John Piper's New Religion, Part 2: Abandoning Sola Scriptura

I recently noticed a disturbing question and answer on John Piper's Desiring God website. A man named Daniel wrote to the ministry with this question: "How does Christian Hedonism avoid making joy into an idol?" To which Piper responded by saying: "Well, the short answer is, Christian Hedonism doesn’t make a god or an idol out of joy, because Christian Hedonism says we make a god out of whatever we find most joy in. That is the short answer. So, find your greatest joy in God and, thus, be done with all idolatry."[1] There are several troubling aspects to Piper's response; I will just single out one to focus on right now. Notice that Piper replied by saying, "Christian Hedonism says". He didn't say, "The Bible says"! But that was the apostle Paul's authority and it should be ours: "For what do the Scriptures say?" (Rom. 4:3).  The fact that Piper appealed to "Christian Hedonism" is significant because it shows that Piper's source of authority is no longer sola Scriptura ("Scripture alone"). Actually, several more times throughout the article Piper answers by saying: "Christian Hedonism says," "Christian Hedonism says". Excuse me? Whatever happened to "Thus saith the LORD"?! Charles Haddon Spurgeon is right to have said:

"Brethren, how careful should we be that we do not set up in God's temple anything in opposition to his Word, that we do not permit the teachings of a creature to usurp the honour due to the Lord alone! 'Thus saith antiquity,' 'thus saith authority,' 'thus saith learning,' 'thus saith experience,' ['thus saith Christian Hedonism,']—these be but idol-gods which defile the temple of God: be it yours and mine, as bold iconoclasts, to dash them in pieces without mercy, seeing that they usurp the place of the Word of God.  

'Thus saith the Lord,'—this is the motto of our standard; the war-cry of our spiritual conflict;—the sword with which we hope yet to smite through the loins of the mighty who rise up against God’s truth. Nothing shall stand before this weapon in the day when God cometh out of his hiding place; for even at this hour when, 'Thus saith the Lord' sounds from the trumpet of the Lord's ministers, the hosts of Midian begin to tremble; for well they know the might of that terrible watchword in days of yore."[2]

Someone may say that Piper is just answering the question. Yes, but how does he answer the question? That's my point. Notice that Piper didn't say, "Thus saith the Lord"! Keep in mind here something very important, and that is this: Piper supposedly believes that the Bible is the sole rule for all faith and practice! The Westminster Confession of Faith which Piper supposedly believes in says, "The Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice." Notice that: "the only rule" — not merely "the only rule of faith", but also "of practice". Let me show the contrast here between what Piper said and what a Bible-believing Christian would say. A Bible-believing Christian who believes in "Scripture alone" would have said: "What's an idol? What does the Bible say an idol is? My Bible is the authority; that's where to start." And furthermore, the reason the question about Christian Hedonism was even asked in the first place is because that's what Piper believes in. It's not like he's on the outside looking in. Rather, he's totally into Christian Hedonism. I dare say he's the founder of it! So the question that Piper was answering was a personal one, and Piper's answer was a personal answer. He's a "Christian Hedonist" and he answered by quoting his authority, which is his new religion of Christian Hedonism — not Scripture alone. 

Keep in mind that I'm not saying Piper doesn't believe in the Bible or use the Bible. Of course he does! That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Bible is no longer his "sole rule for faith and practice". Instead, Piper has mixed the philosophy of hedonism with Christianity and has come up with "Christian Hedonism" (cf. Col. 2:8): his new religion and his new authority, at least in part. But "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" (Gal. 5:9). Either way, Piper no longer practices sola Scriptura. 

At the very end of the article on the Desiring God website, Piper says: "So maybe the sum of the matter for Daniel is this: How does Christian Hedonism keep joy from being an idol? Simply believe in the Bible, and let the whole counsel of God inform your system. So I don’t want to be more Christian Hedonist than I am biblical." Notice Piper said, "let the Bible inform your system". Okay, but that's not sola Scriptura. This is my point. Piper is not practicing sola Scriptura: Scripture alone. I also find Piper's answer very interesting when he said, "Simply believe in the Bible". Really? Is that the best you can do? Isn't Piper always the one talking about how "even the demons believe and tremble" (James 2:19). And what about when he says to let the whole counsel of God "inform your system." Are you kidding me? Piper is talking like the Bible is just one piece of the puzzle, one spoke in the wheel, one source of truth that he will incorporate in his "system" (whatever that means). Actually, not even incorporate; Piper merely said "inform". So basically Piper is saying, yes the Bible is helpful and maybe even necessary, but not sufficient. You also need Christian Hedonism. That's a lie from the pit of Hell! By way of contrast, Jesus was exclusive. He said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn. 14:6). Even in Piper's last sentence, he's leaving room for both the Bible and Christian Hedonism. That is not sola Scriptura. It is not "Scripture alone". 

References:

[1] "Does Christian Hedonism Make Joy an Idol?" (January 26, 2013), Desiring God website. 

[2] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, "Thus Saith the LORD:" (Ezekiel 11:5), The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit (September 25, 1864), surgeon.org [accessed July 22, 2022]. Note: The punctuation is from the 1865 edition of Spurgeon's sermon "THUS SAITH THE LORD" (Sermon III), from the book Sermons of Rev. C. H. Spurgeon. Eighth Series (New York: Sheldon and Company, 1865), p. 56.

Examining John Piper's Teaching on "Final Salvation"

In an article on the Desiring God website titled “Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?,” John Piper discusses justification, sanctification, and what he calls “final salvation,” and argues that while justification gives us a right standing with God, it's not enough to get us to heaven! In regards to the latter he says, “In final salvation at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has born, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith.”[1] 

Is this what the Bible teaches? Are Christians saved “at the last judgment” through their faith and their fruit? What does the Bible say?

SAVED THROUGH FRUIT OR THROUGH FIRE?

Take for instance what the apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:15, “If any man's work is burned up (Gr. katakaēsetai) he shall suffer loss [of reward]; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.” Piper says “we are saved through that fruit and that faith.” But Paul says “if any man's work is burned up...he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.” So which is it: saved through fruit or saved “through fire”? In vivid terminology, the apostle Paul paints the picture of a Christian who arrives at the last judgment with an utter lack of practical sanctification, yet “he himself will be saved”! Piper’s theology doesn’t seem to line up with the biblical text.

NOT BY FAITH ALONE?

Piper tries to build his case on the distinction between justification, sanctification, and glorification (which he calls “final salvation”), so that in effect he can say, “See, I'm only adding works as a requirement for glorification; justification is still “by faith alone”! In other words, by making “final salvation” contingent upon progressive sanctification, Piper can still say that justification is “by faith alone”. The glaring problem with Piper's reasoning is that according to Romans 8:30, the apostle Paul actually connects “final salvation” (glorification) with justification, not with practical sanctification! Notice what Paul the apostle says: “whom He justified these He also glorified” (Rom. 8:30). Paul excludes any mention here of practical sanctification! Glorification (“final salvation”) is not dependent on sanctification; it is dependent on justification! In other words, “final salvation” does not depend on fruit and faith (as Piper wants us to believe); it depends on faith alone.[2] 

In an article on the Desiring God website titled “Will We Be Finally ‘Saved’ by Faith Alone?” (March 2, 2018), Piper gives his interpretation of Romans 8:30 and tries to explain the obvious discrepancy between his statements and what the Bible actually says. In answer to the question, “How would salvation and works sit between the link in Paul’s mind — between justification and glorification, where Paul says that all those who are justified are glorified?” Piper responds by saying, 

“he’s asking, ‘How does salvation and works fit in there?’ The answer is this: Glorification in Paul’s thinking is a process that begins at conversion. It doesn’t begin at the last judgment. It begins at conversion and includes sanctification. It’s consummated at final salvation. We know this because of 2 Corinthians 3:18, where we look to Jesus and are being changed from ‘one degree of glory to another.’ That’s glorification right now [?] as we look to Jesus. Romans 8:30, then, when it says all the justified will be glorified, includes the promise that all the justified will be sanctified, because sanctification is included in glorification.” 

But Piper’s explanation is nothing more than eisegesis: reading his theology into the biblical text, not deriving it from the text. For example, Piper says that “glorification in Paul’s thinking is a process that begins at conversion.” But that conclusion actually contradicts what the apostle Paul says in Romans 8:30, because Paul uses the aorist past tense form of the verb (not the present continuous) for both justification and glorification: “whom He justified [edikaiōsen] these he also glorified [edoxasen].” Thus, Piper cannot use Romans 8:30 to show that glorification is a process because actually Paul, by using the aorist past tense form of the verb, indicates that it’s not a process at all! Piper probably realizes this, and thus he appeals to 2 Corinthians 3:18 as his new proof text in his attempt to show that practical sanctification is part of glorification. But Piper is again twisting glorification into a process, when the Bible indicates rather that glorification occurs at a point in time (cf. Rom. 8:30, 13:11; 1 Cor. 15:52; Phil. 3:20-21). Even Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the Reformed theologian, affirms that sanctification is distinct from glorification, not part of it. Commenting on 2 Corinthians 3:18, Martyn Lloyd-Jones writes: 

“In a glorious statement at the end of the third chapter of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, verse 18, the Apostle puts it thus: ‘We all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are being changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.’ That is our present position. The glorification itself is yet to come. We are justified, we are being sanctified, we are going to be glorified. That is the way to look at the matter.”[3]

Piper tries to make progressive sanctification part of glorification so that he can in effect sneak sanctification into Romans 8:30 and thus give support to his Calvinistic belief that true Christians will “endure to the end” in order to be finally saved. But according to the Bible, glorification does not depend on the process of sanctification; rather, glorification depends on justification: “whom He justified, these He also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).

WHAT ABOUT PRACTICAL SANCTIFICATION?

Piper appeals to 2 Thessalonians 2:13 in support of his premise that “faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has born, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith.” But actually 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says nothing about “sanctifying fruit”! Piper is reading his theology into the text. Apparently Piper fails to understand that sanctification is first and foremost a positional truth: a divine reality that occurs when a person first believes in Christ! Commenting on 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and the phrase “through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” (KJV), Charles Ryrie explains by saying: 

 

“In this phrase, the divine and human responsibilities in salvation are placed together. On God’s part, being saved involves the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying, or setting apart, the believer. This refers to that sanctification of position as belonging to God that every Christian has the moment he believes (1 Cor. 6:11).”[4] 

Let’s take a closer look at this. For example, writing to the carnal Corinthians, the apostle Paul lists a number of sins including: sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, and drunkenness (some of which the Corinthians were still practicing), and then says, “And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11).[5] Why didn’t Paul say, “And such ARE some of you”? Had Paul not just said to them, “you are yet carnal” (1 Cor. 3:3)? How can they be “carnal” and “sanctified” at the same time? Simply because at the moment of salvation, the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, cleansed them of all their sins: past, present, and future (see Hebrews 10:10-14). Paul says in Ephesians 1:7: “In Him [Christ] we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace.” In 1 Corinthians 1:30, Paul tells the Corinthians that Christ Jesus “became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” This sanctification was a result of their new position in Christ, even though they were not actually sanctified in their practice! Positional sanctification is a miracle of God’s amazing grace that Piper and other Lordship Salvationists would do well to understand. As one pastor has rightly said, “they’ve lost touch with the grace of God.”[6] This is the tragedy of Piper’s view of salvation, because according to the Bible, we are “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24). This justification guarantees our glorification, quite apart from our practical sanctification!

HOW CAN A CHRISTIAN’S FAITH BE “DEAD”?

Piper appeals to James 2:14-26 trying to prove that faith alone is insufficient for final salvation. But in the book of James, the word “save” [sōzō] is sometimes used in reference to sanctification (e.g. Ja. 1:21, cf. Psa. 119:11; Phil. 2:12-13; 1 Pet. 2:1-2), not justification. Indeed, does Piper think that when James says, “And the prayer of faith will save [sōzō] the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up” (Ja. 5:15), that James is referring to salvation from hell? Clearly, the context must be allowed to shed light on the meaning of the word! In James 5:15 the word “save” obviously refers to physical healing, not salvation from hell. This is consistent with the meaning that the BDAG lexicon assigns to the word “save” in James 5:15: “to raise up from sickness, raise up=restore to health (the sick pers. is ordinarily recumbent) Js 5:15”[7]; “be ill...Js. 5:15”[8]; “save/free from disease...Cp. Js. 5:15”.[9] Thus it becomes clear that even in the book of James, the word “save” can refer to other things besides salvation from hell. 

How then should we understand James 2:14 when it says, “Can that faith save him?” Is James referring to salvation from hell, or perhaps to something else? When we look at the context of James 2:14, it’s clear that James is addressing Christian “brethren” (v. 14), i.e. already saved people, and the question, “Can that faith save him?” (v. 14) is specifically referring to someone from this audience: “one of you” (v. 16). So how can a justified person still need saving? If we understand the word “save” as a general term which encompasses both justification and sanctification (and eventually glorification), then the meaning is clear: the man’s faith has no sanctifying effect! So salvation from hell is not the issue. Rather, the issue is: how useful is your faith to others? Is it “dead as a doornail” sitting there doing nothing (and thus even being counterproductive like a bent nail!), or is it being used for a good purpose to help others? That’s what James is talking about in 2:14-26.

