder from the conference. However, I did think Piper addressed your second point quite definitely. It seemed extraordinarily clear to me from Piper’s talk on “Thinking Christ” (Tuesday I think it was) that his emphasis on the work of Christ on the cross as central to any affections which flow thereafter is massive.
Thanks Andrew. I’m still trying to process what I heard over the last few days and so found some of your reflections helpful. One of the questions that I wrote in my notes during Piper’s ‘Think Christ’ talk was:
“Is Piper equating affections with trust/faith?”
This question arose for me after he exhorted us to not be like the devil – that is to not merely have the right thinking but to use that right thinking in order to serve/develop the right affections. The implication was that our affections were to be the point of difference between us and the devil… which led me to think that he was equating trust/faith (which is the actual point of difference difference) with affections.
As I mulled that over I found myself with similar concerns to you about the faith+love complex and whether the outworking of his theology at this point was the introduction of a subtle (but real) ‘works based’ aspect to our salvation.
To be fair, I must admit that I have read very little of his work (a fact which put me at a disadvantage as they felt almost like required background reading!) so perhaps I have misunderstood him on this. And like Antony, I am also given reason for hesitation by the fact that so many people I respect and admire hold him in such high esteem. But still, the questions remain for me…
Antony – Thanks also for your helpful reflections. Like you, one of my concerns was that Piper’s primary agenda was to proclaim to us his theological paradigm of Christian Hedonism (reinforced by the fact that he is doing the same/similar talks at Engage). I felt like that was the main game and almost like we need to be converted to it in order to truly understand Scripture and the purpose of the christian life. I was actually very disappointed we didn’t get to hear him open up Scripture and give us some great expositional preaching.
Also, if his church’s website is anything to go by, I’m not sure Piper would describe his charismatic leanings as accidental. The church is quite openly ‘charsimatic in our affections’ (http://www.hopeingod.org/about-us/who-we-are/our-beliefs)
Andrew,
Your concerns are not unique. Piper writes:
“The answer to the question, What is faith? is the most basic one in this whole controversy. It is not a simple mental assent to facts—not lordship facts and not Saviour facts. It is a heartfelt coming to Christ and resting in him for what he is and what he offers. It is an act of the heart that no longer hates the light but comes to the light because a new set of spiritual taste buds have been created and Christ now tastes satisfying to the soul.”
Faith must be heartfelt, an act of the heart. My question that I would want to ask John Piper at this point is “Is the ‘act of the heart’ the result of faith (that God grants) or is the ‘act of the heart’ something that constitutes faith?
If the latter I would be concerned.
As for the fear in critiquing, sounds like peer pressure to me? Piper can err just like the rest of us.
I think I must be a Roman Catholic. Or at least one of those dodgy “Anglicans”. “Bare faith”? Sounds like “dead faith” to me. Surely the reason faith isn’t a “work” is because it’s a gift – something I wouldn’t have been able to do left to my own devices. Seems to me that only once we forget that do we become anxious that faith might be seen as something meritorious.
Yes
Andrew, I think you are being a bit tough to suggest Piper is dangerously close to justification by a faith + love complex. Here’s why.
1. I would have thought you (and Lionel, for that matter) would know that he has published quite extensively defending a Protestant stance on justification by faith alone. In addition, though not all Protestants are united on this, he has defended justification as including the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (rather than the infusion of righteousness).
2. I think at least part of what he is combatting is the idea that saving faith is mere (dare I say ‘bare’) assent to certain truths. This came out when he mentioned James’ warning that even the devil believes. It also comes out when he mentioned John 6:35
He pointed out that the term parallel to “believe” (= faith) is “comes” and helps us understand what faith involves: a coming. In fact, might this not pick up something of what you mean by ‘vector’ above?
3. I also heard him say very clearly at one point that works including love or joy are evidential, not saving.
Just to be sure I spent quite some time re-reading large sections of my copy of Future Grace. In it, he makes it crystal clear we are saved “by grace, through faith”, and that faith is opposed to any boasting in ourselves at all (p186). He defines faith as “believing the promises of God” (p202), as “promise-trusting confidence in God” (p203). He indicates that this includes a sense of “spiritual apprehension of the beauty of God in and behind the promises”, which he calls delight. But I think his key point here once again is to avoid the idea of faith as mere mental assent to facts. In fact, he uses the language of James, of faith being dead. In speaking of something like Galatians 5:6, he explicitly says “faith alone justifies, but the faith that justifies is never alone (p276).
@Antony, we did get some treatment of the work of Christ, e.g. in his discussion of Romans 3:20-26, as well as in defending the bodily resurrection of Christ. We also got some reflection on the identity of Christ in regards to relationship of Christ and the Father, in the last talk. I guess you are raising the question of relative weight.
