Piper and Passion

Here is an email that I recieved from a college student about John Piper's words at Passion 06 and his cancer announcement and my response to some of his questions.

The Student's Email:
If you've not read his announcement letter to his congregation I have included a link here. In fact, you might want to read that now as the rest of the e-mail won't make much sense without the context of the letter.The letter is consistent with the theological tenets of Calvinism (we could have both assumed that before reading the letter). However, as I finished the letter I began thinking about one idea in particular regarding the following sentence: "God has designed this trial for my good and for your good" (emphasis mine). I don't know for sure which point of the five a statement like this can be justified by, but right now that is not important to corresponding questions I will pose. My question is essentially this: doesn't John Piper have a more "total" or "complete" faith in God if he can say that God is in fact designing these trials he is encountering? This is opposite of the view that I would espouse: God didn't design this trial but rather allowed this trial to happen for the purposes of His glory. Everything about Dr. Piper's statement is contradictory to what I have learned but it certainly sounds appealing to be able to pray and say the following words: "God, I know you are sovereign and I have utter faith that you have designed this trial for me in order to more fully reveal the glory of your grace." It sounds a lot more reassuring than the following: "God I know you are sovereign and I understand you have allowed this trial to happen in order to more fully reveal the glory of your grace." In the former I feel there is substantially more recognition of the supremeness of God, whereas in the latter I feel like some other being has caused this affliction. In fact, it feels beyond the realm of God which is discomforting. I understand that it seems odd to say that God is the author of evil as well as good but how about this question. Would you rather have God authoring evil than Satan? At this point I am pretty confused. The sentence by Dr. Piper I quoted earlier in the e-mail sounds so reassuring -- it sounds confident. I do not feel like I could say a sentence with the same gravitas under the banner of Arminianism.That was a terribly long paragraph, and it was probably very opaque, but I hope it communicated what I am feeling. I honestly disagree with many of the tenets of Calvinism but if Calvinism allows Dr. Piper to say that God authors the good and bad in our lives then it deserves a second look in my opinion. I suppose what this comes down to is this: is what Dr. Piper is saying biblical? Can we really use the words ordained and allowed interchangabely when speaking about God's sovereignty with respect to sin?

Here is my response:
I am going to work through some of your statements one by one and hopefully that will help organize thought. But I want to start by including some quotes from an article written by some of my seminary professors that will help give some background. The whole article can be found here.

Consider the words of Baptist leader Albert Mohler: "The God of the Bible is the holy ruling, limitless, all-powerful God who makes nations to rise and to fall, who accomplishes his purposes and who redeems his people. Arminianism-the theological system opposed to Calvinism-necessarily holds to a very different understanding of God, his power, and his government over all things."
Mohler is surely right in underscoring the very different views of God in these opposing theological systems, but we believe he is mistaken in thinking that the primary difference pertains to how we understand the power of God. We believe the heart of the matter is how we understand the character of God. The issue is not how powerful God is, but what it means to say that he is perfectly loving and good. This difference does indeed affect our understanding of God's "government over all things," but it is not most fundamentally a matter of how much power we think God has.
We are in full agreement with Calvinists and other orthodox Christians that God is supremely powerful. God's power has been displayed in unmistakable and breathtaking splendor in creation (Job 38-41; Ps 8:3-4; 19:1-6). The vast size and complexity of our universe, with its countless galaxies, are all the proof we need that God has supreme power and knowledge. Moreover, God has demonstrated his power on the stage of human history by his acts of special revelation, culminating in the bodily resurrection of Jesus (Ex 15:1-18; Josh 23:1-3; Jer 1:9-10; Rom 1:4; 6:4; Eph 1:20).
Furthermore, we agree that God could have created a world in which he precisely controlled and determined all things, including the choices of human beings. But we believe such a world would make true human love impossible. True human love requires libertarian freedom.
If we think of the issue only in terms of power, the question is naturally framed in terms of what God could do; but if we think of it in terms of God's character, the focus shifts to what he would do. And it is clear to us that if God determined all things, including our choices, he would not determine the sort of evil and atrocities that we have witnessed in history. Nor would many, perhaps even most, of the human race ultimately be separated from the love of God and lost forever. Indeed, if God determined everything, none would be lost (1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9). Again, if it is a matter of sheer power, it is plausible that God could create a world in which many would be lost. But the God of holy love not only would not, but could not.

