Receiving Christ as a Treasure: The Affectional Element of Saving Faith

[@stevewhite5560]

In the Westminster Confession of Faith we see the word "rest" associated with a saving faith. Rest is used there to help make it clear that rest is the opposite of work, the opposite of doing. It makes it clear that our saving faith is trusting Christ's work for us and includes no doing. Rest is a great word to communicate that.

[@paulfine5602]

Wow, Fesko seriously brings Piper's reading of the Reformers into question. Context!

[@HearGodsWord]

Such as?

[@paulfine5602]

@@HearGodsWord As in, Fesko demonstrates that the quotations by Calvin, Owen, and Turretin which Piper cites are not about saving faith. Rather, they are under the heading of sanctification. When they spoke of saving faith, they excluded love. The traditional, Reformed definition of Faith is knowledge, assent, and trust.

[@HearGodsWord]

@@paulfine5602 so love has no part in it? Not sure that would be Biblical.

[@paulfine5602]

@@HearGodsWord Friend, I would affirm that love IS a part of our right relationship toward God. Love, however, is not OF faith. If you go to 2:22:20, you will see that Fesko asks Dr. Piper, "how much joy/delight/love is enough?" Piper responds, "a mustard seed." Here, he quotes Matthew 17:20-21, where Christ is talking about faith. This is consistent for Piper, because he has included love as an essential, though perhaps not primary, part of faith. Therefore, when he is asked how much love is needed, he naturally responds with a passage about faith. This, however, is incorrect. We actually have Christ's explicit words about love, and it is an affirmation of God's righteous law given to Moses. The answer to "how much love is needed?" is, "You SHALL love the lord your God with" everything you have. It must be perfect love! This is also true for the love we must have for our neighbor, which Christ demonstrates with the parable of the good samaritan. Thus (sorry for the length), Piper has confused the Law (love GOD perfectly! Luke 10:27) with the Gospel (the grace of God is given THROUGH faith (NOT love) Ephesians 2:8. As a side note, the proper distinction between the Law and the Gospel are also Reformation distinctions. This is another example of how Piper is only nominally associated with "reformed" doctrine. What I mean is, he cherry picks the Canons of Dort (TULIP) but wants to jettison the rest.

[@HearGodsWord]

@@paulfine5602 I never heard him looking to jettison anything from there.

[@georgeluke6382]

Came here from the Doug Wilson Nuance podcast episode, and Pr. Joe Rigney's mention of this event. Thankful for Dr. Piper.

[@CaseyCovenant]

Me too!

[@TheDdacus]

Same

[@SilasJSantos]

What I missed in this discussion: 1. The definition of faith in Hebrew EMUNAH (firm & steadfast covenantal faithfulness found in God alone and freely given by Him alone and resting in His truthful guarantee of His promises.) and in Greek (PISTIS/PISTEYO) (God’s divine persuasion and faithfulness) could throw in a lot of clarity 2. The question: what is missing for the person who has only NOTITIA and ASCENSUS but not FIDUCIA can be answered by the WCF itself: it is the work of the Spirit of Christ. Nobody can have all three elements apart from His work, although they can get the first two. 3. Dr Piper’s definition of LOVE as the affection of treasuring Christ makes saving faith subjective. How much love does one need to have to be saved? Ops! That makes salvation by works 😮 It seems to me that the definition of love as “to prefer what God prefers” matches Jesus definition “if you love me, you keep my commands”) But if we think of love just as affections we end up sounding like the Arminian camp.

[@hansnyman9546]

I reckon Dr. Waters and Dr. Fesko have the best of it here in understanding faith as a bare dependence on Christ that is based on our awareness that we need him to save us. Such a dependence, of course, presupposes a desire to be saved, but such a desire is not to be conflated with love for Christ which comes (at least logically) after faith lays hold on Christ. Ironically, I think this understanding of faith was articulated most succinctly by Piper when he recognised how, in the face of death, one’s faith, obedience, and affections cannot be good enough to give on assurance of salvation and so he said that we will need to be able to “turn to Christ crucified, covering all [our] sins.” That’s it. I think that “turn” in dependence captures the essence of saving faith. The person 1) knows their need of Christ and so 2) banks on his sufficiency for them.

