Uncategorized Michael Krahn on 11 Nov 2009 04:17 pm
The Message: Valid Translation or Useless Paraphrase?
Translation
- the process of translating words or text from one language into another.
- a written or spoken rendering of the meaning of a word, speech, book, or other text, in another language
Paraphrase
- express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, esp. to achieve greater clarity
Peterson’s reasoning for writing The Message:
“When Paul of Tarsus wrote a letter, the people who received it understood it instantly, When the prophet Isaiah preached a sermon, I can’t imagine that people went to the library to figure it out. That was the basic premise under which I worked. I began with the New Testament in the Greek — a rough and jagged language, not so grammatically clean. I just typed out a page the way I thought it would have sounded to the Galatians.”
***
John Piper provides some wise advice:
We ought to put right on the front of The Message, “A Paraphrase of the Bible,” and then it would be valuable! Everybody could read it and say, “This is Eugene Peterson’s interpretation of the Bible,” and we would get gobs of insight from it!
But if you start substituting that kind of effort for your regular, daily Bible reading translation, then you’re basically reading a commentary and depending on it and calling it the word of God.
I don’t buy into the view that “Since every translation involves paraphrase, therefore there’s no difference between a paraphrase and a translation.” We ought to distinguish, and we ought to publish both and make the reader aware of how he should use them.
***
I do keep a copy on my shelf and refer to it from time to time. The problem is that it is written in “modern” language…. but what was “modern” at the time of its writing is now starting to sound dated.
What do you think?
Do you use The Message?
Do you consider it equal with other translations (NIV, ESV, etc.)?
Should it be used for public readings?
Michael Krahn (michael.krahn@gmail.com) is a husband, father, Pastor, writer, and recording artist who enjoys books, theology, technology and the Ottawa Senators.
Get connected - subscribe--->
Follow--->
Related posts:
- Richard Dawkins: Heaven. Leona Helmsley: Hell. Jerry Falwell: Somewhere Between People are… amusing? Is that the right word for this? I received these three comments on my Dawkins page. I reprint them here for your enjoyment. Let me know what...
- “The Best Part” – A Scrabble Story A couple of years ago I won a prize at a writing conference for writing the following story in about 10 minutes: It didn’t jive: foxes and God? What...
- Meditating on McLuhan Pg. 23 The “content” of any medium is always another medium. The content of writing is speech, just as the written word is the content of print, and print in...
- Christian Death Metal: The Message of the Medium Like a good Christian music listener, you look at lyrics before you listen to music. Good for you. This of course keeps us all safe from “bad” music, right? Let’s...
- Friends in High Places Just received this message from Twitter: “Hi, Michael Krahn. Stephen Harper (pmharper) is now following your updates on Twitter. Check out Stephen Harper’s profile here: http://twitter.com/pmharper Best, Twitter” Wow, I...
Buzz it!
on 11 Nov 2009 at 4:31 pm # Jeremy Best
Neither a valid translation or useless paraphrase. I’d consider it a valid paraphrase. I tell my students that, when you are looking to study and interpret the Bible, then use a good translation, of which The Message is not. We often suggest the ESV, but there are several good translations. I tell them the Message has value when you’re trying to capture the poetry in books like the Psalms or Proverbs where their original beauty can often be lost in translation. Ifind that Message does a good job of “setting the scene” for stories as well, allowing a clearer picture of what was going on in the story to form in my mind.
on 11 Nov 2009 at 4:41 pm # Michael Krahn
Obviously I should have included “Valid Paraphrase” as an option. You’re the second one to cast your vote for that.
on 11 Nov 2009 at 4:47 pm # Jason Postma
I am thankful for Peterson’s work, particularly “The Message”. It is certainly a labor of love by a caring pastor and careful scholar. I particularly enjoy reading “The Message” for devotional reading and in small group settings with high school students. In purely pragmatic terms, it has its uses in sermon preparation – during the spadework and ruminative “phases” of pre-sermon writing. However, I must confess, that when it comes to preaching “from” a text, I always use the NRSV and NIV. Each version is useful for teaching, rebuking, and training in righteousness…
The Message is certainly a product of its time, as are all versions of the Bible (unless you believe the KJV is the only “real” Bible). It runs in the vein of earlier “paraphrases” such as “the Way” and the “Good News Bible”. Each from it’s own time and place (and each, thankfully, devoid of “thees” and “thous”).
I find Piper’s comment is simply the pot calling the kettle black. Piper has his “preferred” version of the Bible – the ESV, which is also a worthy interpretation of the Bible. But it too is also a product of its times – it too is a translation based on an “agenda” or purpose (check out the ESV website) just as much as “the Message” (check out “Eat This Book” for Peterson’s rationale in creating “The Message”.
Too many evangelicals tend to treat interpretation as a science rather than an art, always looking for the perfect distillation of truth – Aha! Here it is, pure, crystalline doctrine! I never did understand this approach – isn’t the Bible the living and breathing word of God?
I also don’t understand Piper’s rationale that somehow “paraphrases” are less valuable than “translations”. If all speech is exaggeration, that certainly all translations are paraphrases. Behind Piper’s comments I see a dangerous biblioidoltary and infantile theological snobbery lurking.
The solution – all Christians must learn Greek and Hebrew. Hooray!
FYI – here is one version of the Bible I would never use (apparently this project is not a joke…)
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
on 11 Nov 2009 at 4:59 pm # Jason Postma
On a related note, what should we do with the “Manga Messiah”? Certainly if we are going to create a hierarchy of Bibles, the Message would rank higher than this…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga_Bible_%28series%29
An judging from Piper’s website, I can only conclude that just as “The Message” is “Peterson’s interpretation of the Bible” the ESV is Piper’s interpretation of the Bible. Piper is either coming out as a postmodernist or he is subtlety denouncing Peterson’s work as worthless, in spite of the potential to get “gobs of insight” from it.
on 11 Nov 2009 at 5:41 pm # davidpeck
I’d echo the “valid paraphrase” response. I tell people that reading The Message is good and helps you capture some of the shades of meaning we miss but don’t base your theology on it.
I think pitting it between translation and paraphrase is the wrong approach. Paraphrase is a translation methodology in the same way that dynamic equivalent and essentially literal are. While some versions are paraphrases of a translation, my understanding is that Peterson chose to translate into a paraphrase.
I see Piper’s point, but he does seem to be slighting The Message. Well, you can read that one if you want to. Just like you can poke your eye out, but, really, why would you. I use the ESV as my main reading and study translation, but I get a lot out of a variety of Bible translations.
on 11 Nov 2009 at 5:51 pm # Michael Krahn
Ah, witness the polarizing power of Piper! In my experience most who have a penchant for promoting Piper think The Message is somewhere between “of the Devil” and “from the Devil”. So posting Piper’s thoughts on The Message was actually an act to counter that.
But he does speak of The MSG positively, I thought that was pretty clear. He does not consider the ESV HIS translation; it is his preferred translation for study, but I have heard him criticize parts of it it publicly more than once.
Jason, You must have some sort of RES (“Reformed Envy Syndrome”). ;-)
This much is true: “Too many evangelicals tend to treat interpretation as a science rather than an art”. Yes, they also think the Bible dropped out of the sky one day written directly by the hand of God. There is very little historical awareness and that is lamentable.
In an interesting coincidence, my 5-yr-old daughter took “Manga Messiah” to school with her today. I have no problem with that. Of course, if she uses it as a study resource as an adult, I may step in and take action.
on 11 Nov 2009 at 8:30 pm # Jason postma
It sounds like Piper is being charitable to the Message, yet I can’t escape the conclusion that he is playing nice rhetorically in order to coat his theological criticisms in niceties so as not to be taken for a total jerk-face. This is a sly move – put on the sheepskin in order to avoid being discovered as a wolf. He is offering candy coated mud balls. This is typical of his oeuvre. Despite his positive “mention” that the Message is good for “insight”, one cannot miss his prescriptive (“ought”) and dismissive tone (Eugene Peterson might be able to teach us something, but that is as far as it goes since The Message isn’t really the Bible, but a paraphrase of it). Piper is certainly clever and he always speaks with a smile. Nodding in agreement will allow one to continue to bask in the warm glow of his smile. However, I don’t get the impression that he likes people disagreeing with him. He postures as a theological heavyweight to the point that I’ve heard it said about him “There but for the grace of John Piper goes God”.
Maybe I just prefer the fiery theological polemics of David Bentley Hart and Stanley Hauerwas – they don’t mince words (While Hart is far more eloquent, Hauerwas’ profanity does have a place in theology, particularly by keeping ego out of the equation).
As to “RES” – I cannot reconcile the idea of a Reformed Baptist, so perhaps my rants are more a result of confusion than envy:) To wit, I think John Calvin is rolling in his grave when he hears pastors who are committed to covenental theology advocating for believer’s baptism…I’m pretty sure that Calvin supported padeobaptism…
on 12 Nov 2009 at 12:26 am # Joe Haynes
Well, Jason, speaking as a Reformed Baptist myself, it sounds like you don’t really know very much about Piper. For myself, I’m Reformed because I hold to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677/89), which is both Reformed and Baptist. It is not, however, paedobaptist. Likewise, Ken Jones, on the Whitehorse Inn alongside Michael Horton, is also Reformed Baptist.
Again speaking for myself, if Paul is right in Romans 10:17; if he is right in 2 Tim 3:16-17; if Peter is right in 2 Pet 1:20-21, then the precise words of God, the very ones in Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek that the Spirit of God inspired in the production of the original autographs of Scripture, are critical to the creation of faith in the hearer and to the instruction in the knowledge of God and His ways. Unless of course you believe that God wastes words? When you read Deut 12:28, 28:58, 31:12 and 32:46, do you think God meant “obey the general idea and you’ll be fine”? Again, in Jeremiah 26:2, God says to the prophet, “Thus says the LORD: Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak to all the cities of Judah that come to worship in the house of the LORD all the words that I command you to speak to them; do not hold back a word.” I get the idea from these and other Scriptures that the precise wording of the original Scriptures matters to God.
So when Scripture is used for the purposes for which God gave it, it is important to try and make sure every one of those words gets translated into the best equivalent in any given language. There are countless instances in Scripture where I have seen that even a specific waw-consecutive, aleph-taw direct-object marker, or vocalization of a word carries an important nuance of meaning. Likewise in Greek, the difference between “hina” and “hoti” or “gar”; between “eis” and “en” or the usage of the dative is significant to the meaning of the original wording. Even word order in Greek is often significant for the author’s meaning since word order is often used to give weight to one part of a sentence over another.
It is critical, to honour the God who gave the precise wording to His prophets, to get our translations as close to the originals as language will allow. Otherwise one runs the risk of thinking he or she can improve on God’s choice of words. Piper is correct: the Message is a wonderful commentary on Scripture but it is not Scripture; it is a sermon on the text of Scripture rather than the Scripture itself.
on 12 Nov 2009 at 12:46 am # Jason Postma
Piper’s playmates play like Piper
on 12 Nov 2009 at 1:19 am # Michael Krahn
Jason Postma » ?
on 12 Nov 2009 at 1:57 am # Furtney
Wow, this is vicious, anyways, I think there is value to the Message and to other translations/transliterations/translations and whatnot and who not. In ‘Eat This Book’ Peterson makes it clear that it was never his intention to have the Message be a replacement for other translations, but a text to be read along with them.
The value of a literal translation is that the original words are transmitted to a new time and place (mostly, even the sacred ESV changes phrases to make the text more contextual and to tone Paul down a bit). The disadvantage of a literal translation is that much of the meaning and force can be missed.
If a text is translated from 1900 years ago and is just translated literal, it will be horrible and dead (which seems contrary to the idea of the living word). But if both literal and paraphrase can find a happy balance, then we’ll all be the better.
Right, here is a quote from ‘Eat This Book’ p. 171
“Preference for the literal has a long life. But I have come to believe it is an unthinking preference. My experience as a parent supplemented by my experience as a pastor cautions me that the peril of literal is that it ignores the inherent ambiguities in all language, takes the source language prisoner and force-marches it, shackled and chained, into an English that nobody living speaks. The language is lobotomized – the very quality that gives language its genius, its capacity to reveal what we otherwise would not know, is excised. Extreme literalism insists on forcing each word into a fixed immovable position, all the sentences strapped into a straightjacket. I began to see why Luther, the grandfather of Reformation translators, did not take kindly to the critics who bashed his vernacular translation. He called them ‘those lemmings the literalists.’”
Alright,
Derek
on 12 Nov 2009 at 3:08 am # Jason Postma
Derek,
Thanks for the wonderful quotation from Peterson. The “preference” for literal is directly related to the idea that the Bible is a theology textbook; the more literal the translation, the closer we are to Truth. Last time I checked, Truth was not contained in a proposition; Truth is the second person of the Trinity.
Anyway, I suppose I may have come across a bit vicious, but I was trying to echo the direct polemics of Hart and Hauerwas as a counter move to Piper’s slippery nice-guy rhetoric. In the comment above davidpeck notes that Piper “seems to be slighting the Message”. I have no doubt that this is what Piper is doing, despite what little praise he gives it. I’m not trying to defend “the Message” as such; I am questioning Piper’s method. He says nice things and then completely undermines the legitimacy of that which he complemented (cf. his “critique” of N.T. Wright on justification).
Perhaps this is a matter of aesthetics – I would rather be bashed directly than given a candy-coated ball of mud – “Ohh candy! Hey – wait a minute!” So, I stand by my conclusion that Piper is being less than genuine in his assessment of the Message. I would rather he says what he really thinks – “The Message is rubbish” rather than candy coat it in rhetoric as to appear nice.
I realize that I am not the most charitable reader of Piper (from what little I have read of him; in my defense he does write alot). This is partly due to my confusion at the notion of a Reformed Baptist (FYI – I come from the Christian Reformed Church) and my unease with his theological method (cognitive, rationalist, representin’ Cartesian epistemology y’all). I suppose I would be more charitable to Piper if I heard one of his more ardent disciples give an honest and sustained critique of his work (particularly of his understanding of the atonement), hence the “Piper’s playmates” comment above. Those who love Piper follow his lead – they sound exactly like him.
I have to admit, I write like I talk and this means that my writing drips with sarcasm. Unfortunately sarcasm doesn’t translate well in text and I using hate emoticons to attempt to convey meaning.
Theology can be a dangerous gig at times…
on 12 Nov 2009 at 7:05 am # Joe Haynes
If Piper’s playmates sound like Piper, it is no less true that Piper sounds a whole lot like J.I. Packer, D. Martyn Lloyd Jones, Jonathan Edwards and yes, even John Calvin (except for issues of baptism). Paedobaptists are often so limited in their reading to their own tradition that they haven’t exposed themselves to Covenant theology outside of a paedobaptist framework. As a Baptist who grew up fundamentalist, I embraced the Westminster Standards and London Baptist Confession and found a real home in Covenant/Reformed doctrine. Piper, by his own testimony at the Gospel Coalition earlier this year, has found a home in Reformed theology as well.
