Clive Lewis and John Piper's Calvinist Confusions, by Dr. Jerry Walls

all right good evening everybody it's a pleasure to have all of you here thank you for coming to this final event of the CS Lewis philosophy conference and I'm very excited to introduce to you once again Gerry walls a philosopher and professor at houston baptist university and he has impressive degrees from Princeton Yale as well as the University of Notre Dame where he got his PhD in philosophy he has written many books in articles and he's well known in the United States and around the world for his work in Christian philosophy he's published books on heaven hell purgatory CS Lewis and but beyond his scholarly achievements he is also known for his passion and his love for communication and his energetic interaction with people and as he's seeking to display and showcase the glory and goodness of God and in fact just a little anecdote of his passion just before this talk I which is going to be on Calvinism I was teasing him and I was saying to him well if there are any Calvinists who come to the lecture there shall be no Calvinists going away from here because it's going to convince all of them in his response was yeah that's probably right so Jerry walls thank you well thank you very much Josh for that very warm invitation or that introduction and also for your kind invitation to come here in the first place I've had a delightful time being here and thank you to all of you on a Friday night for coming out to a philosophy lecture you have to truly be a lover of wisdom now tonight it is is a night that the greatest sporting event in the known universe is in full swing and I'm a big fan of that sport of college basketball and one of the most anticipated games of the tournament is happening as we speak and all I can say is there are a few things that could cause me to miss this game without resentment but doing a lecture on is definitely one of them so I'm delighted to be here and my son Jonathan who lives in Burbank was also anticipating this game very much but here he is nevertheless so I begin I want to begin tonight with Scripture now Calvinists often say of our minions they start with Scripture our minions start with philosophy so let me just demonstrate that isn't so now here are some passages from the Gospel of John that represent some of the most profound truths of Scripture that are fundamental and that will bear on what I'm going to be talking about this evening John 17 24 from Jesus high priestly prayer shortly before his crucifixion he's praying to his father and praying that his disciples will be with him and see his glory and he says you that is the father loved me before the creation of the world now here you send this phrase a picture a basic ultimate primordial reality it is love between the Father Son and Holy Spirit that is the ultimate reality that exists before anything else now CS lewis has a very interesting quote on this particular point and he made this observation he says all sorts of people are fond of repeating the Christian statement that God is love but they seem not to notice that the words God is love have no real meaning unless God contains at least two persons love is something one person has for another person if God was a single person then before the world was made he was not loved now think about this for just a minute forgot to exercise sovereignty he needs something over which to be sovereign he needs a world some sort of creation without a world there's no meaningful sense in which God is exercising sovereignty but without a world God is still loved that's what he is in his essential nature Father Son and Holy Spirit an eternal relationship of love that's ultimate primordial reality that's been going on for all eternity now second verse as the father's love me so have I loved you so this ultimate primordial love that exists from all eternity Jesus says you look at my life and how I have loved you and you will see a picture of what that eternal reality looks like that's what I am I'm eternal love in person demonstrating to you what God is like now third one my command is this love each other now now just notice this how extraordinary this this this is in light of the two verses that I just read love each other as I have loved you before the word ever existed there was love between the Father Son and Holy Spirit Jesus says you love me like that now as the father loved me I have loved you now you love each other as I have loved you this eternal relationship of love Jesus dares to command us to reproduce in our relationships with each other is it that astounding is that amazing no notice this the first two statements are simply statements about what God is that's who he is this third statement is a command where we have to enter the picture and we are commanded to do something and implicit in the command is we might not do it that's made clear in the next verse eyesight if anyone loves me he will obey my teaching my father will love him and we will come to him and make our home with him he who does not love me will not obey my teaching I can get this picture the eternal god of the universe wants to be at home with us he wants us to be at home with him he wants us to be at home with him in the way people world the Garden of Eden he wants us to be at home with him the way it is described in Revelation 21 when heaven comes to earth now God already loves everybody but there's a that there's an increased relationship of love that can happen when we love him back when we obey Him when we make him welcome in our lives he wants to be at home with us but notice this stunning amazing thing some people may not love him or obey his teaching they might choose not to be at home with the God of the universe as amazing as that is now keep those verses in mind as we proceed now I'm going to be talking tonight about John Piper's pious Calvinist confusions primarily addressing this recent book does God desire all to be saved that's what I'm going to focus on primarily but before I before I get to looking at that book I want to some look another passage from Piper that I read years ago and it made quite an impression woman I've never forgotten it and this passage really is a great picture of Calvinist piety and what Calvinism looks like when it's consistent it's a very revealing window into what Calvinism is all about now listen to these lines from Piper missiles from an article entitled how does a sovereign God love in which he was arguing with Thomas Talbot and Thomas Talbot was making the argument that if God truly loves me he must love those I love if you really care about my well-being he's got to care about the well-being of the people I care about so you can't love me and say to my son go to hell can't do that if you love me you will want the well-being of those I care about okay now Piper dared to disagree in this sense and here's what he wrote but I'm ignorant not ignorant that God may not have chosen my sons for his sons and though I think I would give my life for their salvation okay he may love them more than God would seem I would give my life for their salvation if they should be lost to me I would not railed against the Almighty now I want you to notice this he is God what makes God God for Piper that he has the power and the right to dam or save as he wills as a matter of sovereign choice that's what godness is to Piper he is God my better man the Potter has absolute rights over the claim - to bow before his an unimpeachable character and believed that the judge of all the earth ever has has ever and always will do right now notice this idea the