[@PaulLee-rs8uw]

Amen to receiving Christ( Jesus) as treassure in Christ. 2 Corinthians 4:7😊❤ praise to the Lord( Jesus) and thank you for saving faith in Christ.

[@PaulLee-rs8uw]

Sharing( part 1) from love for God and love for one another in the body of Christ Jesus( John 13:34; 2 Corinthians 5:11-6:2( Theministry of Reconcilation); Romans 8;28; Matthew 28:19-20, In Jesus'name, i pray. Amen. 2Corinthians 5:11-6:2( Theministry of Reconcilation) "11 Since, then we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and hope it is also plain to your conscience. 12 We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart. 13 If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. 14 For Christ's( Jesus'😀☝❤) love(❤) compels us, becausw we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he( Jesus😀☝❤) died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him(Jesus😀☝❤) who died for them and was raised( Jesus😀☝❤) again."( 2 Corinthians 5:11-15 Zondervan NIV Study Bible) The Bible said in John 14:6, "6 Jesus answered, " I am the way(Jesus 😀 ☝❤) and the truth(Jesus😀☝❤) and the life(Jesus 😀☝❤). No one comes to Father😀💯❤(God our Father in heaven💯❤(God our Father 😀❤💯in heaven) except through me."( John 14:6 Zondervan NIV Study Bible) in Jesus'name, i pray( Matthew 28:19-20, I also trust in, Matthew 28:1-10( The Resurrection); Mark 16:1-20( The Resurrection) ; Luke 24:1-12( The Resurrection) and Luke 24:13-53; John 20:1-9( The Empty Tomb) and John 21:15-17, 15-25( Jesus reinstates Peter); John 21:15-17; 2 Corinthians 12:9 and Romans 8:28), Amen. The Bible said in John 14:6, "6 Jesus answered, " I am the way(Jesus 😀 ☝❤) and the truth(Jesus😀☝❤) and the life(Jesus 😀☝❤). No one comes to Father😀💯❤(God our Father in heaven💯❤(God our Father 😀❤💯in heaven) except through me."( John 14:6 Zondervan NIV Study Bible).

[@PaulLee-rs8uw]

Amen to Revelation 19:16.

[@jakewhennessy]

If saving faith is loving Christ, this adds “law” elements to faith. Christ summarizes the law as loving God and neighbor. Nobody can be saved through works of the law, but only in receiving Christ by faith alone. The side effect of saving faith is love of God and neighbor, but this love has nothing to do with justification . (i.e God doesn’t look at our good works for our justification, but upon Christ’s merit, substitutionary death, and resurrection for our salvation). Christ is the reason for our salvation, not our love of Him. It seems that Piper is confounding law and gospel distinctions.

[@terranceoneil4620]

How does one trust Christ or have faith in Christ and not possess love/treasure Christ?

[@jakewhennessy]

@@terranceoneil4620 Love of Christ is certainly a side effect of saving faith, but it is not in the essence of faith itself. Love is, therefore, distinct from faith, yet accompanies saving faith. Piper doesn't seem to make much of a distinction between the two which becomes a slippery slope towards Rome & exactly what the Reformers rebelled against.

[@HearGodsWord]

If you were right then you can have faith without love, which doesn't sounds very Biblical. You're confusing love with law.

[@jakewhennessy]

Yes you can have faith without love. But this faith is a damning faith, and the type of faith that James says the demons possess. True saving faith is always accompanied by love, but faith is still distinct from love.

[@jakewhennessy]

Also the Bible says love and law are intertwined. Jesus summarizes the commandments as loving God and Neighbor. Love says “do” while faith simply receives what has already been done.