Where Jason is just sounding immature, though I’m sure he means well, is by attributing wicked motives to Pipe even while admitting that he hasn’t read much of Piper. Piper has his critics, but if anything is undeserved it’s calling Piper disengenuous. The man brims with passion and sincerity (to a fault).
Before I ever read Piper’s “The Future of Justification” (have you read it Jason?) I had read a great deal of Wright (you kind of have to read Wright if you do graduate theology work between the 80’s to present day). My take on Wright–before I discovered Piper (you don’t actually have to read a whole lot of Piper in seminary: I had never even read one Piper book until I left full-time seminary) was that there is much good–especially in his work on the historicity and Divine self-understanding of Christ–but that he is waaaaayyyy off on justification. His criticisms of Reformation interpretations of justification are revisionist; his treatment of Paul is novel, and interesting, but contrived. Just as Peterson pointed out that the New Testament church would have had no trouble understanding one of Paul’s letters, no one in the NT period or even soon after would have ever interpreted “justification” the way Wright has. That’s the subject of my graduate thesis actually.
The last guy you should be comparing Piper to is Descartes. His epistemology is through-and-through Augustinian/Calvinist/Edwardian: founded in Propositional Revelation (c.f. Barth, Plantinga) as opposed to Descartes’ skeptical existentialism. Your statement, Jason, makes me wonder if you’ve ever even studied epistemology, much less Reformed epistemology.
And then to say that truth isn’t a proposition, it’s a person is such a red-herring. Jesus said it: “…your Word is Truth” (Jo 17:17). Truth is a person who has revealed Himself in truthful propositions. If you neglect the propositions you will miss the person: “The sum of your word is truth…” (Psa 119:60). Words are semantic symbols containing logical propositions. Even to say “truth isn’t a proposition” is a proposition that is self-refuting. But still Peterson makes a really good point about hyper-literal translations. The Luther Bible is not a paraphrase but itself is pretty much an “essentially literal” translation (in Romans 3:6, the Message reads: ” The answer to such questions is no, a most emphatic No! How else would things ever get straightened out if God didn’t do the straightening?” The Greek reads, “me genoito epei pos krinei o theos ton kosmon” [not to be since how will judge the God the world]. Luther put it, “Das sei ferne! Wie konnte sonst Gott die Welt richten?” You get the idea.) If you’ve ever translated Scripture (I’ve done lots and lots of it: every week I translate the passage I’m going to preach on, though I’m no expert) you will know the ESV is not hyper-literal (nor does Crossway claim it to be). It is less literally-equivalent than the NASB. And even my kids can understand the ESV (11, 12 & 13 yrs old). It’s not a perfect translation but it is better, in my opinion (and I switched to ESV even before I had come to know hardly anything about Piper…at that time I thought he was still using the NASB) than any other translation available in contemporary English.
In conclusion, I don’t bash the Message as a wonderfully helpful interpretation of Scripture. But it is not a translation. It is an interpretation of Scripture arrived at through a translation process, whereas the ESV is more like a translation containing the necessary minimum of subjective interpretation. For literal equivalency I still prefer the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the dual use of both the Nestle-Aland 27 and the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Text. If you aren’t going to put in the time and work to be able to use original language resources then the ESV will preserve for you much of the original word order, equivalent wording, and literary style of the original, and the NLT (or the Message) give a nice birds’-eye view of the overall flow of thought in the text.
on 12 Nov 2009 at 11:27 am # Michael Krahn
It is such a privilege to have friends who are smarter and more educated than I am… now, if only they agreed on more!
Feel free to keep sparring guys, but try to be a bit more civil.
on 12 Nov 2009 at 2:53 pm # Jason Postma
Joe,
Again, I stand by my earlier remark that gung-ho Piper followers are unable to critique him, particularly when it comes to his understanding of the atonement and justification. It would be nice to see an ardent Piper “supporter” give a sustained critique of him. Perhaps this would lessen the polarization around him a bit as a show of good faith; and yet, as far as I can tell, Piper’s people treat everything he says as gospel truth.
I also stand by my statement that Piper is a Cartesian. Obviously Piper isn’t Descartes, but if we were to draw a geneology vis-a-vis methodology, Piper is an heir of Descartes, as are the Reformed epistemologists, as is much of evangelical theology. This is not to write it off carte-blanch; it is an observation. Plus I think it helps to explain why Piper has such strong defenders – he must be right! He can prove it! We can use the Scientific Method in biblical studies and theology to mine for doctrine! But lurking behind this is the worry that if he’s wrong, what are we going to do?!?
FYI, my graduate degree is in philosophy from a Reformed university (the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto, of which N.T.Wright is an associate), while I won’t write a dissertation to prove my point, I stand by it. Obviously my “credentials” don’t prove my point, but I suppose they are worth mentioning given your comments. So, it’s safe to say, that yes, I’ve studied epistemology (although I’m more partial to ontology). Also, as a side bar, Plantinga is a fellow CRC dude. It’s strange – my tiny little denomination seems to be able to produce top-notch philosophers (I don’t consider myself one of them). And I can also read Greek (though I’m a little rusty – hooray for lexicons!)
Also, I am not bashing the ESV – it is a good translation (and the one I own has a very pretty cover too!) and obviously far from “perfect” (as are all translations and paraphrases, even the Greek ones!) But, according to Piper’s method, the Message is “bad science”, amusing perhaps, useful as a reminder of what not to do in biblical translation, helpful if one wants to know what Eugene Peterson thinks about the Bible. So, as I read him, Piper is essentially saying the Message has little value, particularly for “serious” study (and, as we all know, that is the only kind that matters – true Christians are brains in a box, or, to bring up Descartes again, brains locked away in a cold room, thinking theologically, and, of course, reasonably).
There are definite qualitative differences, yet The Message, as much as the ESV, NIV, NASB, NRSV, etc., is useful for teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness.
on 12 Nov 2009 at 3:04 pm # Jason Postma
In addition, I would definitely NOT classify Piper’s epistemology as Augustinian. Augustine’s epistemology is affective, whereas Descartes is cognitivist. In a nutshell, for Augustine loving precedes knowing; for Descartes existence precedes knowing. These are two very different approaches to epistemology, which makes it difficult to place Augustine and Descartes in the same epistemological genealogy. As to where Calvin and Edwards fit, the jury is still out. Suffice it to say that while Calvin, Edwards, and Piper’s respective epistemologies may be related, they are certainly not co-terminus as suggested by your use of slashes///, which is why I prefer a genealogical approach – it refuses to pigeonhole based on similarities and allows the differences to breath.
on 12 Nov 2009 at 4:12 pm # Jason Postma
And I would certainly classify Joe’s epistemology (and, by extension, Piper’s) as Cartesian as evidenced by the strategy of “proof-texting” in his earlier post. Here is the answer, right here! No interpretation necessary if you truly believe! No context required! That settles the matter! It can only be this way. The more I proof-text, the more right I must be. Hooray, the Bible works! I proof-text therefore I am theologically sound.
on 12 Nov 2009 at 4:23 pm # Joe Haynes
I had a good chuckle, Jason, reading your last posts. Not because they were funny (though that “carte-blanche” comments should have been cartes-blanche) but because I thought, “what a crazy conversation we are having!” The irony struck me.
I knew Plantinga was CRC, that’s why I mentioned him. And the slashes/ were meant to suggest what you call a geneological approach. And again, I like the term “affective” and it applies very well to Piper. Have you ever heard him give a rationale for his approach in study, exegesis, preaching, etc.? He is consistent in this: he starts with God’s revelation; that revelation waking up the heart and soul and passions of a dead sinner to hunger, thirst for and believe in God; he moves from there to the “transforming of the mind” in order to satisfy one’s self in God, and from there to the transformed life that the transformed mind produces under the agency of the Spirit. Likewise with Jonathan Edwards (c.f., Religious Affections). It’s clearly so with Augustine. And it is also the case with Calvin, as Piper himself argues in his little biography of Calvin:
…my desire is as strong as ever that God might inflame in you a passion for his centrality and supremacy in your ministry, so that your people will say, when you are dead and gone, “This man knew God. This man loved God. This man lived for the glory of God. This man showed us God week after week. This man, as the apostle said, was ‘filled with all the fullness of God.’”
… Not only because it is implicit in the sheer, awesome existence of God, and not only because it is explicit in the Word of God, but also because David Wells is staggeringly right when he says, “It is this God, majestic and holy in his being . . . who has disappeared from the modern evangelical world” (see note 1). Leslie Newbigen, from the British angle, says much the same thing: “I suddenly saw,” he writes, “that someone could use all the language of evangelical Christianity, and yet the center was fundamentally the self, my need of salvation. And God is auxiliary to that. . . . I also saw that quite a lot of evangelical Christianity can easily slip, can become centered in me and my need of salvation, and not in the glory of God” (see note 2). And, O, have we slipped. How many are the churches today where the dominant experience is the precious weight of the glory of God?
John Calvin saw in his own day the same thing Leslie Newbigen did. In 1538, the Italian Cardinal Sadolet wrote to the leaders of Geneva trying to win them back to the Catholic Church after they had turned to the Reformed teachings. He began his letter with a long conciliatory section on the preciousness of eternal life, before coming to his accusations of the reformation. Calvin wrote the response to Sadolet in six days in the fall of 1539. It was one of his earliest writings and spread his name as a reformer across Europe. Luther read it and said, “Here is a writing which has hands and feet. I rejoice that God raises up such men” (see note 3).
Calvin’s response to Sadolet is important because it uncovers the root of Calvin’s quarrel with Rome that will determine his whole life – as well as the shape of this lecture. The issue is not, first, justification or priestly abuses or transubstantiation or prayers to saints or papal authority. All those will come in for discussion. But beneath all of them, the fundamental issue for John Calvin, from the beginning to the end of his life, was the issue of the centrality and supremacy and majesty of the glory of God. He sees in Sadolet’s letter the same thing Newbigen sees in self-centered Evangelicalism.
Here’s what he said to the Cardinal: “[Your] zeal for heavenly life [is] a zeal which keeps a man entirely devoted to himself, and does not, even by one expression, arouse him to sanctify the name of God.” In other words, even precious truth about eternal life can be so skewed as to displace God as the center and goal. And this was Calvin’s chief contention with Rome. It comes out in his writings over and over again. He goes on and says to Sadolet that what he should do – and what Calvin aims to do with all his life – is “set before [man], as the prime motive of his existence, zeal to illustrate the glory of God” (see note 4).
I think this would be a fitting banner over all of John Calvin’s life and work – zeal to illustrate the glory of God. The essential meaning of John Calvin’s life and preaching is that he recovered and embodied a passion for the absolute reality and majesty of God. That is what I want you to see. Benjamin Warfield said of Calvin, “No man ever had a profounder sense of God than he” (see note 5). There’s the key to Calvin’s life and theology.
Geerhardus Vos, the Princeton New Testament scholar, asked the question in 1891, What is it about Reformed theology that enables that tradition to grasp the fullness of Scripture unlike any other branch of Christendom? He answers, “Because Reformed theology took hold of the Scriptures in their deepest root idea. . . . This root idea which served as the key to unlock the rich treasuries of the Scriptures was the preeminence of God’s glory in the consideration of all that has been created” (see note 6). It’s this relentless orientation on the glory of God that gives coherence to John Calvin’s life and to the Reformed tradition that followed. Vos said that the “all-embracing slogan of the Reformed faith is this: the work of grace in the sinner as a mirror for the glory of God” (see note 7). Mirroring the glory of God is the meaning of John Calvin’s life and ministry.
I’m glad to hear you’re not a youth pastor with a B.A. out bashing Piper about what you know not. That was my impression: I’m glad I’m wrong–it was also uncharitable of me, sorry. But perhaps it is because of your background in philosophy that you are misapprehending Piper? He is self-described as a pastor of the heart with training in theology. The reason I’m not going to give a critique of his rebuttal to Wright is because I agree with it. Wright is wrong. Calvin would have also disagreed with Wright (on this), as would all the Reformers. In Scripture, justification cannot be divorced from its forensic nature, or from at atonement that is penal, substitutionary and ultimately aimed at the glory of God… (e.g., “just and the Justifier”).
on 12 Nov 2009 at 4:38 pm # Joe Haynes
Okay that last comment was beneath you. I was not using those citations out of context, and I was relying not on the strategy of proof-texting but on the principle of the perspicuity of Scripture:
“the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” ~ Westminster Confession of Faith
This is a Reformed principle which Luther agreed with. I know it is not Augustinian (who thought clarity could only be preserved by the Magisterium.
The Post-modernish idea that you can’t know anything for certain which needs interpretation is not Reformed, not biblical, and is very Cartesian, the legacy of the Skeptics.
I’ve said what I thought I ought to have said and a whole lot more than I think I should have said.
Just remember the 5 solas.
Ciao.
on 12 Nov 2009 at 5:19 pm # Jason Postma
Joe,
Apologies for my last comment. As soon as I posted it, I wanted to delete it (if it’s any consolation, I was trying to be cute…minus emoticons, of course). So, again, my apologies for being a jerk-face. By the way, I am a youth pastor with a B.A. (and an M.Phil., so I guess I am an over-educated Youth Pastor ). I love working with and teaching kids…which is why I’m probably harsher in my theological dealings with adults and resort to playground tactics at times, plus I’m generally more patient with my students).
Anyway, I suppose there is an affective side to Piper (he did write “Desiring God” after all). This is certainly where he shines as a pastor. However, when it comes to Piper the theologian, I have my reservations. Effective preacher – definitely. Great theologian – no sir. While Dan Brown writes captivating and entertaining stories, I would hardly call him an historian (heaven forbid!) True to form, the pastor’s work is inherently theological and Piper is good at this. But I just wish that he would stop posturing as the definitive modern Reformed theologian. Furthermore, I remain convinced that he has a strong Cartesian streak in him in spite of his affective side because when push comes to shove and there is a “conflict” between the affective and the cognitive, for Piper the cognitive will inevitably win – in true modernist fashion reason will always triumph over emotion because emotion cannot be trusted (especially when it comes to doctrine).
Furthermore, certainly Piper must be “wrong” in some areas of his understanding of the atonement and justification? Certainly John Calvin and the Reformers don’t have all the answers? It seems as though according to Piper the Reformation got everything right and now our job as good Reformed people is to defend their project as it existed in the face of modern challenges. The refusal of Piper’s disciples to critique him (including yourself) smacks of idolatry to me – is Piper the Reformed Pope? Is he infallible? To him the Reformed tradition is the Magisterium. I’ve heard his disciples refer to him as the modern Paul. This kind of stuff scares the crap out of me. What about “Ecclesia semper reformada est”?
Also, why is it that Piper is not required reading in seminaries? Because he is not a very good theologian. In the same way that C.S. Lewis was a good author and effective apologist, he remains a hack theologian. So, despite Piper’s influence and fame, he needs to stop the self-promotion (and encourage his disciples to do the same) and stop the theological posturing. Piper’s disciples cite his books the same way they cite the Bible (or Wells or Carson) – gospel writ large. Piper said it, so it must be true. Again, this scares me.
