If Christ Was Not There...
I love, respect and appreciate the ministry of John Piper. I have learned a great deal through his teaching and am convinced that I will continue to do so in the years ahead. Much of what Piper has taught has resounded deeply within my soul and has helped shape and mold my faith. Yet despite all of this, I find his books difficult to read and truthfully, often finding reading them to be something of a chore. I don’t really understand it. Still, because I have always benefitted from reading his books, I do try to read new ones as they are released.
Yesterday, after seeing it on my shelf for the better part of a year (first in pre-release and now in a printed copy), I decided I would read God Is The Gospel (perhaps because we are moving this week and it is one of the few books that has escaped my wife’s attempt to corral and contain my entire library in cardboard boxes). I was only a few pages into the book when I found a passage, a question, that left me nearly undone. Piper is discussing the gospel and the full message it contains. He asks about heaven:
The critical question for our generation—and for every generation—is this: If you could have heaven, with no sickness, and with all the friends you ever had on earth, and all the food you ever liked, and all the leisure activities you ever enjoyed, and all the natural beauties you ever say, all the physical pleasures you ever tasted, and no human conflict or any natural disasters, could you be satisfied with heaven, if Christ was not there?
That question led me to put down the book and to spend a few moments in self-examination. I had to admit, to my great shame, that there are many times in my life where I feel that I could be perfectly content to consider a Christless heaven—a heaven that did not include the one who purchased my redemption so that I could be there in the first place.
This took me back to the very first page of God Is The Gospel. There Piper, having challenged the reader to understand that “The best and final gift of the gospel is that we gain Christ,” says, “In place of this, we have turned the love of God and the gospel of Christ into a divine endorsement of our delight in many lesser things, especially the delight in our being made much of.” Of all the gifts God offers, I continue to embrace the love of God as the gift of everything but Himself. I have a faulty understanding of what it means to be loved. “Our fatal error is believing that wanting to be happy means wanting to be made much of. It feels so good to be affirmed. But the good feeling is finally rooted in the worth of self, not the worth of God. This path to happiness is an illusion.”
And he is right. And so we return to the question: If I could have a heaven that was built around all I wanted and all I loved and all I desired at my weaker moments, would this satisfy me? I know in my heart of hearts that it would not, for I know that it would not be heaven if Christ were not present. But in my day-to-day life, I know that I often consider heaven as being a place where what is most important to me is what is most important to me here on earth. This would be true, if only Christ were always foremost in my thoughts here and now.
Piper challenges Christian leaders:
Do we preach and teach and lead in such a way that people are prepared to hear that question and answer with a resounding No? How do we understand the gospel and the love of God? Have we shifted with the world from God’s love as the gift of himself to God’s love as the gift of a mirror in which we like what we see? Have we presented the gospel in such a way that the gift of the glory of God in the face of Christ is marginal rather than central and ultimate?
In heaven it will be Christ Himself, not His gifts, that are the supreme pleasure. This makes our culture’s obsession with heaven all the more ridiculous. Surveys of North Americans continue to show that most people want to go to heaven and most feel that they indeed will go to heaven. Yet the vast majority of those surveyed are not Christians. Why would a person want to go to heaven if the ultimate pleasure of heaven is a person they hate or deny? What happiness would be found in such a place? What joys could there be for one who has refused to take joy in Christ while sojourning here on earth? Maybe the most difficult question to face is whether this misunderstanding of heaven is one that exists only outside the church, or whether we, as those who profess Christ, have made heaven out to be a place that exists primarily for our pleasure—a place that substitutes something other than Christ as the great and final gift.
Piper closes this short section with a reflection. “Nothing fits a person to be more useful on earth than to be more ready for heaven. This is true because readiness for heaven means taking pleasure in beholding the Lord Jesus, and beholding the glory of the Lord means being changed into his likeness.”
I wrote this article this morning after spending some quiet time with God. I can’t express the longing that I felt in this time to desire Christ above all else. I can’t describe just how much I wanted to long to be with Christ and to desire Him as the great and final gift of heaven and earth. How I wanted to know Him in that way here and now, and not to have to wait for heaven to delight in the Savior in such a way that He is what I want above all else. Oh, that I would desire Christ above health and friends and food and leisure and beauty and and pleasure and all manner of earthly satisfaction!
