Excommunicating Arminians?
I understand criticisms of the emerging church even if I don’t agree with them. I respect the right to question and for people to have their own beliefs and opinions. And I fully understand that people wouldn’t bother to believe something unless they actually thought they were right (to whatever extent). But recent trends from some to not only criticize the emerging conversation, but to question our (and the majority of evangelicals’) faith are disturbing me. This tendency to add to the gospel and make allegiance to certain theologians/doctrines necessary for salvation raises serious “danger” flags in my book. Add to that the division this causes in the church universal and one is left with a very sad situation.
The recent talk by John Piper on How I Distinguish Between the Gospel and False Gospels falls into this category. In addressing the “false idea’ of Arminianism (which he admits most evangelicals adhere to) he writes,
Here’s my rule of thumb: the more responsible a person is to shape the thoughts of others about God, the less Arminianism should be tolerated. Therefore church members should not be excommunicated for this view but elders and pastors and seminary and college teachers should be expected to hold the more fully biblical view of grace.
Do you separate from a denomination that allows pastors and seminary teachers to believe and teach this error? You can. We do. Oh, how we need discernment concerning how helpful you might be to the cause of Christ and his truth.
By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org
After the initial shock of reading those words, I had a few basic responses. First - when did Baptists start talking about excommunication! (kinda like when did Republicans become the big government party…). Secondly, last I checked, Piper’s church was still a part of the Baptist General Conference - a denomination that allows the Arminian view. I was a member of and served on the staff of a BGC church for a number of years and witnessed the drama Piper caused over the whole Open Theism issue a few years back. I have to wonder if he is attempting here to further rip apart the denomination over this issue. But even more so, I wonder how does getting people fired or pulling apart denominations over this issue serve Jesus?
Now I’m sure I sound hypocritical after my recent posts on the importance of good theology for developing good practice for Christians, but (as I see it) the whole Arminian/Calvinist thingy has often been a red herring. I understand how it does affect how one lives and follows Christ. And sure, I enjoyed those 3AM debates freshman year of college when resolving issues like this seemed of utmost importance. But to excommunicate people because they disagree with you on this issue? I really don’t get that or see what good could ever come of that. Maybe it’s because I’m a transplant to the Midwest and didn’t grow up with the Reformed church breathing down my neck (I also still don’t get the huge emphasis on Northern European ethnic identity that comes along with that tradition either). Maybe I just don’t care enough about theology. But I’m not at all convinced we can draw lines in regards to who’s in and who’s out of the Christian faith based on which 16th century theologian one chooses to follow. (okay and is it really bad that I just had an image of Piper going all Heidi Klum and telling a line-up of Christians “You’re out! Auf Wiedersehen.”)
So I respect Piper’s beliefs, his desire to share those beliefs, and the importance those beliefs hold for him. But I just wish he would show more grace.
And for the record, I’m not exactly Arminian or Calvinist. And no I don’t really want to debate the issue, but feel free to state your own opinion on the matter if you so please.
Tags:
Julie Clawson
Topics: Theology, Emerging Church |
March 6th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
those sorts of comments are the type I cannot tolerate - people like Mark Driscoll do it with issues of gender identity and roles, Piper does too and then throws in the Armenian thing? good grief, what’s the deal with these “reformed” men? I’m not Calvinist or Armenian either and have no desire to debate it.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
WHAT the?!
Being a very strong Arminian, I can’t even begin to express how much that irks me to see the suggestion by anybody that I am unable to comprehend the nature of God’s grace. And here’s what really rankles, as if the slap against my own belief didn’t already: does this Piper guy think that God actually creates certain individuals for the express purpose of being damned?! That’s what always gets me about the whole predestination bit–if certain people were created with no chance at all, that’s what it would entail.
And if some people are created to be damned…then by George, you can treat them any old way you want! :sarcasm!:
Somehow I think that explains this guy’s behavior. Why respect people that he’s so sure must have been made chaff from the very womb?
One thing I believe very, very firmly. God is NOT arbitrary–He is anything but. There is no way…NO way…that He would damn a person just by virtue of the time period or the place in which they were born. That would be illogical and evil in the extreme. And once you think about that, it becomes clear that we dare not presume to know a person’s eternal destination lest it drive us to treat some people as “deserving” of kindness and others as “undeserving.”