As to the “postmodernish” claim – how is Piper not postmodernish? The idea of a Reformed Baptist, obviously not a recent invention, strikes me as a postmodern hybrid creation of Anabaptist and Reformed theology in the same way that rap is a genre of loops and samples spliced together – how can one follow everything John Calvin says and then cut and paste around paedobaptism? Although Calvin wasn’t a systematic theologian, his Institutes certainly constitute a systematic theology – to remove one of the gears is to risk collapsing the entire system. It just doesn’t make sense to a CRC boy like me. BTW, for a great Reformed perspective on postmodernism, I cannot recommend highly enough Jamie Smith’s book “Whose Afraid of Postmodernism?” and his follow-up “Desiring the Kingdom”.
on 12 Nov 2009 at 5:28 pm # Joe Haynes
Yeah… I’m going to make this my last post:
Piper is not a theologian. I said he had training as a theologian (which you don’t, and yes, as a theologian, you too are a hack apparently. I mean that respectfully.) Calvin wasn’t a theologian either, he was a pastor who wrote theologically. Same with Piper. Find the Pastor as Theologian & Theologian as Pastor, Piper-Carson video from Chicago last April. You’ll see what I mean.
on 12 Nov 2009 at 5:29 pm # Joe Haynes
Oh, and his response to Wright is intended pastorally, as is Calvin’s Institutes. Both men were clear in their purpose for writing those two works. Neither were posturing.
on 12 Nov 2009 at 5:42 pm # Jason Postma
So, no rebuttal to my claim that Piper is the Reformed Pope?
I must be wrong because Piper is obviously infallible. Long live the Pope (and his Cardinals Wells, Carson, and even the court jester Driscoll)!
How am I a hack (respectfully, of course)?
on 12 Nov 2009 at 6:07 pm # Michael Krahn
Have we figured out who pees farther yet? :-)
Seriously, this is quite educational. What it has to do with The Message I have no idea. Maybe I should break your lively conversation off into a whole other post, possible titled “The Polarizing Power of Pastor Piper”
on 12 Nov 2009 at 6:29 pm # Jason Postma
I’m a little out of physical shape for to be considered a UFC-style fighter, but I must admit it has been exhilarating to get into an old school debate with a mental work-out.
I suppose it has veered off topic from the original intent of the post, but, like most things, the “real” issues are always between the lines and in what is not said.
On the plus side, this has been a great exercise in vocalizing what I think about Piper…I don’t know how far I can pee, but it’s probably not nearly as far as Piper can – he’s obviously the champ.
on 12 Nov 2009 at 6:37 pm # Jason Postma
So, despite my apparent incontinence, because I am a youth pastor who is both a hack and a non-theologian, I can only dribble a bit. Yet, I suspect, even if I did have a Th.D., and was a “real” pastor, I would be wrong simply because I am not Piper.
on 12 Nov 2009 at 6:42 pm # furtney
Postma, you kinda need to get over yourself. Obviously you were in a pissing contest with that other dude, nobody cares if you can hold it or not. Also, maybe you need to get over your daddy issues with “the pope”.
And, it is to nobodies advantage to play the bitter dutch kid.
Ok, peace out
Derek
on 12 Nov 2009 at 6:50 pm # Jason Postma
Ummm…
I see no peace in that comment…no daddy issues…just an attempt at being tongue-in-cheek…and being bitter? Perhaps. Full of myself…A bit. But Dutch?! No sir! Frisian (like the horses…big and stubborn)
on 12 Nov 2009 at 6:56 pm # furtney
Dude, if you are a pastor and bitter, you really need to sort that out. Especially if you are a youth pastor, unchecked bitterness is such a harsh thing to pit into the lives of those you are supposed to be serving.
All done.
on 12 Nov 2009 at 6:57 pm # Jason Postma
again…all tongue in cheek!
on 12 Nov 2009 at 6:59 pm # Joe Haynes
Okay, one final final post.
Jason, you said that the preference for literal translations “is directly related to the idea that the Bible is a theology textbook”. Talk about jumping to conclusions without warrant or proof. The Bible is primarily theological: it is about knowing God. Not knowing about him merely, but apprehending God through the rational comprehension of the propositions regarding Himself revealed in the words of Scripture. This, of course, according to Calvin, is impossible without the illumination of the Spirit–without which a dead, cold soul is left with nothing more than orthodoxy. But with the Spirit’s work in regeneration and subsequent illumination, revealed truth in Scripture reveals the majesty of God to the delight of the creature’s soul.
You said that for Augustine, loving precedes knowing. But rather than take Piper’s words for it you spuriously asserted that for Piper reason will always triumph over emotion since it Modernist fashion emotion is untrustworthy. This is another red-herring. You did not refute the point that similar to Augustine, Piper’s method states that being loved by God precedes knowing. You actually admitted the affective method in Desiring God–which Piper himself refers to as his defining work. That’s his theological method right there. But instead of letting the author’s intent and his own body of work be the evidence for ascertaining his method you criticized him without justification as a typical, cold, rational modernist: cartesian.
Although I think I like you, your approach here, theologically, is a hack-job because you’re prejudicial regarding Piper. You haven’t read hims sufficiently, by your own admission, and have only quoted heresay. Piper is not the pope, not the definitive Reformed theologian of our day, never pretends to be, doesn’t posture as such, and has only sought to be a pastor who glorifies God. His exegesis is thoughtful, Spirit-led, and humble; when he writes theologically, he does so exegetically rather than with a philosophical approach. If you had read him and drawn your conclusions about him from his own works, you would know that. Even his critics, who have engaged his material directly, treat him with respect. As a pastor who has laboured for the glory of God and the edification of his congregation and readership, he deserves your respect. He does not deserve your blind loyalty, nor mine, nor anyone else’s–nor would he want it. But as a pastor yourself, who understands what it is like, no doubt, to be criticized without justification, and since you have a philosophy degree, I would have thought you would understand the deontological principle of providing some grounds, some basis, some warrant for your rather petty and shallow criticism of John Piper.
This started because you used your keyboard and wit to raise doubts about Piper’s motives and honesty over his rather plain and face-value statement the he likes the Message for the purpose of a paraphrase or subjective interpretation of Scripture, but that it should not be misused as an objective, though translated, record of the revealed Word of God in English.
I called you a theological hack because you have repeatedly set up a straw man and knocked him down; avoided going to the source to evaluate either the translative value of the Message or the methods and motives of Piper. Throwing mud is not any way to do theology.
on 12 Nov 2009 at 7:14 pm # Joe Haynes
Okay, this is my very last post.
I want to apologize for my arrogance and lack of charity, Jason. I’m not proud of this exchange.
on 12 Nov 2009 at 2:49 pm # Regan
What about the King James Bible. It stood as the only Bible for christians for over 250 years. It is based on the majority text, or the textus receptus, which is the pure line of manuscripts. The textus receptus is the collection of 95% or more of the new testament greek manuscripts that survive today, and most of them support the King James Translation. The devil is our adversary, and the first thing he did to Eve was to decieve her.
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Genesis 3:3
The first thing Satan goes after is what God has said. The KJV Bible has been attached from it’s inception. With all the new translations out there, it’s no wonder the church is so confused about what God has said!
Check into it:
http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/part1-3.html
(about textus receptus above)
http://www.kingjamesbiblebelievers.com/main.html
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_kjv/
http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Burgon/
http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Burgon/curriculum/Biblical%20Text%20Preservation%20Chart.pdf (This is an amazing chart!)
*copy and paste
As for the message bible, this is not anything near the words of God! The Lord’s prayer, end with “as above, so below”. This is New Age/occult term, google it!!! Here’s a bit of info though:
A popular New Age, Oneness-Pantheistic, teaching says, “as above, so below”. New Age Journal published a book titled, As Above, So Below. The introduction says, “As above, so below’ means that the two worlds are instantaneously seen to be one when we realize our essential unity with God….The One and the many, time and eternity are all One.” (New Age Journal, So Above, so below)
The message quietly transforms the hallowed “Lord’s Prayer” into a New age “as above, so below” invocation.
You can read the full article at
http://www.kingjamesbiblebelievers.com/articles/mysticmess/html
on 12 Nov 2009 at 2:57 pm # Jason Postma
Joe,
Setting up straw men – guilty as charged.
Disrespectful of Piper – guilty as charged.
Slopping exegesis of Piper – guilty as charged.
Mudslinger – guilty as charged.
Verdict = hack. A just verdict in this case.
Yet, all this was to serve a purpose. I suppose I did let my more sophist side get the better of me, but mostly because I was trying to force the debate to be more engaging. Sometimes niceties get in the way. I was intentionally trying to push buttons (ask my wife – I excel at button-pushing!) of Piper people, to test their allegiances. I still think that there are far too many people that think far too highly of Piper and who cite him and his posse to the effect that “Reformed theology is perfect this I know because John Piper tells me so” (sung to the tune of Jesus Loves Me). I wanted to hear that Piper is fallible, that he is not the be-all and end all or Reformed theology. This is mostly because the “brand” of Reformed theology to which I adhere scratches its head when it comes to Piper et al.
There seems to be a tendency in those Reformed circles to disown anyone who doesn’t fall in line with Piper et al. Of course this is a rejection for which John Piper cannot be held responsible; but certainly there are those among his followers who are far too sure of “whose in and whose out”. As a pastor I suppose I am envious of the praise and affirmation that Piper’s people give him; and yet, there remains a cult of celebrity and even idolatry that surrounds him (again, this is not something for which I fault Piper).So, to paraphrase Ghandi, I suppose the issue is more “I like your John Piper but I don’t like your Piperians” (or would it be Piperites?)
So, I appreciate your affirmation Piper is not the Pope. This is very reassuring and it served my button-pushing purpose.
Yet, my methodological concerns with Piper remain. You’ve shed some light on Piper’s method for me. However, I still cannot escape the conclusion that for Piper correct method is always a guarantor of truth. If we do “proper” exegeis and “proper” study (read: Reformed), then truth will be revealed. Gadamer’s critique is spot on in this regard – truth can never be guaranteed by proper methodology, Christian or otherwise. And while there may be similarities between Augustine and Piper, as an avid reader of Augustine’s philoshia Christiana, I can say that the similarities between their epistemologies do not go that deep.
Doctrine is of central importance for Piper (and I agree that too many churches today are doctrinally ignorant); however, his way of determining orthodoxy remains Cartesian. I think that you summarized this nicely: “The Bible is primarily theological: it is about knowing God. Not knowing about him merely, but apprehending God through the rational comprehension of the propositions regarding Himself revealed in the words of Scripture.” This is nothing is not Cartesian (or, should I say, a Christianized/Spirit-filled Cartesianism). The Bible is not a divine “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”.
I don’t agree with the charge that I am being petty and shallow (well, on second thought, maybe I’m a bit petty). I think I have valid concerns about elements of Piper’s work, particularly his understanding of the atonement and of justification and his overall theological method, which are far beyond the scope of this thread, so I can merely mention my discomfort without fleshing it out.
Joe, as fellow disciples of Christ, I’ve always assumed our common ground in this debate. So, while we’ve perhaps not been as Christ-like in our debate as needed, I think we can agree that it has been exhilarating and interesting..
Now we’re getting somewhere!
on 12 Nov 2009 at 2:58 pm # Jason Postma
For some reason this posted in the middle of the thread, so I’m re-posting it…
Joe,
Setting up straw men – guilty as charged.
Disrespectful of Piper – guilty as charged.
Slopping exegesis of Piper – guilty as charged.
Mudslinger – guilty as charged.
Verdict = hack. A just verdict in this case.
Yet, all this was to serve a purpose. I suppose I did let my more sophist side get the better of me, but mostly because I was trying to force the debate to be more engaging. Sometimes niceties get in the way. I was intentionally trying to push buttons (ask my wife – I excel at button-pushing!) of Piper people, to test their allegiances. I still think that there are far too many people that think far too highly of Piper and who cite him and his posse to the effect that “Reformed theology is perfect this I know because John Piper tells me so” (sung to the tune of Jesus Loves Me). I wanted to hear that Piper is fallible, that he is not the be-all and end all or Reformed theology. This is mostly because the “brand” of Reformed theology to which I adhere scratches its head when it comes to Piper et al.
There seems to be a tendency in those Reformed circles to disown anyone who doesn’t fall in line with Piper et al. Of course this is a rejection for which John Piper cannot be held responsible; but certainly there are those among his followers who are far too sure of “whose in and whose out”. As a pastor I suppose I am envious of the praise and affirmation that Piper’s people give him; and yet, there remains a cult of celebrity and even idolatry that surrounds him (again, this is not something for which I fault Piper).So, to paraphrase Ghandi, I suppose the issue is more “I like your John Piper but I don’t like your Piperians” (or would it be Piperites?)
So, I appreciate your affirmation Piper is not the Pope. This is very reassuring and it served my button-pushing purpose.
Yet, my methodological concerns with Piper remain. You’ve shed some light on Piper’s method for me. However, I still cannot escape the conclusion that for Piper correct method is always a guarantor of truth. If we do “proper” exegeis and “proper” study (read: Reformed), then truth will be revealed. Gadamer’s critique is spot on in this regard – truth can never be guaranteed by proper methodology, Christian or otherwise. And while there may be similarities between Augustine and Piper, as an avid reader of Augustine’s philoshia Christiana, I can say that the similarities between their epistemologies do not go that deep.
Doctrine is of central importance for Piper (and I agree that too many churches today are doctrinally ignorant); however, his way of determining orthodoxy remains Cartesian. I think that you summarized this nicely: “The Bible is primarily theological: it is about knowing God. Not knowing about him merely, but apprehending God through the rational comprehension of the propositions regarding Himself revealed in the words of Scripture.” This is nothing is not Cartesian (or, should I say, a Christianized/Spirit-filled Cartesianism). The Bible is not a divine “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”.
I don’t agree with the charge that I am being petty and shallow (well, on second thought, maybe I’m a bit petty). I think I have valid concerns about elements of Piper’s work, particularly his understanding of the atonement and of justification and his overall theological method, which are far beyond the scope of this thread, so I can merely mention my discomfort without fleshing it out.
Joe, as fellow disciples of Christ, I’ve always assumed our common ground in this debate. So, while we’ve perhaps not been as Christ-like in our debate as needed, I think we can agree that it has been exhilarating and interesting..
Now we’re getting somewhere!
on 12 Nov 2009 at 3:11 pm # Jason Postma
Maybe all of this is because I don’t like Piper wearing “Desiring God” shirts (I’m thinking of his video on the Prosperity Gospel). Are “DG” shirts really necessary, particularly when talking about the Prosperity Gospel? There is a certain level of irony to this…Christian consumerism gone wild! Who prospers?
on 12 Nov 2009 at 11:29 pm # Jason Postma
Wayne,
I’ve clearly noted my suspicion and concerns about Piper (I’ve also noted that I have no doubts about his abilities as an effective pastor). As an attempt to put to rest the suspicion that I would never like anything Piper has said or written, rest assured that I do own a copy of “Desiring God” and I do watch a video or two of his every now and then.