Comments (37) »
1. Terry Stauffer
March 20, 2006
11:26 AM
Tim, you’ve exposed me by your personal reflections! I, too, have difficulty reading Piper, though I’ve read and benefited from several of his books. I have a copy of ‘God is the Gospel’ sitting on my bedside table - unopened for the past couple of months - other books always seem to be a higher priority.
I find Piper too earnest, too blunt, too unrealistic. I’ve known, deep down, that this is not John Piper’s fault, but mine.
Thanks for being vulnerable here, Tim. It’s an encouragement to me.
P.S. I’d love to help you move, but Edson, Alberta is a bit far away.
2. sparrowhawk
March 20, 2006
11:27 AM
Six years ago the chaplain told me during my dad’s final days battling cancer was how the Spirit was present at the moment of death for the Christian. I was able to be by my dad’s side when that moment came, and I can’t adequately describe the overwhelming sense of peace and joy that lasted for several seconds in the room. Later that evening I re-read the verse “…’In His presence is fullness and joy.” I can testify. I distinctly remember telling my wife that even if the golden streets and incredible splendor did not exist, just being near Christ would be enough. In His presence is fullness of joy, and “peace I leave with you.” Joy and Peace surround Him, and that is enough for eternity. Praise Him for our ransom to enjoy that forever.
3. Mike Sense
March 20, 2006
12:02 PM
Score! Great post Tim! It’s truly what I desire my ministry to be about. Falling in love with Christ, desiring Him above all else and having that be the fountain from which life flows! Two years ago I listened to his series on Romans 8:28, All Things Work For the Good. The first sermon yielded a reflection on “For those who love Him…”, as with you, it blew me away. Piper proclaims, “if heaven without Jesus is attractive to you, you’re not saved”…to this my roommates and I gave each other a “no he di’idn’t!!!” Like you it has driven me to my knees to petition the Lord to radically work in my heart…to circumcise it to MAKE me love Him and become more enamored with the Almighty.
Also, appropriate comments about his books being difficult to read. This of course brings the phrase, “nothing great happens without hard work” to my mind. The books that have most impacted me have been those that though small, are thick and rich and take me a while to really dive into.
4. Dr Mike
March 20, 2006
12:46 PM
If Christ were not there, I would not be there: I am in Christ and where He is, I am; where He is not, I am not. It is a senseless question. A Christ-less heaven is as ludicrous as a heaven-less Christ.
What, one wonders, is the purpose of a question so contrary to biblical Christology, Soteriology, and personal Eschatology?
5. Darren Larson
March 20, 2006
1:06 PM
Fantastic post. Thank you for writing. I am certain reading it helped me to remember to be consumed by Jesus Christ today.
For a class I’m taking, I read a great phrase in The Chicago Statement On Biblical Hermeneutics that says “no hermeneutic of which the historical Christ is not the focal point is acceptable.” Though a little nerdy, it is beautiful. Jesus Christ is the point of the Bible, the gospel, and our future in heaven!
I cannot wait to see him in all his glory with “KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS” written on his robe and tattooed on his leg. (Rev. 19:16)
6. Dallas Pymm
March 20, 2006
1:07 PM
“What, one wonders, is the purpose of a question so contrary to biblical Christology, Soteriology, and personal Eschatology?”
I think the purpose was to get the reader to truly dig through his heart and see if they truly got joy in Christ alone or in the gifts of Christ. As Piper has said, “Do you love the giver not the gifts?”
Tim, and others. I know many people who find reading Piper difficult. He is very poetic, and not everyone likes that writing style. No one should be discouraged about this as long as you enjoy the true principles of God that Piper may offer in his books.
Like you, Piper’s ministry has humbled me greatly in asking questions like this. I have spent many mornings dwelling on if my heart is too easily pleased by the fleeting pleasures of this world to make room for the lasting joy of Christ. I pray the joy of Christ will crush all other fleeing pleasures in my life.
7. Allen
March 20, 2006
1:07 PM
Dr Mike, I agree that it does not do for us to attempt to permanently separate things like that — but it’s a useful thought exercise to help us see whether we truly desire God, or only the good things He can give us. Ultimately they cannot be separated, of course, but do we always remember that?