And in regards to your point 1 that what he is saying is relatively novel, even though you and I both attended an Anglican theological college, I clearly recall the first question of the Westminster Catechism being mentioned several times quite approvingly over the years…
And to all those who confess that they have read or heard next to nothing of his work, I suggest you should hesitate before agreeing with the negative (in this context) suggestion that he is an accidental Roman Catholic on the basis of 5 topical talks, which by the very occasion were not intended to be a balanced account of his complete theology.
I might have preferred a more balanced series of addresses, and especially I would have enjoyed hearing him expound several consecutive passages of Scripture (as he does in his local church). But I imagine that balanced preaching not what he was asked to do (and we often critique it for being boring when someone continuously dots all the i’s!)
@Sandy, Piper’s novelty does not consist in his citation of the Westminster Catechism, but his modification of it: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God by enjoying him forever”. This little word “by” is significant. See Piper’s article on Christian Hedonism.
I’m surprised by the resounding discomfort that many have felt following Piper’s trip. Maybe this will teach us not to waste so much money jumping in the evangelical celebrity bandwagon?
My thoughts:
1. Sandy: he does seem to suggest that right affections are a necessary sign of regeneration. As with anything, this is incredibly hard to measure, and thus places too much weight on a subjective measure of assurance. Hence another reason why the RC alarm bells are ringing in my book. Yes, we ought to expect the HS to make a difference in this area, but it’s akin to asking how long is a price of string? The reformers had a place for subjective assurance, but it was secondary. The puritans amplified it, too much on my opinion, and so it’s no surprise that Piper does the same.
2. There was too much focus on the nature of faith and not it’s object. Surely the best way to engage the affections is to keep presenting Christ!
Sorry, bad punctuation in last post, its, not it’s, under point two. Just in case Jensen is reading. I swear it was the autocorrect!
Always highly amusing, the Church of England with their mountains of pre-reformation baggage, pondering if somebody else is Roman Catholic!!!!!!!!!!
Did any of you hear John Lennox on Wednesday morning? “Don’t put people in pigeon holes, all that happens in the end is that you wake up to realise that you are completely surrounded by pigeon holes everywhere around you”
May I ask what do you need a Doctorate for Andrew Katay?
Robert,
thanks for your comment. I also noticed Dr Lennox’s comment about pigeon holes. Actually, I thought it was a bit superficial.
Dr Lennox himself uses all kinds of pigeon holes – he would call himself ‘Christian’, ‘apologist’ ‘orthodox’ etc. Pigeon holes are simply useful ways of speaking in shorthand, without having to provide the full definition every time – “I am a Christian – that is, someone who believes that the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the creator and sustainer of the world, a world which has been infected and corrupted by sin, including every human being etc”
The key thing about pigeon holes is that be used accurately – that is, that they not be applied on a ‘drive by shooting’ basis, but after genuine engagement with the actual thought of the person.
The fact is, the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation by Christ through faith+love is a real thing, and it really matters. The real issue is to not pigeon hole wrongly – which is exactly what the comments are trying to do, respectfully, cautiously etc
There is probably a distinction to be made between pigeon-holing others and pigeon-holing self.
Lennox superficial? I think he’s kicked the cat in your case!
@Martin, I found your comment #2 helpful. I agree with the concern about emphasis.
@Lionel, I think I see what you are getting at in your comment on Q1 W.Cat. I was raising that to show that emphasising both the glory of God and enjoying God were novel thoughts. Over on Sydney Anglicans, I provide some fairly extensive quotes from Jean Williams and her work on the Puritans like John Owen and Richard Sibbes from Kategoria to indicate likewise that Piper seems to flow in this tradition, as Martin agreed (albeit with some concern).
I am still not 100% clear on how Piper’s statements – read in the totality of what he teaches – are Roman Catholic. I think more precision and detail is required if the criticism is to be raised. It’s easy to raise questions about a vibe; I think more detail is helpful if the danger of a smear is to be avoided.
I would be helped by someone teasing out more why they think giving faith an affective element is so problematic.
When Piper speaks of faith this way (with its affective associations like love or delight), he makes it clear it is the gift of God and non-meritorious and that it is simply the heart that receives grace, quote, “saving faith is humble because by nature it despairs of self and looks to God” (Future Grace, p252).
Is it something substantially more than saying that saving faith involves not just assent but trust/dependence?
Art. XII of the 39A speaks of the good works which will necessarily spring from “a true and lively Faith” (my emphasis) and are evidential.
I also notice in Art. XVII, that the affections are very much engaged by a “godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ” which “is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God”.
Aren’t these the sort of affections Piper is trying to encourage?
Or am I way off beam here?
@Sandy: I definitely agree with you when you say that, “more precision and detail is required if the criticism is to be raised. It’s easy to raise questions about a vibe; I think more detail is helpful if the danger of a smear is to be avoided.”