ultimate of worship the ultimate piety the ultimate acknowledge of God is God as he sees it is to think that God might be glorified even in the damnation of his own child and he should gratefully obey and adore that now this is striking it's varied so it's a very good insight now let's explore this a little further let me say a word or two about the title now the title I understand is a little provocative and it's a little fun pious Piper's pious Calvinists confusions but there's a serious point to it as well and here is a suggestion of what makes the point a serious one as well as a playful title listen this quote from CS Lewis he says you may attribute miracles to him that is God but not nonsense this is no limit to his power meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefixed to them the two other words God can it is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives but because his power meets an obstacle but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk yet about God now there have been those in history of philosophy that Kurt was one of them who apparently believed that we honor God's power by saying God can do the logically impossible what is impossible to us logically speaking logical contradictions God is so powerful he could make both of them true Descartes said things at times it indicated he thought this and there's this enormous temptation on the part of many people and this is a kind of a pious motivation to think that God is so powerful human logic as they often put it logic at logic is no obstacle to God God can do the logically impossible and they think thereby they are honoring and glorifying god there's a genuinely pious motivation I don't want to suggest to you that the worst kind of confusions are pious confusions because they're motivated by a sincere piety many times there's a zeal about them and you read Piper's book that I mentioned a moment ago right out of the gate he starts talking about the glory of God he's concerned to glorify God that quote I just put up about his sons this is about the glory of God if God wants to dam my children he is God I am better man my purpose is to adore and here's the point who doesn't want to glorify God that's what we're called to do so given this notion that to glorify God you've got to go with this people are often motivated to accept things that make no logical or moral sense because they've been sold it under the banner of this is how God is glorified so the worst confusions of all are pious confusions motivated by a claim and on often an axle honestly sire to glorify God but let me make this point clear just because you want to glorify God does not entail that your thinking is clear and coherent and consistent and theologically viable nor that your biblical interpretation is sound and indeed I believe Piper is guilty of this with respect to some of his biblical interpretation Piper believes that the phrase the righteousness of God means God's concern for his own glory that's how he interprets it that's how he understands it and again the impulse is well of course if if this is what glorifies God this is really what God's righteousness is all about by all means we want to glorify God but consider this statement from empty right probably the greatest New Testament scholar in the world today he says this there's a huge mass of scholarly literature on the meaning of God's righteousness and Piper simply ignores it I'm not aware of any other scholar old perspective new perspective Catholic reformed evangelical anyone who thinks that Secada Ella we've in Hebrew or des cailloux soon a Theo in Greek actually means God's concern for God's own glory now again there's an impulse but someone says it's all about the glory of God this is my motivation to accept whatever follows from that again I repeat and I reiterate just because you aim to exalt the glory of God does not guarantee that your thinking is coherent or that your biblical interpretation is sound now that's introductory let's get down to business now I've got to make about four or five points again from that book that I just put up there on the screen a moment ago and I begin with this question and this question is raised by Piper in the last chapter of that book and it's a section heading and he asked this question yes this question what keeps God from saving who he desires to save now see notes both Calvinists and Armenians want to say there are people who are lost Orthodox Christians on both sides of the divide typically believe this the question is why are people lost why is it the case that everybody isn't saved particularly if God desires that everybody be saved as the New Testament tells us in Timothy and also in Peter well let's listen to a couple of quotes from Piper and here's what he says both the reform that the Armenians can say that God wills for all people to be saved and when the queried why all are not saved both the reformed than their minions answer the same because God is committed to something even more valuable than saving all and here's what you notice piper claims there's a parallel here Calvinists and Armenians are parallel in a certain important respect both of them say that not everybody saved and both of them he says give a reason that there's something that God values even more than saving all people parallel positions in certain ways with parallel problems so he claims now expands on this further as follows the difference between the Reformed and the Armenians lies not and whether there are two wills and God now we're going to come back to this is the big theme in pipers in Piper's thinking but if what they say the higher commitment is what this God will more than saving all the answer their Armenians give is that human self determination and possible loving relationship with God are more valuable than saving all people by sovereign efficacious grace the age of the reformed give is that the greater value is the manifestation of the full range of God's glory in Wrath and mercy and the humbling of man so that he enjoys giving all the credit to God for his salvation now I want to make a couple of points here want to make a couple important points here first of all first confusion of which Piper is guilty he confuses deeply the nature of the contrast between the two positions as well as the true armenian priority so confuses he confuses what the contrast really lies in and he also confuses what the Arminian takes as the priority now to see this we needed to notice an equivocation on the phrase saving all by sovereign efficacious grace there's a deep equivocation going on here alright so he asked this question what is more valuable than saving all by sovereign efficacious grace and the equivocation is between these two readings number one saving all with compatibilist freedom in tact or saving all by overriding libertarian freedom now those of you who are philosophy majors would be familiar with these terms those of you who are not let me give you a word of explanation or two about this first of all you need to understand what is meant by Calvinist sovereignty Tom McCall in an article about Piper's position summarizes very concisely what is the essential nature of what Calvin of sovereignty holds and it can be summarized in these two propositions number one God is sovereign over any event E if and only if God determines that e occurs secondly God is V is sovereign over any agent a if and only if God determines all of AIDS actions so the Calvinist conception of sovereignty espoused enthusiastically by Piper he's one you know these people who celebrates that even you know I might have