[@jessecook7415]

Love as a theological virtue is a perfection of the will, not the affections. Also, the love of God is to fulfill the law. Faith is a work of Grace. Without properly defining the facility (Intellect, will and affections) and distinguishing between law and gospel, along with how the theological virtues perfect the faculty…people will continue to talk in circles.

[@PurposeDriven4U]

Soooo sad about the book's doctrinal issues‼️oh, Jesus make Dr John to repent and adjust

[@johndodson8464]

25:00 "A shift of loves is at the root of saving faith." Well, it's at the root of SANCTIFICATION, for sure.

[@timeaaraouzou710]

I slept over this. Maybe I'm a simpleton. In fact, I'm sure I am. But I do wonder whether the Lord is blessed by semantic microsurgery among brothers and sisters in Christ IN PUBLIC. It is a 1000 miles away from childlike faith, which we are taught by Jesus Himself to guard, even while maturing and putting away CHILD-ISH things. And talking of children: Do they not trust AND love their parents in equal measure? In fact, considering a marital relationship, since that is one of the ways in which the Lord's relationship with His Church is described in Scripture, how genuine can trust/faith be, without love? And how genuine can love be without trust/faith? Also, as God's Holy Spirit comes and indwells us from the moment of our justification, is it even possible for Love not to be one of the first, if not the very first, emotions to fill us, as the Persons of the Triune Godhead Love One Another perpetually and eternally? So is an absence of love for Christ not the sure sign of a false conversion? And the presence of it a VERY encouraging sign of regeneration, even if doctrinal issues remain? And as far as the criticism of the Roman church is concerned, and the absurd suggestion that John Piper's doctrine may be influenced by it, is the "work" of loving Christ Jesus the heresy worthy of rebuke, among the plethora of their false teachings? The question remains: Is our Father and Christ Jesus honoured and glorified by public debates and discussions where Christians split hairs over a GOOD thing like LOVING THE LORD OUR GOD AND CHRIST JESUS OUR SAVIOUR WITH ALL OF OUR HEART, SOUL, MIND AND STRENGTH, and our neighbour as ourselves (a verse that might have been front and centre of this discussion, rather than being mentioned in passing, since the Lord Himself taught its paramount importance in living a sanctified life)? For what it's worth, my experience of walking with our Lord for the past 25 years has taught me that it is mercifully HE Who works in me, both to will and to do for His Good Pleasure. HE is still teaching me the breadth and length and height and depth of what it means to love and treasure Him, my Redeemer, Who incomprehensibly first loved me, while I was yet His enemy. 😢❤🙏🏻🙌

[@howwerwoss256]

“Now without knowledge there can be no making like; and knowledge is not got without lessons. The beginning of teaching is speech, and syllables and words are parts of speech. It follows then that to investigate syllables is not to shoot wide of the mark, nor, because the questions raised are what might seem to some insignificant, are they on that account to be held unworthy of heed. Truth is always a quarry hard to hunt, and therefore we must look everywhere for its tracks. The acquisition of true religion is just like that of crafts; both grow bit by bit; apprentices must despise nothing. If a man despise the first elements as small and insignificant, he will never reach the perfection of wisdom. Yea and Nay are but two syllables, yet there is often involved in these little words at once the best of all good things, Truth, and that beyond which wickedness cannot go, a Lie. But why mention Yea and Nay? Before now, a martyr bearing witness for Christ has been judged to have paid in full the claim of true religion by merely nodding his head. If, then, this be so, what term in theology is so small but that the effect of its weight in the scales according as it be rightly or wrongly used is not great? Of the law we are told “not one jot nor one tittle shall pass away;” how then could it be safe for us to leave even the least unnoticed?” Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit… he’s defending the deity of God the Holy Spirit

[@SilasJSantos]