To try to be fair to Andrew, his phrase “accidental Roman Catholic” seems to be designed to be both provocative and precise. It’s provocative because it’s making the deliberately crazy suggestion that somebody who has devoted so much of his life to defending Protestant theology is actually not a Protestant. The word “accidental” is meant to be the element of precision, since it suggests that this isn’t Piper’s intention at all. (Am I right Andrew?)
Although this kind of provocative blog post title is a brave attempt by Andrew to generate discussion on an important issue, it’s got a huge potential to backfire or generate a turf war. The title makes it seem as if we have to decide whether John Piper is Protestant or a Roman Catholic (what a bizarre thought); and we also seem to have to make a choice between emphasising the affections in the Christian life or upholding justification by faith alone (a choice which, I agree wholeheartedly, we shouldn’t have to make). As I said, I haven’t had the guts to ask Andrew’s kind of question publically. I still don’t. If I were to ask any question publically, I’d phrase it this way: “Might Piper’s particular way of emphasising the affections (i.e. making the enjoyment of God so utterly central to everything) ultimately, if unintentionally, undermine justification by faith alone?”
The reason I think it’s worth asking is that I’ve had misgivings (previously expressed on the Sola Panel and later on my own blog) about the way that Piper goes about discussing justification and righteousness in his books on the subject. PS I also replied to your previous comment about Piper’s books on justification, but it seems to be caught in the system, perhaps because I included a link within the comment; perhaps Andrew needs to do something. @Andrew, if you want to delete the link, that’s OK.
Sorry to be offline for a while – I’m no expert with WordPress, but nothing with a link came through – as far as I can tell, they mostly work.
Martin, I guess more briefly I am saying if it is a matter of too much emphasis on right affections as a sign of assurance then as you and I both note, many of the Puritans were guilty of similar emphases, including John Owen, Richard Sibbes and Jonathan Edwards. Debate the emphasis by all means, but I don’t think we just write them off as being a bit Roman Catholic.
Feeling soundly rebuked for perhaps jumping to conclusions too quickly (I like to think I was questioning rather than concluding… but maybe the telling word in that phrase is ‘like’!), and encouraged by the discussion here to keep exploring and thinking, I started reading Desiring God earlier today. (Sandy, you’ll be pleased to know I bought it the other day in order to understand his theology more broadly rather than settling for the snapshots we got at O2 ☺).
Chapter 2 talks about the relationship between salvation, conversion, repentance, faith and joy. It was really helpful to read it (gave me a much better idea of the theological background to some of his comments at O2). I’m looking forward to reading the rest of the book and doing some hard thinking (hopefully helped along by some of the ongoing discussion here).
For anyone interested here is his argument in brief (clearly the whole chapter is much more extensive). I thought relaying it in his own words might prove helpful for ongoing discussion. The stuff about faith and joy is at the end but I thought it important to trace his argument through from the beginning.
INTRO
The argument of this chapter is to show the necessity of conversion and to argue that it is nothing less than the creation of Christian Hedonist. […] no one is a Christian who does not embrace Jesus gladly as his most valued treasure and then pursue the fullness of that hoy in Christ that honors Him. (Pg. 54)
Could it be that today the most straightforward biblical command for conversion is not “Believe in the Lord” but “Delight yours in the LORD?”. And might not many slumbering hearts be stabbed broad awake by the words, “Unless a man be born again into a Christian Hedonist he cannot see the kingdom of God”? (Pg. 55)
REGENERATION
Repentance and faith are our work. But we will not repent and believe unless God does His work to overcome our hard and rebellious heards. The divine work is called regeneration. Our work is called conversion. Conversion does indeed include an act of will by which we renounce sin and submit ourselves to the authority of Christ […] We are responsible to do this and will be condemned if we don’t. But just as clearly, the Bible teaches that, owing to our hard heart and willful blindness and spiritual insensitivity, we cannot do this. We must first experience the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. (pg. 65)
Regeneration is totally unconditional. It is owing solely to the free grace of God. (Pg. 67-68)
CONVERSION & SALVATION
When we cry, “What must I do to be saved?” the answer depends on what we are asking: how to be born again, how to be justified, or how to be finally welcomed into heaven. When we say that the answer is “Become a Christian Hedonist”, we mean God’s work in new birth, our faith in Christ, and the work of God in our lives by faith to help us obey Christ. This is the fullest meaning of conversion. (Pg 68)
Conversion, understood as the coming into being of a new nature (a Christian Hedonist) that will obey Christ, is no mere human decision. It is a human decision – but oh, so much more! Repentant faith (or believing repentance) is based on an awesome miracle performed by the sovereign God. (Pg 70)
JOY & FAITH
Mt 13:44 – The Kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in a [literally, from] his joy he goes and sells all he has and buys that field.