I’ve clearly noted that sarcasm is difficult to convey in writing – yes, I am intentionally polemical, but I am not making it personal (except maybe against Piper…tongue firmly planted in cheek).
I freely admit to being antagonistic. I am not trying to hide my agenda. I want to figure out what is so great about Piper and the version of Reformed theology that he represents.
So far the response of most Piperites that I’ve encountered runs something like this – when they encounter a position that questions theirs or hear arguments that make them uncomfortable they go to the default position of WWPS (What Would Piper Say). If I persist in my needling, the Piperites response is something akin to plugging their eyes and saying “Lalalalalala, I can’t hear you!” I’ve asked for a critique of Piper from a Piperite and I have yet to hear one. It is as though if Piper is wrong, then the sky will start falling!
I’ve met militant Calvinists (I used to be one back in the wild heyday of my youth) and I’ve met militant Piperites. Both groups are heretic hunting sectarians. Indeed there is significant overlap between them. I’ve been in their cross-hairs before. And yet neither group is willing to turn the mirror onto themselves and to test their theological tenets (I would go as far as to say that this is a necessary element of sanctification). They get agitated when I ask them for an honest critique of their leaders.
For the record, I’m a Calvinist, but I certainly don’t think Calvin had everything right and I certainly don’t think that everything between Augustine and Calvin is rubbish as do many militant Calvinists. Aquinas is a difficult read, but he’s worth it! Orthodoxy is a tool rather than an end in itself and remains part of the ongoing living and breathing tradition of Christianity. It’s not as static as Piper et al. make it to be. Again, the Bible is not a divine “Tractatus”.
I respect Anabaptists for their prophetic pacifism, which is why my Reformed polemics might be distasteful to some readers of this blog. For that I apologize, but, again, my intent is to provoke. And Michael’s right, I’m sure that this conversation would pan out differently in person (but that doesn’t make it any less important to have the discussion online or otherwise).
Maybe I’ve read too much Derrida and that is what is fueling my response to Piper’s comments about the Message. However, Piper’s comments about the Message are rooted in more fundamental issues that require careful thought and maybe even some thrown mud (not candy-coated).
on 13 Nov 2009 at 12:06 am # Jason Postma
OK – I’ll directly quote from Piper this time:
“The sovereignty of God, while creating problems for his involvement in sin and evil, is the very rock-solid foundation that enables us to carry on in life. Where would we turn if we didn’t have a God to help us deal with the very evils that he has ordained come into our lives? So yes, absolutely, I believe in the sovereignty of God and I believe in its comforting effects.” John Piper “How Can Evil Have a Good Purpose”.
“But when God looks at a painful or wicked event through His wide-angle lens, He sees the tragedy of the sin in relation to everything leading up to it and everything flowing out from it. He sees it in relation to all the connections and effects that form a pattern, or mosaic, stretching into eternity. This mosaic in all its parts—good and evil—brings Him delight (39) John Piper “Desiring God”.
Piper’s God is a neuruotic sociopath – why would anyone turn to this God for comfort if he is the one who ordained it? This is reminiscent of the story of Stalin and the denuded chicken. Evil is ordained by God because it is part of God’s self-glorification? How does genocide bring God glory? Piper’s God ultimately delights in suffering because it ultimately brings him glory. All of this serves to ontologize evil (and to make evil a good thing!), which, contrary to Piper’s version of classical theism, is no where to be found in Classical Theism. In Classical Theism, there is absolutely no room for a sovereignty of pure power like we see in Piper’s doctrine of God. In Classical Theism, God’s freedom and sovereinty stem from the fact that God cannot will evil so that good may come. For Augustine, evil was privation; it was nothingness; it has no Being.
I decided to work backwards with my reservations about Piper’s treatment of the Message toward his doctrine of the atonement and justification and finally to Piper’s doctrine of God, for the doctrine of God is the foundation of any theological project (coupled with a theological anthropology a la book 1 of the Institutes). So, if the doctrine of God is the theological starting point, I think there are some big foundational issues with Piper, hence my uneasiness with him and his influence on North American evangelicalism.
on 12 Nov 2009 at 8:00 pm # Wayne Klaver
I’ll be honest right up front. If being a theologian means knowing all about what Augustine and Calvin and all those guys taught; I am no theologian. In fact I read all the previous posts and 90% of it was blah, blah, blah, blah to me. However, I do know what I believe and I know why I belief it.
My post is for Mr. Postma. You seem to claim that Mr. Haynes is a disciple of John Piper and therefore closeminded and biased. It is my obsevation that you are just as closedminded and biased only against John Piper. It seems to me there is nothing Mr. Piper could write that would not be looked at as wrong from your point of view.
Perhaps John Piper was not being ‘disengenuis’ when he talks about the Message. Perhaps he means exactly what he says. Perhaps it is your bias against him, and not his hidden nuances, that make you read into his remarks a complete disregard for the Message. I quite frankly didn’t see it.
As far as your remarks being tongue in cheek: The written language is such that when reading your remarks we cannot tell where your tongue is; anymore than you can tell what John Piper’s thoughts were outside of the words he actually used to make them. It’s written not spoken language. The words used convey the meanings they have in everyday use. Unless talking to you face to face we cannot know anything about what you mean outside of the words you use.
Perhaps that is why some people stand very strong for translations and against paraphrases. It is the words God used that convey His meaning. Anything else is eisegesis (hope I used that word right). My thoughts on the subject land somewhere in the middle.
Personally, I do not believe the Message is useless. I also would not put it on the same level as a good translation. I believe God can and does speak through the Message in the hearts of His people. However, if I want to do Bible study I would not use the Message to do so. And quite frankly, I am not sure that is the purpose for which Mr. Peterson made it.
Wayne
on 12 Nov 2009 at 8:02 pm # Michael Krahn
This medium so easily tends toward hostility. I know all three of you (Joe, Jason, Wayne) and have shared good conversation with you. I wish you could all be in the same room together for this… I’m sure the tone would be much different.
For now, you’ll have take my word for it: you’d all get along just fine in person.
on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:23 am # Joe Haynes
Romans 9:14-23 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,(1 )but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory -
on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:50 am # Joe Haynes
Lamentations 3:37-38 37 Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?
Revelation 13:8 everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.
ESV Isaiah 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.
—————————————-
Knowing the Nature of Your Evil
February 19, 2009 | By: John Piper | Category: Commentary
It is important that we know the nature of the evil in our hearts.
Do you think the essence of your evil is disobeying commandments? That’s a good start. But it’s not the essence of our evil. Commands simply name the evil and its fruits, and tell us not to do them.
The essence of our evil is that we prefer anything to God (Romans 1:23; 2:23). Commands do not create the possibility of evil. Commands name it.
Long before we are told not to covet, we covet. Disobeying the command, “Thou shalt not covet,” is not equivalent to the evil of coveting. The evil of coveting is there first, and then is compounded by the transgression of the commandment not to covet.
Paul said, “I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet’” (Romans 7:7). That is, I wouldn’t have known the seriousness of my evil if God had not named it in the law.
But lawbreaking is not the essence of my evil. Desiring anything above God is the essence of my evil, before any commands name it.
One reason this is important to know is that it will affect the way you pursue change. If you think the essence of your evil is commandment-breaking, your focus for change will be commandment-keeping.
That is doomed to fail for two reasons. If we get good at it, we think we have changed, but the essence of our evil remains. If we can’t get good at it, we despair and quit trying.
But if we know that the essence of our evil is not commandment-breaking, but preferring anything to God, then our focus for change will be a change of heart. That is hopeful, because God promised, “I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 11:19).
This is the new covenant that Jesus purchased with his blood (Luke 22:20). We receive it by faith.
————————
How can evil have a good purpose?
Listen | Watch | Download | Podcast
Download: Audio | Video
——————————————————————————–
By John Piper November 24, 2008
——————————————————————————–
The following is an edited transcript of the audio.
How can evil have a good purpose?
Evil can ultimately have a good purpose because of the sovereignty of God.
What I mean by the sovereignty of God is his absolute right, power and de facto intention to govern all things according to the counsel of his will, without any decisive influence from outside his will. And the word “decisive” is very important, because clearly our prayers are heard by God, and he does things he would not have done had we not prayed. That fits in my understanding of sovereignty, because he ordains the prayers, and therefore God ordains that he be influenced by events in the world. But having foreseen them and ordained them, it is not from outside of him ultimately or decisively that he is acting.
And so sovereignty is God’s decisive self-reliance, self-determination. And there is no such thing as ultimate human self-determination. Humans have measures of self-determination, but they are not ultimate, because God ultimately governs and guides all of human willing and all of natural events. That’s what I mean by the sovereignty of God.
That includes his sovereignty over evil. That’s what the book Spectacular Sins is about: spectacular sins that God governs, that God ordains that they come to pass. The Lamb was slain from before the foundation of the world in the mind of God (Revelation 13:8), which means that before there was creation and before there was the Fall and before there was Satan, there was Christ contemplated as slain. Which means God was contemplating the sin for which he was slain. Which means that sin was in the plan, from before there was any so-called freewill Fall.
So that’s what the book is about, and that’s why sovereignty relates to sin so crucially. And the reason it is so crucial is that it helps us address the next question: “How could you get any comfort by a God who is out of control?”
After the planes flew into the Twin Towers in New York, I was interviewed and people would ask me, “Where was God in this?” I said, “Well, God could have very easily blown those planes off course by a little puff of wind, and he didn’t do it. Therefore God was right there ordaining that this happen, because he could have stopped it just like that.” Everybody who believes in God should say that, because that is how powerful he is, as it was said of Jesus, “The winds obey him” (Matthew 8:27). And so just a simple wind by the command of Jesus would have blown those planes away and they would have crashed and 60 people would have died instead of thousands of people. But he didn’t do that. Why is it comforting to believe that?
The answer is because there are 10,000 orphans who wonder if they have a future. Will they have a future if God isn’t powerful for them? I’m coming to those families and I’m saying when they ask me, “Do you think God ordained the death of my daddy?” I say, “Yes. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. But the very power by which God governs all evils enables him to govern your life. And he has total authority to turn this and every other evil in your life for your everlasting good. And that’s your only hope in this world and in the next. And therefore, if you sacrifice the sovereignty of God in order to get him off the hook in the death of your daddy, you sacrifice everything. You don’t want to go there.”
The sovereignty of God, while creating problems for his involvement in sin and evil, is the very rock-solid foundation that enables us to carry on in life. Where would we turn if we didn’t have a God to help us deal with the very evils that he has ordained come into our lives? So yes, absolutely, I believe in the sovereignty of God and I believe in its comforting effects.
on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:53 am # Jason Postma
Joe,
You assured me that you don’t proof-text. I had a feeling that quoting Piper directly would elicit such a response. Are you plugging your ears yet?
How am I supposed to take your post? It is certainly a proof-text! Proof-texting is apparently the polite way of telling me to be quiet because I am obviously missing what is clear as crystal in the Bible. Furthermore, it is an attempt to shut down the conversation – if I attempt to even question your scriptural quotation, then I must be a heretic, for who would dare to question the Bible. Joe, I may throw mud, but you are slamming doors, and my fingers are on the door post.
But I’m going to question the Bible; I question your use of it. These verses doesn’t even begin to answer the charge about my claim that Piper claims that God ordains evil! The verse you cite is clearly about God’s judgment and mercy ; clearly it cannot be taken as “evidence” that evil comes from God (and yet it is difficult to conclude otherwise…one of the downsides of proof-texting…it’s never as cut and dry as one might initially suppose)
So, obviously, I must be wrong because both John Piper and the Bible (or so it would seem, but who knows without context) tell me so. They are obviously in complete agreement.
How could I be so mislead? How could I be so wrong? It must have been all that pagan philosophy and theology I studied at grad school – it’s all unnecessary mumbo-jumbo anyway and clearly doesn’t conform to the nuggets of doctrine so clearly found in the Bible and John Piper.
Joe, thanks for helping me make my point. No one who has responded to me has actually engaged with my concerns (other than the aforementioned proof-text). I’ve been reviled and chastised for my methodology and my outlandish claims and yet all the while my responders seem to be making my points for me. Thanks!
on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:59 am # Jason Postma
You’re even proof-texting John Piper!
You know, I’ve read the Bible and the sermon you’ve just posted. And yet, we seem to be reaching different conclusions. This is not necessarily a bad thing; I think you’re wrong and you think I’m wrong.
Obviously we are not going to reconcile our opinions, but thanks once again for confirming what I’ve been saying all along – that Piperites operate with a clear Cartesian epistemology that treats the Bible (and John Piper’s writings) as a repository of truth that, when the proper method is applied (but nothing too scholarly, because we can’t trust scholars – they just complicate things) it will reveal pure, unadulterated, doctrine.
And Piper’s theodicy is just wrong – he makes God sound like Gordon Gecko – “Evil is Good”. There but for the grace of John Piper goes God.
on 13 Nov 2009 at 3:02 am # Wayne Klaver
Jason,
I sit corrected on my ‘accusation’ of you being biased against John Piper. However, it is hard for me not to have come to that conclusion, considering your initial comments regarding his comments about the Message. Let me explain why.
You wrote, “It sounds like Piper is being charitable to the Message, yet I can’t escape the conclusion that he is playing nice rhetorically in order to coat his theological criticisms in niceties so as not to be taken for a total jerk-face.” If this impression does not come from a bias against Mr. Piper where does it come from. It certainly does not come from the words he wrote.
When I read his comments I did not get the impression you did. I got the impression he felt the message was useful but that when Bible translations or paraphrases are advertised they should state which they are because, admittedly they are not the same. Both are useful, but have different uses. That is what I understood from what he said.
I submit to you that you agree with John Piper on this point. You wrote, “However, I must confess, that when it comes to preaching “from” a text, I always use the NRSV and NIV.” So it would appear that you as well see the difference between the two and different uses for them. In fact your words would very easily fit somewhere within the quote from John Piper.
Mike and Jason,
I appologize if my remarks seemed hostile. They were not in any way meant to be. Which, again, makes my point. The written word is very difficult to interpret. I have written numerous important letters to people and agonized for hours on how to word things because I know emotions can easily be read into them that did not exist in the writer.
We have no visual stimulus to go on. So the emotions the words bring out in us are read into the person who wrote the remarks, whether they actually existed in them or not. Jason, I believe that is what you did when reading John Piper’s remarks about the message. Because you already have very strong feelings towards Mr. Piper you read into his remarks feelings that may not have been in him at the time he made them.
I think that is all I wanted to say in my original post.
Wayne
on 13 Nov 2009 at 3:18 am # Jason Postma
Hi Wayne,
I’m not the only one who thought Piper was slighting the Message (see the above post of davidpeck). Piper says the Message is useful, but then pulls the carpet out by suggesting that it really isn’t the Bible (paraphrase, translation, or otherwise). The reason I am uncomfortable with Piper’s comment is because he sets himself up as an arbiter of what counts a Scripture and what doesn’t. The Message is not the Bible according to Piper. I was trying to point out the lacunae in his thinking – all translations and paraphrases of the Bible are subjective and rely on human machinations; I don’t think this is a bad thing. It seems Piper would disagree since there is an implicit hierarchy at work in his comments.
