The Calvinist

What is a Calvinist? A cynic? Frozen Chosen? A Debater?

Although it does focus on the person, I do like this poem by John Piper. What the Calvinist ought to be, or strive to be when observed, the godly man observed (Listen for the voices of D.A. Carson, R.C. Sproul, Alistair Begg, Thabiti Anyabwile, Matt Chandler, and Sinclair Ferguson.):

Reflection on Jesus and Children

Matthew 18:1-5: At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

19:13-15 - Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, 14 but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And he laid his hands on them and went away.

When the disciples ask a question about the greatest, Jesus uses a child as a model. Jesus uses a child to say “unless you turn/change/convert (all are valid translations of this word) and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Now Jesus did not mean act childish, the disciples were already good at this. “Who's the greatest?” already is a childish question. Paul says we grow up and put away childish things. It's almost as if it is like Jesus says: stop having the bad qualities of a child and get some of the good ones.

And Jesus gets a lot of mileage out of this example. The child offers an example for

1)Humility
2)How to welcome others
3)The responsibility we have to others (in the graveness of sin)

I once heard John Piper say that one of the traits he looks for in an elder is how they interact with children. Is the Christian Life a matter of one's individual piety and outward cleanliness? Or is it found in community and not the individual? For Piper, children were the ultimate test because they are needy, they can be annoying (as they were to the disciples later), and they can give you nothing back for the time you give them. They may, if an infant, sit there and look cute, but they will not return the favor. You don't take them out to lunch then they get the bill next time. A child may say thanks but then runs off to do his own thing.

So what I think Jesus is getting at in “becoming like one of these” is in rank and importance. It is not acting childish, though the innocent trust of the child is held up. It is humility, welcoming people like children who cannot give you something, and in not leading them into sin.

But as a side note before we get these traits in action in the rest of this chapter, I want to also show how this is a great argument for infant baptism. I'm serious. In other words, it is not entirely spiritualized that the kingdom community belongs to the children. In Matthew 19:13-15, the disciples may have only taken this as spiritual, and as people brought children to Jesus the disciples send them away. In Luke, it tells us that mothers carried babies to Jesus to touch. Children that could not come of their own accord, that had little knowledge of what was being done to them. The disciples did not see that children belonged in the new community that Jesus was making just as they belonged by circumcision in the community of Israel, as Jesus says that indeed they are members of the kingdom subject to his Kingship. Peter, I believe, gets it in Acts 2:38-39. When he invites the first Jews to new covenant obedience in receiving their Messiah and submitting to baptism, Peter says “for the promise is for you and your children.” Peter learned by this point children were included. Clement of Alexandria has a great line about this incident: “In Jesus' time mother brought their children to Jesus to touch, as they continue to do today in baptism.” There. My short case for infant baptism based on Matthew 18 and 19.

But I do think it is true. Having children as covenant members reminds us of the importance of community. We then see the dependence that child has on others. The community is not a social club where strong pious individuals, that are maintained by their individual personal piety come together. It is ground of the individual growing. Think of trees growing out of the building of the church, rather than trees growing out side of the church that stick a branch in the building. A child's dependence reminds us of our dependence. That a child is brought unable to help itself to have Christ touch reminds us of our helpless condition apart from being carried by the workings of the Spirit.

John Piper is wrong (but N.T. Wright is too)

In 1997, John Piper published a book of devotional writings called “A Godward Life.” One of the entries was titled: “Did God Command a Man to Earn His Life? - Thoughts on the So-Called Covenant of Works.” Ultimately to this question: Did God command a man to earn his life: Piper answers “no.”

Piper writes, “It is true that God commanded Adam to obey him, and it is also true that failure to obey would result in death (Genesis 2:16-17)...But the question is this: what kind of obedience is required for the inheritance of life – the obedience of earning or the obedience of trusting?” (pg 171) Piper answers “trusting” which is synonmous with faith. (pg 171-172) To see it as earning, it is charged that this would be “legalistic.” (pg 172)

I believe Piper is wrong. Not that earning life (I'll even call it meriting life) would be legalistic. Indeed it would be. But Piper is wrong that God did not set that very system up. Adam was given a covenant agreement that if he obeyed, he would merit eternal life. It was legal and in accordance with justice, hence legalistic. Adam was told to earn life.