[…] A person discovers a treasure and is impelled by joy to sell all that he has in order to have this treasure. The kingdom of heaven is the abode of the King. The longing to be there is […the longing…] for camaraderie with the King. The treasure in the field is the fellowship of God in Christ. I conclude from this parable that we must be deeply converted in order to enter the kingdom of heaven and that we are converted when Christ becomes for us a Treasure Chest of holy joy. (Pg 70)
How then does this arrival of joy relate to saving faith? The usual answer is that joy is the fruit of faith. And in onw sense it is […Romans 15:13]. It is “in believing” that we are filled with joy.[…] But there is a different way of looking at the relationship of joy and faith. In Hebrews 11:6 the writer says, “Without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him”. In other words, the faith that pleases God is a confidence that God will reward us when we come to Him. […] Surely the reward we long for is the glory of God Himself and the perfected companionship of Christ. […] We will sell everything to have the treasure of Christ himself. So the faith that pleases God is the assurance that when we turn to Him, we will find the all-satisfying Treasure. We will find our heart’s eternal delight. But do you see what this implies? It implies that something has happened in our hearts before the act of faith. It implies that beneath and behind and in the act of faith that pleases God, a new taste has been created […] Behold, a kind of joy has been born! (Pg 71)
Before the confidence comes the craving. Before the decision comes the delight. Before trust comes the discovery of Treasure. (Pg 72)
The pursuit of joy in God is not optional. It is not an “extra” that a person might grow into after he comes to faith. It is not simply a way to “enhance” your walk with the Lord. Until your heart has hit upon this pursuit, your “faith” cannot please God. It is not saving faith. (Pg 73)
Behind the repentance that turns away from sin, and behind the faith that embraces Christ, is the birth of a new taste, a new longing, a new passion for the pleasure of God’s presence. This is the root of conversion. This is the creation of a Christian Hedonist. (pg 74)
Sorry for the typos. I won’t correct them all since I figure they are easy to spot and understand.
@ Lionel, thanks for your latest reply. It made sense, both in picking up of Andrew’s use of “accidental” (fair enough Andrew!) and also in this:
I certainly know about your comments on Piper and “justification” and “righteousness”. I am not so aware of the detailed reasoning of concerns (yours or others) re. his understanding of “faith”. Obviously they may be linked to some degree, but the emphasis in this debate on the nature of faith and its relation to the affections, seems to be a bit different from your excellent work on the ‘righteousness/justification’ word group.
@Sandy, My concerns do indeed arise from his understanding of “righteousness” / “justification”; I don’t have any detailed discussion of concerns re. Piper’s understanding of “faith”, but I’m guessing there might be a link. So in this particular topic, I’m concerned but ignorant. That’s why I’m finding this discussion (and your own quotes especially) very valuable! BTW personally, I really really hope the answer to my question is “no”, because Piper is so refreshing.
@Dani, thanks for this summary; it’s really helpful.
It seems that Piper therefore places (God-given) Christian joy/craving/desire/delight/passion in an even more fundamental position than he places Christian faith. It’s not just that passion for God always accompanies faith or even that passion is always a part of faith; he’s saying that passion (logically) precedes faith; faith springs from passion. Passion is more basic than faith. Is that right?
If so, I have a question (for anyone): Who else speaks this way? I’m almost certain Calvin didn’t speak this way – he puts faith firmly in first place (see Institutes 3.3.1-5). Did the Puritans speak this way? Did Edwards? Anyone?
Hi Lionel,
Yes, from what I have read it seems that joy/passion is the motivating force behind faith – although it is also still a part of God’s regenerative work.
My understanding is that based on Mt 13:44, Piper would say that when we apprehend the treasure which could be ours (= fellowship of God in Christ) then our joy/passion for obtaining that treasure impels us to pursue it whole heartedly (in the parable, the man sells all he has). This pursuit of joy leads me to trust that (in Christ) God has made a way for me to live in fellowship with him forever… which is the desire of my heart. So passion/pursuit of joy prompts my faith, but all of it is part of God’s regenerative work in me.
Thanks for this conversation, absolutely fascinating – especially Dani for the quotes.
Two thoughts.
First, it is in part a pastoral concern that motivates the question I asked. For introverts of tender conscience and intense nature, who frequently look inwards and don’t like what they see, equating faith with an affection can become crushing. The key pastoral move here is to get them to look outward to Christ, hence faith as a vector. Only there will they find a way out of their doubts.
Second, and even crazier than the initial question. It is common to suggest that regeneration precedes faith, and that seems to make sense. However, my understanding is that this is not how Calvin put it. For him, faith preceded both justification and sanctification, and in sanctification he included regeneration! See McGrath’s book Iustituia Dei for a really brilliant analysis of this.
One of my critiques of NT Wright has always been precisely this – in other words, he never quite threw off the hyper-reformed framework of his earliest days (when he co-authored – while a uni student! – The Grace of God in the Gospel). By the way, this is why he doesn’t see justification as the moment of ‘transfer’ – the real transfer occurs with regeneration. My point – the irony that Piper and Wright share exactly this same theological deep structure.