But someone may say, “James 2:26 says, ‘faith without works is dead.’ Doesn’t this mean that it is spiritually dead and therefore not justifying?” Let’s take a look at the meaning of the word “dead”. In regards to the “dead” faith spoken of in James 2:26, the BDAG lexicon gives this definition of “dead”: 

“Pert[aining]. to being so morally or spiritually deficient as to be in effect dead....of things n[ekros]. erga dead works that cannot bring eternal life...faith apart from deeds (i.e. without practical application) is dead, useless Js 2:26b”.[10] 

Several things can be pointed out here: (1) BDAG says “morally or spiritually deficient”. Thus, not necessarily spiritually “dead”! Possibly only morally “dead”, i.e. alive but without good works. (2) BDAG says “dead works that cannot bring eternal life”. When does the Bible say that good works bring eternal life, anyway?! We have not become Roman Catholics, have we? So the Free Grace understanding of James 2:14-26 is in agreement with BDAG on this point. (3) BDAG clarifies that “faith apart from deeds (i.e. without practical application) is dead, useless Js 2:26b”. Again, the Free Grace position can accept this statement and agree with this statement because BDAG clarifies that the meaning is “dead” in the sense of “useless”. Useless for what? The Free Grace position would say that the “morally” deficient faith[11] in James 2:26 is “useless” in terms of the faith’s “practical application”, i.e. the faith is not doing anything to help others. The issue is sanctification, not justification.

CLOSING THOUGHT 

I can’t help but think that Piper may be one of those at the last judgment who says to the Lord Jesus, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” (Matt. 7:22, KJV). And Christ will say to them, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:23, KJV).

References:

[1] John Piper, “Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?” (September 25, 2017), Desiring God, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-really-save-us-by-faith-alone (accessed July 15, 2022), italics his. Note: Elsewhere Piper seems to equate “final salvation” with what he calls “final justification,” which he says is essentially the same as eternal life. For more information see Piper’s article on the Desiring God website titled: “How Our Faith and Law-Keeping Work Together in the Christian Life” (March 29, 2016).

[2] When Paul says in Romans chapter 8:30, “whom He justified, these He also glorified”, the idea is, in other words, that Christ will lose none, but will bring “all” whom He justified safely through to final salvation (see Jn. 6:37-40).

[3] Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans: Final Perseverance of the Saints, Exposition of Chapter 8:17-39, pp. 8-9

[4] Charles C. Ryrie, First & Second Thessalonians (Chicago: Moody Press, 2001), p. 120.

[5] For more information see the article by Charlie Bing titled “Understanding the Vice Lists in 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Gal. 5:19-21, and Eph. 5:3-5” (GraceNotes, Number 96).

[6] John Ricci, “What Must I Do to be Saved?” YouTube video, time stamp: 11:30 – 11:40 minutes. https://youtu.be/X3H3nHFfVpc?t=690 (accessed July 15, 2022).

[7] Frederick William Danker, Editor, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition (BDAG), p. 241, under “egeirō,” bold original.

[8] BDAG, p. 449, under “kamnō,” bold original, ellipsis added.

[9] BDAG, p. 873, under “sōzō,” bold original, ellipsis added.

[10] BDAG, p. 592, under “nekros,” bold and italics original, ellipsis added.

[11] I.e. “morally” deficient in the sense that good works have not been added to it (cf. 2 Pet. 1:5-9).

Ask John Piper: Is Heaven a Free Gift or a Reward?

Just when you thought that the Christian message was the Good News of what God has done for us (Rom. 5:8) and how He sent His Son to give us Heaven as an absolutely free gift, we now have a “Christian” minister telling us that although justification is by faith alone, you still have to pay to get to heaven!

In an article on the Desiring God website titled “Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?”[1], John Piper argues that while justification gives us a right standing with God, it’s not enough to get us to heaven! In regards to this, Piper writes:

“In final salvation at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has born, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith....So, we should not speak of getting to heaven by faith alone in the same way we are justified by faith alone.”[2]

What exactly does Piper mean by this? Let’s take a look at some other statements he’s made that clarify more “precisely” what he means. In the Foreword that Piper wrote to Thomas Schreiner’s book Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification, Piper writes the following on page 11:

“‘how can a person be right with God?’ The stunning Christian answer is: sola fide — faith alone. But be sure you hear this carefully and precisely: He says right with God by faith alone, not attain heaven by faith alone. There are other conditions for attaining heaven, but no others for entering a right relationship to God. In fact, one must already be in a right relationship with God by faith alone in order to meet the other conditions.”[3] 

In effect, Piper is saying that we have to earn our way to heaven! Is this biblical Christianity? How is that message different from any of the religions of the world? What sets Christianity apart is that in contrast to all the other religions that tell us to “do” something to earn our way to heaven, Christianity says it’s all been “done” by Christ for us! Did Christ make a full payment for our sins on the cross, or just a down payment?

Is heaven a reward for good people or a free gift for undeserving sinners? What does the Bible say? Notice the following Scriptures:

• “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16, KJV) Have everlasting life where? “IN HEAVEN”! (See vv. 12-13.) Notice John 3:16 doesn’t say you also have to do A through Z and then maybe you’ll attain heaven. Instead it says to simply “believe”. John Piper has distorted the Word of God! Beware of this wolf in sheep’s clothing!

• “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And where I go you know, and the way you know. Thomas said to Him, ‘Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE. NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME’” (John 14:1-6, NKJV). Notice that what Piper says doesn’t line up with what Jesus says: Piper says that you attain heaven at least partly “through the sanctifying fruit [in your life]”, but Jesus says that the only way to get to heaven is “through Me” — not through Christ plus your fruit, but through Christ alone! (Acts 4:12)

• “For the wages of sin is death, but THE FREE GIFT OF GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE in Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23, ESV) 

• “But the city of Jerusalem in HEAVEN IS FREE, and that is our mother.” (Galatians 4:26, Worldwide English NT)

• “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to THE SPRINKLED BLOOD, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.” (Hebrews 12:22-24, NASB)

• “And He who sits on the throne said, ‘Behold, I am making all things new.’ And He said, ‘Write, for these words are faithful and true.’ Then He said to me, ‘It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I WILL GIVE water to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life, WITHOUT COST.” (Revelation 21:5-6, NASB)

• “I, Jesus, have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. AND WHOSOEVER WILL, LET HIM TAKE THE WATER OF LIFE FREELY.” (Revelation 22:16-17, KJV)

Who paid for your ticket to heaven? My ticket in “PAID IN FULL” (Jn. 19:30) by the blood of the Lamb!

* * *

References:

[1] John Piper, “Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?” (Sept 25, 2017), desiringgod.org website. Note: In regards to the question posed by Piper in the title of his post, it reminds me of how Satan similarly questioned God’s Word when he said to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden: “Did God really say....?” (Gen. 3:1).

[2] John Piper, “Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?” (Sept 25, 2017), desiringgod.org website, italics his, ellipsis added.

[3] John Piper, from the Foreword to Thomas R. Schreiner’s book Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), p. 11, italics his.

Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

In his book What Is Saving Faith?, the Reformed theologian and Calvinist John Piper appeals to 1 John 5:1 attempting to support his belief that regeneration precedes faith and that saving faith is a gift of God. In chapter 12, titled “A Supernatural Creation of God,” Piper begins by saying: “As a supernatural creation of God, saving faith is not a natural reality. It cannot be produced by a human being apart from God’s supernatural intervention.”[1] Let me just pause there for a moment. I agree that apart from the universal convicting work of the Holy Spirit, no sinner would ever see their need for a Savior and trust in Christ for salvation (see Jn. 16:8-9; Acts 7:51). But this is not what Piper means. Instead, Piper believes that the unsaved are so spiritually dead that they can’t even believe![2] Thus, his view is that saving faith must be a gift of God. This is why Piper goes on to say, “Therefore, it [i.e. saving faith] is different from any faith that demons or man can have apart from a supernatural new birth.”[3] In other words, this is Piper’s Calvinistic presupposition that regeneration therefore must precede saving faith. Sound backwards? It is backwards according to the Bible! But Calvinism is not based on the Bible; it’s based on the teachings of John Calvin. At its core it is philosophical, not biblical.[4] 

 

Piper continues by saying, “The point here is not merely that faith is a gift of God. To be sure, it is a gift of God. The apostle John writes, ‘Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God’ (1 John 5:1).”[5] Piper uses 1 John 5:1 as his proof text to support his claim that saving faith is a gift of God. Since 1 John 5:1 clearly says nothing about faith being a gift of God, Piper quotes John Stott (another Calvinist) to read this into the text. Piper writes, “John Stott observes, ‘The combination of present tense (ho pisteuōn, believes) and perfect [‘has been born’] is important. It shows clearly that believing is the consequence, not the cause, of the new birth.’”[6] But notice in regards to Stott’s statement that he conveniently fails to mention that ho pisteuōn is not merely present tense; it is a present tense participle. For those who may be unfamiliar with Greek grammar, a participle is a word with an “-ing” ending; ho pisteuōn literally means “the believing [one]” or “the [one who is] believing”. Bill Mounce, author of the best-selling book Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, explains the significance of the Greek present tense participle by saying: “The imperfective participle [i.e. the present participle] describes an action occurring at the same time as the main verb.”[7] Daniel Wallace, another leading New Testament Greek scholar, concurs by saying: “The present participle is used for contemporaneous time. (This contemporaneity, however, is often quite broadly conceived, depending in particular on the tense of the main verb.)”[8] Wallace goes on to point out that “the present participle could be causal”.[9] As it relates to 1 John 5:1, this would indicate that the “believing” was the cause of the “having been born”! Wallace explains further about the causal use of the present participle by saying: “That the present participle could be causal may seem to deny its contemporaneity. But its contemporaneity in such cases is either broadly conceived or the participle functions as the logical cause though it may be chronologically simultaneous.”[10] Related to 1 John 5:1, this would mean that “believing” is the logical cause of the new birth, even though the two events can be viewed as chronologically simultaneous. Later in his book, Wallace goes on to elaborate on his earlier statement: “The present participle is normally contemporaneous in time to the action of the main verb....But this participle [i.e. the present participle] can be broadly antecedent to [i.e. preceding] the time of the main verb, especially if it [i.e. the present participle] is articular”.[11] As this relates to 1 John 5:1, this would mean that the present participle “believing” can be broadly viewed as preceding the action of “having been born” (v. 1a)! This goes against Piper’s view that believing is the result of “having been born”. Wallace clarifies that although the present participle “is normally contemporaneous in time to the action of the main verb,” the present participle “can be broadly antecedent to” (i.e. preceding) the time of the main verb, “especially if it is articular”. In the case of 1 John 5:1, this would mean that the present participle "believing" precedes, that is, comes before, being born! Notice that Wallace says, “especially if it is articular”. What does this mean? It simply means that the Greek present participle (the word believing in 1 John 5:1) has the definite article (the Greek word ho, which is the English word "the") in front of it, as it does in 1 John 5:1: ho pisteuōn ("the believing one"). In other words, what Wallace says in regards to the Greek present participle applies “especially” to the articular present participle ho pisteuōn in 1 John 5:1! Thus, the Greek grammar  favors the interpretation of 1 John 5:1 that understands the “believing” as preceding the “having been born”!

Notice how Wallace’s insights on the Greek grammar are at odds with Piper’s conclusions related to 1 John 5:1. Rather than showing “that believing is the consequence, not the cause, of the new birth” (as Piper wants us to believe), the Greek grammar indicates quite the opposite: that the “believing” either precedes or takes place concurrently with the new birth! This is an exegetical point that cannot be lightly dismissed, which is probably why instead of providing an exegetical basis for his beliefs, Piper instead simply quotes another Calvinist.

Piper’s Calvinistic presupposition that regeneration precedes saving faith does not hold up in light of the Greek grammar. He is reading into the text of 1 John 5:1 something that is not there. It is his theological presupposition, not what the text actually says. This is admirably pointed out by Georg Strecker in his commentary on The Johannine Letters, when he writes the following in regards to 1 John 5:1:

“The perfect gegennētai [‘having been born’] occurs 9 times in the Johannine corpus. This use does not present a reflection on the ‘priority’ of being born of God over faith, so that faith would be understood as a result of being born of God. That, however, is the opinion of John R. W. Stott, The Epistles of John (TNTC 19; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) 172. In contrast, Chaine (Les epitres catholiques, 210) places faith prior to being born of God. Differently, and correctly, Brown, Epistles, 535; according to him it is probable that ‘the Johannine writers think of believing and begetting as belonging together and simultaneous.’”[12]

Strecker is right to point out that Stott is merely presenting his “opinion,” not biblical exegesis!

Commenting on 1 John 5:1, Brooke Foss Westcott furthermore points out that in light of the context, the apostle John is not even talking about the initial aspect of the new birth; he’s talking about how to recognize if someone is a Christian! Concerning this Westcott writes: “Faith here is regarded simply as the sign of the life which has been given. Nothing is said of the relation between the human and the Divine—the faith of man, and ‘the seed of God’ (iii. 9)—in the first quickening of life.”[13]

The new birth as it pertains to “the first quickening of life” is addressed by the Apostle John in his Gospel, in such places as John 1:12, 3:16, 5:24, 6:47, etc. These texts (and many others like them) clearly show that believing precedes having life! This is the biblical and thus the correct order, and it clearly refutes the Calvinistic notion that regeneration precedes faith.

References:

[1] John Piper, What Is Saving Faith? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2022), p. 127.

[2] For a response to this view, see the excellent article by Roy L. Aldrich titled: “The Gift of God” (Bibliotheca Sacra 122, Jul 1965). A preview of the article can be seen at this link: https://www.galaxie.com/article/bsac122-487-08 (accessed July 13, 2022).

[3] Ibid., p. 127, brackets added.

[4] See the apostle Paul’s warning in Colossians 2:8 in regards to “philosophy” that is “based on human tradition”.