To be clear, my “bias” against Piper is based mostly upon my experiences with his disciples and also based on what her’s said (cf. quotations I previously posted). I cannot find comfort in thinking that God is the source of evil. I am comforted by God in the face of evil not because I know that God ordains evil, but because I know that death and sin were defeated by the death and resurrection of Jesus.
on 13 Nov 2009 at 7:20 am # Joe Haynes
Was just trying to give some context for your quoted paragraph from Piper that seemed to prove a point you were trying to make. Take it for what it’s worth. And it’s pretty hard to see how he got it from Descartes when the thought is already well developed in Calvin… unless Calvin was also Cartesian in your opinion? Actually, Calvin did cite a few Bible verses… wait a minute! That’s proof-texting! So much for Calvinism. I guess I’ll switch to Armenius’ side… oh no! he proof-texts too! And Augustine! And Paul! They’re all Cartesian! Guess you were right all along Jason. And gosh! you even knew I would react like this.
You might want to turn in your Calvin-membership card: pretty hard to be a real Calvinist (in the sense of having views somewhat resembling Calvin himself) when you deny that God, being holy and without culpability, is sovereign over all that is good and evil and unfailing in His eternal purposes to rule history in such a way that His own glory is served by the delight of His worshippers and the shame of His detractors. There is comfort for evil nowhere else to be found than in the arms of an omnipotent God whose favour is supremely desireable, whose wrath upon evil is irresistable, whose love is unquenchable, whose wisdom is matchless, and whose rule over every square inch of the Universe at ever second since Creation is absolute: that Christ’s death and resurrection is the zenith of the manifestation of His plan to display His own glory is the comfort and delight of humble sinners.
It is, in Calvin’s words, a carnal mind that considers such absolute and holy sovereignty and rejects it as tyrrany. I don’t care how Piper is portrayed by you (though I think you would benefit from a little more engagement with his work); I care immensely how God is portrayed. He is God; He is good; He is upright (Psa 25:8).
I, on the other hand, am irritable, foolish, immature as I am proving when I hit this button, “Submit Comment.”
on 13 Nov 2009 at 8:20 am # Wayne Klaver
Jason,
I made my point. You choose not to see it, that’s okay. It’s your choice. I have nothing more to say. Except, have fun and have at it.
God bless,
Wayne
on 13 Nov 2009 at 9:44 am # Jason Postma
Wayne,
How did I not see your point? In previous posts I readily acknowledged that blogs can be a difficult medium in which to have debates.
I can see how my comments about my preference from preaching “from” the NIV or NRSV echo Piper’s comments. However, I thought I made it clear that I do think that the Message is the Bible whereas Piper thinks it is essentially a commentary on the Bible. Furthermore, I think that is there is not a large a difference between paraphrases and translations that Piper does. All interpretation is contextual and subjective; I don’t have a problem with this (in fact, I would goes as far to say that this is a blessing from God, lest we all start to worship one translation as definitive). And this is one area where Piper’s Cartesianism is clear (if we grant that Descartes is the father of the Scientific Method). For Piper, translations are to be preferred because they are more rigorous, more “scientific” in the interpretive approach, therefore they are more accurate distillations of the truth of the text (apparently no matter how far removed the source texts are from the originals; redaction tends to complication translation).
And, I mentioned, I do use the Message in my sermon preparation – for the ruminative phase. Our denomination’s “official” translation for preaching is the NIV, so the NIV is what I use from the pulpit.
Joe,
If you don’t want to be accused of proof-texting, then please provide some context for your quotations so I know what point you are trying to make. If the Bible spoke for itself, then we wouldn’t need translators, pastors or theologians.
Calvin never proof-texted because his quotations always took place in the middle of a sustained argument. Your posts were simply Bible verses and sermons – next time a brief introduction would be helpful to point me to what you are trying to say.
As to your comment that I need to hand in my Calvinist card because I am not a “real” Calvinist, please see my comments above regarding militant Calvinists and Piperites as heretic hunting sectarians. What does a “real” Calvinist look like anyway and who decides? Like I said before, there are Calvinists out there who scratch their heads at Piper. But, according to you, we aren’t “real” Calvinists.
I never rejected God’s sovereignty – I reject the idea that God is the source and origin of evil and the conclusion that God ultimately delights in evil. There are theodicies aside from Piper’s, for example, Classical Theism, which is completely unlike Piper’s version of classical theism. Contrary to your suggestion that there is comfort in evil, there is absolutely no comfort in evil, which is why I cling to the cross and the mystery of the resurrection.
on 13 Nov 2009 at 10:47 am # Jason Postma
Joe,
Perhaps I’ve overplayed the Descartes card a bit. While I stand by my conclusions regarding Piper’s method, I think I’ve overlooked the obvious emotional component to our argument (and who says men aren’t emotional!)
You feel that God’s sovereignty is too important to diminish in any way, even if it means accepting that God is the source of evil.
I feel that God’s morality is at risk by presenting such an extreme view of his power (God the divine despot) which I why I conclude, along with Augustine, evil is not necessary for the glory of God.
It is very difficult to read and understand the argument of someone else when you disagree on something so fundamental (and, as I’ve noted, the doctrine of God is fundamental) and emotion often gets the upper hand. You’re obviously flustered because we are talking past each other, both from different starting points, both reaching different conclusions. From this, you’ve also thrown out a non-sequitor about my membership in the Calvinist camp. I may not by in the Piper camp, but that certainly does not mean that I am exiled from Calvin’s camp.
You charge that I haven’t read enough Piper – does that mean that if I read everything he writes that I will be converted? I highly doubt it. I haven’t read everything written by Augustine, and I am pretty confident about how he “works” and what he has to say. Does that mean my reading of him is suspect because I haven’t read everything he has put on paper? No. Likewise with my critique of Piper. I don’t need to read everything that he has written to be able to critique him (and in the past few days I’ve read more than I ever intended to!) I’m trying to get into his shoes, but whenever I take a few steps in them, they don’t fit. I can’t break them in.
The question that remains is regarding that stringent defence Piper is repeatedly given. Is Piper really that consistent? Does he need the constant defending you give him? What is at stake for an honest criticism of his understanding of theodicy, atonement, or justification, particularly by someone from in his camp? Worried that Piper might exile you the same way you’ve exiled me?
And yet my questions remain – did God really send a tornado to punish to Lutherans for ordaining gay clergy? Did God really ordain the Rwandan genocide? Is God to blame to 9/11? Is God a divine child abuser, particularly when it comes to the atonement?
I think the reason that Piper and his defenders get in such a huff is that they are in dire straights when they are committed as they are to God’s sovereignty in an abstract, doctrinal sense, unconnected to a divine sense of perichoresis and kenosis. In other words, I think Piper et al. are forced to worship an idea of their own making – they have to follow the consequences of their thinking because to do otherwise would be unreasonable. Reason trumps revelation. It is the logical consequence of his theological project (and, once again, the Cartesian streak shines brightly).
And when someone questions the reasonableness of Piper’s conclusions, then emotion begins to trump reason (as if the two were somehow opposed) – ie. how can you not see things they way I see them? You must be nuts! You are clearly not “one of us”, etc.
Joe, to your view, one of us must be a heretic and quite obviously that would be me. I know that Piper says that “true love hates”, so I guess I should take your comments as an expression of love? Love the heretic (or at minimum the former Calvinist) by hating him? If this is what it means to be a Piperite, than I’m happy to be a heretic.
on 13 Nov 2009 at 11:40 am # Jason Postma
FWIW – I would also like to add that in my particular camp of Calvinism (call it Amsterdam or Grand Rapids Calvinism whose genealogy runs from Calvin to Herman Bavinck, to G.C. Berkhouwer, to Henrikus Berkhof) take a hermeneutic approach that finds the notion that Scripture contains a theodicy highly problematic.
These theologians (Calvin included!) object to the human expectation that God’s ways be justified at all as a matter of impiety. According to them our status before God makes theodicy inappropriate.
Because God is both just and merciful, evil has no place in God’s creation. God does is not a power towel that absorbs evil and converts it to his glory; God destroys evil as that which is contrary to his will and ways.
on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:44 pm # Jason Postma
I’ve been mulling this over in my head, trying to think of a good metaphor by which to make my point concerning Piper’s theodicy.
I think I’ve come up with one.
The type of theodicy that Piper suggests in “How Can Evil have a Good Purpose?” is akin to Battered Wife Syndrome.
God: I love you (smack). Why can’t you see that I love you (smack).
According to Piper, as Christians we are to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and return to God for another beating with the knowledge that God loves us in spite of his “involvement in sin and evil”. To which he concludes, “Where would we turn if we didn’t have a God to help us deal with the very evils that he has ordained come into our lives?” In this model, God is the abusive husband; humans his battered bride.
I know Piper is trying to be pastorally sensitive, but I can’t imagine telling someone in the midst of tragedy, someone for whom God feels so utterly distant, that God did this to them, but they shouldn’t worry because God will be glorified through it all and that is what ultimately matters; so stop your crying and praise God!
If I took this approach, I would be walking around with black eyes and my tooth count would get lower by the day (not to mention the pain in my groin).
This is why theodicy is a useless project, both theologically and pastorally, because rather than giving people comfort found in the cross and empty tomb, it confronts them with the image of a narcissistic bully who claims to be God.
on 13 Nov 2009 at 5:24 pm # Wayne Klaver
Hey,
I know I said I was done but I have since had some thoughts that may be helpful.
First, I have to admit again that the two or you can pee circles around me as far as this theology things goes (not really a pretty picture). I haven’t much of an idea what Descartes taught, or Calvin (a little bit) and am not even sure I know what epistemology is without looking the word up. I reiterate that I read my Bible and believe what it says.
The history and methods of theology seem to be beyond me. In fact, until James final posts I am not sure I even knew what you guys were arguing about. I think I have FINALLY figured it out and might be able to offer some insightful (hopefully) thoughts.
However, you will need to be patient with me as I am working weekends 12 hour shifts. Tonight after work I have to go to church as a leader of our Youth group. If you can give me a couple days what I have to say might just be worth it. Of coarse it might not. Gotta be honest.
Wayne
on 13 Nov 2009 at 6:15 pm # Jason Postma
Wayne,
I look forward to hearing what you have to say!
This debate has taken a rather circuitous form, so there are alot of (related) issues at stake here, so take your time (and don’t forget your hip waders).
Jason
on 13 Nov 2009 at 6:53 pm # Wayne Klaver
Jason,
Kay, I got a couple minutes.
In my earlier posts I was trying to make a point and I think came across a little hostile. Sorry, it’s kinda in my heritage. What I would like to do now is simply tell you how I see things. You may or may not agree. That’s okay.
First, as to the Message and John Piper’s quote.
When I read the Message my first reaction has always been, “I wonder what the Bible says?” That may be bad I suppose but let me explain why.
When I read the NIV, NASB, KJV, RSV and other translations I feel an open freedom to discern the meaning of the text. One year it might strike me one way. The next I might see God speaking in a different way to me. I also have that feeling (albeit to a lesser degree) when reading paraphrases like The Living Word or The Good News Bible.
When I read the Message I do not get the feeling. Eugene Peterson has already ascetained the meaning of the text and I am constrained to follow him. I submit to you that if he were to do the same thing again and sit down to write the Message again it would be markedly different than the first time. That is because he has changed and the world has changed around him.
Because of this I am more likely to do as John Piper does and place the Message in the area of a commentary rather than a Bible. I know that God speaks through it and uses it. But I find it very difficult (be that bad or not) to call it God’s Word.
Other translations and even paraphrases are made by a group of men who discuss among themselves the words to be used. The Message was made by one man. I am sorry but I would not expect you to necessarily accept something I sat down and paraphrased as the Word of God either. From what I have heard (I may be wrong) I am not sure Eugene Peterson expects anything different.
I say this to simply allow you to see how I view the Message and why, and submit to you that perhaps this is all John Piper was saying. When he reads the Message it doesn’t feel like the Bible to him. It feels like Eugene Peterson explaining the Bible
I have to admit, I have no idea who John Piper is. In fact other than the quote Michael shared at the start of this blog I had never read a thing he has written. So when I read the quote I took it at face value.
You already have strong feelings about him, (I allow for the fact that you may very well right), therefore those feelings coloured the way you understood his quote. I think if you are honest with yourself you must admit that is true. I may not know a ton about theology but I do know some about human nature and communication. It is dreadfully hard for we human’s to divorce ourselves from our emotions and be truly objective.
All that to say I would put the Message in the category of a valid paraphrase at best and perhaps a commentary fits it well.
So there you have my thoughts on Mr. Piper’s quote and Michael’s initial question. I will be back with my thoughts about the debate you shared with Joe.
Thanks for listening (reading),
Wayne
on 13 Nov 2009 at 7:30 pm # Jason Postma
Wayne,
I never took you as being hostile for a second, so no need to apologize.
I understand where you are coming from – the Message can be quite polarizing because the language it uses can jar us out of our comfort zone. I remember reading John 1 during family devotions once and the line “God moved into the neighborhood” made my dad nearly jump out of his chair (not in anger, but as in “what the heck did I just hear?!”). This is Peterson’ point – to wake us up to what the text says.
“The Message” was not “made” by one man – Peterson had a team of translation consultants (including some from conservative evangelical universities). While Peterson was the primary “mover and shaker” of the project, it was hardly done alone.
Yes, my “reading” of Piper was definitely influenced my take on his comments (again, I’m not the only one who thought he was slightling the Message with his comments). However, my “reading” of Plato would work the same way – I’ve not read all of Plato, but I know how he “works”. Obviously my reading of Piper is different that yours or Joe’s reading of Piper, but just because I’ve read Piper before doesn’t make my criticism any less valid or objective. I took his comment “at face value” too. Again, I’ve never denied that I have problems with Piper. I’m not reading into him just to make trouble; as I’ve said before, there are things he says with which I agree. And as you yourself no one, including yourself, is purely objective. This doesn’t lessen the force of our arguments – it just reminds us to be introspective (Gadamer’s “fusion of horizons” is instructive here).
Jason
on 14 Nov 2009 at 12:05 am # Joe Haynes
Wayne, that post had more wisdom and common sense than any other post in this thread yet (especially including mine). Thanks.
on 14 Nov 2009 at 8:10 am # Wayne Klaver
Had a great time at youth last night. I absolutely love hanging out with teens. I am 48 and I hope and pray that when I’m 98 (should that happen) I’ll still be working with the youth.
Although, I’m gonna have to start wearing a cup. I got bagged last night. And it wasn’t a mere glancing blow. It was a full on, drop to the floor, roll up in a ball and try not to vomit blow with a tennis ball. Oh my, I’d almost forgot how much that hurts. Half an hour later I was able to get around, but WOW, that doesn’t need to happen ever again (and stop laughing).