Ugh…sorry…I couldn’t keep quiet in the face of such a nasty quote.
And I should, of course, finish by making it very clear that I know most Calvinists are decent people and know how to treat people the right way. My grandparents are Christian Reformed and I consider them wonderful examples of how Christians should behave. Would that more people might follow that example!
March 7th, 2008 at 8:27 am
the whole Arminian/Calvinist thingy has often been a red herring
The way I see it is that the whole debate is always a red herring because neither are correct.
The problem is that both sides start out with the presupposition that some people end up in hell forever, a presupposition that us Universalists have discovered is just not the case. As long as one starts out with such a hellish theological foundation one is predestined to to end up with a confused soteriology like Arminianism or Calvinism.
March 7th, 2008 at 8:28 am
I agree Julie. A favorite professor of mine at Wheaton (himself a Calvinist theologically and an example that not all who are reformed in their theology have this exclusionary attitude), sadly spoke of his feeling that men like Piper and Sproul were “beating people over the head with Grace.” His statement was, obviously, intentionally laden with double meaning and irony.
This militant Reformed attitude is a growing trend, but it’s not new. Robert Weber’s book “Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail” contains passages where he talks about how as a young professor he was staunchly “Reformed” and took great delight in debating Arminians publicly, in deconstructing the Arminian views of his students, etc. And then he writes of the growth in grace that he experienced as he left that militant, exclusionary attitude behind, and his later discomfort at being asked leading questions by pastors and elders of churches where he was invited to speak, to determine whether he was “reformed enough” for them.
I attended a Christian Legal Society conference as a law student where Sproul was the keynote speaker. This organization describes itself as “a nondenominational national network of attorneys, judges, law students, professors, and lay people [that] helps lawyers and law students to integrate their faith in Christ with their professional responsibilities.” Yet Sproul took a significant portion of the time he was allotted as keynote speaker for this ecumenical event to expound on the Truth of Reformed Doctrine and the dangers of Arminianism. The fact that he would use the forum afforded to him as a bully pulpit on that issue, rather than focusing on the many things we all held in common and encouraging people to walk with Christ, still galls me to this day.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:59 am
OK, here’s my thinking. I definitely believe that the Church universal has plenty of space for Calvinists and Arminians and some other soteriologies as well. That doesn’t mean that “everything goes” but we’re all seeing through a glass darkly here and there are going to be various ways to articulate what we’re all grasping at. Condemning one or the other as a “false gospel” is far from helpful.
That having been said, a “least common denominator, we all believe in Jesus and nothing else matters” drives me up the wall. As someone who grew up in one tradition, now worships in another one, and found the transition process very difficult, it was Not Helpful when I kept hearing people say “Oh we’re all saying the same thing. It doesn’t matter!” It does too matter. There is such depth and diversity among various Christian traditions — it is quite a shame to lose that.
“Forget about ecumenical dialogue. It’s my way or the highway!” is easy. “Oh we’re all saying the same thing. It doesn’t matter. Yay Jesus!” is easy. “We follow the same Lord, and share 95% of our understandings about what that means. And the 95% we share is far more important than the 5% we don’t, and that 5% of difference is often very very subtle — but subtle does not mean insignificant” — that’s HARD. But it seems to me that that difficult area is where the honest and exciting ecumenical work gets done.
I’m no expert on the various forms of Baptists but will trust you that to exclude Arminians from positions of influence in the Baptist General Conference is nuts. But what about, say, Presbyterians? Should Presbyterian seminaries not distinguish between Calvinists and Arminians? If not, what does it mean to be “Presbyterian”? (There is a place for some “cross fertilization” in hiring faculty, and I would say that cross fertilization is very important, but that’s a different thing.) Obviously this raises questions about how Reformed (or Arminian or Orthodox or anything else) is “enough” and there are no perfect answers.
I deeply wish that we did not have a divided Church. But we do — and through that sad situation we have a wealth of valuable perspectives on God. Some good can come out of this sad situation. We need Calvin and the Wesleys and Thomas Aquinas etc. etc. etc. Let’s not paper over that rich heritage by saying their differences don’t matter.
