Thanks for sharing. I am thinking about posting some excerpts in the future on this topic. I am glad to see that Piper has responded to Witherington’s charges. The issue of God’s intra-Trnitarian love is one I think deserves more discussion. Regarding “love” in general, I originally did a great deal of study on it when Ergun and Emir Caner posited a thesis for a debate with Tom Ascol and James White on the doctrine of “omnibenevolence.”

I too have enjoyed the discussion and hope that it continues.

This is something that has radically changed (and still is) the way I understand the character of God and how man relates to Him. That is, if true love consists only in God’s love for Himself, then the only way for a person to have true love is for them to share in the love that God has for Himself. Love is from God and for God. It is then not really man’s response to God but the working of God in the soul. Also, if God is the source of all love, then He must also be the ultimate end of all love or He would be an idolater. So grace is then a sharing or participation in the love God has for Himself (that both originates and terminates in Himself) through the Spirit. Though I don’t understand it very well, I think Jonathan Edwards’ view of this was something along the lines of God the Father having perfect love for God the Son, and vica-versa, and the Spirit being the love the flows between them. There are so many things to consider if one starts down this path (and I can barely wrap my mind around the beginnings of it), but given the discussion in these comments section I wonder if a series of posts on the love of God at some point would be very beneficial!

Some other things to consider is that I don’t think any of God’s attributes can be understood apart from His love. For example, what is His wrath but the effect of the love for His own Being displayed in His hatred for things contrary to Himself? Or can God’s holiness be understood apart from love? If He is set apart and “completely other,” (as some have put it), then for what purpose is He set apart? And how are we to be holy as He is holy? Could it be that He is set apart to love Himself perfectly as no other being can? Anyway, just some thoughts that were spurred by some of the comments here. I enjoyed the discussion.

As far as iMonk’s apposition of “Christian Humanist,” I cannot speculate, but I would like to mention something in that context. Regarding the Incarnation of Christ, many theologians have emphasized Jesus as the “Spirit anointed Christ” in that the life and ministry of Jesus was performed in the power of the Holy Spirit where his full humanity was on display. As such, the principle text brought up is Phil. 2:5-11 wherein the kenotic theory is seen as key to understanding the Spirit-anointed Christ (see Gerald Hawthorne’s The Presence and the Power). The great benefit derived from emphasizing the Incarnation is that we can relate to Jesus in his humanity, and that Jesus can relate to us. If Christ lived and ministered in the fullness of His deity, then it is argued that we cannot have meaningful relatability to our elder Brother who was made like us. Driscoll is a good example of emphasizing this (as is Dr. Bruce Ware).

I understand this thinking, but I do find some of it problematic. I would argue that we know God and ourselves in the light of being “in Christ.” This phrase, while it certainly includes the Incarnation, incorporates a panoramic view of the person and work of Christ that entails both the humiliation as well as exaltation of our Savior.

I do not know if that is anywhere in the ballpark of what the iMonk was referring to, but perhaps it is another corrective proffered to those who would marginalize the Incarnation (full humanity) of Christ in their theology.

You said,

But I really don’t think I’m canonizing Piper (or Edwards, really). It’s not as if I’m in a dark room, and believe uncritically that everything is where they tell me it is. Instead, they’ve just flipped on the light and now I can see what they see.

That’s a good point. No person comes to a text or develops a hermeneutic with a tabula rasa as the starting point. We all have presuppositions and apriori influences. It is best, however, that we recognize them for what they are, and be willing to disagree with them if or when the text shows them to be in error. Whatever tradition we come from or theological framework we develop, our approach should be one where Scripture can trump tradition if that tradition holds to beliefs wrongly interpreted or grounded elsewhere than God’s Word.

This reminds me of what Carson calls “distanciation” in his book Exegetical Fallacies where basically we must be willing to listen and allow interpretations outside our pre-determined convictions to be given due consideration. I am afraid that the temptation to stay under the horizon of our own tradition could not allow us to (at least) understand the perspectives of other believers (as in Witherington). In the end, I have attempted to deal fairly and accurately both my “tradition” (and presuppositions) as well as those who differ/disagree with me.