8. Aaron
March 20, 2006
1:12 PM
Dr Mike:
Perhaps the purpose is that people might examine where their affections lie. The un-saved do everything out of love for self and so the desires for heaven will be for self. Yet this is very hard to see. In fact, an unbeliever would never see that they are completely selfish without the convicting work of the Spirit. But believers too have a sinful nature that loves self though it is being mortified by the Spirit. The more we have of God, the less we have of self. Given this, I believe the question serves two primary purposes:
That those who are only deceiving themselves about being Christians might see the truth and that their affections are really only for themselves. And that may drive them to the cross.
That believers might be spurred on to love for GOD and not self. The hope of Heaven is Christ Himself to whom are all things (Ro. 11:36)
What does it really mean to be God-centered? Remember that God Himself is also God-centered.
9. James
March 20, 2006
1:14 PM
Great post Tim, I only finished “God is the Gospel” on New Years Eve after having purchased the book the week it came out.
I seem to recall “Don’t Waste Your Life” as being an easier read when I started this book but I have to admit I had to labor through this one. By appearances this book looks like a short, easy read but it is anything but. I do know that once I finished it I realized, much to my shame, that I did not treasure God or Christ above all else. Since then I have prayed for a new heart to fully delight in God and that in my ministry others may do the same.
Oh and just to address Dr Mike’s comment, I asked fellow Christians about a Christless heaven and though they knew it was wrong they couldn’t explain why.
10. Chelsey Karns
March 20, 2006
2:35 PM
I have a copy of God is the Gospel on my bookshelf… I was in the middle of Future Grace when I got it and while I have been greatly blessed by Piper’s books, I can only handle one at a time!
However, I think that I will tackle this one next. I will admit that in all my thoughts about heaven, Christ is generally not the focal point. And yet until I read this post, Tim, I didn’t really even consider why it would be so ludicrous. Thank you!
11. Dr Mike
March 20, 2006
3:25 PM
Paul says that heaven was his reason (or a big one, anyway) for believing in Christ:
“If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.” - 1 Co 15.19
If I understand Paul correctly, he is saying that he believes in Christ because that belief assures him of resurrection and - due to his inclusion in the Body of Christ - heaven. Indeed, he goes on to say,
“If the dead are not raised, LET US EAT AND DRINK, FOR TOMORROW WE DIE.” - 1 Co 15.32
If Christ has not been risen - ergo there is no resurrection - then faith in Christ is ridiculous and pitiful. Live it up, Paul says, and forget about holiness!
So, does Paul need to search his heart to see if he really loves Jesus and not just the “gifts” that come with such faith? Because it sounds like he loves Jesus (at least) because it assures him of eternal life. Are his motives completely pure? Should we approve of Paul’s attitude?
More to the point, would Piper approve?
12. Philippa
March 20, 2006
3:45 PM
If Christ wasn’t there, heaven wouldn’t BE heaven, would it??? :)
Christ is the source of all love, the source of all beauty, the source of all truth. The universe makes no sense without this omnipotent, self-giving God, who chose to enter His creation, become one of His own and who ‘fills everything in every way.’ (Ephesians 1: 23)
Jesus is the one I love - and yes, my love for Him is faint and poor and pathetic. :( But I do love Him, however feebly. He is the One who gives me reason to love, who gives me reason to live, the One who died for me, the One who brought me from death to life.
There is no Heaven without Him.
Thank you for a wonderfully uplifting and deeply challenging post.
13. Aaron
March 20, 2006
3:55 PM
But what is the resurrection and heaven itself? Paul here is addressing the heresy that Christ was not actually resurrected. If He was not resurrected, then there is no resurrection for any of us and so no hope of heaven. But what is the hope of heaven?
True. And what is the point of even living if there is no meaning in life?
But what is eternal life? John 17:3 says “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” So eternal life is not just us being in some state of bliss or perfect peace in heaven. It is a knowledge of God. Eternal life starts when when a sinner is regenerated and extends forever. If God is not what we hope in or not the one to whom our affections are directed, then what is? Self? This I believe is at the heart of the Gospel itself: denying self and looking to Christ. Our hope (eternal life), indeed the very Gospel itself is God! Christians look forward to heaven because they will finally be able to love God perfectly, untainted by sin and that their love for and knowledge of Him will continue forever. There will be not even a single thought of self in heaven because all there will be perfectly God-centered.