Anyway, Jason, I gave your last post some thought last night (I can see I’m not gonna get much sleep this weekend). I sit corrected about Peterson writing the Message by himself. Thankyou for bringing that to my attention.
I have to be honest though. I have never had an experience like your father when reading it. My experience has mostly been, as I said, wondering what the Bible really says. I understand Peterson’s desire but I find that the Message narrows the meaning of the words of the original text. “God moved into the neighbourhood” and “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (NASB) do not mean fully the same thing.
The NASB version of the verse leaves me open to picture the truth in any way. Like a man dressing like a chicken to lure chickens into a barn during a storm (story I heard somewhere once). The Message version paints the picture for me. I am constrained to work within that picture.
Another problem I have had with the Message is that sometimes I end up just scratching my head because I really don’t understand what it is trying to convey. Perhaps it is because I am living in a different world than Eugene and the others. I suppose that is the danger of using coloquial english. Some of the people who read it don’t speak and think in the same way as the ‘authors’. Differing cultures even within our North American world. It could also be because I am so used to reading in other versions.
All that being said, let me say this. You have given me the opportunity to re-evaluate my view of the Message. I would now have to bump it up to a valid paraphrase. It is the word of God. I just don’t always get it. But then again that is probably true of any other translation or paraphrase also. I vow to give it the respect it deserves from this point forward. Thankyou for challenging my point of view.
Wayne
on 14 Nov 2009 at 8:59 am # Wayne Klaver
Okay guys, the sovereignty of God as I see it:
Let me begin by saying this. I truly don’t have the foggiest idea what my school of thought would be. I read books trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. I am a truth seeker. So I have often read books of many different stripes searching for that truth. I try, as much as is possible, to read them with an open mind and then turn to the scriptures to see whether or not they agree with God. May deepest desire is for Scripture to interpret my life and world view and not the other way around.
I have been a member of various denominations in my life, from charismatic to reformed to baptist and have made those churches my home. I am truly not of Paul or of Apollos. I am not of Calvin or Descartes or any other theologian. I am of Christ and so I attempt to allow Him and His word to shape my theology. I may have a very mixed up bag of theological tricks. That is okay with me. I am simply trying to find the truth (this is not to say that is not also your goal as well). I simply do not wish to be put into any camp other than Christ’s.
Joe,
I thank your for your kind words of encouragement. But, please do not stroke me. I don’t mean that in the nasty way it may sound. I simply want to share something of what God has taught me over the years. I may even be wrong. I am afraid, that if I start doing this for the wrong reason (trying to show how smart and wise I am) that I lose God’s blessing in it for both you and I. My desire is truly that God is glorified through this and every other thing I do.
So in my next post I dive in. Please hold your remarks until I have finished my ‘thesis’ (I’ll let you know when I’m done). Because it truly won’t make sense until I get to the end. And you may truly not agree with some of the things I have to say until I have a chance to pull it all together.
I also want to say that sometimes it makes sense to me and sometimes it does not. That is okay with me. I worship a God who is beyond my understanding. That is one of the ways I KNOW Christainity is true. If I could always understand everything about it and it’s God that would be a sure sign it was man made. The fact I can’t put it all together testifies to the fact God and not man is the author of it.
Thanks,
Wayne
on 14 Nov 2009 at 10:07 am # Jason Postma
Wayne,
I’ll respond in a bit more depth later, but I did want to thank you for your candor.
You leave room for the “depth and riches of the knowledge of God”, for the largeness of his mystery of which he has revealed himself in part – through general revelation (creation) and special revelation (the Bible – and even this is “baby talk” according to Calvin because our minds can never fully “grasp” the mystery of God).
Jason
P.S. – I too would love to be working with youth still when I’m 98. Thanks for your dedication to youth!
on 14 Nov 2009 at 10:29 am # Jason Postma
FWIW – Peterson taught Greek and Hebrew for years before he was a pastor or professor.
on 14 Nov 2009 at 1:23 pm # Wayne Klaver
Okay here goes.
I believe, as Joe has expounded, in the complete and utter sovereignty of God over both good and evil. I believe it because I believe the Bible teaches it. Allow me to explain.
I am going to make this as short and sweet as I can There are other places I could go but I want to use only Scriptures that seem to flow and follow my logical progression. I suppose you could accuse me of spoof-texting as I may not draw the whole context in. That is because time and space are limited in this venue (face to face would be much easier). PLEASE read the Scriptures I introduce in their context to assure in your own mind that I have not played with them.
I start in Psalm 139:16. The psalmist is talking about the sovereignty and majesty of God. No place to go to get away … you made me secretly in my mother’s womb. And then he says, “And in Your book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.”
Time frame: before even the first day took place. Event: God ordained, decreed, predestined (as most translations use some version of this word I assume the original Hebrew idea is found within it). Object: ALL of the psalmist’s days.
That means every day the psalmist lived was planned by God; the good days, the bad days, and even the evil days. The day of his death by whatever evil means (even sickness is ultimately the result of evil) was planned before the day he was conceived.
One must assume that is also true of every person who lives after him and every person who lived before him, all the way back to Adam and Eve. Even the day Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit was planned by God before he had created Adam. That is the import of these verses in my mind.
I suppose you could take this simply to mean the number of his days was ordained by God. It would seem to me, however, that if his days are written in a book, we are not simply talking about the number of them but the substance of them as well. In the end the books will be opened and everything we have done will be judged, not just the length of our lives.
Yet, if that is the way you choose to see these verses let’s move to Ephesians 1:4. It says (read it in context) He (God) has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in Christ in the same way as He chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy (set apart) and blameless in Him.
Time frame: before even the beginning of the creation of the universe (ie. before He set the plan into motion). Event: we were chosen to be in Him.
We were predestined to adoption as sons (v. 5). Philippians 2:13 says it is God who is at work in us both to WILL and to work for His pleasure. Not only did he orchestrate the events of our lives such that we would chose Christ. He actually orchestrated our will or choices so that we would do so. We chose Jesus Christ because God planned for us to do so.
Now if some are predestined for salvation that means some are not. No, you may object that is not what these verses say. We were all destined for damnation but God worked in some of us to bring us to salvation.
I grant that that is true. However, some of us were predestined to salvation and some of us were not. It logically follows that those who were not, were predestined to damnation simply by virtue of the fact that they were not among those chosen for salvation.
Need an example. Try Romans 9:10-13 (read it in context). It says, that before Jacob and Esau were born, before either one had done anything either good or bad, God chose Jacob and rejected Esau. It was not because of works but because of the one who calls (God). Why did He choose one over the other? Basically to show that everything that happened in their lives and the lives of Israel was according to His purpose.
This chapter tells us that Pharoah was raised up in all his evilness for the purpose of demonstrating God’s power. God raised Pharoah up, which again shows that even the lives of those who do not choose God are under His control. He did not simply choose Pharoah out of the myriads of evil despots of the time. He raised him up.
That doesn’t sound fair; that God should choose some for salvation and some for damnation before He even sets the plan into motion. And I grant to you that it is not fair. Bill Gates has millions and I don’t; also not fair. I don’t recall any scripture that says God is fair; only just.
Paul expects the Romans to raise the same objection so he continues Romans 9. Verse 19, “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’” How can God possibly punish a person in hell when it was He who planned for them to end up there? Paul’s answer (I may have a more palatable one as we continue) is simply that the potter has the right to make with the clay anything he chooses and the clay has no right to question the potter’s decision. God is the potter mankind is the clay.
That seems to me to teach the sovereigny of God over all of life both the good and the evil. God chooses some to be flower pots and some to be chamber pots. Pharoah was God’s creation as were (you are going to hate me for this) Hitler, Paul Bernardo and all the other evil people who have ever walked the face of this earth.
They did not just happen to exist because God wasn’t watching for a sec. They existed because they were a part of His plan from the outset. God made the plan and executes the plan and who are you and I to question. We are simply lumps of clay.
So do I believe that the falling of the two towers was part of God’s plan. Yes. Do I believe that the tornado that hit whereever (Jason bought it up) was a part of God’s plan. Yes. Do I believe it was the result of their accepting gay marriage. I seriously doubt it. I don’t begin to think I know why God does the things He does. I do, however, believe He is totally, unequivically sovereign over the entire plan.
Philosophically speaking, if God is not sovereign over ALL things, He is not sovereign at all. Either He has control or He does not. If you allow for the fact that one thing may not be under His control you wrest control out of His hands. Either He is God or He is not.
Does this make God the author of evil. NO. I am not finished yet. Again, please hold your remarks until I am. Many of your objections may be answered in what I still have to say. When I am finished I welcome your remarks because they will cerainly help me to further clarify my own thoughts and believes.
Jason raised the questions of how God can have a purpose for evil, how He can be glorifed by evil and how His sovereignty can possibly be a comfort to those suffering under evil. While not central to the issue of God’s sovereignty they are valid questions and I will deal with them next.
Wayne
on 14 Nov 2009 at 4:35 pm # Wayne Klaver
Okay as to God having a purpose for evil I start with Job. I am sure you have read the book so I am only going to give it a quick bird’s eye sketch to make my point.
As the book begins God is sitting in heaven doing what God does. All the angels come along for a sit-down and Satan shows up too. I gather from the feeling of the story this happens a lot. God asks him what he’s been up to. He says he’s been on a walkabout. God asks if he noticed Job, ain’t he the most bested guy you’ve ever seen. Satan says, well yeah, you’ve given him everything a guy could possibly want. Take all that stuff away and he’ll hate you. So God says go ahead he’s all yours, just don’t lay a hand on him. Satan goes down trashes everything Job has and Job still praises God.
So again God is in heaven doing God stuff. The angels come around for a powwow and Satan shows up. God asks if Satan noticed that Job still praises Him after all Satan did. Satan says, well yeah, cuz you wouldn’t let me touch him. A person will give up everything as long as his life is spared. So God says, kay, do your worst. Satan rushes down there and plagues Job with hideous weeping boils.
So was Job’s trial a part of God’s plan. I think it was. When Satan came by he didn’t bring up Job, God did. God knew full well what Satan’s response would be. Everything that happened to Job, although it happened at the hand of Satan, was allowed by God and was indeed planned by God. I personally think everything Satan does is also a part of God’s plan. God is sovereign over EVERYTHING.
Ultimately, no matter how you slice it God brought it up, and God allowed the evil that happened to Job. God was responsible for Job’s suffering, even though Satan did the deed, because at any point He could have put a stop to it. Either He is in control or He is not. The book of Job says He is.
Even Job himself throughout the book ascribes to God the responsiblility for his suffering. “God gives and God takes away.” We don’t like the way this sounds. Somehow it strikes us the wrong way. Yet we cannot wash God’s hands of this. Our feelings do not change the fact that God was the author of Job’s suffering.
In fact, in the end when God finally speaks, He nowhere shies away from this fact. He does not correct Job and say, “C’mon now Job it was Satan and not I who put you through all this.” What is His response to Job. Simply the same as Paul’s response in Romans 9. Who are you, Job, to question my actions?
In the end God proclaims His majesty and sovereignty. Where were you Job when I was doin’ all the creation stuff? Can you tell me how to do this and that? Can you measure any part of the universe? And Job’s response was to fall on his face before God and admit he really had no business questioning in the first place.
So did God have a purpose in the suffering He put Job through? Or was He just being fickle and ‘playing god?’ I believe there was a purpose. That purpose was firstly, to brag on Job. Satan wants to be worshipped. God was showing him what a true worshipper is like. Satan can only get followers by doing the things he accused God of. His second purpose was to prove His majesty and sovereignty to Job, but ultimately to everyone who reads the story.
What is the purpose of evil? It is as a backdrop upon which to showcase His glory. Romans 9:22-23 says, “What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath PREPARED for destruction? And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory.”
I realize this leaves some questions and objections. Again, I believe they will be dealt with in the end. But I really can’t say it any better than He says it Himself; the purpose of evil is “to make known the riches of His glory.” Which brings up the question, how is God glorified through evil? My answer is in two words. JESUS CHRIST.
When Jesus Christ hung on the cross He took upon Himself every evil deed that has ever been done. Everything that Hitler did, everything that Paul Bernardo has done, every evil deed that you and I and every other person in the history of the world from Adam to its ultimate end was laid upon Jesus on the cross.
When Jesus was upon the cross He faced more evil that you and I can concieve of. He stood toe to toe with it, and He WON. He was victorious over every form of evil. Therein lies the glory of God through evil. God is not glorified because evil exists. He is glorified because He dealt with it and defeated it.
And everyday you or I do as Job did, and as little Jesus’s stand against the evil in our lives and win, God is glorified in and through us. That is what the whole crazy plan was all about. It was all about God wanting to display his glory to someone. He made us, allowed us to go bad and then redeemed us. Just to display His glory. That was all part of the plan.
The third question concerning the existance of evil was, “how can God’s sovereignty even over evil possibly be a comfort to someone who is suffering.” My answer to this won’t be ‘biblical’ it will be personal because I feel it deep within everything that I am. It is in fact a comfort to me.
When I was young I endured things no child should have to endure. Because of that I have caused pain in the lives of others. I have since done things I regret with every fibre of my being. If I could go back and change them, even beit at the cost of my own life I would.
I know what evil is. I have endured it and I have walked with it. Do not tell me there is no purpose to it. Do not tell me that it is just stuff that happened and in the end it is meaningless. Oh, but I still get to be with God in heaven. So what. If that is all you have for me (I say this with all sincerity) than put a gun to my temple and put me down. Because you have taken all hope from me.
I must know that there is a reason why I endured what I endured. I have to know that the things I have done will inevitably be turned to the glory of God. If they are not. If there is no reason for the things I have endured or done, you have taken all hope from me.
I am even willing to accept that it is all part of God’s plan and that God Himself put me through it, if there is a reason. But if I lived this life with no purpose and it has no meaning I am lost. In the end if God is not sovereign and does not rule over the evil in my life I, like Job, wish I had never been born.
So, is there comfort in the knowledge that God is sovereign over evil as well as good? Yes there most certainly is. It is precisely that belief that keeps my feet moving forward through life on a daily basis.
I believe that God is 100% sovereign over single part of creation. There is nothing that has ever been created that He does not rule. Everything that we say and do (including this blog) is a part of the plan of God and WILL take place in the manner in which God has ordained it.
However, and it’s a big however,
To be continued,
Wayne
on 14 Nov 2009 at 11:27 pm # Jason Postma
Wayne,
Lots to chew on here! I know that I’ve already taken up so much space on a web page that isn’t mine…but we’ve definitely moved beyond the scope of the original post. The conversation is important to continue…do we keep going on this thread, Michael?