Apologies for having gone on forever. This touched a nerve!
March 7th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I’m more of a Calvinist, so I like much of what Piper writes. He can, though, on occasion over-reach with pithy statements that seem meant to shock the Church (or those within it) into a new (or renewed) way of thinking.
On a brighter note, having Piper as an opponent should do wonders to draw attention to bona fide Armenians.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
CH - well it is always good to be consistent!
Karl - It is the militant/bully attitude that really disturbs me.
Kristen - I too believe that there needs to be room for theological distinctives. While I grow more and more uneasy with increasingly detailed statements of faith that serve merely to define boundaries, I respect the tradition of having them. I dislike the arrogance I see that makes adherence to a statement of faith a requisite for salvation. We can believe that our interpretation of scripture is correct but still see others as brothers and sisters in Christ. It is extreme exclusion that scares me.
Pete - John Piper is someone that I have tried really really hard to like. I first encountered him when he spoke at a college chapel - he was conservative so therefore I assumed I should agree with him (hows that for logic), but I just kept having issues with just about everything he said. His book were so popular when I was in college - almost CS Lewis status for evangelicals, but I just couldn’t get into them.
Like I said before, my point isn’t to support Arminianism but to question the stance of extreme exclusion.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Julie I agree it’s the militant, arrogant or bully attitude that is most disturbing; not so much the content of the theological views.
Kristen, I think it’s often a question of emphasis. Is a given church emphasizing over and over again those aspects of their theology that make them different from (and “more right than”) their fellow believers? Or are they primarily emphasizing what they hold in common with all believers, and only occasionally when the text or topic demands it, touching on their particular denominational distinctives? Or another way of putting it might be to say do they speak of most things with a slight but still recognizable and friendly accent as a result of their particular distinctives - but it’s clear they are still speaking the same language and part of your tribe, rather than coming across as a hostile and estranged, distantly related people group that is out to conquer you?
I grew up in a wonderful Presbyterian church that modelled the latter of those two approaches. Our pastor was reformed in his theology but didn’t aggressively wear it on his sleeve and was more about following Jesus than about being Reformed. That Presbyterian church attracted many people from Charismatic, Baptist and other backgrounds along with plenty of dyed in the wool Presbyterians, because the emphasis was on Jesus and following him, not on the Reformed tradition’s being the right way to follow Jesus. But it was our later experience in an oppressive Reformed-with-a-capital-R “Reformed” church, where the Reformed distinctives were emphasized (hammered on) on a weekly basis, that drove my wife and me to the Episcopal/Anglican tradition where we found more doctrinal humility, and more room for differing views on some of those nonessentials.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Don’t be an Arminian… Armenian is better.
March 7th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Jonathan - I do wonder what you Orthodox folks think about Protestant debates like this…
March 7th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Yuck. If anything should be unacceptable for Christian pastors, it’s treating those who disagree with them like Piper does! What frustrates me the most (and I have many frustrations!) about Piper and his followers is that they’ve totally usurped the term “Reformed” and strongly imply that a person must be a “Calvinist” (in the strong predestination sense) in order to qualify as Reformed. To me, that’s just crazy talk. I’m a Presbyterian who has been strongly influenced by Karl Barth - an excellent Reformed theologian who engages John Calvin in dialog constantly and, yes, differs with him quite substantively on the doctrine of election. To call Barth an “Arminian” would be absurd, but I’m quite certain he would fall into Piper’s “excommunication” category nonetheless!
March 7th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
What is most startling to me is that Jesus had some fairly strong language for people who did these sorts of things … and it was pretty negative. So while people feel that their beliefs are so correct, wanting to segregate and exclude based upon those beliefs are NOT the mark of a Christian. We are told that mark is to be one of love for each other.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I take it as further evidence of the fracturous and divisive nature of protestantism, and especially evangelicalism. In the proper concern for truth amongst evangelicals there is insufficient discernment between matters of primary importance and matters of secondary importance.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Hi, Julie, my fellow JESUS CREEDER! I see you name quite often over at JESUS CREED. Also, I see where Scot McKnight linked our two blogs about Piper in his “meanderings.” Your essay is more thorough and I resonated with the comments here. Mine is more shocked…ending with “Who does Piper think her is?”