dust floating in the air there's not a single one that's not exactly where God determines it to be God determines everything to happen exactly as it does all right now here's the claim here's the point if you believe that God determines everything that happens what do you do with the idea of human freedom well you could just deny it but most Calvinists don't deny human freedom they affirm it but how do you how can you affirm freedom if God determines everything that happens down to the last detail well what you have to do is define freedom and what is called the compatibilist or the soft determinist sense so called compatibles because the claim is here's an account of freedom that is compatible with determinism so you can say you were both determined and free if you define freedom the right way and I'm not going to read the full definition but here's the heart of the compatibles to count of freedom you are free according to the soft deterministic compatible if you do what you want to do but here's the point you can be determined to what what you want you can because to have the desires thoughts feelings etc you have and then act out of those desires thoughts feelings that you have been caused and determined to have so long as you do what you want says the compatible you are free even though again you are determined to want think feel desire what you want think feel and desire now to illustrate this here is a passage from the Westminster Confession a classic Calvinist doctrinal standard and this is a description of what is called the effectual calling this is a good description of what Piper means by sovereign efficacious grace so the Calvinists distinguish between two kinds of calling on the one hand there is the general call of the gospel that goes out to all persons so you remember the picture on the front of the book it's got Jesus with a arms spread out like this saying whosoever will may come everybody whosoever will may come you're all invited that's the general call but here's the point if you're not a recipient of this special call of efficacious grace you can't come you won't want to come because you're dead and trespasses and sins and if God doesn't give you f acacia strace special grace electing grace you cannot will not respond to the invitation you won't want to but you can still say whosoever will my count everyone what's that come come and anyone that wants to come those that are elect will come those that God sovereignly gives that the casus grace will come those that are not given this can't come won't come can't want to come so read how this efficacious grace is described all those whom God hath predestined unto life and those only he is pleased in his appointed and accepted time effectually to call so again that's the special call for those that are elect effectually to call by his word in spirit out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ notice how he does this enlightening their minds spiritually and saving me to understand the things of God taking away their heart of stone and giving it to them a heart of flesh renewing their wills and by his almighty power noticed this determining them to that which is good and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ notice this yet so as they come how most freely being made willing by His grace so God sovereignly makes them see the truth God sovereignly changes their heart God sovereignly changes their will so they want to come and since they want to come under the power of this efficacious grace the Calvinist says they come most freely being made willing by His grace now now with this in mind we need to disambiguate Piper's ambiguous phrase so here we see how the Calvinist would understand God's alternatives here are the two alternatives God is faced with given compatibilist freedom number one a world for God determines all by sovereign efficacious grace too freely as they define freedom come to Christ and be saved that's one possible world another world is this a world where God determines some by sovereign efficacious grace who freely come to Christ and be saved but determines others to freely reject Christ so God can manifest the full range of his wrath and mercy in saving some and damning others now do you get this do you see what it's set here so far as freedom is concerned God could save every single person in the world without overriding anybody's freedom because freedom and determinism are fully compatible he could determine everybody with this efficacious grace to see the truth of the gospel - what - come and so that it would come most freely so what does the Calvinist alternative he could either save all by determining all to freely come or save only some so he can manifest his wrath and thereby fully glorify himself by sending people to hell forever supply furs the point is God prefers world number two even though so far as freedom is concerned he could create number one now let's look at how the Arminian would understand the alternatives before God given the Arminian understanding of freedom now notice Piper said what our minions value most of all is human freedom the power of self-determination and then the possible relationships that come from that he's got that exactly backwards what God values is the possible loving relationships that's what he values freedom is only the necessary means and condition of the loving relationships so it's not the freedom it's not freedom so intrinsically valuable freedom is simply the necessary condition or means do the things which God truly values all right so listen to CS Lewis again on why free will matters in this in this issue why then did God give them free will because free will though it makes evil possible is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having the happiness which God desires designs for his higher creatures is the happiness of being freely voluntarily United to him and each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth his mere milk and water so again what does it God is about God is about loving relationships that's his priority and why does freedom enter the picture because it's the necessary condition for genuine love goodness or joy anything that is worth having alright so that's the nature of the priority now with this in mind let's consider the Arminian alternatives given the armenian understanding freedom and determinism are not compatible for finite beings like us and here is the alternatives as they are a mini in season number one a word for god loves all and elicits genuine undetermined love from as many as possible all of whom freely accept his grace in the non determined sense and love and worship him over against a world where all are determined by sovereign efficacious grace to accept a saving relationship with god but none do so free to that should say really not feeling freely or give him genuine undetermined love worship or obedience now do you see the very big difference between these two pictures once you disambiguate Pipers sentence about what God values more than saving all by sovereign efficacious grace it differs radically depending on whether you think freedom and determinism are compatible if you think they're not these are the alternatives again if you think they are God could save everybody with their freedom hacked but is chosen not to do so for the sake of glorifying his wrath all right so that's confusion number one confusion number two Piper deeply confuses the role of freedom in our salvation look at a couple of passages again from Piper with the reform our minions believe that humanity is fallen and unable to save itself God must give us