I’m not sure you have demonstrated that Paul’s view of or attitude toward eternal life is any different than I just stated above, which seems to be what Piper is getting at.14. Dr Mike
March 20, 2006
4:30 PM
Aaron:
Although I think much of your conjecturing about heaven and what it will be like (“There will be not even a single thought of self in heaven because all there will be perfectly God-centered.”) is just that - conjecture - I agree with much of what you say.
The point is that I believe that Piper adds (in this case, frontloads) the gospel with his additional requirements in this book. I didn’t like the book (if you’re desperate, you can find my review on Tim’s site), although I’m sure Piper himself is a very good and godly man. Much more so than I, I hope.
I’m just trying to defend what I believe to be the gospel. What - or whom - are you defending?
15. Dr Mike
March 20, 2006
4:32 PM
IMHO, BTW & FWIW, Piper’s books are difficult to read because (a) his thoughts (even when correct) are poorly organized and presented, and (b) he’s not a very good writer (or needs a better editor).
Hope I didn’t hurt anyone’s feelings with point (b).
16. Austin
March 20, 2006
4:39 PM
Dr. Mike,
“So, does Paul need to search his heart to see if he really loves Jesus and not just the “gifts” that come with such faith?”
Absolutely he does - as do all of us, constantly. I think that it is quite true that if we honestly examine ourselves, truly and deeply, we will find that we don’t love Christ as we ought. Yes, we are given a new heart and will to love God. But we are still undergoing Spirit wrought sanctification. We are not yet complete. There is ever-room for growth. And this is something that Paul knew very well.
“Because it sounds like he loves Jesus (at least) because it assures him of eternal life.”
(I’m not entirely sure what you mean here.) But I think that Paul loved Christ because he loved His Person. The word “agape” as defined by Kenneth Wuest is a love that one has for another because he or she sees something valuable in that person, simliar to that family portrait that has no monetary value on your wardrobe - to you it is priceless. So if the inexpensive family portrait is priceless in your eyes, how much more should the eternal, infinite God of grace (who is objectively priceless) be valued. This is the love that I believe Paul had for God.
Yes, Paul loved the gifts from Christ. But moreso, he loved the gift of Christ.
“I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ” -Philippians 3:8
17. Dr Mike
March 20, 2006
5:02 PM
Austin:
Think about what you’re saying for a second. I asked if, on the basis of what Paul said in Scripture - which he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - he needed to examine his heart to see if his motives were pure as defined by Piper. Surely you are not suggesting that Paul needed to examine his heart while engaged in inspired writing, are you?
Now, when Paul is not writing the infallible word of God - which, I assume, was most of the time - you are quite correct: he needed to examine himself. At least, to a point, since he said earlier in the same letter (4.3) that he doesn’t spend too much time introspecting. But when we’re talking about what he wrote under God’s inspiration, I think we’re safe in assuming that his heart is OK.
You say, “Yes, Paul loved the gifts from Christ. But moreso, he loved the gift of Christ.” Then why did he say, “If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied”?
He loved his Savior because of what his Savior saved him from - the penalty for his sins, which he otherwise would have paid for with his own life. Jesus Savior cannot be separated from that which He accomplishes as Savior. Would Paul have loved Jesus if He had not saved Him from His sins? Well, probably not if the early chapters of Acts are to be believed.
Paul loved Jesus because of the salvation Jesus accomplished - which, by the way, is why we call him Savior, Messiah, or Christ to begin with. That’s not a bad thing or a less noble reason, regardless of what Piper implies.
18. Brian Thornton
March 20, 2006
5:03 PM
“There will be not even a single thought of self in heaven because all there will be perfectly God-centered.”
Really? Is this true? Will there be NO self-awareness in heaven? Is that biblical?
19. Dr Mike
March 20, 2006
5:15 PM
Brian:
The comment is abiblical, i.e., it is conjectural - although in this case I think it can be logically demonstrated to be wrong (Paul seemed to have some self-awareness when he was taken to heaven, as did some other biblical people).
The truth is, we don’t know - because God did not see fit to tell us - a whole lot about what heaven will be like or who will be doing what with whom and where. All we know is all we need to know: heaven is good, hell is bad.
(That last sentence a hyperbolic statement, BTW, so don’t bother going to the trouble of proof-texting me to the contrary. On the other hand, it might be a good study to see all that the Bible does - and does not - say about where some of us ( I’m optimistically including myself here, even though I’m not strictly Reformed) will spend a lot of non-time - what is eternity, anyway? It’s not really more and more time, it’s just _. Unending being?)