With that said, I readily admit that Piper and Schreiner are two men whom God has used to help me understand God’s Word. Like you, their scholarship has confirmed what I have come to see in my own study of Scripture. Yet their work is secondary and supplementary to my task of theological inquiry and exegetical analysis.

I think this is an incredibly important issue for Christians to think through. I think asked the right question–why do we love God? Because he first loved us right. God is glorious, therefore I love him. We begin with God’s essential character and move on from there. Of course there is a temptation to remove ourselves from the conversation altogether and neglect to emphasize important issues in Scripture such the fact that we are created in God’s image and that God displayed his love for us in giving up his son to the cross for us. But we must begin with a holy God who is worthy to be worshiped and who is deserving of all praise. When we rightly understand the emphasis of God’s holiness in Scripture we will better understand and appreciate the redemption we have in Christ.

That said, this comment by iMonk concerns me:
“This is why I call myself a Christian Humanist. The light of the incarnation is the light by which I know MYSELF as well as God.”

I don’t want to take this out of context but I am afraid that the incarnation is never set forth as the means by which we know God–we can know God because “Christ suffered once for sins the righteous for the unrighteous” (1 Peter 3:18). It bothers me when people cite the incarnation as the center of their theology–that God would take on human flesh is indeed an amazing thing, but we must not say that that act is sufficient for our redemption. God’s holiness is so bright and our sin was so heinous that God saw fit to execute his own dear son on a cross, pouring out his wrath on him in our stead. Our theology must not stem merely from the incarnation lest we become imbalanced and overly man-centered in our theology. We must consider the entire life, death, and resurrection of Christ by which our salvation is secured.

What other way are we to define love? There is no way of biblically defining it so that every instance and mention of it does not turn on God himself. He loves us because we are his creatures, created through his Son. He loves us because we’re his church, elected and redeemed in his Son. And who is the Son except the one who exists as the fulness of deity in bodily form, the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being? The entirety of the outworking of the universe and his plan for the fulness of time to unite all things in Christ is then by definition for God’s own sake.

I realize this is basically another sermon to a choir that could preach it. But I can’t see this any other way in the Bible. And maybe that makes this guy’s point more than anything. But I really don’t think I’m canonizing Piper (or Edwards, really). It’s not as if I’m in a dark room, and believe uncritically that everything is where they tell me it is. Instead ,they’ve just flipped on the light and now I can see what they see.

Think about the idea – God is glorious; therefore, we love him.

How do we know he is glorious? God opens our eyes to see him this way. God is not seen as glorious in the world; therefore, the world does not love Him. Yet, what makes us desire to know God and to love Him is his infinite worth (i.e. His glory). Is this not what Paul was thinking when he said that the god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God? (2 Cor. 4:4). The gospel is not a plan to get us to heaven; it is an awakening to the reality of God’s glory in Christ and our response in treasuring Him as such. And yet, our seeing God’s glory and treasuring Christ is only possible because of God who said “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6).

We do not love God unless he is glorious. If God prizes anything greater than His own glory, then we should not love Him.

Also, it is argued that a God who is passionate about His glory finds no place for man in salvation. Human beings are not seen as significant or possessing any dignity. Some handle this by saying that man can contribute to their salvation (synergism). I believe this view of salvation is faulty in a myriad of ways. However, can it be said that human beings are significant in the fact that God has given to us the greatest gift we could ever be given, viz. Himself? God has graciously revealed to us Himself in the giving of His Son that we might know Him and treasure Him. If God had given us anything less, He would not be loving, because what we needed the most is not to be praised but to be forgiven. Considering the gift and giver are altogether glorious, the fact that God would somehow include us in that pursuit of His glory is something that we are not entitled to but should be entirely grateful for. As the text at the top of this post reveals, we who are the recipients of God’s mercy should glorify God. Mercy is the means to the end – the glory of God.