prevenient grace to make us able to believe but unlike the reformed Armenians do not believe this prevenient grace is decisive in bringing about personal salvation but rather that humans have the power of decisive self determination and that is what finally determines who is saved and who is lost now again I want you to notice this Calvinists are very good at stating human freedom in such a way that it's some sort of power that somehow diminishes the power of God God's glory is apparently a very fragile thing so that if humans actually have freedom that God does not determine somehow God's glory is diminished thereby so you know the idea that humans as he describes it we have the power of decisive self determination not God we are sovereign in the choice not God we finally determined who are saved and who are lost behind it no another quotation from Piper he defines what he means by ultimate or decisive and he says this my ultimate or decisive I mean that whatever other influences may lead toward a decision the influence that settles the choice is human self again humans settle the matter now I would suggest to you that this is a very tendentious misleading way of putting what are minions believe about the power of human choice we do not believe that our choice is what finally determines who is saved and who is not the right way to put it is this our faith is a necessary condition for our salvation but let me point this out Calvinists also think this Calvinists also say whosoever believes is saved and whoever isn't who doesn't believe is damned they also say human faith is a necessary condition for salvation just like our minions do so what's the big thing here what's the big claim here well here's the real difference the difference is not that one side thinks faith is decisive and the other is not both agree on that the difference is that the Calvinists think that faith is determined by those who have it and Armenians do not as Armenians see at our undetermined faith is necessary but both of us agree that faith is necessary it's a necessary condition for salvation now we can see this by looking at this point there's an asymmetrical relationship between our choice in the matter of salvation and in the matter of damnation now Calvinists often like to say that there's an asymmetrical relationship here but they cannot convincingly make this case if they hold that God determines everything if God determines everything down to the last detail as Calvinists want to say then there's no difference between those who are saved and who are lost in terms of God's determining there's perfect symmetry now by contrast there's an asymmetrical relationship for there are many and notice how the notice how the Arminian would see it look at all the things going our way we're created in God's image because we're created in God's image is the only thing that can possibly satisfy us and give us happiness is a relationship with God moreover Christ died for us wherever the Holy Spirit is drawing us the really amazing thing is for anybody's damned what if you think about it that's the amazing thing why would anybody be the law given all of the things pointing in the direction of salvation all right now our response of faith and I notice our response of faith doesn't just settle the matter as are many and see it this is not the determining thing at all it's a necessary condition in response to all of this okay but after your response to faith God then regenerates and justifies us we continue to cooperate with sanctifying grace we are sanctified and then God finally glorifies us and brings us final salvation so give me this picture how can you say with any plausibility that our choice is what finally settles the matter our faith and cooperation is simply a necessary condition but all of these other things are former significant factors and they're very important acts of God that take place after our response of faith that finally settle the matter now CS Lewis again put it like this you have freewill and if you choose you can push me away but if you do not push me away understand I'm going to see the job through I will never rest or let you rest until you are literally perfect until my father can say without reservation that he is well pleased with you as he said he was well pleased with me notice he doesn't say this is what you can do this I can do and I will not do anything else this I can do and I will do all we do is permit him he's the one that finishes the job he's the one that settles the matter not human choice we merely assent and get out of the way and cooperate with his grace he does the ultimate decisive saving now let's look by contrast at the choice of damnation let's look at damnation again created in God's image only God can satisfies Christ died first the Holy Spirit draws us now for those who do not respond in faith that resists it's this arrow going against all four of right and then there's ongoing grace and divine love and persisting rebellion and unbelief which have continued in that's what finally leads to damnation so here's the point in damnation our rejection is not merely a necessary condition it's a sufficient condition that's all it takes to Damus all it takes to damn someone is to persistently continue to stay separated from God to continue to resist his grace to continue in unbelief that's all it takes we dam ourselves we don't save ourselves so again the choices are very asymmetrical on the score CS Lewis again put it like this what you can call defeat I call miracle for to make things for to not itself and thus to become in a sense capable being resisted by its own handiwork is those astonishing and unimaginable of all the feats we attribute to the deity I willingly believe that the Damned are in one sense successful rebels to the end that the doors of hell are locked on the inside it's the human persistent choice to resist grace and to remain an unbelief that keeps the doors of hell locked that is the necessary and sufficient condition for damnation so the choices are radically asymmetrical on the Arminian side now thirdly thirdly his appeal to secondary causation is inconsistent again and confused so what my Calvinists like to get God off the hook when it comes to the choice of evil and sin and terrible tragic things that happen is by appealing to secondary causes so they say God is it responsible want to rape this rape somebody God isn't responsible when somebody murders somebody God isn't responsible when people engage in economic oppression and the kinds of terrible things that they characteristically do it's human beings that do this stuff okay now what does the primary cause in the secondary cause think about this way here's a good illustration the primary cause of light is the Sun the moon is the secondary cause of light the only reason the moon is bright is because the Sun shines on it it causes it to be light it's not light on its own now here's the point in a world of determinism also called secondary causes are determined entirely by God to do exactly what they do and even though they do it willingly God is the one who caused them to want to do it determine them to do what they do so that they do it willingly all right so here's Piper quoting theodore beza and he says nothing happens without God's most righteous decree although God is not the author or sharing any sin at all both his power and his goodness are so great and so incomprehensible that at a time when he applies the devil or wicked men and achieving some work who he afterwards justly punishes he himself nonetheless effects his holy work well and justly these things do not