20. Dallas Pymm
March 20, 2006
5:21 PM
“Hope I didn’t hurt anyone’s feelings with point (b).”
I sure hope you didn’t either. It would be foolish to allow anyone’s opinion of an author to hurt your feelings. Although you could say that this is your opinion. I am sure many people agree and disagree with you. To state this as fact is too bold of you. That is my opinion.
“I’m just trying to defend what I believe to be the gospel. What - or whom - are you defending?”
Then defend it. I have not read your belief as to what the gospel is. All I have read is that you seem to think the question Piper asks is strange at best and having no value.
“The point is that I believe that Piper adds (in this case, frontloads) the gospel with his additional requirements in this book. I didn’t like the book (if you’re desperate, you can find my review on Tim’s site), although I’m sure Piper himself is a very good and godly man. Much more so than I, I hope.”
I have not read the book and hope Piper would never try and add any requirements to God’s perfect gospel. I don’t remember this being about a review of the entire book. I remember it being about that Piper’s question helps a believer ask themself if Christ is what they value most. I am sure no one would fault Piper for that, or anyone for that matter.
21. Dr Mike
March 20, 2006
5:35 PM
Dallas:
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or caustic in your remarks to me, but I’ll assume neither to be the case. I made the comment about point (b) because I know some editors (the subject of point (b)) read Tim’s blog. Having edited for many years, I know it to be a difficult job. That’s all I was saying.
If you haven’t read the book, then read it and you’ll understand the question and how it is a setup for the point he eventually makes. You can agree or disagree (very nice and generous of me, eh?) with Piper’s book, but knowing the context would help understand some of my comments.
FWIW, I started to write, “What - or W/whom - are you defending?” but thought it was too confusing. If you feel you are defending Christ, I will champion your desire (if not your doctrine at every point); if a person, well, that takes discernment and more information or knowledge than I have. Re Piper, I know only what I read.
22. David Pat
March 20, 2006
5:37 PM
Wow, that’s an incredible message and something that I know I’ve neglcected thinking bout
23. Dr Mike
March 20, 2006
5:37 PM
BTW, I defended THE gospel (jk) in my review. I’ll not reproduce it here.
24. Aaron
March 20, 2006
5:43 PM
Dr Mike:
It is true that we are quite limited in knowing what heaven will be like. We do know that there will be no more sin, however. The idolatry of putting oneself before God is sin and that will be no more. So when we are doing things for self (in any way) rather than for the glory of God, it is sin. Perhaps I was going too far in saying “there will be not even a single thought of self” but I think we can safely say that in a place where there is no sin, everything will be FOR God and so nothing will be FOR or TO self. How is this conjecture? Is he really adding to the gospel or attempting to define what the gospel really is according to scripture in an age of easy-believism and rampant moral-relativism? At any rate, my aim is not to defend Piper’s book. I was responding to your response to the quote Tim provided about a heaven without God. Certainly Paul tells us that we should examine ourselves (II Cor. 13:5ff) but even self-examination can become an idolatry of sorts. Yet this “examining” is something very lacking in our churches today. People are told to pray a prayer and then never to doubt. Many people trust in a prayer. Others claim to love God but it is only because they believe God loved them. Even unbelievers love those who love themselves. True believers will love God because they have God’s love for Himself placed in their hearts. (1 John 4:7-8) And love for God is not self-serving. This does not mean any of us can love God perfectly or without selfishness (we still have the flesh) but I think it is good for us to meditate on things that help weed out our own selfishness and perhaps even bring some into conviction who do not really have God’s love in their hearts. True, that is not all we should be doing or we’d be a bunch of selfish naval-gazers. But do you really think that this sort of self-examination and mortification of sin is prevalent in the church today?My intent was not to be defensive of Piper or his book but to exchange some dialogue on the nature of the gospel with respect to the quote Tim provided. It appeared you were asserting that Paul’s love for Christ was out of a selfish desire for eternal life. I do not think that is the Biblical understanding of what true love for God is (love is not self-serving). And I do not think that was the point of the passages you provided. But please correct me if I mis-understood your intent.
25. Austin
March 20, 2006
5:45 PM
Dr. Mike,
I’m still not entirely clear as to what you are supposing. But hopefully I am grasping the general bulk of meaning.