Here is a major issue: Taking John 1:12 as the starting point turned out confusing because in order to be able to receive Christ, we have to have been given the new birth (Ez.36:25) and saving faith before (Eph.2:2,8-9; Rom.8:5-8; 1Cor.2:14). According to the WCF the gift of saving faith enables us to believe. Therefore our believing cannot precede the act of the Holy Spirit of working saving faith in us. WCF teaches that as we eat and drink (sacraments) the faith is strengthened and increased. They are not intended to generate saving faith nor to obtain it initially. All who are given the new birth and saving faith have been United to Christ (when we were dead) and made one with Him irreversibly. Yes, we must love Christ, but Paul says that God’s love love has been poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. Before that we were enemies and hostile toward God. And 1John4:19 says that we love Him because He loved us first, which certainly includes Romans5:5. Therefore the love for Christ is not originated in us either. It is worked in us by the Holy Spirit. And God will not fail to save even one of all whom He elected. I understand the pastoral concern that Dr Piper expresses and says that this is why he wrote the book but, does our salvation rest in our initiative to love Christ or in God who works in us to will and to act to fulfill His purpose!

[@carlosd.9158]

Love is essential and essence of faith. Similar to know God is to Love God. How can u say you love God and not Love one another Does Christ make it essential for us to love one another. And by this the world know you belong to me ...if you knew me you would love me. Believe and Repent bith used in acts .in response to what must i do to be saved. Repentance . According to Piper at the root is love coming to God. Is hating evil essential for true repentance to be of heavenly origin. 2 cor7:9-11 is love in seed form. Trust belive affections moving away from self to Gods truth. And ultimately in time to Christ himself. Peter increase my faith Lord. Might as well said increase my Love

[@minorsingingairhead]

- The Catholic Church teaches that justification has initial and ongoing aspects. Initial justification is by grace through faith, but there is also a process of growth in righteousness. - Catholics believe good works and obedience, enabled by God's grace, play a role in one's final salvation. However, these works are not seen as the basis or ground of salvation, which remains God's grace. - The Catholic view includes a final judgment where one's works will be evaluated. - Catholics affirm that salvation is by grace, through faith, but not by "faith alone" in the Protestant sense. They see faith and works as integrated. - The Council of Trent rejected the idea of justification by faith alone, affirming that faith, hope and charity are all necessary for justification. John Piper's theology basically concurs. His understanding of the gospel is not fundamentally different from that of Rome. People do not (want to) see that because he is such a beloved figure in protestant evangelicalism.

[@ShiroiNihonjin]