hinder but rather established second and intermediate causes by which all things happen now notice again the appeal to God's incomprehensible power even though we can't make any sense of this even though we can understand how this makes sense God is so powerful and so great he can do things by secondary causes and he's not responsible even though he's the one who caused the secondary causes to do the things they did I would suggest you that that makes no moral sense moreover there's a serious problem posed for the Calvinist from the score because the Calvinist thinks that God is the one who causes those who have faith to have faith in other words those who have faith are only secondary causes of faith they don't do it apart from the fact that God determines them to have faith now Piper is very insistent that no human being exercises libertarian freedom and exercising faith it's entirely a work of God God causes that God determines it there's my question for Piper and his fellow Calvinists if God gets all of the glory as they see it for determining people to have faith as secondary causes of faith why does he get none of the blame when he causes secondary causes - rape murder lie steal etc so you kind of choose your secondary causes as responsible on one side and on the other side it's all God incoherent inconsistent here's a interesting way to think about this Tom McCall in his article about Piper that appeared several years ago in the Trinity Journal might recommend this to you it's an excellent discussion of Piper McCall rights after he feels the secondary causality might be made for the Christian who holds to the Calvinist account of sovereignty the answer is clear and unavoidable if everything is determined and if God determines everything even if he determines it by a secondary causality then these things too are determined by God here's an interesting question to think about you all remember the story of Uriah and David in the Old Testament remember Uriah seduced Bathsheba not a pregnant and had the inconvenient difficulty to deal with her husband Uriah so I decided to get you riot out of the way so what did he do he called him Joe after his general he said look the next time you have a battle put Uriah on the front lines for the fighting his most fierce to get him killed Joab being the sort of character he was he wasn't at all reticent to do that that's the sort of order he would gladly carry out in other words David used Joab and the enemies of Israel as secondary causes to kill Uriah but I ask you the question who murdered uriah well listen to what the prophet Nathan said why have you despised the word of the Lord to do what is evil in this sight you struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and I've taken his wife to be your wife and you have killed him with the sword of the ammonites David was miles away from the ammonites swords and didn't touch them but he killed Uriah because he intended it he planned it as much as a human being can he determined it to happen by having Uriah placed on the front line so he'd be killed you don't say oh well David's completely exempt from this because it was a secondary cause that did this this was Joab and the ammonites no it was David David killed Uriah so the appeal to secondary causes is without help at all for the Calvinist position now next Piper's account of the two wills of God is deeply incoherent the Piper's position is hard to make sense of on this view because God does this he commands people do not do X he then determines people to do X and worse he dams them forever for doing X after he determines them to do X to wills so the one hand his will is expressed don't murder but on the other hand I'm going to determine you to murder this person for my purposes and then I'm going to punish you even damn you for doing what I determined you to do I would suggest that makes no logical or moral sense whatsoever and I will say more why by contrast there are minion makes far more sense on the assumption that God permits things that he does not will to happen because we are in the libertarian sense now notice Piper in that quote I gave you earlier said the are minions and the Calvinists both say there are two wills in God and I want to suggest to you that there's nothing like two wills in God for there are minion in the way there is for the Calvinist who has two rules that are radically at odds with each other don't do this but I'm going to determine you to do the very thing I told people not to do and then punish you for doing it now by contrast the Arminian says God permits things he does not will but here's the point God consistently loves all persons desires their love and return not all persons returned God's love but this does not in any way create in God a divided will or an inconsistent will his will of love remains consistent even in those who resist it so there's what the same kind of division of will there is in God now Piper by contrast cannot make coherent sense of how God truly loves all persons and desires their salvation now the title of that book that I put up at the beginning again is this does God desire to save all with Jesus arms spread out wide and Piper says yes God really loves all people he really has compassion on all people now if he didn't say this Calvinism would lose credibility it maintains credibility by saying God loves everybody but it cannot make coherence since most of this quote from Piper God deemed it wise and good to elect unconditionally some to salvation not others this raises another form of the question we've been wrestling with is the free offer of salvation to everyone genuine is it made with sincere heart does it come with real compassion is the willing that none perished a bonafide willing of love so when God says whosoever will may come is that a bona fide offer is it a sincere offer this God sincerely desire all persons come again keep in mind they can't count if you're not elect and the reason they can't come is because he didn't give them electing grace which he could give them so is this a bona fide offer is this a sincere offer is this a sincere desire to say piper says yes it is now he gives this ingenious illustration to try to make sense of this he tells about a story in early American history in the early days of the Republic when George Washington was president there was a man of the name of major Andre who committed treason against the nation and Washington was a friend of this man and genuinely loved him but he was faced with a real dilemma we've got a young Republic that's just just in its infancy and here's a man who's committed high treason but this guy's my friend I love him now as Piper says Washington signed his death warrant but but Piper says but but he really did love him he sincerely loved him but he was committed to something higher namely the security of the newly emerging nation that could have been damaged severely by letting a traitor go free so he really did love this guy but he couldn't let him go free because he was committed something he says that's what it is with God God really loves the damned his heart really does go out to them even though it doesn't elect them he really has the heart of compassion because he's committed to something higher though to his own reward and his own glory requires some people to be damned and it wouldn't be right for God not to be fully glorified so God has to glorify himself he's got a higher value in mind but his heart really goes off to the dam just like George Washington's went out to major Andre when he signed his death warrant now and I think that kind of makes sense