[5] Piper, What Is Saving Faith?, p. 127, italics his.

[6] Ibid., p. 127, italics and brackets his.

[7] William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019), p. 311, brackets added.

[8] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p. 614, italics his.

[9] Ibid., p. 615, footnote 5.

[10] Ibid., p. 615, footnote 5, italics his.

[11] Ibid., p. 625, italics his, brackets added.

[12] Georg Strecker, translated by Linda M. Maloney, The Johannine Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), p. 174, italics his, brackets added.

[13] Brooke Foss Westcott, The First Epistle of St John (London: Macmillan and Co., 1902), pp. 176-177. Related to this, some Bible expositors interpret the participle ho pisteuōn in 1 John 5:1 as being a result of the new birth, but not in the sense of saving faith. Rather, they understand it as referring to Christian fellowship. Commenting on 1 John 5:1 in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Charles Ryrie says: “Believing in Christ is the ground of our fellowship.” (Charles C. Ryrie, “The First Epistle of John.” Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, Editors, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary [Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute, 1962], p. 1476.) Thus, the believing is specifically understood to be Christian faith (cf. Ja. 2:1; 1 Jn. 5:4-5). Ryrie goes on to say, “the Christian has exercised faith in Christ”. (Ibid., p. 1476.) Raymond E. Brown affirms that in 1 John 5:1 “confessed belief may serve as a sign of having been begotten.” (Raymond F. Brown, The Epistles of John, The Anchor Bible [Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1982] p. 535.) But in no way does this passage support the Calvinistic viewpoint that regeneration precedes initial faith in Christ. Commenting on 1 John 5:1, the New Testament scholar I. Howard Marshall affirms: “John is not trying to show how a person experiences the new birth; his aim is rather to indicate the evidence which shows that a person stands in the continuing relationship of a child to God his Father: that evidence is that he holds to the true faith about Jesus.” (I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1978], pp. 226-227.) J. B. Phillips conveys this meaning in his translation of 1 John 5:1: “Everyone who really believes that Jesus is the Christ proves himself one of God’s family” (Phillips New Testament). Yet even with this interpretation, faith is still the impetus or the cause which shows that a person is a Christian.  

What is "the gift of God" in Ephesians 2:8?

The following statements are excerpted from the classic book Principles of Interpretation, by Dr. Clinton Lockhart.

In Eph. 2:8, Paul says, “By grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” We may ask, what is the gift of God? Many would answer, “grace;” many others, “faith;” some, “salvation.” But what does the grammar require? In the Greek, the words for “grace” and “faith” are both in the feminine gender. The pronoun “it” is not in the Greek, hence “it is” are in italics in the English Bible to show that these words are supplied by the English translators; but “it” is the same thing as “that” in the clause “and that not of yourselves;” and “that” in the Greek is neuter gender. Greek grammar requires that a pronoun should agree with its antecedent in gender; according to which the word for neither “grace” nor “faith” can be the antecedent of “that,” which shows that neither of these is the “gift of God.” The only other possible antecedent is the salvation expressed by the verb “saved.” Some have objected that the Greek noun for salvation is feminine; but we must notice that salvation is here expressed, not by the noun, but by the verb, and Greek grammar again requires that a pronoun which refers to the action of a verb for its antecedent must be neuter. This exactly suits the case; and the meaning is, Ye are saved by grace through faith; but the salvation is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Here the interpretation that accords with the grammar is reasonable and satisfactory.[1]

Reference: 

[1] Clinton Lockhart, Principles of Interpretation, Revised Edition (Gospel Light Publishing Company, 1915), pp. 85-86, italics his. In regards to the Greek grammar of Ephesians 2:8, A. T. Robertson similarly writes: “And that (και τουτο). Neuter, not feminine ταυτη, and so refers not to πιστις (feminine) or to χαρις (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part. Paul shows that salvation does not have its source (εξ υμων, out of you) in men, but from God. Besides, it is God's gift (δωρον) and not the result of our work.” (See A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 4, p. 525, comment on Ephesians 2:8.)

Editor's Note: The librarything.com website give this short biography of Dr. Lockhart, who lived from 1858-1951: “Graduated from Kentucky University 1885. PhD from Yale in 1894. Professor University of Michigan 1901. President of Texas Christian University from 1906-1910. Dean of TCU in the 1920s. Clinton Lockhart was president of the Christian College in Columbia, Kentucky and the Christian University in Canton, Missouri; he later taught Semitic and Biblical literature at Drake University.” (https://www.librarything.com/author/lockhartclinton)

Was Augustine a "Christian Hedonist"?

Recently I’ve been studying about “Christian Hedonism” as promoted by John Piper, and I noticed there’s a quote by Augustine that Piper added to the current edition of Desiring God that does not appear in the first two editions of the book. The quote added in the current edition is when Augustine supposedly says the following: 

“If I were to ask you why you have believed in Christ, why you have become Christians, every man will answer truly, ‘For the sake of happiness.’”[1]

This statement appears at the end of the first chapter in the current edition of Desiring God. The quote intrigued me because from what I’ve read of Augustine, it sounded somewhat too secular or worldly for him to have said. Or to borrow a phrase from C. S. Lewis, I found the statement a little too “thin and ‘tinny’”[2] to be truly Augustine’s words. I thought to myself, “for the sake of happiness”? There’s got to be more to it than that. And so I began to do some research in order to find the source of the quote, since Piper didn’t provide it in his book. What I found was quite interesting, and that’s why I’m writing this blog post.

As I began to research this statement by Augustine, I noticed that this quote is posted all over the internet but most of the time the source is never given! That struck me as odd and made me wonder why? Psychologists call it the “illusion of truth” effect: “Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not.”[3] I’m not saying that anyone was being intentionally deceptive or misleading; it was all done innocently no doubt. But that doesn’t make it true. Also, it’s easy for people to want to believe something so much that they don’t really question things as critically as maybe they should.

So I began looking more into it. The only source I could find for the statement quoted by Piper was from the book by John Burnaby titled Amor Dei: A Study of the Religion of St. Augustine (London: Hodder, 1938), page 46. Burnaby quotes the same statement that Piper does. However, in contrast to Piper, Burnaby cites the source and goes on to give the statement more context. Notice what he says:

“The preacher, as we know, was speaking for himself. For the young Augustine and the group of friends who had followed him to Milan, ‘the ardent search for truth and wisdom’, which was their common interest, was centered on the question of the happy life;….”[4] 

So here we have more of the context, and we find out that it’s not merely the emotion of “happiness” that Augustine is talking about, but more fully he’s talking about “the happy life”—for there can be no true “happiness” apart from “the happy life” found in God Himself!

As I continued to do more research, what I found is that the word “happiness” is really not the best translation of what Augustine really said in Latin. This is pointed out in the entry on “Happiness” in the Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy, when it says:

“Despite modern translations that often render the words, ‘beatitudo’ and ‘beatus,’ as ‘happiness’ and ‘happy,’ Augustine generally distinguishes between the concepts of happiness and beatitude. His preferred notion of human goodness is beatitude, which consists in the eternal life granted by God.”[5]

This confirmed my suspicions that Augustine was not talking about “happiness” per se, but rather he was talking about eternal life! 

I continued to do more research and I learned something else: Piper’s translation of Augustine (which dates back to at least 1938 and possibly even older) is likely “archaic or faulty, and the scholarship was outdated” say the publishers of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century.[6] Here’s the statement by Augustine according to the Augustinian Heritage Institute’s The Works of Saint Augustine. Augustine actually says: 

“I mean, if I were to ask you why you believe in Christ, why you became Christians, every single one of you answers me truthfully: ‘For the sake of the blessed life.’”[7] 

Notice that instead of using the word “happiness” (as in Piper’s translation), Augustine actually says “the blessed life”! These two things may be (indeed they are) related, but who would confuse eternal life with a mere emotion? The two things are plainly not the same. This should be obvious in that “happiness” is an oftentimes transient emotion, feeling, or experience (that even the unsaved claim to have!), while “the blessed life” is much more than that; it is life in all it’s fullness, and that of the best kind: eternal life! Even if we translate the word “blessed” as “happy”, that in no way disproves my point. In other words, “happiness” is still different from “the happy life” in that happiness is only a part of the whole—an important part, but still only a part of the whole. Augustine is talking about “the blessed life”, not merely about the emotion of happiness. This becomes even more clear when his statement about “the blessed life” is read in the context of the entire sermon (Sermon 150, “On the words of the Acts of the Apostles 17:18-34: But some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began debating with him, etc.”). Does Augustine talk about “happiness” in the sermon? By all means yes, but only as a part of “the happy life”: eternal life. Augustine rightly says, “Nobody is really happy, really blessed, except the one who lives forever”.[8] This shows that Augustine is talking about a certain kind of life (eternal life), not merely the emotion of “happiness” as Piper’s quote suggests.

More statements from Augustine’s Sermon 150 are to the same effect, namely, that “the blessed life” is eternal life, not merely the emotion of happiness. Notice what Augustine says at the end of the sermon: he makes the point to say, referring to the Lord Jesus,

“he called life the sort that is both eternal and blessed. So when that rich man asked the Lord, What good must I do, to obtain eternal life?—and he too, of course, by eternal life meant only the blessed life. Because the wicked will have an eternal, but not a blessed life, since it will be filled with torment. So he said, “Lord, what good must I do, to obtain eternal life? The Lord answered him about the commandments. He said, ‘I’ve done all that.’ But when he gave his answer about the commandments, what did he say? If you want to come to life (Mt 19:16-17). He didn’t say ‘blessed life,’ because a wretched one isn’t really to be called life. He didn’t say ‘eternal life,’ because where there is fear of death, it isn’t really to be called life. So there is no life that deserves the name, to be called life, but a blessed life; and there can be no blessed life that is not eternal.”[9]

So here again we see that Augustine is not merely talking about the emotion of “happiness” as in Piper’s quote, but rather Augustine is talking about “the blessed life”—that is, “eternal life”.

Augustine continues:

“This is what everybody wants, this is what we all want: truth and life. But how is one to get to such a great possession, such a grand fortune?”[10]

Notice two things here. (1) According to Piper, Augustine should have said that what everyone wants is: “happiness”. But Augustine didn’t say that! Instead he said, “This is what we all want: truth and life.” (2) The second thing I want to point out here is that Augustine asked, “how is one to get to such a great possession”? Notice that Augustine said “possession” not passion! According to Piper it’s all about getting passion, getting the emotion of happiness. But Augustine says that man’s real desire is for the “possession” of true life: eternal life! 

Augustine goes on:

“The philosophers have worked out for themselves ways that go wrong; some have said, ‘This way,’ others, ‘Not that way, but this one.’ They have missed the true way [not missed the emotion of happiness, but missed “the true way”], because God opposes the proud. We would also miss it, unless it had come to us. [What would we also miss? Happiness? No, not merely happiness but rather something infinitely greater, yea rather Someone infinitely greater!] That’s why the Lord says, I am the way (Jn 14:6). Lazy traveler, you didn’t want to come to the way; the way came to you. You were inquiring how you should go: I am the way; you were asking where you should go: I am the truth and the life. You won’t go wrong when you go to him, by him. This is the doctrine of the Christians; certainly not something to be set beside the doctrines of the philosophers, but to be set incomparably above them, whether the sordid one of the Epicureans [the hedonists of the apostle Paul’s day], or the arrogant one of the Stoics.”[11]

This last sentence by Augustine is especially interesting, because he contrasts the doctrine of Christianity with the pagan philosophies of Paul’s day: hedonism (the Epicureans) and stoicism (the Stoics). Augustine says that Christianity is “not” to be set beside these philosophies, but instead is “incomparably above them”! What does this say about the modern-day philosophy of “Christian Hedonism”? Does not the philosophy of “Christian Hedonism” set Christianity beside Hedonism (hence the name) and even worse: is it not a mixing of the light with the darkness? Rightly does the apostle Paul ask in 2 Corinthians 6:14: “what fellowship hath light with darkness”? In the Old Testament, the downfall of the nation of Israel was when it began to follow after the pagan religions of the nations around it, not always by completely abandoning their own religion—but by mixing the true with the false! (This is known as religious “syncretism”: the mixing of different religions, philosophies, or ideas.) Indeed, Aaron said of the golden calf which he made, “This is your god, Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt!” (Exod. 32:4). Did a pagan god bring Israel out of the land of Egypt? No! This was a mixing of the false with the true! Indeed, what does Aaron say? “Now when Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of it; and Aaron made a proclamation and said, ‘Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD.’” (Exod. 32:5). To who? Not to some unknown or foreign god, but “to the LORD”! To Yahweh God! This was religious syncretism: the mixing of two different belief systems into one. More specifically, it was the idolatry of happiness, the idolatry of self-gratification or pleasure where God was exploited as a means to an end, that end being the pleasure of the worshiper. And it was all done under the guise of “worship” to the true God. Indeed, what do the Scriptures say? “The people got up early the next morning to sacrifice burnt offerings and peace offerings [i.e. Jewish religious sacrifices]. After this, they celebrated with feasting and drinking, and they indulged in pagan revelry” (Exod. 32:6, NLT). This was all part of their worship “to the LORD” (v. 5), not to some foreign or unknown deity! Yet who would deny that this was plain idolatry: we could call it “Jewish Hedonism”! Today we have adapted a similar kind of worship for the church and we call it “Christian Hedonism”. Religious syncretism, particularly religious hedonism, is still a snare for God’s people today.

