Thursday, November 03, 2022
Eternal Life To Take In Immeasurable Riches
"Every day for all eternity - without pause or end - the riches of the glory of God's grace in Christ will become increasingly great and beautiful in our perception of them. We are finite. They are 'immeasurable' - infinite [Ephesians 2:7]. Therefore, we cannot ever take them in fully. Let that sink in. There will always be more. Gloriously more. Forever. Only an infinite being can fully take in infinite riches. But we can, and we will, spend eternity taking in more and more of these riches. There is a necessary correlation between eternal existence and infinite blessing. It takes the one to experience the other. Eternal life is essential for the enjoyment of immeasurable riches of grace." (John Piper, Providence [Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2020], approximate Kindle location 3130)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. I agree with you that Piper is equivocating between what's translated as "immeasurable" and "infinite". Immeasurable isn't necessarily infinite.
ReplyDelete2. In addition, we'd need to define and agree on a biblical and theological concept of infinity, which I think is more about God's transcendence, and which I think is distinguishable from his eternality.
3. I'd agree with you that Piper is committing a category error if he's using infinity in the mathematical sense of an actual infinite. But I'm not sure he is. I think it's possible Piper may be referring to the infinity of God in a qualitative sense, as you put it. I think what Piper says above could be consistent, for example, not with the notion that God in his omniscience has an infinite number of rich thoughts available to be shared with us, but with, say, God having a single rich thought of reality which finite human beings like us can only know discretely.
4. Obviously Piper isn't a philosophical theologian. Off the top of my head, I think his doctoral training was in biblical studies and he a literature professor prior to becoming a pastor. In any case, he's probably not thinking in terms of philosophical categories. He's probably not taking theological cues from loci classici like Augustine and Boethius. Let alone sufficiently versed in the debates over divine timelessness and divine temporality. Or how the theory of special relativity impinges on these debates. So we should probably take his comments with a huge grain of salt. Cut him some slack. Again, he's a pastor and a popularizer, not a philosophical theologian. Of course, I wish he was more philosophically and theologically sophisticated than he is (similarly see, for example, our past criticisms of Piper, such as when he talks about how God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in him), but all things considered, taking the good with the bad, Piper is often edifying to read and listen to, I've personally benefited from him, and his booknon providence seems like a worthwhile read.
I don't think I can defend Piper on this point any more than I have above. Ultimately Piper would need to spell out precisely what he means. Besides, if I did try to defend him further, I'd risk putting words in Piper's mouth.
ReplyDeleteRoger,
ReplyDeleteMy focus is on what's referred to in the title of my post, the correspondence between eternal life and immeasurable riches. Those terms, like some of Piper's, can be interpreted in more than one way, and we determine the best interpretation by the context. By "eternal", I'm referring to something with a beginning, but no end, not something without a beginning or end. A term like "immeasurable" could likewise be used in more than one way. I chose the term to match Piper's choice of translation, since I was going to be quoting him. You could take it as a reference to riches that are an actual infinite, but that's not what I meant, and I doubt it's what Piper meant. We often refer to things that are less than an actual infinite with such terms (e.g., Job 21:33, Nahum 3:3, Hebrews 11:12). I try to avoid the term "infinite" in contexts like these. But it's used in the sense of something less than an actual infinite often enough, frequently in the sense of something with a beginning and no end, and the surrounding context qualifies it sufficiently, so I quoted Piper using it.
I see no problem with the saints' growth in the afterlife in the contexts under consideration here. We'll be involved in ongoing activities, and changes will occur. Ephesians 2 refers to the "showing" of the riches of God's grace "in the ages to come". I don't know much about Greek, but what I know of the term "showing" as used elsewhere in Paul suggests to me that there's likely some degree of newness implied (revealing something previously unknown, a demonstration that strengthens a conviction, etc.). You cited 1 John 3:2, but it doesn't prove "our apprehension of His glory in all of its fullness" at the time of the second coming, which is the timeframe that passage is addressing, and it doesn't address everything brought up in Ephesians 2. The saints will grow in some ways after the second coming, such as in their knowledge (Zechariah 13:6, Matthew 25:37-39, 25:44, 1 Corinthians 3:13, 4:4-5). The same has been true of angels (1 Peter 1:12). Given the connections between grace and the lives of the redeemed after their conversion, it seems to make the most sense to think we'll grow in the afterlife in our knowledge of God's grace, appreciation of it, and so forth. It's inevitable that there will be new results of his grace, new ways in which one manifestation of his grace will combine with another, etc.
I agree with you that some of Piper's comments are problematic if interpreted a certain way, and I wouldn't have used the term "infinite" as he did. But I agree with Hawk that Piper's comments are more open to better interpretations than you're suggesting, and I think he's making some of the points I've made in my own words above. To whatever extent he's going beyond that, correctly or incorrectly, that goes beyond what I was focused on.
The first paragraph of my earlier response to you was focused on Piper's use of "infinite" and my choice of words, not your use of the phrases "quantitatively infinite" and "qualitatively infinite".
ReplyDeleteRegarding necessity, any consideration of what's necessary would be relative to the context under consideration, not a distinct hypothetical. And the point I was focused on in my original post doesn't depend on necessity. A probability would do. Even a possibility would be significant and worth thinking about, though I consider the conclusion in question here a probability rather than just a possibility, for reasons like the ones explained in my last response.
"Once more, my argument is that there is no necessity to describe the apprehension of the riches of His glory to be without end."
ReplyDeleteTerms like eternal and infinite can be quite ambiguous. They could refer to timelessness, atemporality, everlastingness, and so on. Of course, how Piper defines the terms is relevant to how we interpret what Piper means. So we'd have to ask Piper for clarifications, distinctions, and the like.
Furthermore, it's possible Piper isn't primarily referring to the temporal duration of God's riches (as infinite), but to our experience or perception of said riches (as infinite). Riches themselves need not necessarily endure forever, riches can come and go, but our experience of the varied riches God has in store for us could endure forever inasmuch as we will live forever. Again, it depends what Piper means.
For example, if one of these riches is a growing relationship with God and others, then these relationships may or may not endure forever, presumably friends could come and go even in the world to come, but our positive experiences of relationships and friendships could always be with us. That said, I don't see why it's not possible for our relationship with God to continue growing forever, but maybe I'm missing something.
Likewise, I don't necessarily read Piper to be saying there's an infinite amount or number of riches or goods. He could be saying there are a finite number of goods, but our experience of these goods lasts through eternity. A particular good could come and go, then the same good come back at a later point in time, so that our experience of a finite number of goods is everlasting as the same finite number of goods rotate in and out of our lives. This is clearly a mere sketch, but something along those lines might be what Piper is getting at. Again, we'd have to ask Piper.
ReplyDelete