In a fascinating historical study, British theologian Colin Gunton identifies key points at which he believes some central Christian doctrines got off track. One particularly interesting development is that in Western theology since Augustine, "the theme of love becomes subordinate to that of will." Gunton sees this manifested in the way the doctrine of double predestination is understood in some traditions. Part of the fundamental problem, Gunton believes, is a deficient understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity above all shows that God necessarily exists in an eternal relationship of perfect love between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God's will must always be understood as an expression of his essential nature of perfect love (Mk 1:11; Jn 3:34-35; 5:19-20; 17:20-26). Because he has such a nature, he genuinely loves all persons and genuinely invites them to share his love (Jn 3:16; 14:19-21, 23; l Jn 2:2; 4:7-12).
Writing in The Reformed Journal, Calvinist John Piper recognizes the possibility that God may not choose his sons for salvation, but he insists that he would adore God even in that case. We acknowledged that we have a certain admiration for Piper, although we profoundly disagree with his understanding of the character of God. This, we suggest, serves as a good test case for those who still may be trying to make up their mind on Calvinism. Does Piper's attitude reflect piety at its best, or is it deeply at odds with God's character revealed in Scripture? Interestingly, the title of the article in which Piper insists on adoring a God who might consign his sons to hell is "How Does a Sovereign God Love?" We believe Piper has the question backward and that his article reflects the unfortunate subordination of love to will that Gunton identifies. Given the full revelation of God in Scripture, the question we should be asking is, how would a God of perfect love express his sovereignty?
When love is subordinated to will, then the fatherhood of God, which is emphasized in the Trinity (Mk 1:11; Jn 1:18; 5:19-20; 17:20-26; 20:17; 1 Cor 15:20-28), takes a back seat to the image of God as King or Ruler. God's essential relational nature as a being who exists in three persons becomes secondary to the notion that God is a sovereign monarch whose will cannot be thwarted.

Does God love all of us and desire our well-being? We believe that Calvinists cannot answer this question in the affirmative without equivocation and inconsistency. The breathtaking vision of God's trinitarian love is obscured by the Calvinist claim that God passes over persons he could just as easily save and thereby consigns them to eternal misery. The exhilarating message of the gospel that should be good news to all sinners is muted by the Calvinist claim that only the elect are truly able to join the dance. While Scripture teaches that not all will come, the Calvinist account of why this is so ultimately goes back to God's choice not to save those persons rather than their refusal to accept the invitation. Indeed, Calvinists hold that God's sovereign choice not to save some sinners enhances his glory.
God is truly and fully glorified when his nature is brought to clearest light and he is properly worshiped and adored. It is noteworthy that in the Old Testament when the temple was dedicated, the Levites praised God by singing of his goodness and everlasting love and mercy. As they did, the temple was filled with the glory of God (2 Chron 5:11-14; 7:1-4). This glory was shown most fully when the Son of God took on a temple of flesh and lived among us (Jn 1:14-18; 14:8-11; Phil 2:5-11; 1 Jn 4:l-12).


Ok, so there is a start! I am going to take your questions one by one and try to respond to them!

1. “Doesn’t John Piper have a more “total” or “complete” faith in God if he can say that God is in fact designing these trials he is encountering”?

a. I don’t want to get into a faith contest with Dr. Piper (or anyone else for that matter). I really don’t believe this is a faith in God issue. Now, you might be able to argue that this is a faith in God’s sovereignty, power, goodness or love issue. At that point we have gotten more specific than just faith in God.

b. I do think that you could argue that Piper’s perspective makes faith easier or more simple, but that doesn’t make it true. And I wouldn’t agree that this perspective is easier anyway! It might be easier to understand God’s sovereignty this way, but it makes understanding God as having a character of love VERY difficult! Additionally, I don’t think you have to give up a faith in God’s ultimate and absolute power to accept the Armenian view of God (hopefully this is clear as I continue answering questions).

2. “The sentence by Dr. Piper I quoted earlier in the e-mail sounds so reassuring -- it sounds confident.”

a. I could argue a lot of things with arguments that sound confident, but that doesn’t make them truth, so be careful when allowing that to shape your critical thinking. And I don’t mean this to just apply to Piper’s language here, but to anything that you hear. In fact, it is important to keep this in mind as you read what I am writing! Neither one of us is God (obviously) and if we sound too confident that might be a good time to read and listen even more critically!!!

3. “Everything about Dr. Piper's statement is contradictory to what I have learned but it certainly sounds appealing to be able to pray and say the following words: "God, I know you are sovereign and I have utter faith that you have designed this trial for me in order to more fully reveal the glory of your grace." It sounds a lot more reassuring than the following: "God I know you are sovereign and I understand you have allowed this trial to happen in order to more fully reveal the glory of your grace." In the former I feel there is substantially more recognition of the supremeness of God, whereas in the latter I feel like some other being has caused this affliction. In fact, it feels beyond the realm of God which is discomforting.”

a. I would be hesitant to base your pursuit of truth on whether or not something agrees with everything you have been told in the past. Now, hear me clearly on this, your past experience, lessons etc. should play a large role in your discernment process! But truth, not the past should be your ultimate pursuit. In the same way, I think it is even more dangerous to base your pursuit of truth on that which sounds appealing (or reassuring)!!! This is why the church struggles so much with liberal theology!