So in answer to the question posed in the title of this post, “Was Augustine a ‘Christian Hedonist’?”, we must answer with an emphatic no, because he made a clear separation between Christianity and the secular philosophies of the ancient world, such as hedonism and stoicism. To repeat Augustine’s words, quoting the words of Jesus:

“You were inquiring how you should go: I am the way; you were asking where you should go: I am the truth and the life. You won’t go wrong when you go to him, by him. This is the doctrine of the Christians; certainly not something to be set beside the doctrines of the philosophers, but to be set incomparably above them, whether the sordid one of the Epicureans [the hedonists of the apostle Paul’s day], or the arrogant one of the Stoics.”[12]

The apostle Paul says: “Come out from among them and be separate, saith the Lord!” (2 Cor. 6:17).

References:

[1] John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (Colorado Springs: Multnomah, 2011), p. 52, italics his.

[2] David C. Downing, The Most Reluctant Convert (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 134. The statement by Lewis is from his book Surprised By Joy, where he talks about the secular authors he used to read before he became a Christian. Lewis writes: “Shaw and Wells and Mill and Gibbon and Voltaire—all seemed a little thin; what as boys we called ‘tinny’. It wasn’t that I didn’t like them. They were all (especially Gibbon) entertaining; but hardly more. There seemed to be no depth in them. They were too simple. The roughness and density of life did not appear in their books.” (Lewis, Surprised By Joy, pp. 213-214.)

[3] Tom Stafford, “How liars create the ‘illusion of truth’” (October 26, 2016), BBC Future.

[4] John Burnaby, Amor Dei: A Study of the Religion of St. Augustine (London: Hodder, 1938), p. 46, ellipsis added.

[5] Henrik Lagerlund, Editor, Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy (London: Springer, 2011), p. 410, italics his.

[6] Notice what it says on the publisher's website: “In 1990, New City Press, in conjunction with the Augustinian Heritage Institute, began the project knows as The Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century. The plan is to translate and publish all 132 works of Augustine of Hippo, his entire corpus, into modern English. This represents the first time in which the works of Saint Augustine will all be translated into English. Many existing translations were often archaic or faulty, and the scholarship was outdated. New City Press is proud to offer the best modern translations available. The Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century will be translated into 49 published books. To date, the Complete Set includes 44 books containing 93 of Augustine's works. Augustine's writings are useful to anyone interested in patristics, church history, theology, and Western civilization.” (“The Works of Saint Augustine,” bold added. https://www.newcitypress.com/the-works-of-saint-augustine.html [accessed July 9, 2022].)

[7] Augustine, John E. Rotell, editor, translated by Edmund Hill, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Part III — Sermons (New Rochell, NY: New City Press, 1992), vol. 5, p. 31. 

[8] Ibid., pp. 36-37.

[9] Ibid., p. 37.

[10] Ibid., p. 37.

[11] Ibid., p. 37.

[12] Ibid., p. 37.

Book Review: Coronavirus and Christ

Overview:

My overall impression of Coronavirus and Christ is that I have mixed feelings about this book. Piper makes some good points and offers some helpful answers in regards to the question: "What is God doing through the Coronavirus?" But at the same time, because of Piper's Reformed/Lordship perspective, I would caution the reader to consider this book: "For reference only"! My comments below will more fully explain my reasons for saying this.

Title:

Although the book is named Coronavirus and Christ, I would say that a more fitting and descriptive title would be: Calvinism, Coronavirus and Christ, because there is a heavy dose of Calvinism contained within its pages. Piper is a Calvinist, and his Calvinistic presuppositions come through over and over again throughout the book.

Preface:

Piper begins the book by writing a brief preface titled "The Occasion: Coronavirus".¹ Piper says that he is writing "in the last days of March 2020, on the front end of the global pandemic known as the coronavirus, or technically, 'coronavirus disease 2019' (abbreviated COVID-19)."² Piper goes on to say, "Today as I write, there are hundreds of thousands of cases of infection worldwide, with tens of thousands of deaths. There is no known cure—yet."³ Piper closes out the preface (it is only five paragraphs in length, two pages in total) by saying, "this is a time when the fragile form of this world is felt. The seemingly solid foundations are shaking. The question we should be asking is, Do we have a Rock under our feet? A Rock that cannot be shaken—ever?"⁴

Outline:

The book is divided into two parts: Part 1 and Part 2. I will outline Parts 1 & 2 as follows, which I think will be helpful for people to get the big picture:

Part 1: The God Who Reigns Over the Coronavirus

Chapter 1: "Come to the Rock" 

 —A Personal Testimony

Chapter 2: "A Solid Foundation"

—Christian Apologetics 101

Chapter 3: "The Rock is Righteous"

—Bible Doctrine 101

Chapter 4: "Sovereign over All"

—A Calvinistic Defense of God's Sovereignty

Chapter 5: "The Sweetness of His Reign" (for the Chosen)

—God's "dispensable pawns" vs. "his valued children"

Part 2: What Is God Doing Through the Coronavirus?

Chapter 6: "Picturing Moral Horror"

—God is showing how horrible and ugly sin really is.

Chapter 7: "Sending Specific Divine Judgments"

—God is sending judgment on certain individuals, both Christian and non-Christian.

Chapter 8: "Awakening Us for the Second Coming"

—God is awakening spiritually asleep Christians for the Second Coming of Christ.

Chapter 9: "Realigning Us with the Infinite Worth of Christ"⁵

—God is calling the world to repentance.

Chapter 10: "Creating Good Works in Danger"

—God is calling Christians to do good works of love and to rescue the perishing.

Chapter 11: "Loosening Roots to Reach the Nations"

—God is turning an apparent setback to world missions into a greater advance of the gospel.

Review of Chapter 1:

Chapter 1 is Piper's personal testimony of when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2005. Piper also talks about what he learned from that experience and how it can apply to the coronavirus pandemic. In my estimation, this is by far the best chapter in the book. At times, Piper actually sounds like a Free Grace advocate! For example, commenting on 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, Piper says that eternal life is "because of Jesus. Jesus alone. Because of his death, there will be no wrath toward me. Not because of my perfection. My sins, my guilt, and my punishment fell on my Savior, Jesus Christ. He 'died for us.' That's what his word says. Therefore, I am free from guilt. Free from punishment. Secure in God's merciful favor. 'Live or die,' God said, 'you will be with me.'"⁶ Not only does Piper say that our salvation is "Secure", but he goes on to emphasize that it is also "sure". Piper writes:

"The Rock I am talking about is under my feet now. I could say that the Rock is under my feet now just because hope beyond the grave is present hope. The object of hope is future. The experience of hope is present. And that present experience is powerful. Hope is power. Present power. Hope keeps people from killing themselves—now. It helps people get out of bed and go to work—now. It gives meaning to daily life, even locked-down, quarantined, stay-at-home life—now. It liberates from the selfishness of fear and greed—now. It empowers love and risk taking and sacrifice—now. So be careful before you belittle the by-and-by. It just may be that when your by-and-by is beautiful and sure, you're here and now will be sweet and fruitful."⁷

One of the strengths of chapter 1 is that Piper relates to his readers by sharing personal experiences, not writing a dry theological treatise. Piper correlates his cancer diagnosis with the coronavirus and draws parallels between the two, and shows that God is in control and involved in both. While I don't agree with Piper on a number of theological issues (e.g. Reformed theology, Lordship Salvation, Calvinism, etc.), in this context he is a reassuring voice reminding us all of God's loving presence and control in the midst of a global crisis.

Review of Chapter 2:

Chapter 2 of the book is titled "A Solid Foundation", but a more descriptive title for this chapter would be: "Christian Apologetics 101" or "Why the Bible is the Word of God". In contrast to chapter 1, this chapter (chapter 2) is a tedious read. I say this for several reasons. Although Piper begins the chapter by saying, "Scarcely a page in the Bible is irrelevant for this crisis"—Piper fails to make the connection showing how the Bible is indeed relevant for real-life today (with the coronavirus). On the contrary, Piper comes across as "canned" and out-of-touch with the real world because he doesn't share any first-hand experiences. Instead, he just lists a bunch of logical arguments for why the Bible is the Word of God. Although Piper is correct in his conclusions, he comes across as someone who is merely "book smart" but doesn't have much, if any, first-hand experience in crisis situations. To cite a few examples, after listing a bunch of Bible verses showing that "God's voice is granite"⁸ and how we should build our lives on what He says (which of course is true), Piper says: "His word is the kind of counsel you want to heed."⁹ Yes, but why? Piper simply makes the dry theological statement without fleshing it out and without giving any real-life examples of why this is true and why this is needed. Similarly, Piper goes on to say about God: "When he gives counsel about the coronavirus, it is firm, unshakable, lasting."¹⁰ Where exactly does God in His Word give counsel about the coronavirus? This would be very interesting and helpful to know! But again, Piper simply makes the statement and assumes it to be true without really proving his point or relating it to real life.¹¹ To cite another example, after listing several more Bible verses (Psa. 19:10 and Jn. 6:68), Piper concludes: "Therefore, in the best and worst of times, God's words bring unshakable peace and joy. Surely it must be so."¹² When Piper says "Surely it must be so"—he just assumes this to be true, but once again he doesn't show why. Yet another example is when Piper quotes the apostle Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 6:10 and says: "The secret of 'sorrowful, yet always rejoicing' is this: knowing that the same sovereignty that could stop the coronavirus, yet doesn't, is the very sovereignty that sustains the soul in it."¹³ This is true, but is comes across as merely a pious platitude because he (Piper) does not relate it to real life. Sharing a personal testimony here to illustrate this biblical truth would really help to make it all the more meaningful and powerful. But once again, he does not. Piper then goes on to ask a very textbook question: "How do you know that the Bible is the word of God?"¹⁴ But who is asking this question? In the middle of a global pandemic, when most all of the schools and churches are closed and people are dying by the "tens of thousands"—who is asking this question? I'm not saying no one is asking it, I'm saying: Where did this question come from? Piper simply proposes the question out of thin air without giving it any application to real life. Ironically, Piper then goes on to say: "Because fifty years ago, when I was struggling to know what I should build my life on, I realized that the scholarly, historical arguments for the Bible would not work for most of the world."¹⁵ Yes, exactly. This is my point. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why Piper therefore lists a bunch of "scholarly, historical arguments for the Bible" that he admits "would not work for most of the world."¹⁶ Piper actually puts into words my thoughts better than I could when he goes on to write the following:

"The way we come to know the glory of God in Scripture is similar to the way we know that honey is honey. Science and technology may say that this jar contains honey because of chemical experiments—just like biblical scholars can argue compellingly that the Bible is historically reliable. But most people are not scientists or scholars. We know that this is honey because we taste it."¹⁷

Instead of a dry textbook lesson on "Why the Bible is the Word of God", I was really hoping to read some personal testimonies of how God's Word helped someone to cope with the coronavirus or with a similar illness. But all I read in this chapter was a dry theological treatise. Not that there isn't a place for theology—there most certainly is! But how does one's theology work itself out and show itself in real life? What affect does it have on a person going through very difficult circumstances like a global pandemic?¹⁸ I would say that this is one of the weaknesses of this chapter and of the entire book in general. Other than a brief personal testimony in chapter 1, Piper's book almost completely lacks any personal connection with his audience and with the real world in which we live—with the coronavirus. I would have been very interested to read, for example, of how Piper ministered to someone with coronavirus, or at least talked to them, and what happened? Piper says elsewhere in the book that at least one of his relatives has been infected with the virus, but strangely nothing more is said about it.¹⁹

Review of Chapter 3:

Chapter 3 of Piper's book is another tedious read. The title of the chapter is "The Rock is Righteous", but a more descriptive titled would probably be: "Bible Doctrine 101". Similar to chapter 2, chapter 3 is another long and drawn-out theology lesson. Piper basically spends the entire chapter proving from the Bible that God is righteous. And if that were not enough, Piper also sets about to prove the holiness of God, the goodness of God, the transcendence of God, and (I'm not kidding): "The historic doctrine of the Trinity"!²⁰ What does the Trinity have to do with the coronavirus? Well, Piper figured you would probably want to know. This is his answer (see if you can decipher it). He writes: "Why does this matter? Because this perfect Trinitarian fellowship is essential to the fullness and perfection and completeness of God. It is essential to his transcendent worth and beauty and greatness—that is, it is essential to his holiness."²¹ Okay, but how does God's holiness relate to the coronavirus? In the last section of the chapter, Piper finally gets to the point. Under the heading "WHAT, THEN, OF THE CORONAVIRUS?"²² , Piper sums it up by saying: "We will not be so naïve as to equate human suffering with divine unrighteousness. Or to conclude that God has ceased to be holy or good when he governs his world."²³ In my opinion, Piper should have just said this at the beginning of the chapter instead of attempting to prove it with a long and drawn-out lesson in Bible doctrine.

Piper does say something in chapter 3 that I really like, something that almost makes him sound like a Free Grace advocate. He says that "God's goodness to sinners is always free and undeserved."²⁴ Unfortunately, later in the book Piper goes on to qualify what he means when he says that Christians are "those who embrace Christ as their supreme treasure".²⁵ This is apparently Piper's definition of a Christian, but couldn't any moral (unsaved) person say this? In fact, even a polytheist could say this! In their view, Christ would be merely one among many gods, "their supreme treasure" (emphasis added). I'm actually a bit surprised at Piper's definition of a Christian, because I would have thought that he, being a Reformed theologian, would at least have affirmed one of the five great solas of the Reformation, namely solus Christus, and thus would have said: Christ alone, but he does not.