And even more ironic – as I understand it, it is also the Roman Catholic ‘Ordo salutis’. I have always wondered how the hyper-reformed scheme came full circle like this.
For Calvin, as I said, faith precedes both justification and regeneration, because faith is what unites us to Christ, and it is only in union with Christ that we have either righteousness or life (justification or regeneration), not prior to union with Christ by faith. Logically, what that must mean – if faith is to be preserved as a gift – is that God does a non-regenerative work in us as he gives the gift of faith, which then unites us to Christ and all his benefits.
I dusted off the Insitutes this afternoon and checked up on your statement about Calvin saying that God does a “non-regenerative” work of faith in us and that it also precedes justification in the Reformer’s view. If you take a look though at Book 3.1.1 and especially 3.1.4 Calvin clearly teaches the primacy of the Spirit in bring us to faith and that God justifies the ungodly at that same moment as well. (See Eph 2:3-10 and especially John 5:24) This has to be the case Biblically because of passages such as 1 Corinthians 12:3 amongst others.
The confusion occurs though when later on in Book 3.11.5-7 Calvin takes up the argument with Osiander who suggests (much like N.T. Wright does ironically) that justification is a result of “renewal” which in context is what happens when Christ dwells in our hearts by faith.
The problem is “renewal” for Calvin does not mean “regeneration” – in context – but a transformed life. i.e. the process of sanctification. The argument is a little more nuanced that that but that is the gist of his beef with Osiander.
Calvin though couldn’t be clearer – justification comes before sanctification in the ordo salutis. In Calvin’s words “God justifies by pardoning, not by regenerating.” See page 732 if you have the Moore College Version.
On final point – in keeping with your comment about faith being a “vector” Calvin says an almost identical thing: “We compare faith to a kind of VESSEL; for unless we come empty and with the mouth of our soul open to seek Christ’s grace, we are not capable of receiving Christ.”
I’ve gone back and read McGrath’s book and came to a different understanding of Calvin’s view then you’ve suggested. Surprisingly he only has 7-9 pages specifically on Calvin’s view of justification – depending on what edition you have. In the first edition which I looked at (pages 32-39) McGrath has a helpful comparison between Bucer and Calvin where he outlines their different understanding of the ordo salutis. What is clear though is that union with Christ – which is by faith produced by the work of the Spirit – comes BEFORE justification and sanctification. See especially pg 37.
Great thread Andrew, having not been at Oxygen I’ve been absorbing as much as I can through blogs etc. What strikes me having read this thread and others is the near complete absence of references to the Holy Spirit when discussing Regeneration. (Noted 2)
Thanks for having the courage to post your thoughts Andrew – I had the same misgivings and reservations when I heard JP last week. It’s always difficult to question our “heros” but passages such as Acts 17:10-11 show that it is the godly and right thing to do! What’s more, I was really struck and encouraged by JP’s own prayer he gave before his first talk that we would all have discernment as to what he said…
I must confess that I’ve never really got into his “Desiring God” (although I have great respect for Piper as a pastor and have benefited from his other writings) however, after hearing Piper speak in person I now know why.
It’s as though he has this paradigm of Christian Hedonism based on a novel re-interpretation of the opening statement of the WCF which then becomes his controlling grid though which he reads the Bible and indeed the whole Christian life rather than the other way round.
I was especially perpelexed last Monday night when he tried to make Philippians 1:20-21 the key text to conclusively prove – his stated assertion not mine – his theological position. Maybe others can clarify the connection but I just couldn’t see it naturally coming out of the passage…
I too thought he gave our affections a priority and emphasis which significantly down played the death and resurrection of Jesus. (Note for instance his talk “Think Christ” which was really just ten proof texts regarding the importance of using our minds) It’s not that the cross was never mentioned, let alone denied, it’s just that it was not central. In fact, I commented to a friend in the break that after the first three talks, there was so little emphasis on work which Jesus has done for us in the Gospel that maybe we should call the conference “Carbon Dioxide” rather than “Oxygen.” Carbon Dioxide being the natural out working or biproduct of taking in fresh air. I say that, not because the event was toxic or anything negative like that but because there was such a focus on what I think most of us would understand as being the “fruit” of Christian faith with little correspondence to it’s “root.”
Some might think I’ve gone too far in saying that but remember JP himself made the point of how important it is in preaching to not just collect independent pearls but to join the dots in terms of showing the logical connections between verses. That was probably my greatest disappointment – I came way impressed by JP’s own personal passion for Jesus but not really any clearer on the passion Jesus has for those He came to save let alone for how the Bible itself fits together.
I kept thinking of a comment I heard Don Carson make once – that over all the years of him teaching at TEDS in Chicago he observed that students were more impacted by what you were passionate and excited about rather than what you said.