Consider the lyrics to this song entitled “sovereign grace.”

Sovereign grace o’er sin abounding,
Waves of love in power swell;
‘Tis a deep that knows no sounding,
Who its breadth or length can tell?
On its glories, on its glories
Let my soul forever dwell.

Chorus:
Sovereign grace,
It reaches the depths of my sin
And kindles a fire within.
Lord, shed it anew
And fix all my passions on You
By sovereign grace.

What from Christ my soul can sever,
Bound by everlasting bands?
Once in Him, in Him forever
The eternal cov’nant stands;
None can pluck me, none can pluck me
From the Father’s mighty hands.

Heirs of God, joint heirs with Jesus,
Long ago this gift was won;
To His name eternal praises!
Oh! what wonders He has done!
One with Jesus, one with Jesus,
By eternal union one.

On such love I’ll ever ponder,
Love so great, so rich, so free;
Ever asking, lost in wonder,
Why, O Lord, such love to me?
Hallelujah, hallelujah,
Grace will reign eternally.

This kind of thinking I believe the iMonk has personally sought to challenge. If our Reformed brothers think that we should embrace the doctrine of justification as Piper sees is simply because he said it (Piper said it; I believe it; that settles it), then the iMonk crusade of correction is a worthy one. However, I am not as convinced that this is the case (at least not normatively).

I am very much personally indebted to Piper and Schreiner in my theology, but I cannot, I must not, give them any more a pass as I do Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd, or Roger Olson. And I do not think Piper, Shreiner, et al., would want to have it any other way.

With that said, I am a little taken back by the degree to which iMonk has pursued the critique of Piper (almost gleefully it seems). If the critique by Witherington is a preview of coming attractions, I am not convinced that the retorts to Piper’s theology will be all that convincing.

One of the biggest issues in contemporary theology is how to understand, interpret, and use the “love of God” in one’s theology. This is an important discussion, because universalists will use it to argue that all will be saved, inclusivists will use it to argue that most will be saved, Arminians use it to vouch for unlimited atonement, and on and on. But how does the love of God fit in Reformed theology–one that prizes the glory of God and God-centered theology?

One way to think about it is to say, “God is love, and therefore we should glorify him.”
Another way is to say, “God is glorious, and therefore we should love him.”

Is there any contradiction to these statements?

I would say “no.”

However, I do believe that many theologians today (especially in the Arminian tradition) are saying that love is God’s principle/chief attribute, and that all other attributes are secondary to this. This hermeneutical control certain regulates one’s theological formulation thenceforth. John Frame has noted this in his critique of Open Theism (I encourage you to check out his “perspectivalism” regarding God’s attributes). I agree with D.A. Carson who said,

“I do not think that what the Bible says about the love of God can long survive at the forefront of our thinking if it is abstracted from the sovereignty of God, the holiness of God, the wrath of God, the providence of God, or the personhood of God—to mention only a few nonnegotiable elements of basic Christianity.”

– D.A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2000), 11.

When I think of God’s glory, I think of the display of God’s manifold perfections, one of which is the love of God. When God’s love is seen and demonstrated, he is glorified. When God’s wrath is seen and demonstrated, he is glorified. God is no less glorious in his wrath than in his love. This idea, however, is detestable to many postmodern sensibilities. However, we must build our understanding of God and his schema of salvation from what he has revealed in Scripture. Again, Carson offers some good advice:

“Permit the various attributes and characteristics of God to function in your theology only in the ways in which they function in Scripture; never permit them to function in your theology in such a way that the primary data, the data of Scripture, are contradicted.”

– D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 286.

That’s the key. How does the attributes of God function in Scripture? In salvation? When it comes down to it, from God’s perspective (and that is what I am after – not Piper’s, Witherington’s, Schreiener’s, etc.), I am strongly persuaded that God does all things for His glory and His name’s sake. This by no means diminishes God’s love or the value we have as His creatures. There is no dichotomy here, but I do believe that God can display His glory in other excellencies than His love; however, God cannot demonstrate His love and not be glorious.