John Piper's salvation, in mid-air

A really good brother known as, TCR, has given me my own post (A Portrait of John Piper’s God) on John Piper. TCR thinks Piper’s theology is wonderful, and in a previous post (to the one that he dedicates to me) he was extolling some things about Piper. Don’t get me wrong, I know that Piper loves Jesus with all of his heart; but that’s not the issue, his theology and then the spirituality that that promotes is. Here is a re-post on Piper that I did quite awhile ago, at another blog of mine. It highlights, at a pastoral level more than anything, why I find Piper’s soteriology highly problematic. Enjoy πŸ™‚ :

How do you know if you’re a ‘heaven-bound’ Christian? I am intrigued by John Piper’s recent statement in a sermon he gave:

I am more concerned about nominal hell-bound Christians who feel loved by God, than I am about genuine heaven-bound Christians who don’t feel loved by God.

H/T: Glen Scrivener

Now I haven’t listened to the sermon from whence this quote is taken, but I have listened to plenty of other sermons from Piper to understand the context of his theology; and thus what serves as the informing impetus for his concern here.

There is a problem here. Do you notice what serves as the crux of Piper’s concern, “FEELING.” For the nominal Christian he is concerned that they “feel” loved by God, but really aren’t — according to Piper — at least in a saving way. And then the second group is Christians who don’t “feel” loved by God, but are — according to Piper — in a saving way.

My concern is for the thinking person (maybe a bit introverted and OCD), the person who might hang on what Piper is saying as their pastor. Piper’s statement is severely grounded in “feeling,” or in “subjectivity.” So my question is, is there something more than feeling — whether referring to justification (Piper’s nominal group) or sanctification (Piper’s second group)? If I was sitting “under” Piper, and didn’t have recourse to other sources of soteriology; I would be in a quandry (like many Puritan laity were back in the day). How does one know if they are in the first group or the second group; by “my feeling?” Yet this is what much of Puritan soteriology offered, and insofar as Piper mimicks this, what he offers his parishoners. Certainly there is more than feeling.

The answer, of course, to Piper’s dilemma, is that salvation is grounded objectively in Jesus Christ. That’s why John, the disciple who Jesus loved, can say:

“And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. 13. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. ~I John 5:11-13 (NASBU)

If you look to Christ when you think of salvation, then you have a healthy view; if you look to yourself, before you look to Christ, then you have an unhealthy view. Piper, in my view, offers the latter kind — how can he not, he bases much of soteriology within a subjectively oriented view which leaves people hanging in mid-air.

"Calvin's Ladder," Ascent and Vicariousness in 'Union'

I just started reading Julie Canlis’ (another contributor to our forthcoming book) new book, Calvin’s Ladder: A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension; and it starts off in smashing form. She introduces, briefly, the history of ‘ascent’ in folks like Plato and others; and then discusses how this kind of thematic genre is consonant with Pauline themes, that Calvin takes and develops within his own theological trajectory. Notice:

Plato offered one solution: ascent is “natural” to the human soul, a matter of “like being drawn to like.” The powerful engine driving this ascent is Plato’s concept of participation, such that things “participate” in the eternal for their very existence. Housing shards of the eternal, the material sphere has an innate, “natural” longing to return to its original divine home.Β  The Christian must reject this pantheistic description of participation outright. At the same time, however, the Christian story itself is one of ascent. It begins and ends with the revelation of a personal, triune God who calls creation to “return” to communion with him. In the Garden of Eden, humans were called the imago Dei; the Spirit continues this ascending vocation by making those in the church “like God” or “like Christ” (I John 3:2; Rom. 8:29). What, then, is the engine that drives Christian ascent?

Calvin brilliantly synthesized the two movements of ascent and descent into one primary activity: the ongoing story of God himself with us. God has come as man to stand in for us (descent), and yet as man he also leads us back to the Father (ascent). The entire Christian life is an outworking of this ascent — the appropriate response to God’s descent to us — that has already taken place in Christ. Thus, for Calvin, the only appropriate human ascent is a matter of participating in Christ. Calvin’s theology of response, Christ as our response, having made the perfect response to God, vitalizes us to respond in his response. Ascent, then, is neither a matter of the soul’s latent powers nor of conscientious Christian endeavor but of communion: it is a participation in Christ’s own response to the Father, whether that be desire for God, prayer, obedience, vocation, or worship.

This hints at a different way of conceiving the divine-human relationship, such that two distinct beings are brought into a rich relationship in which their identities are not diminished but enhanced. Theological anthropology stands to be enriched precisely here,where Calvin’s insistence or participatio Christi has radical implications for our notions of what it means to be human, what it means to be a “self,” and what it means to be in relationship with God and others. Ascent functions as a concrete entry point into Calvin’s doctrine of participation, enabling us to focus more specifically on the core element of participation that makes the best sense of his theology. (Julie Canlis, “Calvin’s Ladder,” 3-4)

This is the stuff of “Evangelical Calvinism.” You will notice, as Canlis describes Calvin’s theology of ‘ascent’, that there are strong overtones that fit within the contours of T. F. Torrance’s idea of vicariousness. Torrance was, obviously, a student of Calvin’s theology as well; what Canlis describes of Calvin, is something that Torrance took over from Calvin and developed within his own theological constructive work.

But I would simply challenge anyone reading this to contemplate the implications of what Canlis is saying about Calvin; and what impact that has upon your own spirituality and daily walk with Christ! Good stuff . . .