Review of Chapter 4:

Chapter 4 of Piper's book is titled "Sovereign over All"²⁶, but probably a more accurate and descriptive title would be: "A Calvinistic Defense of God's Sovereignty". Piper begins the chapter by saying something I agree with, namely that the coronavirus is "bitter providence."²⁷ Piper explains by saying:

"To describe some of God's works as bitter is not blasphemy. Naomi, Ruth's mother-in-law, who lost her husband, her two sons, and one daughter-in-law through famine and exile, said: 'The Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. I went away full, and the LORD has brought me back empty….The Almighty has brought calamity upon me.' (Ruth 1:20-21) She was not lying, overstating, or accusing. It was a simple, and terrible, fact. 'Bitter providence' is not a disparagement of God's ways. It's a description."²⁸

The example of Naomi from the Bible is, I think, a good one. Piper doesn't say this, but another example would be the star (or asteroid) named Wormwood that will hit the earth during the coming Great Tribulation, and the devastating effects that will result. The event is described in Revelation chapter 8, verses 10-11. The text says: "The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of waters. The star is named Wormwood; and a third of the waters became wormwood, and many people died from the waters because they were made bitter." This too is "bitter providence"!

The rest of chapter 4 reads more or less like an apologetic for Calvinism. After the introductory remarks about "bitter providence", the first heading of the chapter reads: "WHAT GOD WILLS, HE DOES".²⁹ In fact, this is actually false (see Matt. 27:37; Lk. 13:34), which is probably why Piper goes on to quickly qualify what he means by saying: "My aim in this chapter and the next is to show that God is all-governing and all-wise. He is sovereign over the coronavirus. I want to show that this is good news—indeed, it is the secret of experiencing the sweetness of God in his bitter providences. Saying that God is all-governing means he is sovereign. His sovereignty means that he can do, and in fact does do, all that he decisively wills to do. I say decisively because God, in a sense, wills things he does not carry through. He can express desires that he himself chooses not to act on. In that sense, they are not decisive. He himself does not let such willing or desiring rise to the level of performance."³⁰ But Piper's explanation does not fully resolve all the theological problems created by his position. This becomes evident when, a few paragraphs later in the book, Piper goes on to explain more fully his Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty. Piper writes: "So when I say that God's sovereignty means that he can do, and in fact does do, all that he decisively wills to do, I mean there is no force outside himself that can thwart or frustrate his will. When he decides for a thing to happen, it happens. Or to put it another way, everything happens because God wills it to happen."³¹ My initial response to Piper's statement would be: But God allows some things to happen, does He not? What about sin? Is God the author of sin? As startling as it may sound, Piper's reasoning would in effect make God the author of sin! This is indeed the logical conclusion of Piper's warped view of God's sovereignty. Piper even admits this in so many words when he goes on to say that "God does not just declare which future events will happen; he makes them happen."³² The danger here is that if we follow Piper's reasoning to its logical end, we are led to the unbiblical conclusion that God made Satan fall and God made Adam and Eve sin, and yes, apparently (according to Piper) God even "makes" all of us sin too!

Review of Chapter 5:

Chapter 5 is titled "The Sweetness of His Reign", but a more accurate title would probably be: "The Sweetness of His Reign for the Chosen". I say this because in chapter 5, Piper makes a clear distinction between those whom God has chosen for salvation and those whom He has not. For example, in regards to God's "meticulous sovereignty" Piper says: "We are his valued children" (of course Piper includes himself in this privileged group!), "we are not his dispensable pawns."³³ When I first read this in Piper's book I wrote in the margin: "Thank God the Bible never says this!" Piper sounds like the proud Pharisee in the Gospel account who said, "I thank God that I am not like other men…." (Luke 18:11). Piper's statement here highlights one of the dangers of Calvinism, which is that it breeds a pride of place and privilege that is foreign to the biblical text. In contrast to Piper's Calvinistic theology of unconditional election, the Bible says: "But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" (Gal. 3:22, NASB 1995). As the hymn writer has put it: "The ground is level at the foot of the cross." The late Pastor James A. Scudder often used to say: "There is no blood clot at Calvary!"³⁴

Piper begins chapter 5 by stressing God's sovereignty. He writes: "Why should I receive the news of God's sovereignty over the coronavirus, and over my life, as a sweet teaching?"³⁵ Piper says that this is good news because: "The very sovereignty that rules in sickness is the sovereignty that sustains in loss. The very sovereignty that takes life is the sovereignty that conquered death and brings believers home to heaven and Christ. It is not sweet to think that Satan, sickness, sabotage, fate, or change has the last say in my life. That is not good news. That God reigns is good news. Why? Because God is holy and righteous and good."³⁶ But if we follow Piper's logic that God "makes" everything happen (as Piper said earlier in his book³⁷), then Satan is just doing God's bidding, and thus God is also evil. How is that good news?!

Piper does say some things in chapter 5 that I agree with. In reference to Romans 8:32 and "What God did in sending Jesus to die for sinners"³⁸, Piper says that it is "God's infinite, blood-certified commitment to give us 'all things'"³⁹. Here Piper almost sounds like a Free Grace advocate because he's emphasizing that salvation is based on God's commitment to us (rather than our commitment to Him). Piper goes on to elaborate on Romans 8:35-37 and also verses 38-39. He explains how this passage of Scripture is applicable to the coronavirus, and how not even the coronavirus can separate us from the love of God in Christ.

Piper goes on in the next section to talk about how what Satan means for evil, God means for good. Piper says, "Even if Satan, on his divine leash, has a hand in our suffering and death, he is not ultimate. He cannot hurt us without God's permission and limitation". Piper's statement here seems to highlight an inconsistency in his theological belief system, because doesn't he believe that God "makes" Satan do this?⁴⁰ If this is true, then Satan is just God's puppet, and whatever Satan does, he is just doing God's bidding. So in essence, God is then as evil as Satan! This is not the God of the Bible!

In the next section of chapter 5, Piper goes on to talk about "the sweetness of God's sovereignty" in that the very hairs of our heads are numbered by God. Quoting Matthew 10:29-31, Piper says:

"Not one sparrow falls but by God's plan. Not one virus moves but by God's plan. This is meticulous sovereignty. And what does Jesus say next? Three things: You are of more value than many sparrows. The hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not. Why not? Because God's meticulous sovereignty—whether we live or die—serves his holiness and righteousness and goodness and wisdom. In Christ we are not his dispensable pawns. We are his valued children."⁴¹

So, the obvious question is: But what about the people that die from coronavirus who are not God's elect? There is no "sweetness of God's sovereignty" for them! There is no comfort for them. There is no hope for them. (This is one of the reasons why Calvinism is so dangerous, because it is the exact opposite of what the Bible actually teaches.⁴²) Piper simply dismisses these people with a virtual wave of the hand when he says, "we are not his dispensable pawns." It's like saying, "Too bad for them. I couldn't care less about them." This is not the God of the Bible! The God of the Bible "would have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4).

Review of Part 2, "Preliminary Thoughts":

Piper does make some good points in this section. I won't take the time to delve into it very deeply, except to comment on Piper's opening statement. Piper begins by saying: "If God has not been dethroned, if, indeed, he governs 'all things according to the counsel of his will' (Eph. 1:11), and if this coronavirus outbreak, with all its devastation, is in his holy, righteous, good, and wise hands, then what is he doing?"⁴³ I simply want to point out to the reader that Ephesians 1:11 does not say "governs". Piper inserts this word. He is reading more into this verse than the text actually says. (Piper quotes the verse correctly on page 41, but he changes it here.) We can of course agree that God is sovereign, and that He does govern His creation (e.g. Psa. 22:28, 97:1, 103:19; Prov. 21:1; Dan. 4:32, etc.)⁴⁴, but what does Piper mean by it? Piper apparently means (as he has said elsewhere) that "God does not just declare which future events will happen; he makes them happen."³² Piper seems to be echoing the words of John Calvin in his commentary on Ephesians chapter 1 verse 11, when he writes: "Who worketh all things. The circumlocution [roundabout speech] employed in describing the Supreme Being deserves attention. He speaks of Him as the sole agent, and as doing everything according to His own will, so as to leave nothing to be done by man."⁴⁵ But if this is true then God is the author and doer of sin! The comments on Ephesians 1:11 by F. F. Bruce are helpful, especially when he writes:

"Even sin and other evils, however contrary to His will, can be turned by Him to serve His purposes of glory and blessing. This is pre-eminently manifested by the way in which that sin of sins, the rejection and murder of His incarnate Son, has become in His hands the means by which all the blessings of the gospel are secured to those who believe."⁴⁶

This statement refutes the one made by John Calvin, because there are things such as "sin and other evils" which are done by others "contrary to His will". God did not "make" these things happen (as Piper wants us to believe), but He can and does "turn" them to fulfill His ultimate purposes. St. Augustine has well said: "Thus is it brought to pass, that both the evil man and the evil angel [Satan] serve under the Divine Providence; yet know not what good God worketh of them."⁴⁷

Piper concludes the "Preliminary Thoughts" section of Part 2 by asking the question: "What is God doing through the coronavirus?"⁴⁸ This paves the way for chapters 6-11, each of which will provide a different answer to this fundamental question.

Review of Chapter 6:

This chapter is titled "Picturing Moral Horror". It is "ANSWER 1" to the question posed at the end of the previous section, namely: "What is God doing through the coronavirus?" Piper summarizes answer 1 at the outset of chapter 6 by saying: "God is giving the world in the coronavirus outbreak, as in all other calamities, a physical picture of the moral horror and spiritual ugliness of God-belittling sin."⁴⁹ Piper begins each of the remaining chapters in this way, by summarizing his various answers at the beginning of each of the chapters. I found this quite helpful for clarity and for reference purposes.

After summarizing his first answer, Piper then begins chapter 6 by saying, "Sin, in fact, is why all physical misery exists."⁵⁰ But shouldn't Piper say (according to his Calvinistic theology) that God's sovereignty is why all physical misery exists? If God in fact "makes"⁵¹ everything happen (as Piper has said), then God is the author of sin! Piper then goes on to say, "The third chapter of the Bible describes the entrance of sin into the world. It shows sin to be the origin of global devastation and misery (Gen. 3:1-19)."⁵² What Piper says here highlights an inconsistency in his Calvinistic belief system, because although he says that "the Bible…shows sin to be the origin of global devastation and misery" (emphasis added), God's sovereignty would actually be the origin if what Piper has said elsewhere is correct (that God "makes"⁵³ everything happen). In other words, Piper starts off in Part 1 of his book by emphasizing that God is sovereign (which of course is true, but not in the way Calvinists portray it), and by that Piper means that God "makes" everything happen. But then in Part 2, Piper changes his tune (no pun intended in reference to the Pied Piper of Hamelin) and blames man for sin. But if God made man sin, then it is in fact God who is the cause and origin of sin! Piper then continues his thought by saying: "Paul summed it up in Romans 5:12: 'Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned."⁵⁴ Yes, but who caused it? Piper is careful not to blame man for sin, nor even the devil, as that would contradict his Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty (which Piper takes to mean that God "makes" everything happen). But what is so telling is that neither does Piper blame God, which he should if he were to be consistent with his Calvinistic viewpoint. This is why I ask the question: who caused it? Piper cannot (or at least won't) answer this question, because to blame man would mean that God is not hyper-sovereign (in the Calvinistic sense of the word), and to blame God would mean that He is not good. In this regard Piper is acting like the Pharisees who refused to answer the question of Jesus when he asked them about the baptism of John, "from where did it come? From heaven or from man?" (Matthew 21:25, ESV). The Pharisees couldn't (or at least didn't want to) answer Jesus' question because, as the Bible says, "they discussed it among themselves, saying, 'If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?' But if we say, 'From man,' we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet" (Matt. 21:26, ESV). Similar to the question of Jesus which silenced the Pharisees, Piper provides no answer for the question in regards to Romans 5:12: But who caused the entrance of sin into the world?⁵⁵ In regards to the entrance of sin into the world, Piper goes on to say, "I trace the miseries of this world back to God's judgment".⁵⁶ But to be consistent with Calvinistic theology, Piper should say: "I trace the miseries of this world back to God's sovereignty." But of course, Piper does not say this because that would mean that God is not good. There is one other place in Piper's book where I found that he makes a similar statement. In chapter 7, Piper says, "all misery is a result of the fall—a result of the entrance of God-diminishing sin into the world".⁵⁷ But again, to be consistent with his Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty (which "makes" everything happen), Piper should instead say, "all misery is a result of God's sovereignty". But of course Piper does not say this. This is where he is not consistent with his Calvinistic presuppositions as it would clearly contradict the biblical truth that man, not God, is responsible for sin.

Chapter 6 is also where Piper gives his definition (or at least description) of a Christian. Piper says that Christians are "those who embrace Christ as their supreme treasure".⁵⁸ What does Piper mean by this? Unfortunately, he does not elaborate. I would say this could be viewed as the ideal, but do all Christians live up to this standard? Piper's definition of a Christian is more related to the Christian life, not how to be born again.⁵⁹ But of course as a Lordship Salvationist, Piper tends to blur the line between justification and sanctification and mix them both together, thus in effect adding works to faith alone in Christ alone.