March 8th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Oops…too many misspellings…”you” = “your” and “her” = “he” in the above comment. Sheesh!
March 8th, 2008 at 9:26 am
[…] 6. Running out of space up above, but this one deserves to be there. Thanks to JR Briggs. 7. Both Julie Clawson, a former BGC member, and John Frye have responded to the (at least) awkward views of John Piper: […]
March 8th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
OK, all. Be nice, and retract the claws. Some of your rants against Piper sound just like the attitude you are ranting against. But in all seriousness it’s obvious to me that those who either do not care about the debate between “Calvanism and Arminianism” have never really studied the issue. I used to feel the same way, that it doesn’t matter. News falsh…it DOES matter, and it matters in a big way. If you don’t get that, then you have not seriously studied the issue.
There are some tensions in scripture that will always be mystery, that we will not understand fully until we get to heaven. But the question of whether or not God elects some and passes over others is NOT one of those mysteries. And the fact that God does not “override” man’s free will also is not one of those mysteries. Both are competely biblical. And if you think that’s double speak, and makes no sense, then again, that just proves you have not studied this thouroughly.
The classic response of one railing against God’s complete sovereignty in all things is totally centered in man’s pride. NO ONE wants to allow God to be God. All us Christians say we do, but in our flesh, we do not. Until one understands that the bible, the Christian life, and God’s eternal plan is all about HIS purpose, HIS name, HIS glory, rather than our felt needs and wants, then this debate will never be settled correctly in one’s mind…and will always default to man’s “complete free moral agency.” Stop arguing, start seriously studying, and seek to develop a BIBLICAL world view that doesn’t just serve your idea of “fairness.” Biblical truth matters.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I believe that Reformed beliefs are true, and worthy of being defended - otherwise I would not be a “Reformed” Christian. I came to Reformed beliefs after reading, Bible study, and hearing it preached (I was not born into it or any Christian faith). People can rail against Reformed Christianity, fight against it, but being the truth it is most certainly worthy of defense from Reformed believers. Is it a small matter? - not really, as it goes back to the Sovereignty of God. He is God, we are not.
The Reformed believers I attend Church with are generally likable people - kind, loving, encouraging. Are we quizzed weekly, monthly or ever about how strongly we hold to Reformed beliefs? No. Do most of our Church members believe Arminian beliefs are wrong? Yes, but is not that a given since we are Reformed? Asking that people who teach in a Reformed Church have Reformed beliefs only makes sense to me… Also, if you are a Reformed believer and go to a church that teaches Arminianism, it only makes sense to leave it and go find a Church that teaches the fully Biblical view of grace and God’s sovereignty. And yes, I do believe it’s Biblical, otherwise I would not believe it.
Do I ever pray, encourage, and share with people who are Arminian (even if they are unaware of the theology or even the word itself)? Yes - on a weekly basis. When I disagree with them I know them well enough to be open about my Reformed faith.
I honestly don’t know much about Piper, but in my opinion R.C. Sproul is a great theologian and teacher whom I have much enjoyed reading and listening to. In other words, Sproul Rocks! For the writer offended at Sproul’s Reformed teaching, the Reformed faith does tend to influence every area of theology, as I have discovered when meeting together with other non-Reformed Christians. If you’re interested, another great Reformed teacher is Michael Horton with the Whitehorse Inn - a weekly radio program (available online as a podcast) about the Reformed faith, which also deals with how Reformed theology influences your entire worldview. I find him witty, engaging, and insightful.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Hi Julie et al, I thank you for your even hand and restraint here. I also agree with you on the fact that it seems like a case of arrested development for some who think this eclipses all in faith. If so, what were people thinking until the 1500s, the poor souls!
March 8th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Morris, you hit the mark squarley with your post…thank you. I am also one who was born into an Arminian world, and came to the reformed (biblical) position through much serious study. I find that most Christians do not understand this view, and simply default to their own man-centered ideas. And of course that sounds arrogant, which is why so many reformed Christians are accused of being arrogant. But anyone who takes a strong stand is thusly accused in our modern world, which of course is another whole issue and problem in itself.