Maybe the frustration we all feel is in the ordo salutis of the talks JP himself gave. He himself said that he had changed the order and that those of us with type A personalities would just have to deal with it. Maybe if he had of had the last two talks before his second and third ones then we’d all free a bit more comfortable with what he was trying to say. As you yourself said at the start of your blog we Sydney Evangelicals are not known for expressing our emotions! However, that said, JP was very clear that he wasn’t changing the order because of any notion of “contextualisation” – indeed, he was very clear this was something he was not into.
I do have one big question for you Andrew. You make the comment in your last post about Calvin’s understanding of the relationship between faith and regeneration:
“Logically, what that must mean – if faith is to be preserved as a gift – is that God does a non-regenerative work in us as he gives the gift of faith, which then unites us to Christ and all his benefits.”
Seeing that we’re dead in our sins and by nature followers of Satan (Eph 2:1-3) can God do a work in us that is non-regenerative? If so, what passage would you use to back up your (or maybe Calvin’s) point?
Thanks again for the blog – really helpful in clarifying the issues! (Prov 27:17)
“I was especially perplexed last Monday night when he tried to make Philippians 1:20-21 the key text to conclusively prove – his stated assertion not mine – his theological position. Maybe others can clarify the connection but I just couldn’t see it naturally coming out of the passage…”
—
Phew! I’m glad it wasn’t just me 🙂 I was really struggling to understand the connection too. That doesn’t mean the connection wasn’t there. of course (or that it was wrong!). I just had trouble understanding it and wish that he had spent more time on it, given it’s centrality in his thesis.
I’d also be grateful if anyone would be able to clarify his argument from those verses with regards to his thesis of God being most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.
Hi everyone,
I’d definitely put myself in the “introverts of tender conscience and intense nature” category. I’ve found Charles Spurgeon very helpful on this question.
In his booklet “All of Grace”, he says
“May I, therefore, urge upon any who have no good thing about them – who fear that they have not even a good feeling, or anything whatever that can recommend to God – that they will firmly believe that our gracious God is able and willing to take them without anything to recommend them, and to forgive them spontaneously, not because they are good but because he is good.”
(Chapter called “Justification for the Ungodly”).
So Spurgeon would seem to disagree that faith needs have to have good affections in it for it to be real faith.
In the same chapter he also deals with the question of whether faith must have repentance in it.
“It does at first most amazing to an awakened man of salvation should really be for him as a lost and guilty one. He thinks that it must be for him as a penitent man, forgetting that his penitence is a part of his salvation. ‘Oh’, says he, ‘but I must be this and that’. – all which is true, for he shall be this and that as the result of salvation; but salvation comes to him before he has any of the results of salvation. It comes to him, in fact, while he deserves only the bare, beggarly, bass, abominable description, ‘ungodly'”
In a later chapter called “Repentance Given” Spurgeon fleshes out a bit how this might work. He encourages the unrepentant sinner to cry out to God for salvation, saying:
“Breathe your prayer to him “Blessed Spirit, dwell with me. Make me tender and lowly of heart, that I may hate sin and unfeignedly repent of it’. He will hear your cry and answer you.”
It seems to me that this captures the idea of faith as a ‘vector’ really well.
Will
Interesting.
At the risk of sounding like a hyper-reformed guy, someone like Louis Berkhof would speak of two acts of regeneration, or two dimensions to it – one prior to faith (akin to conception – he calls it the ‘divine begetting’) and then one subsequent to faith (the actual new birth). In my mind there is much to commend this biblically.
If this is true then this would make Berkhof a kind of precursor to the double blessing theology that is so infamous in pentecostalism…
Not sure I follow your reasoning. The order suggested by Berkhof (concerning faith and the new birth) isn’t chronological but logical/causal. It is for him a unitary event. And he is seeking to do justice to the tension(?) between say John 3 and 1 Peter 1, James 1. The problem with Pentecostal double blessing is the separation in time between conversion and Spirit baptism. Or are you alluding to some other issue?
Andrew…are you saying that the Samaritans in the book of Acts were not saved when they first accepted and called Jesus Lord…but their salvation really happened when the Apostles went and laid hands on them- for them to receive the Holy Spirit?
It does appear that Scripture supports in a number of places a distinct separation or a form of double blessing.
Craig, don’t mean to ignore your comment, but only really offered my thought in relation to Andrew K’s thought about regeneration. Mark took it down the Pentecostal line – which I think is probably tangential to the discussion? Hope you don’t mind if I therefore leave it to Mark to take it further since he raised the issue.
No problem Andrew…my bad for not following the link properly.
Hi Andrew, I hope it’s clear that I am answering your response and it’s in the right place in the thread. My response to your comment was a little off handed – the big issue is what Andrew K said about Calvin’s view of God doing a “non-regenerative” work of faith prior to justification. See my response above for what I think Calvin actually taught.
While I have enormous respect for Berkhof I am not as familiar with him as I am with Calvin. Could you please point me to an appropriate page number in his writings where I can read what he says?