In the last section of chapter 6, Piper makes a good point when he says that God uses things like the coronavirus and physical pain to get our attention. Piper writes: "Physical pain is God's trumpet blast to tell us that something is dreadfully wrong in the world."⁶⁰ This statement by Piper reminds me of the famous quote by C. S. Lewis when he said: "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world."⁶¹ I'm not sure if Piper had this statement by C. S. Lewis in mind, but including this quote would have been a nice touch, especially since Piper does quote him elsewhere in the book.⁶²

Review of Chapter 7:

Chapter 7 of Piper's book is titled "Sending Specific Divine Judgments". This again is in answer to the question: "What is God doing through the coronavirus?" Piper is careful to qualify his answer by saying, "Some people will be infected with the coronavirus as a specific judgment from God because of their sinful attitudes and actions."⁶³ I have already discussed the opening sentence in which Piper says that "all misery is a result of the fall" (see my previous comments from Chapter 6), so I won't repeat them here. But for the most part I agree with what Piper says in chapter 7. He doesn't say that all suffering is the result of sin, but "some" is.⁶⁴ Piper makes several more statements to this same effect (elaborating on his initial summary answer). For example, Piper says that "not all suffering is owing to the specific judgments of God on specific sins. Nevertheless, God sometimes uses disease to bring particular judgments upon those who reject him and give themselves over to sin."⁶⁵ Later in the chapter Piper once again emphasizes that "while not all suffering is a specific judgment for specific sins, some is."⁶⁶ Regarding God's judgment, I appreciated that Piper also made a point to say that it can apply both to Christians and non-Christians. In regards to Christians, Piper quotes 1 Peter 4:17-18 and says, "For 'the household of God,' this judgment from God is purifying, not punitive—not punishment."⁶⁷ This is a good point, but it completely contradicts Piper's Calvinistic belief system since in that passage of Scripture the apostle Peter says that some Christians will "barely" be saved!⁶⁸ In other words, if some Christians are so unrepentant and sinful that God has to judge them with the coronavirus and they end up dying in unrepentance, would this not be the sin unto death? And in this case how can it be said that such a person perseveres to the end? This is required by Calvinism for anyone who is truly saved.⁶⁹

In the closing section of the chapter, Piper once again almost sounds like a Free Grace advocate because he talks about Christians having assurance of salvation ("we can know"), and he again emphasizes the distinction between chastening and condemnation ("discipline, not destruction"). I will quote his entire statement to give it some additional context and because I think it's a good one. Piper says:

"If we come to Christ [notice Piper doesn't say, "If we embrace Christ as our supreme treasure"], we can know that our suffering is not the punitive judgment of God. We can know this because Jesus said, 'Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life' (John 5:24). There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). It is discipline, not destruction. 'For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives' (Heb. 12:6)."⁷⁰

Review of Chapter 8:

Chapter 8 in Piper's book is titled "Awakening Us for the Second Coming". In answer to the question, "What is God doing through the coronavirus?"⁷¹, Piper's answer in this chapter is that "The coronavirus is a God-given wake-up call to be ready for the second coming of Christ."⁷² While I agree with Piper's basic point, what I noticed in this chapter is that Piper fails to distinguish between the Rapture of the church on the one hand, and the Second Coming of Christ to the earth on the other hand, which will occur at the end of the 7-year Tribulation period. Since Piper is a post-tribulationalist (one who believes that the Rapture occurs after the Tribulation), maybe he feels that he doesn't need to make this distinction. However, doesn't Piper still believe in the Rapture as a separate event in that it is specifically related to the church, regardless of when it occurs? Thus, I would say that it would still be helpful for him to distinguish between the Rapture, which has to do specifically with the church, and the more general Second Coming of Christ to the earth, which has to do more broadly with the rest of humanity living on earth at that time. Piper would do well to follow the apostle Paul's admonition in 2 Timothy 2:15, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (NKJV). So for example, Piper quotes Matthew 25:31-32. This passage of Scripture has to do with "all the nations" (v. 32), not the church (i.e. not the Rapture). These nations will be judged in regards to how they treated Israel and individual Israelites, whom Christ refers to in the passage as "My brethren" (v. 40). This distinction between the Jews, the Gentiles (the nations), and the church is important, and one which the apostle Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 10:32 when he says: "Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God" (KJV). Piper would do well to also make this biblical distinction in regards to the Second Coming of Christ, but unfortunately, he does not.

Review of Chapter 9:

Chapter 9 of Piper's book is about repentance. How does this apply to the coronavirus? Piper says: "The coronavirus is God's thunderclap call for all of us to repent and realign our lives with the infinite worth of Christ."⁷³ Piper goes on to say: "The coronavirus is not unique as a call to repentance. In fact, all natural disasters—whether floods, famines, locusts, tsunamis, or diseases—are God's painful and merciful summons to repent."⁷⁴ To support this premise, Piper quotes the words of Jesus in Luke 13:1-5 to show "that the meaning of these disasters is for everyone. And the message is 'Repent, or perish.' He says it twice: 'Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish' (Luke 13:3).⁷⁵ 'Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish' (13:5)." I don't necessarily disagree with Piper on this particular point; however, I wrote in the margin next to his statement: "What does it mean to repent?"

In the next section Piper goes on to ask, "What was Jesus doing?"⁷⁶ Piper summarizes Jesus' answer in Luke 13:1-5 by saying: "I infer that God has a merciful message in all such disasters. The message is that we are all sinners, bound for destruction, and disasters are a gracious summons from God to repent and be saved while there is still time. Jesus turned from the dead to the living and essentially said, 'Let's not talk about the dead; let's talk about you. This is more urgent. What happened to them is about you. Your biggest issue is not their sin but your sin.' I think that's God's message for the world in this coronavirus outbreak. He is calling the world to repentance while there's still time."⁷⁷ I actually agree with Piper on this point. To use a popular metaphor, I think "he hit the nail on the head". In other words, I think he is exactly right. This is a good example of what I said in the opening paragraph of this review about how I have mixed feelings about this book. Sometimes Piper hits the nail square on the head, but other times he completely misses the nail altogether!

The next section in Piper's book is titled: "WHAT DOES REPENTANCE MEAN?"⁷⁸ I found Piper's answer very interesting. He writes: "Let's be more specific. What does repentance mean? The word in the New Testament means a change of heart and mind."⁷⁹ Yes, this is true; this is the actual meaning of the word in the New Testament. If Piper would have stopped there everything would be fine. But unfortunately he feels it necessary to give the meaning of repentance a theological twist in that he goes on to say, "Not a superficial change of opinion, but a deep transformation so that we perceive and prize God and Jesus for who they really are."⁸⁰ This qualification is Piper's theological interpretation of repentance, not the actual meaning of the word in the New Testament. Piper then quotes the words of Jesus in Matthew 22:37 ("You shall love the LORD your God with all you heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind") and Matthew 10:37 ("He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me") and says, "In other words, the most fundamental change of heart and mind that repentance calls for is to treasure God with all that you are and to treasure Jesus more than all other relations."⁸¹ It's important to notice that in Matthew 22:37, Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 6:5. In other words, in Matthew 22:37 Jesus is quoting the Old Testament Mosaic Law! This is obvious from the context of the passage, because in verse 37 Jesus is answering the question of the Pharisees, "Teacher, which is the great commandment of the Law?" (v. 36). My point is this: It's quite telling that Piper makes keeping the greatest of the Ten Commandments (i.e. "You shall love the Lord your God") his new definition of repentance! This simply proves my point of what I've said elsewhere in regards to Lordship Salvation: Piper's theologically driven definition of repentance "highlights how Lordship Salvation is law [see Matt. 22:37-40], not grace. I think people need to realize that Lordship Salvation is a works-based system of bondage where God's 'grace' is only doled out to those who measure up to and maintain some standard of good works. [I.e., Do you love Christ supremely? If so, then you qualify for 'grace'.] So in essence, Lordship Salvation is a 'pay to play' system of salvation reserved only for those who are willing to pay the ultimate price of full submission and total commitment to Christ's Lordship." In the book of Galatians, the apostle Paul highlights how "the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, 'He who practices them shall live by them" (Gal. 3:12). Notice how this principle applies to Piper's definition of repentance. Piper stipulates that to "love the Lord your God with all your heart" is the meaning of repentance.⁸² But what does the Bible say? In Acts chapter 8 (verses 35-38), when the Ethiopian eunuch wanted to get water baptized, Philip wanted to first make sure that the man was truly saved. What did Philip say to him? Did he say, "If you 'love the Lord your God with all your heart' you may"?⁸³ Does Philip make keeping one of the Ten Commandments a condition for salvation? Notice how Philip answered the eunuch in Acts 8:37: "If you believe with all your heart you may." Not "if you 'love the Lord your God with all your heart' you may," but "If you believe with all your heart you may." There is a vast difference between the two! The one is Law, the other is Grace.

Ironically, Piper goes on to say: "The reason all of us deserve to perish is not a list of rules we have broken, but an infinite value we have scorned—the infinite value of all that God is for us in Jesus Christ."⁸⁴ Although at first glance this may sound good, what does Piper mean by it? Looking at the context of what he's just said about repentance, it becomes obvious that what Piper means by "an infinite value we have scorned" is that all of us deserve to perish, not because we have not believed on the Lord Jesus Christ (Jn. 16:8-9; Acts 16:31), but rather because we have not loved Him supremely! Thus in effect, Piper is changing the condition of salvation from believing to loving. So although Piper says, "The reason all of us deserve to perish is not a list of rules we have broken,"⁸⁵ actually Piper does make rule-keeping essential for salvation, because he boils them all down to just one commandment that is necessary to keep, namely the greatest of the commandments, which in effect "fulfill" all the rest!⁸⁶ However, the apostle Paul makes it clear that no one is justified before God by keeping the Law. That is to say, no one is saved by loving God supremely, no one is saved by treasuring Jesus more than all other relations (as Piper suggests), "For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are" (Rom. 3:20, NLT). We all "fall short" of God's perfect standard (Rom. 3:23); no one is able to love Jesus supremely. If that's how a person is saved, none of us would ever make it! Thank God the Bible says that we are "justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24).

Piper goes on in the last section of the chapter to say, "This is what it means to repent: to experience a change of heart and mind that treasures God in Christ more than life."⁸⁷ So here again Piper is giving the meaning of repentance a Calvinistic twist. He's including good works ("treasuring God in Christ more than life", i.e. loving Christ supremely) in his definition of repentance, when in reality, the word in the New Testament simply means a change of heart or mind, and this occurs when a person believes in Christ.⁸⁸

Review of Chapter 10:

Chapter 10 in the book is titled "Creating Good Works in Danger". In answer to the question, "What is God doing through the coronavirus?" Piper gives the following answer in chapter 10: "The coronavirus is God's call to his people to overcome self-pity and fear, and with courageous joy, to do the good works of love that glorify God."⁸⁹ Piper then begins by saying: "Jesus taught His followers to 'let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven' (Matt. 5:16)."⁹⁰ Piper makes a lot of good points in this chapter. The main critique that I would give is that it would have been helpful if Piper would have provided some personal or first-hand examples of these "good works of love that glorify God" from his own experience. For example, commenting on Luke 14:13-14, Piper says: "Hope in God beyond death ('you will be repaid at the resurrection') sustains and empowers good deeds that hold no prospect for reward in this life. The same would hold true for good deeds that put us in danger, especially the danger of death."⁹¹ Notice that Piper talks about doing "good deeds that put us in danger".⁹² This sounds great, but does Piper have any examples of this from his own personal life? Unfortunately, Piper never says. Instead, he immediately jumps to a new paragraph with the heading: "HOW PETER APPLIED JESUS'S TEACHING".⁹³ When I first read this in Piper's book, I circled the word "PETER" and wrote in the margin: "What about Piper? I.e., How has Piper applied Jesus' teaching?" In other words, I'd be very interested to hear how Piper has applied Jesus' teaching in his own life, specifically in terms of doing "good deeds that put us in danger, especially the danger of death."⁹⁴ I think it would lend a lot of credibility to what he says. By not sharing any personal examples of how he's gotten involved to help others during the pandemic, he comes across as if he lives in a bubble or in an "ivory tower"⁹⁵ isolated from the outside world, completely out-of-touch with the real suffering going on around him. Not that we shouldn't look to the Bible for examples, we should! But how is it affecting you? How has it changed your life? How are you getting involved? How are you living out the words of Jesus when He said, "let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven"?

Piper then goes on to talk about the "EXAMPLE OF THE EARLY CHURCH".⁹⁶ He makes the point that the early church took action to care for the sick and the poor, in spite of the dangers. Quoting Rodney Stark from his book The Triumph of Christianity, Piper writes:

"Two great plagues struck the Roman Empire in AD 165 and 251. Outside of the Christian church, there was no cultural or religious foundation for mercy and sacrifice. 'There was no belief that the gods cared about human affairs.' And 'mercy was regarded as a character defect and pity as a pathological emotion: because mercy involves providing unearned help or relief, it is contrary to justice.' Therefore while a third of the empire was perishing from disease, physicians fled to their country estates. Those with symptoms were cast out of homes. Priests forsook the temples. But Stark observes, 'Christians claimed to have answers and, most of all, they took appropriate actions."⁹⁷

Piper goes on to say, "As for the actions, large numbers of Christians cared for the sick and the dying."⁹⁸ In regards to the example of the early church, I do appreciate the good historical context and precedent which Piper provides in this section. My only critique is, as I mentioned, what about first-hand examples from Piper's own life and ministry? What about examples from the present-day church? Unfortunately, Piper doesn't provide any. I think this would have been very helpful and it would have really strengthened the points that he makes in this section and in the book in general.