I think Fesko actually messes up every one of his references. First, in reference to Calvin, he quotes Calvin saying assent itself consists at least in pious affection. Since assent is necessary for faith, I can't believe Fesko doesn't see how that's decisive in Piper's favor, not his. He goes on to say that Calvin's subsequent statement shows that he thought of pious affection as belonging to sanctification, not justification. But Calvin's introductory clause, "But we are furnished with still a clearer argument," shows that his argument relating to sanctification is only an _additional_ argument to the one he just said, and does not narrow the context of the previous argument to the topic of sanctification. In his second Calvin reference, he says Calvin separates love from justification. True, within that passage Calvin is grouping love and works together and opposing them to faith. But does that mean Calvin thought of affection as a work, or does that mean that "love" in this context refers to works of love, not to affection? Calvin is disputing with the papists in this passage, and in the original Latin he uses the word for charity, not even the word "dilectionem" which appears in Gal 5:6. Moreover, the passage cites as examples "circumcision and ceremonies", and lacks any reference to internal affections. It's likely, then, that when Calvin says "love or works" (or "charity or works"), he has in mind not the affections that Piper's talking about, but external works that Catholics talk about. Third, he quotes Owen, in a passage on various errors that bring obedience into justifying faith, saying, "Others plead for obedience, charity, the love of God, to be included in the nature of faith; but plead not directly that this obedience is the form of faith, but that which belongs unto the perfection of it, as it is justifying." Here Owen is describing a position he considers faulty. It appears Fesko simply misunderstands the quote, as he takes Owen to be saying that "obedience, charity, the love of God" belong to the perfection of faith, after it has justified. Owen clearly denies, in the same passage, that love of God can develop later than faith: he argues, "That this grace (faith) is in them a principle of spiritual life, which in the habit of it, as resident in the heart, is not really distinguished from that of all other grace whereby we live to God. So, that there should be faith habitually in the heart, - I mean that evangelical faith we inquire after, - or actually exercised, where there is not a habit of all other graces, is utterly impossible." Fourth, Fesko distinguishes between Turretin's direct acts and reflex acts. He then criticizes Piper for failing to distinguish between what faith is and what faith does, and for saying, "Faith is act". But Fesko misidentifies the "nature-act" distinction as Turretin's "direct-reflex" distinction. He fails to notice that direct acts and reflex acts are _both_ acts. Piper is on Turretin's side here. Additionally, the reflex acts are called such because they occur when the believer reflects on his own faith. Why, then, would "receiving Christ as a treasure" be categorized as a reflex act? As Piper describes it, it is clearly a direct act. Fifth, Fesko contrasts Turretin saying trust is of the essence of faith with Edwards saying faith arises from a principle of love. But Turretin was contrasting trust being of the essence of faith not with love being of the essence of faith, but with trust being _inessential_ to faith. He was saying that "between us and the Romanists," the Romanists maintain "that faith is nothing else than a bare assent," while on the contrary, the orthodox think trust is essential. Nor was Edwards contrasting love with trust, either. To say that faith "arises from a principle of love" is not to say that trust is inessential. Sixth, Fesko makes a similar move with Turretin that he does with Calvin. In arguing against the Socinian doctrine that "faith is nothing else than obedience to God's commands," Turretin says, "faith cannot be obedience to the commands because thus two virtues would be confounded which are mutually distinct-‘faith and love’." In the context, therefore, Turretin is clearly conceiving of love in terms of obedience. He says love is concerned with "the precepts of the law". The section concludes, "Hence in the matter of justification, faith and works are opposed as opposites and contraries." For Fesko to use this passage in a discussion on the affections has to be equivocation, for "love" here does not stand for affections but for works. Seventh, Fesko quotes Owen again as saying, "Some of late among ourselves, - and they want not them who have gone before them, - affirm that the works which the apostle excludes from justification are only the outward works of the law, performed without an inward principle of faith, fear, or the love of God." Again, Fesko seems to be stumbling at least over the archaic English of Owen, as he interprets "and they want not them who have gone before them" to mean "some have taken a decidedly different path" (that's not what that means). But more than that, Fesko is wrong when he says this is Owen taking aim at those "who were trying to move love into the nature of saving faith." Owen's opponents were trying to move non-servile works into justification. But notice, the "inward principle" behind these non-servile works includes faith with love. So there is nothing in this passage that singles out love for criticism, either as a work or as a principle underlying works.

[@JoseRodriguez-pq5sz]

Blessings in Jesus Christ OUR LORD. AMEN. MAY HIS HOLY SPIRIT DWELL IN US PEACE

[@milastark1975]

Treasured Lord🙏🏼👼Christ my Best Friend

[@MarkNorthAveChurch]

Can’t wait to listen to this important discussion!

[@johndodson8464]

How did you define faith as "receiving Christ?" Pistis wasn't even in that scripture. Belief isn't "receiving." It's accepting that something is true. Demons believe they will burn in a lake of fire. But it's not because they "received" an invitation! They, sure as hellfire, aren't CONSENTING. If i believe that the sun rose this morning, did I give CONSENT???? Last time I checked, God didn't ask my permission nor consent.

[@matthewjonker1119]

Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. 1 Corinthians 13:7‭, ‬13 ESV Notice what Paul is saying. Faith is what love does. Hope is what love does. It is what drives true faith. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 1 Corinthians 13:2 ESV You can have faith without it being rooted in love. But it will accomplish nothing.