b. Let me assure you, the Bible makes it clear that there is nothing that is beyond the realm of God!!! I understand your comments about the former statement being more reassuring than the latter on the surface. Here is the problem. I believe that God wants what is best for us! I don’t think that in the beginning sin was necessary in order for God to glorify himself and receive glory. In fact, in the beginning “it was good”. I don’t think sin or evil was ever God’s desire (there is nowhere in the Bible that even hints at God being the author of evil! The Job scripture is a stretch at best, see below. The logic that Piper used to get there required a couple of assumptions based on a Scripture from Revelation, which is written in apocalyptic language which tends towards a poetic style. Reading this type of literature literally instead of poetically and figuratively is what got the Jewish leaders in trouble, and I believe is the primary reason that they didn’t recognize Jesus as Messiah). On the other hand, I think the consequences of sin were part of God’s created order. At the point that we (Adam and Eve) decided that we didn’t need God or that we could be god’s on our own the consequences of sin became a form of grace!!! The pain that we feel apart from God reminds us of our utter dependence on him. Notice that this is very different than God causing pain. It is not caused by God, but is a consequence of our sin (which God uses to reveal our dependence on him). If Adam and Eve had not sinned there would be no need for this reminder because it would not have been called into question.

c. In light of all of this, I find the fact that God can use that which was meant for evil (by Satan and by Adam and Eve, whether they recognized it or not) for good reveals his supremacy and grace just as fully and clearly, if not more so, than to say that God ordains evil or suffering. So does God use our suffering for his glory and grace and goodness? YES!! Does God originate that evil suffering, etc? NO!! (I don’t think his character allows that).

d. I think it is important to clarify my theology of the fall. I think too often we assume the fall was simply about humans. However, the Bible makes clear that the fall “infected” or affected all creation! Paul writes in Romans 8:18-25: “18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. In light of this scripture I would argue that hurricanes, tsunami’s, sickness, death, etc. are not ultimately God’s will but a God instituted (or ordained if you will) consequence of the fall that serve as reminders of our dependence on God.

e. This is from The Word Biblical Commentary Romans Volume:

i. “God subjected all things to Adam [in Genesis], and that included subjecting creation to fallen Adam, to share in his falleness . . . [this also] has the furthering effect of emphasizing that creation’s present condition is not the result of chance or fate but deliberately so ordered by God—precisely because it is not an end of God’s dealings but a stage in his purpose, the means by which the self-destructiveness of sin can be drawn out and destroyed, and creation restored to it’s proper function as the environment for God’s restored children [new heaven and new earth].”

ii. “The same character of creation-bound existence which causes some to despair, seen from another angle becomes ground for hope . Looked at in terms of man’s vaunted independence from God the future for the world is bleak. But seen in terms of the creator’s purpose, the present state of affairs is not all there is to look forward to; the goal of the created order will be determined by God, not by the puny mind of man. As the suffering of believers becomes a ground of hope because it is experienced as the formation of character and renewal of the inner man, so the out-of-jointedness of creation itself is testimony that it was not always intended to be thus. From the beginning the primal-time subjection to futility had the final-time fulfillment of God’s original purpose for man and his habitation in view. Even in it’s futility creation is still God’s.

4. “I understand that it seems odd to say that God is the author of evil as well as good but how about this question. Would you rather have God authoring evil than Satan?”

a. First of all the way God works is not dependent on how I wish he would work!

b. In light of that, I will answer your question and say that I absolutely would not rather have God authoring evil than Satan!!!!! While I wish that Satan had NO authority, I have to recognize that the authority that he has is authority that he has gained as a result of our sin. We clearly have an enemy that has the authority to tempt. I can’t imagine reading the Bible and arguing that Satan is not at work in the world (you can’t get through chapter 3 of Genesis with that perspective). If God is authoring evil, then you can’t argue that God’s character is love (this is what the article above argue). At the same time, to say that God allows evil (evil must be allowed as a possibility if Adam and Eve are to have free will) does not mean that he is not sovereign. It is a matter of God’s choice (in his sovereignty). God can be all love and all good and allow pain/suffering/etc, but I think it is much harder to argue that God can be all love and all good and create pain/suffering/et. (Again, truth is not contingent on how easy or hard it is to argue something, so that works both ways).


I want to be clear that while I disagree with Piper’s statement I must confess that I don’t have it all figured out!! It would be arrogant to suppose that I could. I have learned that theology is almost never simple (God is far too big for that). Additionaly, I have great respect for Dr. Piper and have appreciated and will continue to appreciate his challenging words! I will pray for him as he goes through this difficult time, and I believe that to be the bottom line here! John is a brother in Christ and I pray for complete healing.

Let me know your feedback, if you have questions, and if there are holes in my argument (and I am sure there are) or if I have contradicted myself in anyway!