“I asked if, on the basis of what Paul said in Scripture - which he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - he needed to examine his heart to see if his motives were pure as defined by Piper. Surely you are not suggesting that Paul needed to examine his heart while engaged in inspired writing, are you?”
Thank you for clarifying your previously made statement. Earlier you did not mention if Paul ought to examine Scripture’s motives - you merely said, “So, does Paul need to search his heart to see if he really loves Jesus and not just the “gifts” that come with such faith? Because it sounds like he loves Jesus (at least) because it assures him of eternal life.” It sounded as if you meant Paul in the generic sense.
But to be more precise, let’s not use the word “inspired.” If anything we should use “ex-pired.” For the words of Scripture were literally God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16). So Paul’s motives really are not the issue when we speak of the integrity of Scripture. God could have had anyone or anything write His infallible Word.
And lastly (I truly must go study), you asked about 1 Cor 15:19, “If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.” We can’t divorce this passage from the overall context of the book of 1 Corinthians (and especially 1 Corinthians 15). Paul is not answering why he loves Christ in this passage. He is proclaiming the importance of the resurrection of Christ. From verses 12-19 he is defending the validity of the Christian faith based on the fact of the resurrection of Christ. And he claims that if we simply hoped in Christ but there were no resurrection then “your faith is in vain” (v.14).
I think I understand your point. Yes, Paul loved Christ, as do I, because he had been given life, life more abundantly. But I also think you might be misunderstanding Piper - or perhaps I am. Our desire ought not simply remain in love with the life that we have received. But rather, we must desire to love God Himself for who He is. We must desire to love His eternal attributes. We must desire to love His very Being. That is the goal, as I see it, for the Christian. And only by the grace of God can it become reality.
26. Dallas Pymm
March 20, 2006
5:47 PM
Mike. No, I was not being sarcastic. I do think it would be silly to get your feelings hurt because of someone else’s opinion, but now I am not sure if you were being serious or not. :o[
It is not on my list, but I have enjoyed Piper in the past and may pick it up when I can. Maybe my wife will get me some books for our aniversary or my b-day next month.
I was serious when I said I have not read your belief on what the gospel is. You said you were trying to defend it, but I had not seen you state it to begin with. That’s all I was saying.
I am trying to say that it is completely biblical to desire Christ rather than what He provides. I think that is Paul’s entire point in Philippians 1:21 “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” He either does Christ’s work, or goes home to be with Christ.
I am sorry if I came off sarcastic. I was not trying to be. I am not a very good writer, and could use a good editor. ;o)
27. Mark Tubbs
March 20, 2006
5:51 PM
To be sure, logically (not to mention theologically) Piper’s question doesn’t wash. As believers we often take for granted that heaven is contingent on Christ and that Christ is causal of heaven, but sadly often fail to live that reality, which is the point Piper is making. This is where it gets practical, where the rubber meets the road, my brothers.
But consider that we often throw up all sort of hypotheses - if not along the lines of a Christ-less heaven - when we evangelize. We might put forward the question “would you rather go to heaven or hell?” That’s blunt, and I’m not attempting to provoke a debate about evangelism methods, but I think Piper can be forgiven for ‘stepping outside’ the bounds of logic in this instance.
On a personal note, I needed to check my heart recently when my pastor opined that Piper tends to be repetitive (of course he is) and dense (I take that on Piper’s behalf as a compliment).
Not to change the subject, but C.J. Mahaney’s book on humility and Bob Kauflin’s Monday Devotions post at worshipmatters.com today are particularly enlightening.
28. Dr Mike
March 20, 2006
5:58 PM
Aaron:
Piper’s “definition” of the gospel is - again, in my opinion - a re-definition of the gospel. Ironically, I do not disagree with what he seeks to accomplish: Christians loving Christ; I do disagree with how he attempts to do that and by him saying that if you do not behold the glory of God at the moment of salvation then you are not saved.
“If we do not see him and savor him as our greatest fortune, we have not obeyed or believed the gospel.” - p. 56
FWIW (again), my abbreviated review is here. I confess I was a bit perturbed when I wrote it, but that’s another story. The content is correct, although my spirit likely wasn’t.