It’s time those who believe the BIBLICAL doctrines that are clear in scripture take strong stands as Dr. Piper has. Of course many will accuse of arrogance and intolerance as a result. As I said in my last post, that’s nothing more than human pride at work. Believe me, I know. I refused to accept this view for most of my life because, in my own pride, I thought it was “unfair.” And if you understand this issue completely you know that the LAST thing any of us should want is for God to be “fair.” (can you say “eternal damnation for ALL?”).
You mentioned R.C Sproul, who is one of the best to study if anyone REALLY wants to get at the bottom of this issue. Guys like Sproul and Piper did not start out reformed. They both, like all reformed Christians, came to this belief after serious study, and found that these “unfair” doctrines simply cannot be denied from scripture, and truly magnify God and His glory.
The older I get, the more central to the gospel I see the issue of God’s TRUE sovereignty being. I love my Arminian brothers and sisters, but I have only seen this beleif lead to much false theology, and it truly saddens me. I’m way past trying to win an argument. But I am consumed with praying for those brothers & sisters who are missing so much of God by holding to the error of Arminiam and Palagian thought.
By the way, Julie, you said that “you’re not exactly Arminian or Calvinist.” You better take a stand, because not only is there no middle ground, but the two are WORLDS apart. I can hear the accusations of my intolerrance and arrogance already!
March 8th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
By the way, (to “My Two Cents” above)…”reformed theology” did not start in the 1500’s. These biblical doctines started with Christ, the apostle Paul, then onto Augustine, Calvin, Luther, etc. The reformation was a protest against the drift to error in the Catholic church, and simply brough us BACK to correct teaching. It’s actually ARMINIANISM that has only become totally pervasive in the last 200 years or so, and has no sound foundation in historical Christianity.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
And the silence yawned …
March 8th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
I’m guite disappointed in Piper’s remarks, largely because I hold to a fairly old Arminian viewpoint. I came to that viewpoint when I was so troubled about the lack of evangelism in the church, and shocked by the pastor’s defense of it. I left to join The Salvation Army (although we have our share of wild doctrine in some corners, it is outside the established 11 doctrines).
My first objection to Calvinism is the idea of irrestible grace. I can’t find that concept anywhere in scripture. It seems fairly obvious that God’s grace is resisted fairly continuously as people stay in rebellion against His will that none should perish.
Secondly, most Calvinists forget the Canons of Dordt where Article 9 is clear that the God’s election is not based on forseen faith. That leaves only divine arbitrary selection of a predetermined and unchangeable number. What grace then is necessary…and for that matter, why would Jesus’ death be necessary if preselection (not based on foreknowledge) was the basis of salvation. Why seek and save the lost if the outcome is predetermined? (and that’s pretty close to how the Reformed pastor saw it)
Those are my strongest objections, and why I guess people like Piper would excommunicate me, one of the “whosoever will”s who have fallen at the foot of the cross and found salvation there.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Typo in the last comment. It should have read “God’s election” not “the God’s election”.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Stephen and Morris, Two thumbs up guys!! Couldn’t agree with you more……..or add to it!
March 8th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Stephan #17
Stephen, you’re absolutely right… not only do your statements come across completely arrogant, but this one in particular is total bullshit. “If only everyone had thought as deeply as I have about the issue they would obviously agree with me.” Gimme a break. News flash… it is possible for reasonable people to study exactly the same things and reach differing conclusions. Or do you really think that there are no thoughtful and studied Arminians out there?
Just FYI, I personally have studied the issue quite in depth, converted to Calvinism in college after researching the issue thoroughly (and even won an award for a paper on the topic), and then “de-converted” from Calvinism a while later after studying it even further. So I at least stand in direct contradiction to your ridiculous assertion.