Piper can only see a disobedience of a lack of trust as what was evil about Adam's sin. “What made Adam's sin so evil was that God had shown him unmerited favor and offered himself to Adam as an Everlasting Father to be trusted in all his council for Adam's good.” (pg 172) It must be admitted that to be given a covenant or even initial life is unmerited. Adam did nothing before he was created to merit being created. Neither did Adam do anything before being given a covenant to merit being given a covenant. But that is NOT the question. The question is the nature of the agreement set up by God. The agreement was not anti-meritorious. On the contrary, it was a meritocracy, merit-pay. “Do this, then you get this.” The payment may have been out of propotion. That's not the point. It was payment: wages for work. Grace in salvation was not needed for sin was not yet a problem. Grace as salvific answers the problem of sin, but before sin, Adam was to keep God's commandments, and in this probationary period merit eternal life. Adam did not do this by faith or trust alone, but by works. Faith after Adam is trusting Christ's works, but Adam's works, not yet defiled by sin, needed no substitute.

What Piper rejected in his 1997 work is what I believe makes his response against Wright and the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) not as strong as it needs to be: both NPP and Piper have no functional doctrine of a covenant of works. (*Piper has acknowledged that the Covenant of Works may have validity, but it has not become functional in his theology as far as I have seen)

Piper asks an odd rhetorical question to try to prove the absurdity of a covenant of works as being failed by Adam and fulfilled by Jesus: "Should we think of the Son of God relating to his Father as a workman earning wages? Are we to think of the role of the 'second Adam' as earning what the 'first Adam' failed to earn? I his role not rather to glorify the trustworthiness of his Father, which Adam so terribly dishonored?"

My answer to the first two questions is Yes. To the final question: Yes and no. Not rather, but also.

How is Jesus the second Adam? Does Jesus merely trust God better than Adam? Or does Jesus merit eternal life where Adam failed? Jesus legalistically earns what we cannot not. Paul seems to have this contrast between Adam and Christ in view in Romans 5:12-21. Paul had previously set up just such an "earning" and meriting situation in Romans 2: "[God] will render to each one according to his works" (2:6) and "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified." (2:13) Paul tells us the way to righteousness is work. But then no one does this righteousness (Romans 3:10-12). So instead salvation must be given by a gift (3:24) and "one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." (Romans 3:28). This is only possible because of the life and death of Christ (5:10) whom we may be joined to, as the choice becomes union with Adam or Union with Christ (5:12-21). By evil work, Adam brought condemnation to all humanity, Christ by righteous obedient work brings new life. (5:18)

Christ obeys were Adam sinned. Christ earns what Adam did not. By virtue of our union with Christ, that righteousness is imputed to us. It is "legalistic" for Christ, not for us. This is part of why we call imputation forensic, meaning legal. Adam was given a covenant that was a chance to merit life by obedience. Adam failed. From then on, no man could merit life for he was tainted by sin. Christ was given that same covenant and succeeded. Christ was perfect not merely to be a pure substitute in sacrifice, but also in order to obey the covenant of works on our behalf and merit His righteous obedience to the covenant of works imputed/credited to us by faith not works. We need both to have our wages paid (the wages of sin being death) and also to have eternal, resurrection life merited for us by Christ's righteous keeping of the law/covenant of works. This is the ministry of the gospel then:

2 Cor 5:20-21 - "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Our choice then is: who are we united to? Are we in Adam or in Christ? (1 Cor 15:22) Are we united to Adam's meriting of death, or the second Adam's meriting of life. Do we try to fulfill the covenant of works on our own, or do we plead the covenant obedience of Christ? This is the only ground by which we can talk about imputing Christ's righteousness.

Meredith Kline went so far as to say,

“imputation is obviously not compatible with the position that disavows the works principle. On that position, a declaration of justification and conveyance of eschatological blessings in consequence of a successful probation, whether of Adam or Christ, would be an exercise of grace, not of simple justice. But if there is no meritorious accomplishment possible, the rationale of the imputation arrangement in general becomes obscure, if the whole point of it is not in fact lost. In the case of the gospel, if there is no meritorious achievement of active obedience on the part of Christ to be imputed to the elect, then this cardinal doctrine of soteric justification in its historic orthodox form must be abandoned.”