I think it would be wise to read and reflect on what Loius teaches on this before responding. I’m struggling to see how his view can make a logical / causal distinction but not a chronological one…
Could you also clarify what tension you are specifically referring to in the passages of Scripture ou quote? I think I know what you mean but I would like to be sure.
Mark, see his Systematic Theology – when he hits Soteriology in General (my copy, around pages 415f, and then into chapter on regeneration, 470 or so). He has some useful stuff on union with Christ. My comment about tension with the verses is that some texts suggest a regeneration prior to faith (say John 3) and certainly the logic of faith being a gift. But then some suggest regeneration is logically after faith and requires a conscious exercise of the mind through the instrument of the word (James 1:18). the fact that union with Christ, justification and regeneration appear bound as a unity also pushes in this direction. Although union with Christ is more complex – in my view!
Thanks for the reference Andrew. I’ve had a chance to read it now and see where you are coming from.
I found Berkhof’s statement on page 417 interesting: “In view of the fact that the Bible does not specify the exact order that applies in the application of the work of redemption, there is naturally considerable room for difference of opinion. And as a matter of fact the Churches are not all agreed as to the ordo salutis.” That’s a helpful quote especially in the context of our discussion here.
Later on page 471 Berkhof outlines his view of how “calling” – which comes from without – and “regeneration” – which comes from within go together. He then proceeds to outline a four step process which as you say is logical but not necessarily chronological.
Your summary of Berhof is that his view is that there are “two acts of regeneration or two dimensions to it” – by “it” I am assuming you mean the one act of regeneration. It’s a little confusing because it is so nuanced but I agree that it is a helpful way of synthesizing what the Bible teaches on God’s work in bringing about the new birth.
I wonder though whether for Berkhof there is ONE act of regeneration with FOUR different dimensions to it? I say this because each of his four points on pg 471 seem to be saying vertually the same thing.
Anyhow, I don’t think it really matters in the end because however way you understand Berhof he is clearly saying – with Calvin – that justification is not a result of a changed (regenerated) life but vice versa.
It’s been good to have had my thinking sharpened by your comment Andrew. May the Lord bless you brother.
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
Galatians 5:6
I’d also like to rebump my original question here that was avoided regarding the issue of Faith and Love. Which was… why does the Apostle Paul say…these three things remain…Faith, Hope and Love…but the greatest of these is love?
Why does he elevate love above faith?
Because God doesn’t need to hope, but we do. Because God doesn’t need Faith, but we do, and because love is the one attribute that God’s image bearer’s share with Him, their Creator.
Thanks Andrew for getting us all thinking about this! I remember wondering along similar lines after reading Piper’s reflections on Augustine’s account of his conversion in the Confessions – there are some fascinating overlaps between what Piper calls saving faith and Augustine calls love.
But (with Sandy) I’m still not at all convinced that faith (or the ‘seeing’ Christ [as great and glorious and trustworthy and precious] that Piper describes as logically prior to the ‘looking to Christ’ that is faith) needs to corralled into a dispassionate, one-dimensionally cognitive part of the believer’s mind in order for it to be properly Protestant. Why does a concept of faith that includes affection as well as cognition suddenly make it a meritorious work? To borrow the language of Mark’s Calvin quote, why do we assume that ‘[coming] empty and with the mouth of our soul open to seek Christ’s grace’ is a description of bare cognition, without any affective dimension?
Dani and Mark,
I didn’t hear Piper’s talk, but I could make a guess at how Phil 1:20-21 relates to the claim about ‘God being most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.’ Wouldn’t Piper’s argument be that the ‘for’ at the start of verse 21 implies that Paul’s satisfaction in Christ (‘to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain’) is the way in which he hopes that God will be glorified in him (‘it is my eager expectation and hope that with full courage … Christ will be honoured in my body, whether by life or by death’)?
Dave I think you’ve presented where Piper was coming from fairly and accurately but I still think that his paradigm doesn’t naturally flow out of the passage. It’s not the obvious and clear reading but something that is being read into the text. In the context of his talk he was saying that this was THE text that proved his position of “Christian Hedonism” so I think I was expecting something more convincing than what he gave.
In the end, it was the emphasis that he was placing on joy and satisfaction in Christ that was making me feel uncomfortable – and because he is so passionate that emphasis can really be quite intense!
Amusingly provocative Andrew.
I don’t understand why it follows that if Piper is not saying faith is an affection that “the stress on the affections seems ungrounded?”
I find the idea that the Spirit creates a “new taste” in us is a helpful one. There is a condition, a need or thirst, that moves one to seek God and continue to seek Him. This prevenient grace determines the nature of desire i.e., that it be desire for God rather than something else. This is the initial view point and also the starting point of the ‘vector’ as you put it Andrew.