March 8th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
oh dear, you pissed of my husband…
anyway. Do I need to make clear once again it is not Reformed I have issue with or believing that one’s position is correct. It is the attitude that says people aren’t Christian if they don’t think the same way you do that I take issue with. This isn’t doctrine or orthodoxy - it is arrogance. And while I’ve seen many take pride in such arrogance recently, I wonder what Jesus response would be to those who thought pride in theological systems excuses them from loving others. There are any number of theologies I think are wrong and will debate them when the situation is appropriate, but I don’t say someone isn’t a Christian because they say believe in the rapture and I don’t.
And no I don’t appreciate being told that if I don’t believe something I must be an ignoramus. I respect belief, but hubris of that kind is a tad annoying.
March 8th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Do I need to make clear once again it is not Reformed I have issue with or believing that one’s position is correct. It is the attitude that says people aren’t Christian if they don’t think the same way you do that I take issue with. This isn’t doctrine or orthodoxy - it is arrogance.
Amen. As much as the Reformed may wish to claim their distance from the usually-Arminianist Fighting Fundies, they sure have a LOT in common, and this arena is where they both shine brightest, so to speak. “If you don’t see it my way, you need to study more and then you will see.” “There are only two ways of seeing things, the wrong way or my way.” “This Is The Way to Think if you are a true Christian.” “Our Leaders Cannot Be Challenged.” etc, etc, etc…
Very tiring.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Ok, Mike Clawson, you certainly can call me arrogant. It doesn’t bother me, and I am not offended. And despite your profanity, I do not judge your heart because of the way you believe. But would you really rather that we all “just get along” and accept each others diametrically opposed theology as truth? It sounds to me like you would.
I am very weary of the attitude that says there is no way to understand much of scripture, ESPECIALLLY God’s sovereignty. This issue is wholly central to the Gospel, and is the hinge upon which everything swivels. I am sorry you seem to be unable to settle one way or the other, Mike. I really am. This isn’t a criticism of you. In spite of my grammatical typos, the comment of mine you cut & pasted was regarding those who do NOT CARE about this issue. That DOES prove they have not seriously consdered it. Anyone who does so WILL land one way or the other. I’m sure you would agree with that (well, maybe I’m not so sure).
The question then becomes, which is correct? That answer CAN be determined. It doesn’t matter one bit to me how many are on the wrong side of any issue. There two sides to many views in life and much of scripture. But there still is a wrong and a right side, Mike.
You have exactly proven my point that the minute someone is convinced of truth, the accusations of arragonce fly, as if truth and clear words in scripture do not matter. This is the problem of the so called “emergent.” All that matters is that there are no absolutes, and that we are all inclusive. To use your words, Mike…gimme a break! And I say that in all Christian love! (stop laughing…seriously, I mean no offense).
March 8th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Now to Juile, I never once stated or impied that those who do not hold to the reformed view are not Christians. Many Arminians certainy are born again, and many who claim reformed theology certainly are lost. I do, however, beleive that Arminian teaching leads many to false conversion by it’s very nature. Trying to “convince” someone to “accept Christ” will often lead to false conversion. We are simply called to preach the Gospel, but of course it is God who converts the heart of stone into a heart of flesh.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Stephen, you could not have penned an approach to theology that is more diametrically opposite to the way I look at things if you were deliberately trying to. Well done.
March 9th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Thank you Mike. After reading your posts, and other notes on your wife’s site, I’m very glad the difference between you and me is that clear cut. I know exactly how folks like you approach theology. And I am extremely concerned for my young son, as he approaches college age, and this kind of emergent thinking takes deeper root. I am working as hard as I know how to enusure that he is biblically grounded.
You certainly can continue to approach the bible like a “trampoline that stretches and breaths” according to the latest winds of culture, having no absolute truth, if you want. But no, I do not respect emergent theology, my friend. I can respect your right to think what you think, and I do respect that in you as a fellow believer. But I have absolutely ZERO tolerance for the emergent movement. It saddens me beyond comprehension.
March 9th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Mike, I resonate completely with your comments. I was also once a devoted Calvinist (with all the passion and arrogance that tends to come with such devotion) but after a few years of trying to hold together belief in a genuinely good God and a God who was glorified by appointing people to eternal damnation (with no hope of altering their eternal destiny), well . . . my faith was nearly destroyed. And so my study and searching the Scriptures and the great theologians of the church continued and I came into contact with another stream of Reformed theology (as I mentioned in my comments above) that I feel does much better justice to the whole testimony of Scripture.