[@hactx]

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 "14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again." 🤔 There is a continuum that a believer is on regarding maturity in Christ. The call to perseverance is replete throughout scripture. What did Jesus command us to "watch", Matthew 25:13. Somewhere on this continuum - when, may depend on the individual - the love of Christ will be THE motivation. The degrees to which we love Christ, in perseverance, will grow and at the start is the simple equation, i.e. "We love because he first loved us." 1 John 4:19.

[@johngallagher9786]

I think this could be the entire resume of the theological work and contribution of John Piper, the notion of saving faith. And I think it's true but the problem is the way he portrait it's to abstract. He always lacks of biblical theology and considering the covenant theology.

[@rsandy4077]

At 2:16:00 the controversy was done.

[@ShiroiNihonjin]

Especially 2:16:20 to 2:17:20. I was waiting for the discussion to get to that point the whole time. That's the nub of the issue.

[@gdot9046]

@@ShiroiNihonjinhow so?

[@ShiroiNihonjin]

@@gdot9046 Waters and Fesko took issue with Piper saying love is essential to saving faith as if that made the ground of justification a meritorious work, namely love, but they seemingly didn't think about why that objection couldn't also be directed toward trust, i.e., making trust a meritorious work.

[@TheDdacus]

​@@ShiroiNihonjinwell said! Are you on Facebook or Twitter?

[@ShiroiNihonjin]

@@TheDdacus Nope, I don't regularly post anywhere. Thanks, though!

[@Anteater23]

I have no affections. I don’t love people or God in an emotional way. I can’t help it only God can change me.

[@mrtsibisi]

Jesus is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE❤

[@jessethomas3979]

It's true, only God can change you, but hasn't he already begun His work by creating in you a desire to have these affections? Water this seed through the reading of the word, pray and God will give the growth...

[@Anteater23]

@@jessethomas3979 Thanks for the encouragement.

[@yolandasivils8659]

Anteater, I am praying for you. There could be many reasons including a defense from past hurts or maybe that's how you're wired. But that you are seeking God's Word here speaks volumes. The new birth that takes place at salvation renews our minds and hearts and His Spirit gives us assurance of His love. But one more thing- obedience is outside of feelings or forgiveness, God's truth doesn't require feelings, it's just fact it doesn't require either. "We love God because He first loved us " (1 John 4:19), He doesn't require a feeling of love from us, He loves us regardless. "Loving the truth" or "loving unrighteousness" isn't referring to a "feeling" . It's referring to that thing that is meaningful to you. Keep studying the Word and call out to Jesus, He loves you and I'm confident He will show you His path.

[@SilasJSantos]

I hope I didn’t hear well because I see a huge issue here. Dr Piper is right in saying that the new birth precedes saving faith, yet he contradicts the WCF by saying that saving faith is the spiritual act of the soul in receiving, eating, drinking, and loving. If it is an act of the soul then it is no longer by grace and not a work of the Spirit of Christ as the confession states.

[@ahler3973]

Gbu

[@hisworkmanship7258]

I love Dr Piper so much!!!!❤

[@claraglatthaar998]

I do too! I could go on and on. Simply, I think John Piper is the greatest theologian of our time. I thank God for this anointed man of God.

[@hisworkmanship7258]

@@claraglatthaar998 I agree !

[@anglicanaesthetics]

This is where sacraments are so key. I actually agree with Piper that love for Christ is part of the essence of saving faith--affectional delight. So how much is enough? The answer of the Scriptures and the church is to say: enough to bring you to the font of Baptism and to the Eucharist. Do you delight in Jesus enough *as a Savior*--do you delight in him enough to recognize him as the true food for your soul? I trust water to satisfy my thirst because the delight of satisfaction has sparked that trust. So do you trust Jesus enough as the True Food for your soul? That's all the delight you need; if you can come to the Eucharist, you'll receive his true body and blood by faith. That's it.

[@RobertHickok]

Pisteuo NAS Word Usage - Total: 243 to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in of the thing believed to credit, have confidence in a moral or religious reference used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith 1bc) mere acknowledgment of some fact or event: intellectual faith biblestudytools /lexicons/greek/nas/pisteuo