29. Dr Mike
March 20, 2006
6:12 PM
Dallas:
I was serious (if that’s the irenic path). My complaint with Piper’s book is that it takes a goal of sanctification and makes it a requirement of salvation.
Loving God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength is the goal of being conformed to the image of Christ; Piper makes it the essence of the gospel. If that is, in fact, the requirement, then I am not saved and anyone who is saved has drastically regressed since regeneration! If I were able to love God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength, would I need a Savior?
(For all you monogists [sp?], if the Holy Spirit gives us the ability to do that at the moment of salvation, then why do we go downhill from there? The Holy Spirit enables us to believe - if we are elect, I suppose I should add - at the moment of regeneration in the salvation accomplished by Christ. Period. I don’t think loving God wholly is presented as necessary for salvation, although it is the goal of sanctification.)
BTW, I’ve spent far too much time here today and must now return to Middle-earth. I’ve enjoyed interacting with you all.
Namárië!
30. Aaron
March 20, 2006
6:17 PM
Dr Mike:
I read over your review of the book, but I am more interested in what your understanding or definition of the gospel is. The nature of the gospel and the quote Tim provided was the context of our discussion. I fear if we started talking about Piper’s entire book and his own beliefs (which we might be speculating at a lot), this thread could go on forever!
And so, specifically I’d like to know what you think about the following: Can a person be believing the gospel for selfish reasons only and still be saved? How is the gospel believed non-selfishly? And, what is the ultimate purpose of the gospel?
31. James
March 20, 2006
9:15 PM
Ok I’m probably stepping into something that is way out of my league with this ongoing discussion of what the Gospel ultimately is.
Remember that Piper’s theology is heavily influenced by Jonathan Edwards. In listening to the lecture Piper gave about Jonathan Edwards (available on the Capitol Hill Baptist Church site) the book makes better sense of why Piper wrote such statements. I think Aaron is getting to that point with the questions he posed and the last question is similar to the one Piper posits. Here are a few of the questions that Piper posed in his lecture:
Who cares about being forgiven? Why do you care? If you know you’ve sinned; if you know you’re guilty; if you know there is judgment hanging over you, why do you care about being forgiven?
Piper then goes on with a few examples of answers which he called “inadequate” and do not “honor God.”
I like being forgiven because Hell is hot and long and I don’t like pain.
In analyzing such an answer Piper concludes “it just honors your dislike of pain.” Here is another example he gives:
I hate guilt feelings; I don’t like to wake up in the morning and feel rotten. I like to feel good when I get up in the morning like I don’t have guilt on me anymore; I hate getting up feeling bad. So if you got a message that’ll fix that - I’ll buy that.
For this answer Piper concludes there is “no honor for God in that; just your capacities for feeling happy in the morning.”
Piper gave these examples to primarily point out that such reasons are centered around “self.” If a person’s primary reason for believing in Christ is simply to stay out of Hell and avoid God’s wrath, his faith is self-serving. If the faith is self-serving, Christianity becomes a bunch of rules to live by. He makes an earlier point in the lecture to paraphrase Edward’s definition of a hypocrite:
A person who is God-oriented because God is Man-oriented is Man-oriented.
If you disagree with Edwards’ theology then you will disagree with Piper. I suggest listening to the lecture as I probably did a poor job of transcribing what he said but I am certain a better understanding of “God is the Gospel” will be gained in doing so.
32. don
March 21, 2006
12:12 AM
Tim,
Thank you very much for this. I learned this truth several years ago during a time of great stress and crisis, when the Holy Spirit opened up Hebrews to me and Jesus became so very real to me.
I can no longer talk about “the cross,” unless the discussion focuses on what Jesus did for me there - “the cross” did nothing for me, but He still has wounds in His body for me.
When I am dying, will doctrine comfort me? No, Jesus Himself will comfort me. When I am in Heaven and the next life on a new Earth, will I study the Bible? No, I will worship and have face-to-face fellowship with the Word in person.
The cross, doctrine, Bible — all these are tools pointing to Jesus, and poor substitutes for the direct and ecstatic relationship we will one day have with Jesus — and which is supposed to begin, to our great delight, right here and now.
Keep pointing us to Jesus, Tim! God bless you.