with respect to Washington Monde right it only makes sense if you don't think about the profound differences between this situation and Calvinism consider the differences first of all Andre was not one of a group of traders the others of which were exempted from hanging Paul Andre was not it was Andre alone secondly there's nothing like a bona fide offer mate to major Andre it's not but like George Washington offered him would you like to be pardoned and major Andre said no I do not want to be pardoned nothing like that in this case but here's the kicker here's the place it really breaks down Washington had no control over Andre the way Piper believes God has control over human beings Washington did not determine Andre to commit traitor e treachery treason and then hang him he committed entirely on his own so here's the point the analogy only makes sense if you think about it on libertarian free principles it makes no sense if you think about it on compatibilist assumptions and so the plausibility depends on things he himself doesn't believe now let me retell the story in a way that is more like Calvinist theology would see things that's retell the story let's reframe it instead of George Washington being the president United States let's make George Washington the unconditional ruler of a nation whose will is absolute and he's also a master psychologist who knows how to condition people to do whatever he wants them to do so George Washington conditions three men in such a way that they will find themselves wanting to commit treason conditions them to do this now after he conditions them to commit treason he then gets up in public and makes very strong speeches against treason and since what a heinous thing it is and makes it very clear that if anyone commits treason they will be hanged on the spot so determine three guys to commit treason it's like a lodge that condition them and now he's standing up making powerful passionate speeches saying do not whatever you do commit treason I will not tolerate it anyone committing treason will be hung on the spot now sure enough the people he conditions to commit treason they all commit treason now Washington then says this alright I am both sovereign of this nation whose will is absolute but I'm also a man of mercy so two of you I'm going to pardon and forgive Andrei I'm gonna hang you to make clear that I'm a man of justice that I'm a man of my word not to be trifled with now that's much more like the way it should play out in Calvinist theology and I ask you the question if Washington been got up and made a speech about how terrible he felt about having to hang major Andre to make an example of him and how deep his compassionate heart of love was for this man would it have any credibility whatsoever if he himself determined him by his psychological conditioning to commit treason in order to make a statement about how powerful he was and how much he was in control of things that's the Calvinist picture and you put it out like that and Piper's analogy loses all force whatsoever well my last point you've been patient on a Friday night thanks for hanging here with me one final point Piper's account of what glorifies God is deeply troubling and again it rests on a profound confusion as I said to you before Piper comes out of the gate the very beginning of his book talking about the glory of God and that's what he's all about and every time you hear him preach that's the thing he's always holding up I'm about the glory God but Piper's understanding of the glory of God I think rests profoundly again on a simple misunderstanding in fact as Piper sees things God needs hell to be fully glorified he needs it now let me make us clear Piper has made clear that he doesn't think God had to create the world at all he didn't have to create any world whatsoever but if he does create a world he must glorify himself in the world he creates and he must to be true to himself display the full reign his glory and the full range of his glory requires as Piper sees it for his wrath to be displayed so to display his wrath there have to be some people that are damn noble so he can display his wrath so here's how Piper's logic would go God is true to himself I certainly would agree with that God is true to himself let every man be a liar but that God be true if God is true to himself his full-bore must be displayed I would totally agree with that a God who is true to himself who is the greatest being evolved the God who created the world whose all good all-knowing all-powerful to be true to that he's got to display who he really is and be true to himself that's true if God's full of warned must be displayed his wrath must fully be displayed there's four things start to go wrong if God's wrath must be fully displayed there must be an evil person so eternally damned conclusion if God is true to himself there must be evil persons who are eternally damned I would suggest to you that Piper has confused two very importantly different things he is confused an essential attribute of God with a contingent expression of that attribute wrath I would suggest to you is not an essential attribute of God what is an essential attribute of God is power what is an essential attribute of God is justice what is an essential attribute of God is holy love but listen all of those could exist in God forever without their ever being wrath displayed wrath is only displayed in the event that there is evil in the first place if there were no evil there would never have to be a display of wrath so wrath is simply the form holy love takes in the face of evil but as Piper sees it wrath is not a mere contingent expression it's one of his essential attributes so there has to be evil if God creates the world in order for God to display his rat by sending people to hell God needs evil people so he can be fully glorified like the Washington I just described a moment ago needs to hang somebody to make clear his justice and to show that he's fully in control now by contrast with Piper's picture of glory consider the statement from mt Wright and NT Wright writes as follows but the great story of Scripture from creation covenant riding through the New Jerusalem is constantly about God's overflowing generous creative love God's concern if you like for the flourishing and well-being of everything else of course this too will were down to God's glory because God as the creator is glorified when creation is flourishing and able to praise him gladly and freely notice miss Nakata Ella weaned and vid' kayo soon fao the righteousness of God is an outward looking characteristic of God linked of course to the concern for God's own Lord but essentially going us at work in the opposite direction that of God's creative healing restoring love that's the sort of God he is and God's righteousness is a way of saying yes and I will be true to that character again I just ask you as you read the scripture as you read the story of Jesus you see somebody who needs to banging people the man who said I would like to gather you under my wings like a chicken a mother chicken Jesus who depicts God as one who's like a father who's prodigal son has gone off into the far country and when he returns he gladly embraces him before the boy can even get the words were repentance out of his mouth he's depicted as shepherd who's got 99 sheep that are lost and he doesn't say is this the picture of God as you read the New Testament or God who needs to show how powerful he is by damning maybe your own children and if he's God that would glorify God because he has absolute right over the claim the God who treats