In the last section of the chapter, Piper continues the main thought of the chapter and says, "There is no contradiction between seeing the coronavirus as God's act and calling Christians to take risks to alleviate the suffering that it causes."⁹⁹ Piper goes on to say that God "has ordained that his people seek to rescue the perishing, even though he is the one who has appointed the judgment of perishing. God himself came into the world in Jesus Christ to rescue people from his own just judgment (Rom. 5:9). That is what the cross of Christ means."¹⁰⁰ In the next paragraph, Piper actually does give one example of how he has personally gotten involved, and does mention generally what Christians can do. He writes: "Therefore, the good deeds of God's people will include prayers for the healing of the sick and for God to stay his hand and turn back the pandemic, and that he would provide a cure. We pray about the coronavirus, and we work to alleviate its suffering".¹⁰¹ This is good. I like how Piper shared a personal example (i.e. prayer) even though he didn't provide much, if any, detail.¹⁰² Piper then goes on to close the chapter by saying: "God has his work to do—much of it secret. We have ours. If we trust him and obey his word, he will cause his sovereignty and our service to accomplish his wise and good purposes."¹⁰³ When I first read these statements in Piper's book, I underlined the words: "We have ours" (i.e. we have our work to do) and I wrote in the margin: "What is it?" In other words, after writing a chapter on "Creating Good Works in Danger", it would have been really helpful if Piper would have provided some concrete ways and/or suggestions on how people can get involved serving others during the pandemic. Prayer is a good starting point and almost goes without saying, but as my dad often says, "we have to put feet to our prayers." And "we have to step out in faith." Someone has famously said: "When a farmer prays for a crop, sometimes God answers by giving him a hoe." In other words, it's good to pray, but God also calls us to get involved. It would have been nice if Piper would have given some specific ways, in addition to praying, to get involved to help people during the pandemic. Dr. J. Vernon McGee said it quite well when he wrote the following in an article about prayer: "It is the entire life behind the words spoken that makes prayer effective. There was a famous preacher years ago who had many very unusual expressions. One of them was this: 'When a man prays for a corn crop, God expects him to say 'Amen' with a hoe.' You can't just stay on your knees all the time and pray for a corn crop. That's pious nonsense. But to pray for the corn crop, then go to work, is the thing our Lord is talking about in days when men's hearts are failing them."¹⁰⁴

Review of Chapter 11:

Chapter 11 in the book is titled "Loosening Roots to Reach the Nations". In answer to the question, "What is God doing through the coronavirus?",¹⁰⁵ Piper in this chapter gives the following answer: "In the coronavirus God is loosening the roots of settled Christians, all over the world, to make them free for something new and radical and to send them with the gospel of Christ to the unreached peoples of the world."¹⁰⁶ Piper goes on to give the example of Stephen from the early church, and how his martyrdom (Acts 7:60) resulted in a greater spread of the gospel (Acts 8:1-4). Piper doesn't mention this, but I think it would have been fitting to include the statement by Tertullian when he said, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." Piper goes on to talk more generally about how apparent setbacks to the spread of the gospel actually result in strategic advances for the cause of Christ. Piper gives the example of how on January 6, 1985, a Bulgarian pastor was arrested and put in prison for preaching in his church without a license. When he got out of prison he wrote, "Both prisoners and jailers asked many questions, and it turned out that we had a more fruitful ministry there than we could have expected in church. God was better served by our presence in prison that if we had been free."¹⁰⁷ This makes me think of a similar incident that happened in China with Brother Yun, "the heavenly man".¹⁰⁸ I'm sure there are many similar examples that could be given. Piper concludes by saying, "This is often God's way. The global scope and seriousness of the coronavirus is too great for God to waste. It will serve his invincible global purpose of world evangelization. Christ has not shed his blood in vain. And Revelation 5:9 says that by that blood he ransomed 'people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.' He will have the reward of his suffering. And even pandemics will serve to complete the Great Commission."¹⁰⁹ When I first read this in Piper's book, I underlined that last sentence and wrote in the margin: "any examples?" That is to say, it would have been helpful, I think, if Piper would have given some present-day examples of how God is using specifically the coronavirus to spread the gospel to the world. I also have a comment specifically in regards to when Piper says, "The global scope and seriousness of the coronavirus is too great for God to waste."¹¹⁰ The way Piper worded that sentence (especially when he says that the global scope and seriousness of the pandemic is "too great for God to waste") almost makes it sound like it happened by chance and it's good luck for God and He had better take advantage of it before the opportunity slips away. Of course, if God is sovereign (especially in the way that Piper portrays it), none of that makes sense. It's inconsistent with what he actually believes and therefore it probably should be reworded. I do agree with Piper that God is using the coronavirus for His good and wise purposes, and for a greater advance of the gospel. But in regards to the gospel, one thing that I noticed in reading through this chapter is that Piper fails to distinguish between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of the grace of God. For example, commenting on Acts 8:1-4, Piper writes: "At last, 'Judea and Samaria' were hearing the gospel. God's ways are not our ways. But his mission is sure. Jesus said so. And his word cannot fail. 'I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' (Matt. 16:18). 'This gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations' (Matt. 24:14). Not 'may be proclaimed.' But 'will be proclaimed.'"¹¹¹ Piper fails to make a distinction between the "gospel of the kingdom" (offered specifically to the Jews, Matt. 10:5-6, cf. 15:24), and the gospel of the grace of God, offered to the whole world (both Jews and Gentiles, Rom. 1:16). This distinction between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of the grace of God is important because it has to do with "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15, KJV). Commenting on "The gospel of the kingdom, spoken of in Matthew 24:14,"¹¹² William R. Newell resolutely states: "this 'gospel of the kingdom,' which must be preached in the whole world' before 'the end' can come, has nothing to do with the Church and its blessed gospel."¹¹³ Lewis Sperry Chafer similarly writes: "This good news to that nation [Israel] was the 'gospel of the kingdom,' and should in no wise be confused with the Gospel of saving grace."¹¹⁴

Review of "A Closing Prayer":

After chapter 11, Piper gives a short two-page closing prayer.¹¹⁵ I read through the prayer several times, and actually I think it is quite a powerful prayer! I even tried to find things that I might disagree with in the prayer, but I found that I didn't disagree with anything. In the book's margin next to this prayer, I wrote: "good closing prayer, a nice touch, fitting, apropos, appropriate".

Thus, overall, I found the beginning and ending of Piper's book to be the best parts of it. This is why I give his book a mixed review. It is as the apostle Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, "Examine everything; hold fast to what is good."

Review of the "Notes":

After Piper's closing prayer, there is a single page of endnotes (12 in total), consisting of seven different works cited.¹¹⁶ To me, this seems to indicate that Piper did not intend for this book to be a heavy theological treatise (although his Calvinistic theology, for example, comes through "loud and clear" at times!), but instead it's written in a more devotional style.

Review of the "Scripture Index":

I found the Scripture index quite helpful. I always appreciate it when a book has a Scripture index. To me, it shows an extra level of care and attention to detail on the part of the author/publisher. The Scripture index in Piper's book seems to be quite extensive; it takes up five pages.¹¹⁷ There are 15 books from the Old Testament that are cited or quoted, and 21 books from the New Testament that are cited or quoted. The three most cited or quoted books of the Bible in Piper's book are:

1) Romans – cited or quoted 26 times

2) Psalms – cited or quoted 22 times

3) Matthew – cited or quoted 19 times

I'm not surprised that Piper cites or quotes from the Gospel of Matthew more than (for example) the Gospel of John, which is cited or quoted only 7 times in Coronavirus and Christ. I've noticed that Lordship Salvationists base their theological beliefs heavily on the Law teachings of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew,¹¹⁸ but those teachings are actually to the Jews. Someone has well said, "Although all the Bible is written for us, it's not all written directly to us." Matthew was written primarily to the Jews. Whereas the Gospel of John, for example, was written "to the church as a whole and to the world at large."¹¹⁹ John in his Gospel presents Jesus as the Son of God, "full of grace and truth" (Jn. 1:14). These are key distinctions which are important in order to "rightly divide the Word" (2 Tim. 2:15). By failing to make this biblical distinction between Law and Grace, Lordship Salvationists in effect make the requirements of the Law (i.e. loving God supremely, Matt. 22:34-40) conditions for salvation, when in fact the Law was never designed for that purpose (Rom. 3:20). Similarly, in regards to the Christian life, by applying the Kingdom teachings of Jesus to church-age believers, Lordship Salvationists in effect put Christians today back under the Law (i.e. "do and you shall live"¹²⁰) as a rule of life. But the great truth given in the book of Romans, the truth which Martin Luther realized, and the truth which sparked the Protestant Reformation, is that, as the Apostle Paul says in Romans 1:17: "But the one who is righteous by faith shall live"!¹²¹ It's interesting that in Coronavirus and Christ, although Piper highlights the teachings of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount on three or four different occasions, and he quotes from the book of Romans more than any other book of the Bible, yet in regards to Romans 1:17 Piper never once mentions it.¹²²

Appendix 1:

GOD SENT A CLEANER

"Man Was Dying of COVID 19, Then God Sent a Cleaner"¹²³

The following testimony is not included in Piper's book. I'm including it here to highlight just how powerful it can be when someone shares a real-life personal experience of what God has done in their life, in contrast to simply giving a textbook answer to the question, "What is God doing through the coronavirus?"

This is one of the most powerful testimonials that I've ever heard in regards to someone almost dying from the coronavirus and how God worked a miracle to bring this individual safely through the crisis. In the testimony that follows, a pastor shares his personal experience from when he was in the ICU with COVID-19, and what happened when "God sent a cleaner":

"It was two nights particularly in the hospital when I honestly didn't know whether I would make it or not. I was under incredible pressure and I thought I was moments away from ending up on a ventilator. And the nurses and the doctors had helped me with all sorts of things, and got drips up and all that they needed to do, but I remember those nights particularly really crying out to the Lord and asked him to help me, and asked him to even supernaturally just do something that would encourage me and bring me through, and I remember the next day I had a night from hell, and you got to understand this, in the isolation ward, when no one else can get in, when no one else, no pastor, no friend, no family members, when no one else was allowed in, God sent a cleaner. And all of a sudden this cleaner had come in, and he was like a ray of sunshine, and he began to chat then and he asked me how I was, and he began to talk to me and say to me about hanging in there. And then we got to chatting and we got talking and he turned around and he said to me that he was a missionary in Nigeria for 14 years, and he began to tell me how God had saved many, many souls through his ministry. And just this last couple of years he had found himself back home in Northern Ireland, and he's encouraging my heart, and he's telling me about souls, and about the love of Jesus, and the love of God, and I'm just sitting going 'Wow!' When God needs to reach you, He knows exactly who is the right person, and in that moment of time it was a cleaner. When no one else could get in, God sent a cleaner. He left that day and he says this as he stood at the door, he says, 'Son, can I pray for you?' I says 'Absolutely.' And as he began to pray at the door, he couldn't touch me. And as he began to pray at the door, he began to ask God the Holy Ghost to visit me. He began to ask God to heal my body, and touch my lungs. He stood at that doorway and he pleaded with God-Almighty to spare my life and to continue to use me. And then he left. And what was incredible was that after he left, he periodically would walk past my window and give me a thumbs up. That night I remember it started to turn around. Could it have been the prayer of a cleaner? That night I began to desire a packet of Prawn Cocktail Crisps keto. Because no one could get them, I says, 'Lord, is it possible that you could get me a packet of Prawn Cocktail Crisps and a can of Coke?' Because that night I began to turn [and I began to have an appetite]. The next morning, the cleaner came. He brought in a bag, and in that bag was two oranges, a can of Coke, and a packet of Prawn Cocktail Crisps! Don't tell me that God doesn't know. God knows our every need. He knows every desire. And he just passed the bag through the door; he couldn't come in. And he just says, 'It's a gift from the Lord.' And I sat up, and I had them crisps. God is a God, folks, who is personal. He knows the deepest desires of our hearts. He knows what we have need of. And I want to encourage you out there today, God knows what you have need of. He knows your heart's desire. He is an incredible Savior. Never underestimate what God can do with you."

FOOTNOTES

¹ John Piper, Coronavirus and Christ (Wheaton: Crossway, 2020), p. 7.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid., p. 8.

⁵ Piper believes in a post-tribulation Rapture of the Church. Thus, he equates the Rapture with the Second Coming of Christ to the earth.

⁶ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, pp. 13-14.

⁷ Ibid., pp. 15-16, emphasis his.

⁸ See Coronavirus and Christ, p. 21, where Piper says, “My voice is grass. God’s voice is granite.”

⁹ Ibid., p. 22.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 22.

¹¹ Later in the book Piper does point to Romans 8:35-39 as a passage of Scripture that applies to the coronavirus (see Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, pp. 47-48).

¹² Ibid., p. 22.

¹³ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 23, emphasis his.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 23.

¹⁵ Ibid., pp. 23-24.

¹⁶ For example, in answer to the question “How do you know that the Bible is the word of God?” (Ibid., p. 23), Piper points out the following reasons: because of personal experience (pp. 23-27), because it is powerful (pp. 24-26), because it testifies of Jesus Christ (pp. 24-26), because of its influence (pp. 25-26), because of the testimony of Jesus (p. 27), because it claims to be the Word of God (p. 27), because it is without error (p. 27). Note: In the book, Piper just sort of dumps these reasons out in a jumbled mess; he does not outline and arrange them point by point.

¹⁷ Ibid., p. 26.

¹⁸ For an example, see Appendix 1: GOD SENT A CLEANER.

¹⁹ See Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 43, where Piper says in a passing comment: “I have at least one relative infected with the coronavirus.” Unfortunately Piper does not elaborate. It would have been interesting (and I think helpful) if Piper would have shared more about this. For example, what did Piper say to this relative, if anything? And what transpired? Or if Piper did not have an opportunity to speak with this relative (or to reach out to this person), what did Piper think about saying to him or her? Or what did Piper want to say to this person? Or do for this person? What feelings did Piper have in regards to one of his relatives being infected with the virus? And what happened to this person? What was the outcome? Did this person survive the virus or not? That Piper says nothing about it is striking. It almost would have been better if he had not mentioned it at all, because mentioning it only brings up more unanswered questions. People generally don’t like to be left in complete suspense.