33. GeneMBridges
March 21, 2006
5:04 AM
Said by a non-monergist about a monergist, this is quite ambitious. It could only be true if you equivocate between justification and sanctification. Salvation emcompasses 3 different aspects. Your above sentence tells me that you are equating “salvation” with “justification.” I’d also add that the classic formulation is “Justified by faith; saved by grace.” Since Piper is a Calvinist and therefore a monergist, this love for God could only be predicated on monergistic regeneration. That’s hardly making this kind of love for God a requirement for salvation. In fact, it is the exact opposite.
Having actually heard Piper preach this very sermon in person, I know exactly what he’s discussing. He’s actually discussing regeneration, the shining of light in to the darkness that causes a real change in the life of the one God saves.
What Piper does here is point out that love for God is an evidence of salvation. This is no different than saying faith alone justifies, but faith is never alone afterwards. If a man does not love God, then he has cause to wonder if He knows God. This is consonant with the LCBF 2 and WCF on assurance. It is consonant with 1 John on assurance as well, for one cannot love the brethren and do good works, which amount to keeping the 2nd Table of the Law, without first keeping the 1st Table first. Only monergistic regeneration that leads to faith in Christ can do this.
34. Dr Mike
March 21, 2006
8:58 AM
Well, it’s a new day, and what better way to start it than to jump back into this (increasingly) smelly quagmire of miscommunication.
Until I followed your link this morning Gene, I didn’t realize who you were, i.e., a Triabloguer at a highly-regarded blog.
You obviously don’t know me, since you assume that I am a non-monergist: actually, I do believe that salvation - and sanctification - are wholly works of God, but I also believe that I am responsible for my choice at the moment of being confronted - i.e., having the veil removed - with the gospel. Same goes for sanctification: I have the responsibility to choose wisely but it is totally a work of God, even down to giving me the sense and will to make the right choice. I don’t know how to put the two together, so I believe both.
Perhaps, rather than being a “non-monergist” you could regard me as an adulterous monergist? “Non-” is just so exclusive, and there are already so many Christian cliques that I’ve been excluded from that I’ve grown quite sensitive in my half-century-plus years (although I’ve only been a Christian for 31+ years). Can I just hang out with the monergists, like on the very fringes? Please?
My comments, as explained in my review, are based solely on the book under consideration. As I said then, everybody who writes has bad days and/or months (if you don’t believe that, just read my blog or any of the thousands of newspaper articles/stories I wrote long ago!). Piper assumed too much re his audience - that we were all familiar with his sermons, papers, and other communiques - and made statements in GItG without sufficient elaboration. If the reader’s sole exposure to Piper is that book (which is how I review all books, unless they are in a series), then that’s the impression I believe he gives. Of course, I don’t have the corner on all truth - it’s currently occupied - but it’s my opinion.
OK, I’m gone again. Anyone who wishes to impugn my character and/or reputation can do so with impunity because I’m through for the day.
Namárië!
35. Dr Mike
March 21, 2006
8:59 AM
One more thing:
Tim, it looks like Justin gave you a pass on this one!
36. Blake Law
March 21, 2006
11:43 AM
Here’s a non-logical statement for showing a spiritual reality:
*If there were no heaven or hell, nothing at all after death, would you still worship Jesus?
We’ve been talking about desires for heaven with or without Christ there, but I don’t think this has been asked.
Hard to find someone who loves Piper more than I do, but I love him for the hundreds of hours of his recordings I’ve heard, and I think his point in this is that NO MATTER WHAT REALITY COULD EXIST, CHRIST WOULD STILL BE WORTHY OF ALL GLORY AND WORSHIP—because it would not be for us to sit in judgement of the ways in which God glorifies himself! This is simply the 7th point of Calvinism, the point that echoes the same thing Job said millenia ago, “though he slay me, I will hope in him”, the point that makes heaven the removal of any pretensions that God is NOT the object of all honor and glory and worship.
I just think the point is that any satisfaction other than the person and essence of Christ is FINITE and PITIFUL, when compared to Christ’s infinite depths. Put a billion carats of diamonds, sapphires and rubies next to an infinite amount of anything, even paperclips, and the value of the gems becomes pathetic and worthless by comparision.
But I did say the “essence” of Christ, and I do believe that could mean many things in life, even self somewhere in there—but remember, it is Christ who is I AM, the ultimate and wholest Being, and it is we who in him “live and move and have our being”.
37. Joel
March 21, 2006
12:01 PM
John 15:6
“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.”
Post Your Comment Here »