On another note, Robert’s first comment although a little strident touched on something significant I think. This whole Protestant obsession strikes me as being at bottom a kind of pre-christian anxiety hang-over. I am no Catholic and I am only a late comer to Anglicanism. I was born and bred in a Christian Bretheren tradition of Protestantism. (When it comes to low church it doesn’t get much lower.) Not being a Catholic or having ever been one I am happy to be corrected about any observations I make in what I am about to say which is I assume mostly to an Anglican audience. From where I come from Anglicanism especially in its higher modes is almost indistinguishable from Catholicism. I will come back to this.
My observation: It seems to me that one of the problems that sustains the difference between Catholic and Protestant traditions is that Catholicism has gone further (probably too far) in the assurances of salvation it offers through participation in the sacramental life of the church, baptism, communion, confession etc. The Catholic church understood well what Nietzsche said: that “a living thing can be healthy, strong and fruitful only when bounded by a horizon; if it is incapable of drawing a horizon around itself, and at the same time too self-centred to enclose its own view with that of another, it will pine away slowly or hasten to its untimely end.” Doubt, uncertainty, equivocation, ambivalence, whatever they are born of, are holes in the ozone, so to speak, that expose us to the abyss of the infinite. If the church is anxiously obsessing about its salvation or justification it is not free to be either “enjoying God” or getting on with working with God. Catholicism, it seems to me, deals with this problem decisively. Its communicants are not left alone to agonise introspectively about their standing before God (groping towards a mystical Christ-mediator) but are directed decisively, palpably by the Church on how to deal with such matters in accordance with the rules of faith. Pastorally speaking, Catholicism is absolutely positive.
But the Reformers (perhaps, to some extent, inadvertently) re-opened the Pandora’s box by calling all this certainty back into question, by making it ambiguous whether they were “works” or not. The Protestant tradition in its ever increasingly ramified factions and varying degrees of zeal for reformations and in particular the doctrine of justification by faith alone has left its members and affilliates in a more or less greater degree of uncertainty about their spiritual standing before God depending on how radical they have been in the reformation project. An exorbitant amount of Protestant energy goes into doctrinal hair-splitting (that has been helpfully illustrated in the comments under your comment about JP’s comments etc) rather than into pastoral care and spiritual direction such as produced the Jesuit movement (for better or worse). Protestantism has gone a long way (probably too far) toward unsettling the individual’s assurance of salvation by dismantling or carefully qualifying the meaning of the sacraments such that they are much harder to use as means of receiving (even) assurance let alone salvation itself. It seems to me that, speaking generally, Protestants (and I don’t mean Christians but simply people bred in a Protestant ethos) to a greater extent than Catholics have the dubious privilege of being traditionally obliged to “personally” experience and deal with pre-christian (i.e., pagan) anxiety immediately and unassisted by anyone (but the risen Christ through the invisible and intangible power of the holy spirit). “Bare faith” is the only means we are given by which to appropriate Christ and his saving power i.e. the grace of God. But faith is also a covering, a “sheild” (Eph. 6) and a “breast-plate” (1 Thes. 5). Protestantism is right to make the point that we must individually come to terms with this anxiety and what it is born of. But is it right in being more reluctant to reassure people. We make the rites of passage more vague and ambiguous rather than mystical. The individual is obliged to agonise more in themselves before God. Extraverted types (the strong) are much more likely to thrive in Protestant culture while introverts (the weak) are more likely to be held in self-doubt for much longer and to be constantly beset by them along the way. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are protestant to the nth degrees. Interestingly Schliermacher was of Brethren stock. One can’t help but wonder whether the so called “Protestant work ethic” is a compensatory product of inner angst i.e., a turning away from it, outward, diverting itself by throwing itself into work, enterprises. The fact that Weber links this to the rise of capitalism in a different (though less motivated) way strikes me as significant. I also suspect Fundamentalism (and fundamentalism) is a symptom of the Protestant condition. Isn’t it after all essentially one more (desperate) expression of a need for certainty? And how do we account for the rise of Nationalism? And what about Piper’s Desiring God? Isn’t this an instinctive attempt to redress a felt imbalance in the Reformed tradition, the imbalance of a cold (objective), strong-minded, independant (of mother Church), masculine doctrinism? It is amusing in a way that it is the Protestant tradition that gave dogmatic its pejorative sense because it is mostly Protestants (and I include myself in this) that have acquired the ‘dogmatic’ tone and attitude. Again I have to wonder what this is compensating for. Wasn’t Nietzsche on the money when he observed that the reason so often we try to persuade others to agree with us is so that we can believe it ourselves?
But my main intent in this long-winded comment is that coming from a Brethren tradition Anglicanism strikes me as offering a greater degree of sacramental certainty than I have been used to. I think it is pastorally important to find the right balance between the extremes of Catholicism at its worst and Protestantism at its worst. And also to understand the purpose of the sacraments, dogmatics and doctrine in this light and administer them well. An accidental Catholic? Maybe that’s a good thing.