I think Kline is right, though he was not talking specifically about the NPP or Piper. If Piper wants to affirm an imputation of Christ's righteousness, he needs to revisit and clearly affirm the idea of a covenant of works with Adam based on merit, for the sake of Christ's merit. Piper's case against Wright is defective, as they both improperly understand the covenant of works which is at the heart of the old Reformation perspective (for the Reformed as a covenant of works and as the Lutherans understand the law). Piper may certainly make his case based on his own theology, but it should not be seen as the definitive “old perspective.”

Why John Piper sometimes annoys me

The other night, my wife and I started to read John Piper’s Pierced by the Word. The first devotional's title was “How strange and wonderful is the love of Christ.” Piper’s demonstration of Christ’s love? The story of the death and resurrection of Lazarus in John 11. Good so far! Definitely one of the greats! But how does Jesus show His love?

1. By letting Lazarus die.

2. Pointing that fact to God’s Glory.

3. Motivated by a love for Mary and Martha.

Huh? Ok, all those things happened (though #3 doesn’t seem to fit as it is the thesis, not a reason). The rest of the “devotional” is analogous to saying “because I said so” and “Quit crying or I’ll give you something to cry about.” NOWHERE WAS A REASON GIVEN!!! How is announcing God’s power letting Lazarus die saying anything about “the strange and wonderful love of Christ”?!

Piper never gets to after Lazarus dies, how Christ:

1. Gave the hope of the resurrection (John 11:23)

2. Pointed to Himself as the source of that hope (John 11:25-26)

3. He wept (John 11:35)

Ultimately, Christ displayed not His mere power, but His power over death which pointed to God’s Glory. Christ did not flaunt His power for the heck of it. Frankly, if someone just lost a loved one, I would not give him/her Piper’s devotional. Piper’s devotional (which ignores the ending of resurrection!) says: “God killed your loved one because He is power drunk and wants you to know it.”

The whole of John 11 displays the strange and wonderful love of God, but in a way that says says “Death tells us this world is not as it will be, but Christ has power over death.” Christ gives us hope and comes along side of our experiences with us. This demonstrates the Glory of God, not the mere announcing of it. I think some Calvinists I’ve heard (Al Mohler, John Piper) wish to communicate that God does not conform to our ideas of what is “good.” While this is true, death is not good, I'M SURE OF THIS (for the Bible tells me so:) because it is a curse (Gen 3:19). Death announces the sin and rebellion of humanity, not the Glory of God (in and of itself). Death announces that creation is "not as it should be" or is ultimately purposed to be.

What is the point of brow-beating people with the "Glory of God"? God's sovereignty promises “All things work together for good” (Rom 8:28) for believers, NOT all things that happen ARE good. It is an eschatological hope. Going to the dentist is good because he drills out cavities for the end of healthy teeth, not to merely torture you with his power. While letting go of our conceptions of “good” as the standard to judge God, we should not point to God’s power without pointing to His love (not that we can see or understand it at a certain moment).

I believe this, not because I am not a good enough Calvinist, but because if we only point to God's power and call this His love, God is made out to be a despot and a Machiavellian, not Love as God defines it:

"God is love. In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:8-10)

(UPDATE: yeah, I think Piper believes all of the above, I guess I would just like to see him connect it more often. Perhaps my criticism is more on presentation than theology. Soli Deo Gloria!)

Piper on the Prosperity Gospel.

Update: Why this is important

Piper vs Wright

Mark Driscoll revealed a few weeks ago that John Piper is working on a book that specifically takes on N.T. Wright's position on justification. Another blogger has put together their writings in a faux interview to explore their thoughts on the issue (in Part 1 and Part 2).

Both these men have done major work for evangelicalism, Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God and Simply Christian and Piper's Desiring God are all works which have made Christianity a reality for many people. Piper recovering Joy and Wright recovering the Resurrection. Wright, along with Alister McGrath, may be one of the most evangelical Anglicans in England.

One hopes this does not split evangelicals, as each of these men have avid admirers, as am I of both.

[To get a feel for these two great preachers, just right click and download Wright's sermon on the Resurrection here or for Piper download here.]

UPDATE 6/16: I think either some of this is over my head, or Piper may be defending a particular Reformed definition and nuance to justification. N.T. Wright wrote a paper in 1980, here, that details his view of justification, using the evangelical buzz words such as "a declaration" and "forensic." He defines justification as "God's righteous declaration in the present that the person who believes in the risen Lord Jesus Christ is a member of the covenant family, whose sins have been dealt with on the cross and who is therefore assured of eternal life."

So to find out what exactly Piper is attacking, we may have to just wait for the book...