To briefly respond to your posts (thanks once again for your candor), let me reiterate that I never questioned God’s sovereignty over evil; I questioned Piper’s claim that God is implicated in evil and that God can ordain evil. More to come after the weekend…
Going back to the original issue, I wanted to share a quotation that can help refocus our thoughts around the original question about the Message. I think this quotation helps us to see what is ultimately at stake in biblical hermeneutics:
“The practice of Christian faith is not, in the last resort, a matter of interpreting, in our time and place, an ancient text. It is, or seeks to be, the faithful ‘rendering’ of those events, of those patterns of human action, decision and suffering, to which the texts bear original witness” (p.90 – Nicholas Lash, “Theology on the Way to Emmaus”.
on 15 Nov 2009 at 12:13 am # Michael Krahn
Jason Postma » Keep going… as long as there’s fire and respect, it’s all good.
on 15 Nov 2009 at 7:58 am # Wayne Klaver
Jason,
Re: your quote from Nicholas Lash.
I agree with that. I have in the past argued just that with someone who was dead set on the ‘jot and the tittle,’ which is why I changed my tune on the Message. However, I also believe (and am sure you would agree) that the actual words are important. It is the words that convey the meaning from which we understand those events and patterns of human action. I am usually middle of the road in my theological preferences (as you will see).
Without the words that were written we have no understanding of the message that is being conveyed. Red, means different that green, which means different than wet. If we don’t pay close attention to the words we lose the meaning.
However, the words were only a tool to convey a meaning and if we concentrate so much on making sure we have the exact right word we can just as easily lose the meaning. The text becomes a dead thing that brings no life. It all becomes academic.
I think the problem arises when we try and say that one is more important than the other. We cannot communicate without words. But if we become so tied to the words we end up also not communicating because we get the wrong meaning the person was trying to convey.
Which is why blogs like this get so long, I think, we each end up concentrating on certain words the other person used rather than trying to understand the underlying message they are trying to send. Ah the beauty and follies of communication.
As I have said, I am going to give the Message another chance. I have definitely written it off too quickly. And I do thank you for showing me the light.
Wayne
on 15 Nov 2009 at 9:04 am # Wayne Klaver
Jason,
Does God ordain evil? There might be some semantics involved here. How do you define ordain? What exactly do you consider to be evil? I don’t know whether I agree with Piper or not.
I believe evil was a part of the plan and not something God simply for which God made provision. God did not have Jesus waiting in the background in case the whole thing went awry. Jesus was standing ready at the gate because God knew things were going to go bad. He knew they were going to go bad because that’s how He planned it.
Adam and Eve eating the ‘apple’ was neither a surprise nor a simply something God saw coming. It happened because God planned it. Cain killed Able because God planned it. Pharoah enslaved the Israelites because God planned it. Herod killed all the Bethlehem babies because God planned it.
If all of this means that God ordains evil then the answer is, “Yes He does.” Do I believe this makes God culpable for evil. Because that is the real question. My answer, “No, I do not.”
A related question that I believe came up is, “does God use evil for good purposes or does He simply turn evil to good?” I already mentioned Pharoah being raised up by God, but let’s take Hitler for an example. I don’t think there are many people who would suggest Hitler wasn’t evil.
I believe Hitler was a part of the plan. Old Testament prophecy mentioned the rebirth of Israel. Hitler was the direct motivation for there being a modern day Israel. No Hitler, no Israel. So did God merely see Hitler coming and say, “shiny, this’ll get the job done?” Or did God raise Hitler up for the express purpose of moving His people back into the promised land?
The Bible clearly teaches that God is sovereign over the nations. He raises them up and tears them down according to His purposes. That means the nation of Germany under Hitler was raised up by God and one of the purposes for that was to bring Israel back into being.
That would seem to me to indicate that yes God uses evil for good purposes. Does that mean God is culpable for evil (again the real question)? Again my answer is, “no.”
Why not? Because a God who is good cannot, by definition, BE culpable for evil. So how do I work out God’s being responsible without being culpable? I may be totally out to lunch. If I am I’m sure you’ll let me know.
I believe that God is sovereign over everything He has created. Which means He is responsible for everything that happens within His creation. When you take it all to it’s final destination that is where you must end up. Unless you are willing to admit that something went wrong that God could forsee but couldn’t change. I am not willing to concede that.
I believe He is absolutely sovereign over everything. I believe that nothing happens that He did not, not only forsee, but also plan.
However, …
on 15 Nov 2009 at 11:47 am # Wayne Klaver
However, I also believe in the absolute and real (not imagined or perceived) free will of man. I believe it because I believe the Bible teaches it.
I am not talking about some compromise in which we believe that we are only free to choose evil until we are saved and then we can choose the good. I believe God works in the heart of every man and woman and that any one of them could choose to move toward God at which time He would give them more information and more choice.
I do not believe that simply gives us the illusion of choice, but in reality we are moving according to His puppet strings. Neither do I believe that God sovereignly moves in the circumstances to get man to choose as He wishes. I believe that EVERY TIME man is presented with a decision he has the free will to make a real choice.
This is easier to demonstrate than the sovereignty of God because we can all feel it to be true. One of the reasons the sovereignty of God is so difficult to understand and believe is we feel the freedom of our wills in every decision we make.
It is also evident within the Bible. Joshua stand before the people of Israel and gives them a choice, “Choose today whom you will serve.” Peter and Paul in the book of Acts repeatedly encourage the people to choose to Jesus.
David kneels in a cave where Saul is going potty and is encouraged, by his men, to kill Saul . He freely chooses not to do so but simply cuts off a piece of Saul’s robe. Ruth is presented with a choice to stay in Moab or return to Israel with her mother-in-law. She freely chooses to accompany Naomi.
Not only are is man free to make choices, He is fully responsible and culpable for the results of those decisions. David sees Bathsheba from a rooftop, decides to commit adultery and is held responsible for the consequences that ensue.
Jesus Christ speaks to each of the churches in the book of Revelation and presents them with choices for which they will be held responsible. Jesus judges the sheep and the goats based on how they chose to treat the people they came into contact with on a daily basis in their lives.
Every human has been or will be presented with the choice to walk in the will of God or in his/her own will. Every human being freely makes the wrong choice and so will be held accountable.
I believe every human being is given a second chance in Christ to rectify the first wrong decision of self determination. They may not be presented with Jesus, but are presented with information that would lead them closer to that choice. If they reject that information none more is given. If they accept they are lead closer.
Ultimately every human being will stand before God to answer for the decisions he has made throughout his life. NO ONE will be able to accuse God and say, “but You made me choose this.” In the end God will be seen to be both holy and just as He judges man. Not because He makes it so but because it WILL BE SO.
The Bible is packed full of examples of people who make numerous choices on any number of issues. The decisions they make always have consequences. They are always held accountable for those consequences.
I believe these are true and free choices because I believe the God the Bible presents would not coerce or otherwise fool people into making decisions that conform to His will. The God presented in the Bible is loving and just. He is full of grace and mercy. He would not hold man responsible for decisions He in fact forced man or tricked man into making.
SO
God is responsible for evil because He planned it from the start. Man is culpable for evil because he chose to it.
I believe fully in the absolute sovereignty of God over all of His creation. I also believe in the absolute free will of man. I believe them both because I believe the Bible teaches them both.
The issue is NOT which one is more true. Both are true. The real issue is how is it possible for both to be true. How can two totally opposite and antithetical truths exist. How can God possibly be sovereign over my choices if I truly have free will.
It seems to me Christians have been wrestling with this question throughout our history. Often one truth is sacrificed to make the other more understandable or palatable. One is lifted up and concentrated on at the expense of the other. One gets shrivelled because be can accept the other easier.
I don’t think we have this choice. The Bible doesn’t give it to us. Both are fully and totally true and must be acknowledged as so. Any explanation that leaves one or the other stunted and doubted must in the end be rejected.
So, can I reconcile the two? On good days, I think so. On bad days; not so much. Can I explain it? You tell me when I’m done. That’s next.
on 15 Nov 2009 at 3:40 pm # Wayne Klaver
Okay, before I begin I have to give credit where it is due. I got this idea from a book on systematic theology by Charles Ryrie. I am sure it has grown and morphed since I read it many years ago. Ideas tend to do that if you hold on to them long enough.
So I picture it happening like this (it helps me understand):
Papa, Jesus and Sarayu (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit for those of you who haven’t read The Shack) were hanging out doing what triune God’s do. At this point there’s nothin’. No time. No space. Nothin’. Just them. Jesus speaks up and says, “Hey you wanna do somethin’?”
To which Papa replies, “Like what?”
Jesus says, “I don’t know … somethin’.”
They sit around quiet for a while and then Sarayu says, “You know what? You two are awesome. Let’s tell someone.”
Jesus asks, “Like … who?”
To which Sarayu replies, “well, we’ll have to make ‘em first.”
So the one of them sit down and put together a plan. First they decide what the full purpose will be. Then they decide the very best way to fulfill that purpose. Perhaps they storyboard the whole thing and tweak different parts until the whole plan is perfect. They even decide what part each of them is going to play within the plan.
During the planning stages (as I imagine it) they look at every possible plan. Tossing plans away left and right until they come up with the plan that most perfectly accomplishes everything they desire. I don’t imagine it takes all that long. They are God and time doesn’t even exist yet (In reality they probably come up with the perfect plan instantly. But the illustration helps with my explanation).
In reality that would have been an amazing number of plans to choose from considering everything was a part of the plan including our thoughts. When you consider the billions of people and all of their thoughts and actions and interactions, not mention the animals and such that’s a pretty plan. Ours is an amazingly big God.
Next we need to understand that all of the planning is done before any move is made to implement it. They don’t get the beginning they like and then start that rolling while they perfect act two. The entire plan is decided upon before implementation, and then the ENTIRE plan is implimented at once. From our point of view God is still moving and the plan is still taking place. However, from God’s point of view outside of time it’s already done and beginning at the same time. Hence a day is like a thousand years and vice versa.
That is an overview of the entire process as I see it happening. What I would like to concentrate on for our purposes is the choosing of the plan. To do that let’s just concentrate on one infinitesimal part of that plan. Let’s simply look at the story of Adam and Eve and the serpent. Now let’s suppose They had the following possibilities.
#1: Eve comes upon the serpent hanging around the tree. It speaks and she chooses (by her own FREE will) to run away from the talking snake.
#2: Eve comes upon the serpent hanging around the tree. They have their little conversation and she chooses (by her own FREE will) to say, “you know I’m really not interested. I’m gonna tell on you.”
#3: Eve comes upon the serpent, has the conversation and chooses (by her own FREE will) to take the ‘apple’ back to Adam. He listens to her and chooses (by his own FREE will) to say, “I’m not interested. I’m gonna tell on you.”
#4: Eve comes upon the serpent, has the conversation and chooses (by her own FREE will) to take the ‘apple’ back to Adam. He listens to her and chooses (by his own FREE will) to say, “wow, that looks tasty babe. Let’s have it.”
By now you probably get the point. When God chose a plan our free will choices were a part of that plan. That plan will unfold the way He planned it to. We will choose exactly what we were planned to choose, but we will choose it by our own free will because that was a part of the plan.
So, God is responsible for evil because He chose/implemented (ordained?) a plan in which evil takes place. We are culpable because we freely choose the evil.
Does He use evil? Only in as much as there is evil (that we are culpable for) within the plan He has chosen to accomplish His purposes.
So there you have it. Does it have holes in it? Quite possibly. Some days it works for me. On other days I am not quite sure. This is the first time I have written it down. You think about it differently when you do that. I welcome your thoughts. I am sure they will help me to refine my own beliefs, which are always growing.
God bless,
Wayne
on 17 Nov 2009 at 8:29 pm # Jason Postma
Hi Wayne,
I guess Joe has left the building, but I’m happy to continue this exchange with you.
I’m in the process of moving, so I’ve been able to hang-out online too much.
But, I hope to respond to your posts tomorrow sometime.
Jason
on 18 Nov 2009 at 10:13 am # Jason Postma
Wayne,
I want to briefly return to the original topic of this post before commenting on your posts.
Our reading of the Bible and our evaluations of what “counts” as the Bible are directly influence by our hermeneutical and theological approach. This is where I take issue with Piper. He reads the Bible mining for theological truth. He definitely prioritizes reason – I submit the following quotation from his website – “to liberals in Christendom: Come home to objective, Biblical truth about God and Christ”. I don’t know why he needs to qualify (or even equate) Bible truth with the adjective “objective”. The Bible never claims to be objective – it is divine revelation!
The point I’ve been trying to make is that the Bible is not simply a book of propositions that are rendered more complete or understandable by a more literal translation of the source texts. Piper disagrees – translations are the Bible; paraphrases are commentaries of the Bible.
I find that Kevin Vanhoozer (a conservative, evangelical theologian) is instructive here – “To interpret the Bible truly, then, we must do more than sting together individual propositions like beads on a string…Information alone is insufficient for spiritual formation…What the Bible as a whole is literally about is the theodrama – the words and deeds of God on the stage of world history that climax in Jesus Christ” (pp.108-109, “Drama of Doctrine”).
Vanhoozer wants to focus on the story, the narrative, of the Bible as primary. It is the story that is most important, not the theology we derive from it (this is not to say that Vanhoozer thinks doctrine is unimportant; he certainly does, as do I!) Rather, the point he is trying to make is that pastors and laypeople alike often confuse our reading of the Bible with the reading of a textbook, as if the story were secondary to the lesson being taught or the information conveyed.
This is why I think the Message is the Bible – because it is concerned with a faithful telling of the Biblical story in order to confront and comfort us with the story of God’s love for us.
on 18 Nov 2009 at 2:24 pm # Jason Postma
Wayne,
Yes, there are certainly semantics involved in our discussion.
I hear Piper, Joe, and you using “ordain” in the sense of causation.
I understand evil to be a manifestation of sin. Evil is the poisoned fruit of original sin. In the words of Augustine, evil is “privatio boni” – the absence of good.
There are a number of good things in your posts Wayne – I appreciate your attempt to hold God’s sovereignty and human free will in tension. I also appreciate your Trinitarian approach (I wonder what Piper thinks about “The Shack”…)
I apologize for my disjointed and rushed nature of my response, but thanks for bearing with me. Please indulge me in a bit of a personal confession/rant before I start with a more sustained theological response.
I am not a divine psychologist or neuroscientist, so questions about whether or not God “foreknew” whether or not Adam and Eve would sin, etc. are of little interest to me. Frankly, I find them quite puzzling and unhelpful. Such questions operate with a medieval understanding of the Imago Dei in which humans best reflect God’s being in their rational abilities (and to answer Joe, this is the root of Calvin’s epistemology; it isn’t the sterile rationality of modernism, but it does clearly prioritize rationality).
I doubt that the “mind of God” (i.e. the “thing” that God presumably uses to “plan” things) works the same way as the human mind. And I really don’t care how it works – I can only marvel at God’s majesty. Questions about the mind of God (foreknowledge, election, etc.) are beyond human capacity – they are questions that we should not attempt to answer because they are supra-rational (and they cause our heads to hurt when we try). At the end, these kinds of questions are nothing more than an exercise in futility – reason becomes the new tower of Babel. We end up echoing the futility of Homer Simpson’s question – could God make a burrito so hot that even he couldn’t eat it? Rather than revel and tremble in the revealed mystery, we attempt to rationalize God (and, as a result, domesticate him).