Stephen, please don’t assume that you’ve arrived at the most enlightened theological position. Your statement about “emergents” not holding to any absolutes only demonstrates that you have not actually engaged any of them in conversation. What we call for is theological humility - a willingness to admit that we don’t understand everything and that on many issues there is plenty of room for genuine conversation within our church communities.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I just found your blog and appreciate where you are on the journey. Sad to say but isn’t Piper’s position simply where the paradigm of “systemic theology” takes anyone who is logically consistent? It generally values “the new” only if it narrows knowledge and self-validates as being “more right” than an alternative system. As one indoctrinated within Arminianism, some its adherents have done the same thing in reverse.
Even those who are less rigidly systematic arrive at the same place when they play “my metaphor can beat up your metaphor.”
March 9th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Kristi, I suppose Rob Bell’s statement that “Heaven is filled with forgiven people, and hell is also filled with forgiven people” is something that I should not disagree with so we can preserve “theological humility.” Even though it contadicts the most basic and clear-cut scriptures in the bible reagrding the state of man outside of Christ and His atonement, I guess I shouldn’t take a stand against that kind of heresy. Who am I to actually bleieve what the bible says?
I am not arguing with you, Kristi. I just am afraid for you.
March 9th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Stephen, you’re perfectly welcome to disagree with Rob Bell. I disagree with Rob Bell sometimes too. Conversations allow for disagreement - that’s often what makes them interesting conversations. But is it really necessary to call what he says “heresy”? I strongly disagree with your views about what God’s sovereignty entails. I have concerns that your view leads to a picture of God’s character that Scripture on the whole would not support - a God who arbitrarily rejects certain human beings he created because it somehow glorifies him. But I don’t believe you’re a heretic and I realize that to call you one would be to reject you as my brother in Christ and completely shut down communication that will likely prove to be mutually beneficial.
And please don’t be afraid for me. I’ve been on a long, winding theological journey and our God (who is much greater than all our theological understandings and misunderstandings) has kept me close by his side throughout. If you fear for me, trust in him, not in my ability to understand theological concepts. And I’ll do the same for you.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I just came across your site thanks to JesusCreed. I enjoy Piper, but I thought this message was more like “friendly fire.”
If you are interested I have two posts on this.
Don’t Shoot Me
Don’t Shoot Me - Part 2
Thanks for bringing this up.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Kristi, I’m glad that God has kept you close by His side. He truly is a great God. He kept pursuing me for years when I did not care. We can both praise Him for these things.
I did not call Rob Bell a heretic. I pointed to a statement he made that is heresy…there is a difference. I believe Rob Bell loves Jesus. But truly, this attitude that we need to “dialogue” about clear error is off the mark. There is much to dialogue about without having to be “tolerant” of clear error. And his statement is completely unbiblical.
If you want to dialogue with him about that type of statement, go right ahead. I don’t see the point. He’s taken his stand, and it’s not up to me to convince him otherwise. But it’s certainly right to call out obvious error in a forum such as this.
Regarding my view of God that you disagree with, I am sorry that you do not see the God of the bible who is all about bringing glory to HIS name in all that He does…through both mercy AND justice…with a mercy that is “God’s purpose according to His choice…not because of works, but of Him who calls.” But I am not here to debate God’s complete sovereignty, as it is long settled for me.
The thing that always amazes me about emergent Christians is that they are tolerant of everyone, EXCEPT those who have strong convictions. Guys like McClaren and Bell are embraced with all their man-centered, “let’s all just get along” error-prone theology while those who attempt to lift the glory of God above all things are excluded as “arrogant.” It seems the emergent movement is tolerant of much incorrect theology for the sake of “humility”, yet is totally intolerant of sound, biblical, historical positions of strength and conviction. Seriously, my sister, this amazes me. Just look at the vehemence from Mike above. This is the “tolerance” of the emergent church?
But I thank you, Kristi, for your willingness to respond to me without the typical accusations of arrogance, as with so many like Mike. I respect your right to have your own view, and I pray that God will continue to draw you close to Him.