people like disposable clay for his power to be demonstrated I see the question which of those is the picture of the biblical God I conclude what's more since we're talking about CS Lewis with the CS Lewis quote but I almost forgot this one from Piper and here's what's interesting and surprising in a way well I just read to you from right Piper has said similar things in fact this is one of the most famous lines and all the Piper's writings and he says this is it loving for God to exalt his own glory yes it is there are several ways to see this truth clearly one way is to ponder this sentence God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in here notice this next sentence this is perhaps the most important sentence in my theology and if it is true that it becomes plain why God is loving when he seeks to exalt his Gore in my life in fact it means that the more passionate God is for his own glory the more passionate is for my satisfaction in that glory lasts a simple question if this is true why does he need to damn anyone for his glory if he could determine everyone too freely as he defines freedom except the gospel why does he need to damn anyone if he is most glorified in us when we're most satisfied in him again a piece of rhetoric that is absolutely beautiful but simply radically at odds with his own theology when you understand what he is saying and now I conclude with one final quote from CS Lewis as I said Calvinists often have this fear that God's gore is a very fragile thing that any human reaction that God doesn't determine like somehow detract from God's glory CS Lewis wrote as follows a man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put off the Sun by scribbling the word darkness on the walls of his cell but God wills our good and our good it's the love ham God what's our lives that love that needs freedom the necessary condition of which is our freedom that's what God wants from us God wills our good and our Buddhist to love him with that responsive love proper to creatures and to love him we must know him we know him we shall fall on our faces and I would suggest this picture of God not falling out of fear not falling out of God determining you to fall but out of a natural free heartfelt response goodness beauty all right but some of you may have questions if you've got some questions I've got some time to answer them well you know it is not it is not true of all Calvinists but I do think it's true of Calvin I do think it's true of Jonathan Edwards I do think it's true the Westminster Confession Struve John Piper it's true of the Moses Ellis new Calvinists that they're so popular in America today so there are certainly Calvinists to hold that God doesn't determine everything but I actually think the way they draw the distinction helps the matter very little because they still hold that when it comes to the matter of salvation God unconditionally chooses to save some about others so frankly it helps very little if God gives me the freedom to eat say oatmeal or fried eggs for breakfast but unconditionally chooses that I will go to hell so the choices that count most of all are still salvation and all Calvinists who are worth the name believe in unconditional election and that God passes over and leaves the others in their sin so they're inevitably damned okay but again as the Calvinist sees that those who are dead in trespasses and sins are not capable of doing anything apart from sin apart from grace they don't have libertarian freedom all they can do is sand that's all they're capable of doing so unless God does something to counteract the total depravity of which Calvinists wax so eloquent these people can't do anything but standing can't do anything but make the kind of choices that wind them up in hell what Calvinists have a doctrine Calvinists have a doctrine called common grace which is the grace that God gives people even those who are not elect so yes a question if people are as bad as Calvinists say they are okay why isn't everybody every human being constantly going out stealing things you know raping plundering robbing murdering you know why is not a while you know people are not Christians how can I be decent father decent citizen well Calvin's answer is God gives them common grace to restrain them so there's some kind of civil order and the like but then save them it's just enough to kind of keep the Pacific order so you know kind of kind of restrained their sin before it sends them to hell forever where countless - and of course it's why they hold limited atonement that Christ only died for the elect so his wrath remains on those for whom Christ did not die or for those for whom he died in a different sense so you know Calvinists are reluctant to get up to Jesus didn't die for everybody so you know you've got the so-called four pointers and again some son who kind of quiet see the limited atonement down but yeah you you use you certainly could you certainly could say that and so again I would agree with Piper in this since the word hell glorifies God in this sentence okay hell glorifies God by showing that if we go our own way and resist God go against his love we're going to inevitably be unhappy now God doesn't want that he doesn't prefer it by destructs imagination given who we are as creatures made in His image if we go our own way we will inevitably be unhappy people and that in an indirect way glorifies God but it's not something God prefers us to do he would prefer everybody to respond possibly to his grace okay other questions if God can determine everybody freely to accept the gospel why isn't he simply be been determining people to be riding all along why did they let Hitler happen why did you let the Holocaust happen why do they let you know brush snuff why did let etcetera etcetera etcetera happen if he can determine people freely to go right then it seems that the world would not have been full of the amount of evil that it is so if you're going to appeal to freedom to make sense of evil then it's hard to cop out on a theme today and said well God will simply then determine people at the end of the day so suppose you could say that but then you've got a really big puzzles to get why he has not done that a long time ago I bet I mean if you believe God's perfectly good and if you believe determinism is true then you've got a real puzzle is to fly yeah yeah so so I mean it's it's like it's an inference and again it was for Wesley I mean the reason Wesley believed in freedom is because he believed it in a good God and he said in the face of all this evil if God is good we must be free it was an inference from God's goodness and all the evil in the world well yeah well let me let me let me refer you to a paper actually by your colleague here on the value the freedom to viva by Josh and Josh Josh makes this argument I think it's I think it's it's true it's right on track if I can again God doesn't have a live return freedom with respect to love so that's what part of what's interesting you know God necessarily is allowed right to the highest kind of love but the point is for creatures there seems to be something about it precisely because God is the one who brings creatures into the world and he creates them to love himself and so if he determines their actions then he's really only determining himself to be loved by himself so there's no real love that God is receiving nor would to love between us be what we think it is because we think for free in our love with respect to each other so so take take this kind of a you know that this is this is the thought experiment I'd like to share with my