²⁰ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 31.

²¹ Ibid., p. 32.

²² Ibid., p. 35, capital letters his. Note: In the book, the paragraph heading is also in bold print.

²³ Ibid., p. 35.

²⁴ Ibid., p. 35.

²⁵ Ibid., p. 64.

²⁶ Ibid., pp. 37-43.

²⁷ Ibid., p. 37. Note: Piper had mentioned this briefly in Chapter 2 (see p. 22), but it was just a passing comment. He did not elaborate on it there as he does here in Chapter 4.

²⁸ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 37, ellipsis his. Note: I added quotation marks around Piper’s quotation of Ruth 1:20-21.

²⁹ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 38, capital letters his. Note: In the book the paragraph heading is also in bold print.

³⁰ Ibid., p. 38, emphasis his.

³¹ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 39, emphasis his.

³² Ibid., p. 40, emphasis his. Note: Piper’s statement appears under the heading: “ALL-PERVASIVE SOVEREIGNTY”.

³³ Ibid., p. 50.

³⁴ Pastor James A. Scudder often used to make statements to this effect on his Victory In Grace TV and radio broadcast. To cite just one example from his book Forever With God (p. 32), Scudder says: “When Jesus died on the cross, His blood flowed freely. There was no blood clot on the cross. He said whosoever will can take of the water of life freely. What a wonderful promise! His blood did not flow just to a few groups of people and skip the rest of the world. His blood flowed to everyone.”

³⁵ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 45.

³⁶ Ibid., pp. 45-46, emphasis his.

³⁷ See Ibid., p. 40, emphasis his.

³⁸ Ibid., p. 46.

³⁹ Ibid., p. 47.

⁴⁰ See Ibid., p. 40, emphasis his.

⁴¹ Ibid., pp. 49-50.

⁴² Dr. B. Myron Cedarholm, the founder of Maranatha Baptist Bible College in Watertown, Wisconsin, made the follow statements about Calvinism to students during a chapel service: “My dear young people, the bell has rung and it's time to quit, but I trust there will not be a one of you that will ever be a Calvinist and hold to the five points of John Calvin. I can stand here I suppose for many hours and tell you why it is so dangerous, but I do believe it denies the Bible, it denies your zeal for winning souls, and destroys your desire to pray for souls, and destroys missions...and we do believe that Calvinism destroys new churches...Calvinism ruins the desire to see people saved, [and to] start new churches...it destroys sacrificial giving, it destroys the challenge of young people to go into the Lord's work...and so as a result we find it destroys preachers, it destroys evangelism, it destroys churches, it destroys missions, it helps to destroy everything that is in God's precious Word. So I trust by the grace of God that you'll stay away from Calvinism, and you'll be one who believes that every man can be saved when they hear the gospel of Jesus Christ and you'll persevere by prayer, and work, and witnessing until they come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Cedarholm, “Calvinism,” [1981], Note: The link here is to the mp3 sermon audio:

https://web.archive.org/web/20161230152321/fundamentalbaptistsermons.net/Audio/CedarholmBMyronCalvinism1981.mp3 [time stamp: 34:53 - 37:00 minutes; last accessed July 3, 2022].)

⁴³ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 55.

⁴⁴ While it is true that “the king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, like rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes” (Prov. 21:1, NKJV), it is equally true that people can “harden” their hearts (see 2 Chron. 36:13; Psa. 95:8; Dan. 5:20; Zech. 7:12; Matt. 19:7-8; Mk. 6:52, 8:17, 10:4-5, 16:14; Eph. 4:18; Heb. 3:15, etc.), as did Pharoah in the Old Testament. In this case, the “rivers of water” in the hand of the Lord become like ice, hard and immovable. Bruce Demarest (a Calvinst) makes a very insightful comment in regards to this when he writes: “Some allege that the approximately ten references to God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Exod 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; et al.) support the thesis of unconditional reprobation to damnation. But prior to mentioning the divine hardening, Scripture indicates that Pharaoh freely opposed God’s purposes (Exod 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 34, 35; et al.; cf. 13:15; 1 Sam 6:6). The Bible does not explain the nature of the hardening, but it appears that God’s role was that of confirming Pharaoh’s decisions rather than predetermining them....The hardening thus represents God’s punishment of Pharaoh for rejecting God’s good purposes.” (Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, p. 135.) Similarly, J. Vernon McGee has well said: “There never will be a person in hell who did not choose to be there, my friend. You are the one who makes your own decision.” (McGee, Romans Chapters 9-16, p. 32.) John Piper takes a different view of all this, in that he believes in the Calvinistic doctrine of “double predestination”, that God both unconditionally elects some people to heaven, and others he unconditionally elects to hell. (For more information concerning Piper’s beliefs on this, I would direct the reader’s attention to his podcast: “Does God Predestinate People to Hell?”, https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/does-god-predestine-people-to-hell.)

⁴⁵ John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, translated by William Pringle (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1854), p. 206, italics his.

⁴⁶ F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Ephesians (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1961), p. 34.

⁴⁷ Augustine, “The Christian Conflict”, Excerpted from A Library of Father of the Holy Catholic Church (London: Oxford, 1847), p. 167.

⁴⁸ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 60.

⁴⁹ Ibid., p. 61, emphasis his.

⁵⁰ Ibid., p. 61.

⁵¹ Ibid., p. 40, emphasis his.

⁵² Ibid., p. 61.

⁵³ Ibid., p. 40, emphasis his.

⁵⁴ Ibid., p. 61.

⁵⁵ This is a good example of where Calvinism comes up short: it cannot and does not provide straight answers from the Bible to some of the most basic theological questions, such as this one (in regards to Romans 5:12 and the entrance of sin into the world) and others like it, such as: “How can a good God show partiality in choosing some sinners for salvation and others for damnation?” The Bible says that God does not show partiality (see Acts 10:34; James 2:9), but Calvinism makes it evident that He does.

⁵⁶ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 64.

⁵⁷ Ibid., p. 69.

⁵⁸ Ibid., p. 64.

⁵⁹ Piper makes a statement later in his book which supports my premise that embracing Christ as one’s supreme treasure is really Christian life truth, not how to be born again. The statement that I’m referring to is found in chapter 9 of the book, when Piper says in regards to 2 Corinthians 12:9, “Why is Paul willing to embrace his thorn with gladness? Because his greatest goal in life is that Christ be magnified in his body whether by life or by death (Phil. 1:20). To see the beauty of Christ, to cherish Christ as his supreme treasure, to show Christ to the world as better than health and life—that was Paul’s joy.” (Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 85.) Again, all this has to do with the Christian life, not how to be born again.

⁶⁰ Ibid., p. 66, emphasis his.

⁶¹ C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, p. 93.

⁶² Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, pp. 81-82. Note: The statement by C. S. Lewis that Piper quotes is from Lewis’ book The Weight of Glory: And Other Addresses (1949; repr., New York: Harper, 2009).

⁶³ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 69, emphasis his.

⁶⁴ Ibid.

⁶⁵ Ibid., p. 70.

⁶⁶ Ibid., p. 71.

⁶⁷ Ibid., p. 70, emphasis his.

⁶⁸ When the Bible says that “the righteous are barely saved” (1 Pet. 4:18, NET Bible), it makes me think of the example of Lot in the Old Testament. Although not part of the New Testament church, he was an Old Testament believer (Peter calls him “a righteous man,” see 2 Peter 2:7), but God’s angel had to practically drag Lot out of Sodom because he “hesitated” to leave. See Genesis 19:15-22.

⁶⁹ Calvinists call it “The Perseverance of the Saints”. In the acronym T.U.L.I.P. describing the five main points of the Calvinistic belief system, the “Perseverance of the Saints” doctrine is designated by the letter “P”. This doctrine of Calvinism teaches that all true Christians will persevere to the end of their earthly lives in good works and faithfulness to God.

⁷⁰ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 72, emphasis his.

⁷¹ Ibid., p. 60.

⁷² Ibid., p. 73, italics his.

⁷³ Ibid., p. 77, italics his.

⁷⁴ Ibid.

⁷⁵ Ibid., p. 79, emphasis his.

⁷⁶ Ibid., p. 79.

⁷⁷ Ibid., p. 80, emphasis his.

⁷⁸ Ibid., capital letters and emphasis his. Note: In the book the heading is also in bold print.

⁷⁹ Ibid.

⁸⁰ Ibid.

⁸¹ Ibid., pp. 80-81.

⁸² Ibid., p. 80.

⁸³ It’s clear from Philip’s response that he practiced “believer’s baptism”. That is to say, water baptism is for believers after they’re saved, it’s not a requirement in order to get saved.

⁸⁴ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 81.

⁸⁵ Ibid., p. 81.

⁸⁶ See Matthew 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-31; Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14.

⁸⁷ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 86.

⁸⁸ For more information see my article: “The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians”.

⁸⁹ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 87, italics his.

⁹⁰ Ibid., p. 87.

⁹¹ Ibid., p. 88-89.

⁹² Ibid., p. 89, emphasis added.

⁹³ Ibid., p. 89, capital letters his. Note: In the book the paragraph heading is also in bold print.

⁹⁴ Ibid., p. 89.

⁹⁵ The Cambridge English Dictionary gives the following definition for “ivory tower”: “To live or be in an ivory tower is not to know about or to want to avoid the ordinary and unpleasant things that happen in people’s lives.” Oxford Languages dictionary similarly has this definition for “ivory tower”: “a state of privileged seclusion or separation from the facts and practicalities of the real world.”

⁹⁶ Piper, Coronavirus or Christ, p. 91, capital letters his. Note: In the book the paragraph heading is also in bold print.

⁹⁷ Ibid., p. 91, italics original.

⁹⁸ Ibid., p. 92, italics his.

⁹⁹ Ibid., p. 93.

¹⁰⁰ Ibid.

¹⁰¹ Ibid., p. 94.

¹⁰² Piper does provide a closing prayer at the end of the book (see Ibid., pp. 99-100).

¹⁰³ Ibid., p. 94.

¹⁰⁴ J. Vernon McGee, “What Jesus Said About Prayer”. https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mcgee_j_vernon/eBooks/what-jesus-said-about-prayer.cfm

¹⁰⁵ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 60.

¹⁰⁶ Ibid., p. 95, italics his.

¹⁰⁷ Ibid., pp. 97-98.

¹⁰⁸ For more information see the book by Brother Yun and Paul Hattaway, The Heavenly Man (Oxford: Monarch Books).

¹⁰⁹ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 98.

¹¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹¹ Ibid., pp. 96-97, emphasis his.

¹¹² William R. Newell, Hebrews Verse-By-Verse (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1995), p. 486. Note: This book was originally published in Chicago by Moody Press, 1947.

¹¹³ Ibid., p. 489, emphasis his.

¹¹⁴ Chafer, Grace (Findlay, OH: Dunham Publishing Company, 1922), p. 132; cf. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 4, p. 173.

¹¹⁵ Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, pp. 99-100.

¹¹⁶ Ibid., p. 101.

¹¹⁷ Ibid., pp. 102-106.

¹¹⁸ For example, John MacArthur writes the following in the Preface to the Anniversary Edition of his book The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008): “Thirty years ago (in January of 1978) I began preaching through the gospel of Matthew verse by verse. That series lasted seven and a half years, comprising some 226 sermons—and Grace Community Church was dramatically changed in the process. The Sermon on the Mount was especially pivotal. By the time we finished Matthew 7, our congregation’s collective devotion to the authority and the seriousness of God’s Word was almost palpable. The whole congregation, it seemed, was infused with new vitality and an unshakable enthusiasm for the truth [of the Law, cf. Exodus 19:8]. Thankfully, nearly thirty years later, that spirit has still not diminished.

     What I learned from those years of study in Matthew also shaped the course of my subsequent ministry. Obviously, Matthew helped frame and clarify my understanding of many practical issues, such as prayer, the Christian character, and what it means to follow Christ. (The books I have written on the Lord’s Prayer, the Beatitudes, the crucifixion of Christ, and the twelve disciples all had their genesis in that series.) More significantly, however, those years in Matthew brought my doctrinal convictions into sharp focus and amplified several truths in my heart and mind that continue to be the backbone of everything I preach—starting, of course, with the gospel message itself.” (MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 9.)

¹¹⁹ Charles Bing, “Summary and Outline of John” (GraceLife, 2013), p. 2.

¹²⁰ That is, “Do (perfectly) and you will live.” [See Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11, 13, 21; Matt. 19:17b; Lk. 10:28; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:10; James 2:10.] Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount: “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20, ESV). Jesus went on to say: “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48, ESV). Of course, this is impossible (Psa. 53:2-3, 130:3; Prov. 20:9; Eccl. 7:20; Isa. 53:6, 64:6), and thus the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Romans, “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin” (Rom. 3:20, NIV; cf. Rom. 3:23).

¹²¹ This has been variously translated in the different English Bibles. The footnote on this text in the New American Standard Bible (the NASB 1977) renders it: “But he who is righteous by faith shall live.” The RSV says, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” The Good News Translation says, “The person who is put right with God through faith shall live.”

¹²² Piper talks about “the judgment of God that we see in Romans 1:18” (Piper, Coronavirus and Christ, p. 71), but he never mentions Romans 1:17.

¹²³ I’ve transcribed the man’s testimony word for word from the YouTube video, which can be seen here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp98cK4YIoM (April 7, 2020). His name is Lee McClelland, and he serves as Pastor at The Ark Church in Belfast, Northern Ireland.