More helpful (and comforting) that trying to understand the machinations of divine reason is to look at how God relates and responds to humans. God’s primary and final response to humans is Christ. It is the act of divine sacrifice that points us to God’s being – God loves; God is love. Love is supra-rational. I know that I am loved, but I don’t need or want to attempt to rationalize it lest I diminish its potency.
This is why theology is about seeing how we are addressed by God and asked to respond to him in love. We attempt to know God not in order to tabulate information about God (God is omniscient, God is omnipresent, God is…etc.) but to be transformed by our knowledge of God – to be conformed to the source of that knowledge. This kind of knowledge is a spiritual knowledge that cannot be reduced to reason.
I should clarify that this is not a form of Christian Gnosticism that Michael Horton deftly unveils in his book “Christless Christianity”; reason certainly has a place in human thinking and in theology. However, we cannot allow it to supersede revelation. This is contrary to the approach used in evangelical circles where doctrines are taught as if they are facts that can be proven – think once again of Piper’s call for liberal Christians to “come back to objective, Biblical truth about God and Christ, and return to reality-based morality” as if this truth and reality were self-evident to the clear and rational mind.
And this is why I take issue with theodicy because it “usually involves an attempt to justify God at the seat of human reason” (Berkouwer, Providence of God, p.233). All theodicies over-estimate human reason.
In our discussion, Wayne, theologically, we are dealing with two distinct (and yet intertwined) doctrines – doctrine of God and anthropology. I am not going to try to pull them apart and deal with the separately, so please forgive any conceptual muddiness.
For Piper, the question is the re-articulation of classical theodicy, a project began by Leibniz who ranks right behind Descartes as one of philosophy’s great rationalists, to understand how the existence of evil and the goodness of God could be reconciled rationally.
I understand the problem of evil to be simply this – we are sinners. The problem of evil is an existential and personal problem that calls us to confess our sin before God and to pray “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner”. If we take this confession seriously, then we cannot occupy ourselves with the question “whence evil?” because it distracts us from confessing our sin and seeking God’s forgiveness.
Theodicy overestimates human reason and attempts to justify ourselves to God and “usually concludes with an empty abstract God”, a God made by human reason, in our image. Allow me to quote from Berkouwer at length “The basic problem of theodicy is defined by the manner in which one approaches reality. One cannot mount from reality to the righteousness of God, because reality can only be known through revelation…Any attempt to approach Go from the basis of empirical reality [read: reason] makes his righteousness a deduction of human reason. This makes all natural theodicy, in spite of its apologetic intent, worthless and unacceptable. Instead of preparing the way for fruitful conversation, theodicy only suggest that we try again to reach God by way of natural understanding” (The Providence of God, pp.249-50).
Basically, my concern with theodicy is that it is human-centred and it offers an abstract notion of divine sovereignty. The revelation of God’s sovereignty is in the cross of Christ. God’s glory is rooted in the cross, in weakness and vulnerability. God doesn’t need humans to defend him via reason; God defends himself through his revelation in Christ. The love of God is beyond human comprehension and it is more powerful than sin and evil. The Gospel is all the theodicy we need; it alone is the answer to the so-called “problem of evil”.
Therefore, contra Piper, I stand in good company when I echo, along with the saints of Christian history, “Deus no causa peccati”, the correlation of which is the human confession of sin. Again, Berkouwer is instructive: “It is nowhere more obvious that the notion of God as the author and cause of sin is an utter blasphemy that in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ” (Sin, p.256).
Simply put, humans are the root of evil – this is what we admit when we confess our sin – we are responsible and culpable for sin and evil. Nik Ansell deftly argues this point in his article: “The Call of Wisdom/The Voice of the Serpent” (available at http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Ansell-Serpent-CSR.htm)
on 18 Nov 2009 at 2:31 pm # Jason Postma
As to the anthropological side of this question (free will, etc.), I will post my thoughts soon.
on 18 Nov 2009 at 5:23 pm # Jason Postma
Evil is terrible, horrible, it unravels what God has made. It is the power of nothingness.
Moreover, humans are the authors of sin. We are responsible for it and the destruction is causes.
Our response to the horror of our own making should not be “how could a just God allow such things to happen?” Our only response can be “Lord, have mercy! Forgive us sinners!
As someone who studied history in university, I concluded that any attempt to fully explain the horrors of the past ends up watering them down. Historians must speak for the victims of atrocities, for those rendered voiceless on the slaughter bench of history. However, historians must be wary of claiming to have the definitive explanation for the causes of an historical event. It is important to hear the stories of the Khmer Rouge and the Rwandan genocide and to understand the context, the people involved, etc. Yet, once we posit a definitive historical explanation, we assume that the matter is settled and that we can close our books and move onto the next topic. When we close the books and move on, we are silencing the voices of the voiceless.
A similar effect results from our attempts to rationalize our belief in a “good and sovereign God” and the “existence of evil”. We cannot attempt to justify God when humans are the ones who need justification. When asking “whence evil?” we need only look in a mirror and admit our culpability and turn ourselves toward our crucified and risen Lord, the one who conquered sin and evil. Our ultimate comfort is in our faithful Savior.
The issue of human free will always arises in discussions about theodicy – how can humans be free if God is sovereign? Does God force humans to do things? Does God foreknow every possible human act? Again, I don’t find these questions to be helpful and our faculties of reason don’t provide much comfort in the answers they suggest. I am not interested in metaphysical discussions regarding God’s will vs. human will. We are better served by focusing on divine and human action because God’s action is revelation (he he communicates with us), and human action is our everyday experience.
I do not believe in neither a deterministic view of God because such a view actually limits God’s sovereignty. Furthermore, in such a view, one often ends up understanding divine action and human action in terms of competition – as if there were a conflict between the actions of God and humans. Moreover, I do not believe in view that suggests that divine and human actions are complimentary.
Nevertheless, divine action and human action are certainly related: “The divine act makes room, leaves open the possibility for man’s act. That possibility is not absorbed or destroyed by divine superiority, but created, called forth, by it” (Berkouwer, Divine Election, p.46). God calls humans to action; his grace creates the space for our response. God does not oppose human freedom – he calls it forward, he makes space for it.
This is a relational understanding of freedom. It is not the modern/Lockean conception of individual freedom that we hear in so much political rhetoric (It’s my right! etc.). It is not a “secularized and autonomous concept of freedom” (Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God, p.323). Herbert McCabe echoes this point: “God’s activity does not complete with mine. Whereas the activity of any other creature makes a difference to mind and would interfere with my freedom, the activity of God makes no difference. It has a more fundamental and important job to do than making a difference. It makes me have my own activity in the first place”. Our freedom comes not because of we are autonomous beings, free from external constraint; our freedom comes from our relationship with God.
Our true freedom is found only in Christ. Human freedom comes from our submission to the God who redeems us. In addition, this freedom points to the future where we anticipate the liberation of all creation when heaven and earth are joined. God never forces his sovereignty over humans. He doesn’t need to because he is God and he loves us. McCabe notes, “The idea that God’s causality could interfere with my freedom can only arise from an idolatrous notion of God as a very large and powerful creature”. I would add that what McCabe is commenting on reminds me of the abstract notion of God’s sovereignty as a kind of absolute and pure power that Piper suggests.
In the space God created for human action, we messed things up. I do believe in the fallen and lost state of humanity; humans are corrupted by sin so thoroughly that we are enslaved to it. We do evil through our own will. We eat the apple in defiance of God’s instructions – we seek to be autonomous from God and exert our will accordingly, and we eat to our own destruction. This is not part of God’s plan – he doesn’t have his hand in the cookie jar just so that he can share the good stuff with humans (read: God does not ordain evil). Humans put our hands in the cookie jar to get the cookies on our own terms. This is not what God wants for his creatures – he wants us to enjoy things on his terms, and to give out the cookies how he sees fit. However, our cookie theft was not part of his plan (as if we could even imagine what that would be, nor should we). There is no need to attempt to rationalize God’s sovereignty and human free will because they are not opposed.
The only solution to the problem of evil is to become enslaved to Christ In so doing, we become free – free to love God, our neighbor, and ourselves, and to enjoy God’s good gifts.
on 21 Nov 2009 at 12:28 am # Wayne Klaver
Jason
I am still here. This has been a very busy week. It kept me away from my computer. I must admit I have been enjoying our discussion, although I often feel a little out of my element. You are obviously more ‘well read’ than I. Truth is I probably wouldn’t remember quotes if I did read them. It has been fun and educational though.
Regarding your first post; I do not disagree with the quote by Vanhoozer. I certainly agree that Christians in the West have lifted doctrine high and far too often read the Bible as a text book. However, I do not believe the answer is to swing the pendulum to the other side (as is usually our reaction). I believe the answer lies in stopping the pendulum in the center, where it belongs.
There is, in fact, nothing I take particular issue with except the idea that the narrative of the Bible is the MOST important thing. I believe, it is not a matter of either/or, but both/and. One is not MORE important than the other. Both are EQUALLY important. I honestly don’t understand why we Christians always have to lift one thing above the other (it happens in every sphere). Is it so hard for us to admit that we must have both? It’s called balance. It’s a simple concept but oh so hard for us to master.
If we concentrate on doctrine as being more important than the story of the Bible our faith becomes academic. We have plenty of knowledge in our heads but it seldom, if ever, reaches into our hearts. We end up like the Pharisees, living by the letter of the law but never really understanding its spirit. We may live righteous lives but Jesus never reaches us where we really live, in our hearts where true transformation happens. In the end we have nothing to offer the world because they are looking for answers that work not merely information.
However, it is equally as dangerous to set aside the letter of the law because we believe the spirit is more important. We cannot lower doctrine so we can concentrate on the story of God’s love for us. We live in a world full of ‘God’ stories. Today’s culture tells us that all of these stories are equally relevant. “It’s okay if your story works for you, but it doesn’t work for me.” Doctrinal truth is the only way we can distinguish which story is actually true.
The real danger here lies in the fact that the letter of the law is easily ignored altogether. Anything becomes acceptable because the real point of the Bible is to show us how much God loves us. “God loves me; He certainly wouldn’t expect me to live in a relationship where I get no fulfillment (the alternative would be to fix it).” “God made me a homosexual; how could He possibly expect me not to live out the desires He put in me?” And now we take explicit commands and write them off because they do not fit within OUR interpretation of the God’s love story. The truth of the gospel is lost within a myriad of voices crying about the legitimacy of their pain and how God’s love story reaches them without ever calling them to change. Jesus words to the woman caught in adultery were, “I don’t accuse you either, go and don’t sin anymore.” I wonder if this is the danger John Piper sees when he calls liberal Christians back to the Bible. That is not to defend Him. Perhaps he has gone too far the other way.
Allow me to offer a contemporary example. As you may have guessed I read The Shack. I may be one of the few who read it BEFORE deciding I didn’t like it. It was presented to me as a book that pictures the ‘God story’ in all its glory. I knew there was controversy surrounding it and intentionally stayed away from anyone talking about it because I wanted to decide for myself. I read it with an open mind. But I also read it with a critical mind.
Presenting the Father as a black woman didn’t concern me. I wasn’t upset about the possible ‘irreverence’ of the way the trinity was presented. I was pretty okay with the book until I got near the end. What bothered me was the fact that Mr. Young seemed to go out of his way to present God’s love at the expense of His justice. Anything that might picture God in an unsavory light (ie. the big bad man upstairs watching to catch us doing bad) was intentionally omitted.
This is especially evident in the chapter where God and Mack discuss the difference between expectations and expectancy. In this chapter God says to Mack, “I have no expectations of you, I never have.” I may not label this as heretical but it is certainly not biblical. Jesus Christ did not die on the cross because God had no expectations of us. He died for the precise reason that God does have expectations and we are not able to live up to them. That, to me, is a greater testament to the love of God than that He never expected anything of me.
It could be said that Jesus met all of God’s expectations and therefore in Christ God has no expectations of Mack. However, this too is not biblical. Paul says, “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” Where there are no expectations there is no fear. In the book of Revelation Jesus sends messages to seven churches. The call in the majority of those letters is to repentance. If you do not repent, “I am coming quickly.” These are not words spoken without expectations.
The Shack spent 26 weeks on the New York Times best seller list. This is no surprise to me, as it presents a God who loves fully but expects nothing. Just the kind of God our society wants to believe is real. He loves me just the way I am and never asks me to be accountable for anything. That is indeed an easy God to accept. It is, however, not the God presented in the Bible. (I do not think the Shack is either heresy or garbage. It does offer a perspective on the overall story of the Bible. However, I personally would be very careful to whom I recommend it.)
I bring this up, not because I want our discussion to go in another direction, (seems to me we’re already going in enough) but simply to illustrate what happens when we decide the ‘story’ is more important than doctrine. Right biblical doctrine MUST be allowed to interpret the overall story. One is NOT more important than the other. Both are EQUALLY important. Finding the balance; ah, now there’s the rub.
Wayne
on 21 Nov 2009 at 10:29 am # Jason Postma
Wayne,
It was nice to meet you face-to-face this morning.
I’ll make my comments brief – I’m not trying to swing the pendulum too far one way or the other – although sometimes it is necessary as a corrective on way or the other provided that it finds a way to find its rhythm without swinging to extremes.
Part of this would mean that we need both a theological interpretation of Scripture and a Scriptural informed theology – there is no definite starting point because no reader is ever purely objective. It is a matter of maintaining this dialectic of Scripturally-infused-theology and Theologically-informed-exegesis such that the church would keep the best of its traditions alive while leaving room for innovation as the Spirit leads. Thus, issues of doctrine and exegesis are never static – they are living and dynamic, as is the Word, as is the Church.
on 21 Nov 2009 at 11:00 am # Michael Krahn
Hey Wayne and Jason,
Every once in a while the blog software will encounter an error when trying to post your comment and you may lose the entire content you’ve just typed out. I recommend typing your comments up in Word or in an email editor.
The best option is to type it up in Gmail in “plain text”, then copy and paste it into the comments box.
Just a heads up.
on 24 Nov 2009 at 11:26 am # Warren P
Hi Jason,
I enjoyed your ranting a lot and would love to have a beer with someone who shares both my last name, and my interest in theology.
Warren P.
[same last name as you. I wonder if we're related.]
on 25 Nov 2009 at 11:34 am # Wayne Klaver
Jason,
I had a reply to post but I seem to be getting some internet error. A 404 and no permission on the server or something. So thanks for the fun.
Wayne
on 25 Nov 2009 at 11:37 am # Wayne Klaver
Not sure why that posted my my comments are forbidden. Weird.
on 25 Nov 2009 at 1:41 pm # Jason Postma
Hmmm…strange…see Michael’s comments above.
on 25 Nov 2009 at 11:32 pm # Michael Krahn
Here is a link to Wayne’s latest reply to Jason. For some reason (probably length) the response would not post in the comments box
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AcQ8vrSrcbxzZGs2cXg1Z185NGhocTZxaGdz&hl=en