students what I call the Cupid capsule so the fact matter is I understand it and and I and I know exactly what you mean I mean there's certain things I hope I can't do I mean you know I don't think I could strangle my son I don't think I could strangle my my granddaughter I mean even my hands are strong enough but I don't think I did you know if I can I'm in bad shape right but but but the fact matter is there are parents who don't know their kids that there are parents who you know Drive them in a car in a pond and do stuff like this and and neglected and terrible horrendous ways and there are parents in China whose ship little girls away because hey so let's parent you don't love the kids know given how you've been formed you can't but lots of other people who make choices that they can judge on Jonathan Edwards is the greatest theologian America has ever produced Agustin was brilliant he was inconsistent in this way but there was times when he sounded like he would felt this in fact properly speaking Calvinism is really augustinianism Luther Calvin booth would follow to gust in its view and there are some people who think that st. Thomas Aquinas was a Calvinist again using that term loosely because obviously before Calvin right so yeah I mean I mean I'm not but I mean saying these people are stupid I mean that that would be a ludicrous thing to say I mean there are there are brilliant people in history of theology and brilliant people today who hold it but but but I I'm nevertheless convinced that what'd you find what'd you find did them typically are the kinds of inconsistencies that that I've displayed and and again for those who are fully consistent in it they hold things that I think most people would just find morally morally intolerable now if someone's willing to say like Piper if God wants to damn my sons to show he's God and to glorify himself God is God if he adores that if you know if and and the God could freely determine them freely to love him but chooses to determine things so they freely reject him if people are prepared to swallow that you can't get use them have been consistently no I think you can may be accused in the moral diversity but not in consistency so that there again there's this profile and again a lot of people who will just come down to this they believe the Bible requires it is what comes down to almost every college you talk to say well you just can't get around Roman well I don't want to get her on Romans nine Romans lines one of my favorite texts rightly understood but here's the here's the point when you got some of the greatest New Testament scholars in the world like MT right and others like this read this in other ways for the colonists to say the Bible forces you to say this loses all plausibility that claim would only be plausible if the vast overwhelming consensus of excellent exegetes agreed with Calvin and reading Romans nine they don't they're outstanding exegetes who don't so their alternatives so Calvinists choose to take this more morally offensive position here's what here's what's unfortunately Don and and and let me say this let me preface this by saying I really applaud the book you recently wrote the guys on our side have not engaged this issue they we have not okay so so Piper Packers stroll MacArthur these guys flood the popular market with their message and constantly conveyed the idea that they're the scholars they're the serious one they're the young the Restless the reformed this is you know the hip theology that everyone you know today is all excited about for us by contrast how many people from my side who have overtly taking them on I mean the book Dawn's along I wrote was one of the first books that don't Burt Lee took them on head-on and so I talked to some of my colleagues you know back when I taught of a previous institution you know who were distinguished biblical scholars and said you guys need to take this on and they well no wonder they are talks about this you know it's like okay but the church at large this is a huge issue and and very few people seem to understand I mean when I first wrote the Calvinism book I remember you know someone said weren't you beating a dead horse I said aren't you paying attention to what's happening in the real Church today this movement is vitally growing and alive and aggressive and on the March just because I don't talk about are they a are you know so so we we have not engaged it and the way we should have so I would say you know you faculty members here you know some of you people need to write about this jr. you need to write a book about this okay but seriously I mean we have failed on this score we have failed to aggressively take it on head-on and we have we have empowered them yeah yeah but that's only partly true and here's what I find interesting I mean I think Wesley and theology is far more coherent and consistent Calvinists are the one who flee into mystery they're the ones who flee into paradox when you start pointing out the inconsistencies they're the ones who make these moves so we're far better equipped to lay out a systematic coherent logically you know and biblically true account of a theology than they are but again there's been lots of great work but very few people taking their own head on and they take it on head all day aggressively overtly promote it and the westerns have failed to do so and again I think partly it's because of lack of confidence I think a lot of people are intimidated I think a lot of people don't really understand compatibilism and they're not really capable of critiquing it at its roots and if you don't you can't and so I think a lot of her people are just simply you know sitting on the sidelines and let them run the show which is again an indictment all mess so are you whistling is out there listening get a little more active please yeah well yeah I mean I mean certainly certainly I think it's it's empirically true and I think anybody that believes in free will would save their degrees of freedom some people love them a smaller window of freedom because the way they're chemically imbalanced or becomes the way they were socially the psychological conditions or whatever now the window freedom a mate may indeed be very small so yeah III would I would just have to say in some cases some people have very little freedom but there are lots of people who make these kinds of choices who do so over a series of you know one little choice after another one little compromise after another so they get themselves in a position where they do something really crazy and again insofar as you make those previous choices that were part of a pattern with some degree of freedom you have responsibility for the kind of person you've become at the end today so yeah I mean this this those kind of cases certainly complicated and thank God literally that he knows our limitations and I think there are many people who are the emotional and psychological equivalent of the you know the poor Widow who put two coins in the offering who may be doing more what they've got than lots of other people who are more psychologically and emotionally blessed with you know loving parents and psychological stability and every other advantage you can possibly have and God knows all about and he understands what degree of freedom you've got all right thanks again for coming out appreciated

Channel: Jonny Walls

Views: 48,216

Rating: 4.52 out of 5

Keywords: calvinism, arminianism, theology, philosophy of religion, cs lewis, john piper, jerry walls, christianity

Id: _eQKu3_9pgk

Length: 77min 31sec (4651 seconds)

Published: Mon May 05 2014