March 9th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Stephen - hate us if you like, refuse to engage us if you like. But get your facts straight (or at least get the names straight of those who you condemn). Take the time to understand us instead of ranting about your false assumptions about us. Some of us also think our beliefs are sound, biblical, and historical. It is easy to dismiss that which you don’t take the time to understand but just fear. And yes, speaking for myself this has brought me much closer to God. I wish you critics would get that this is not about not allowing people to have convictions, but about attitude.
March 9th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Julie, your words:
“Stephen - hate us if you like…”
It would be nice if you would respond to what I actually said. But instead you accuse me of hating you. Strong words from someone who is suppose to engage those who disagree (again lending further evidence to my point). If you are inferring hate from me, then I need to exit this discussion now, so I will. But please know that I can dismiss your theology, I can even “hate” how emergent, relativistic thinking diminishes the centrality and innerrancy of scripture… but I do not hate YOU, Juile.
So, if I have offended you, I apologize. If you think I am hateful, I am sorry. If I have come across arrogant, again, my apologies. But I will not apologize for those of us who, by God’s grace, live in the reality of absolute biblical truth.
March 9th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Ironically, it was Calvinist doctrines that led me into the emerging church. Calvinism teaches the “total depravity” of humanity, which includes the depravity of our rational faculties. In other words, we are fallen and finite creatures, and therefore our attempts at knowledge and understanding are inherently prone to error and limitations - including our theological opinions and biblical interpretations. If this is the case then our appropriate attitude toward our own theology ought to be one of epistemic humility, always admitting the possibility that we could be mistaken in what we think is true, and therefore constantly open to considering new insights and differing points of view.
So why is it then that those who claim to believe most strongly in the doctrine of total depravity are often the least likely to demonstrate this kind of epistemic humility? Why is it that they tend to be the most cocksure that they, and they alone, are right, and are totally intolerant of any differing viewpoints? Why is there such a disconnect between their stated beliefs about the fallenness of humanity and their lack of humility about the fact of their own fallenness? Why the hypocrisy?
March 9th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Perhaps I’m missing the point of this whole discussion, but what exactly is wrong with Piper (who holds a theological viewpoint) suggesting that those who teach ought to hold that same viewpoint?
Isn’t that just consistent with having a position on an issue? (”Each man ought to be fully convinced in his own mind.”) What exactly is wrong with being consistent?
Julie, et al, would you raise the same objection to someone who says that we ought to limit reformed teachers?
March 10th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Wow. It is probably part of my depraved nature but I love this kind of thing. I read over Piper’s site looking at all I could stand about his views on Arminianism and I think it is clear he is trying to sway an open group towards his TULIP Calvinism. I actually had not read anyone who was so 5 point Calvinist in a long time and it makes me shudder. Calvinism and Wesleyan/Arminianism come at all of the issues from very different assumptions and presuppositions. Even what they will accept as evidence is in contrast. (only the Bible verses the quadrilateral)
So, maybe a third way is to understand that our sovereign God is outside of time and predestination (pre-anything really) is our limited point of view and not God’s POV at all. Pretty much all of our tenses become weird and obsolete if you really give God his complete sovereignty and omniscience, etc.
The issue has always been how does your theology affect how you choose to act right now? If it keeps you from doing good, loving others, thinking your actions through and trying to to choose the best path then maybe it is flawed.
Arrogance often turns people off towards hearing your words even if you are right. Humility or speaking softly makes people lean in to try to hear you.
(Thank God for the person who created the spell checker for Firefox)
March 10th, 2008 at 1:37 am
Because he’s not just saying that he wishes other teachers agreed with him. He’s saying that those who don’t ought to be excommunicated: i.e. cast out of the church, cut off from the people of God, shunned, excluded, and perhaps even condemned to Hell.
It’s one thing to say “I disagree with Arminians”. It’s another thing entirely to say that Arminians should be kicked out of the church, especially when you belong to a denomination that explicitly and deliberately remains silent on the issue and allows for a diversity of opinions.
And yes, I would have just as much problem with any Arminians who suggested that Calvinists ought to be excommunicated too.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Mike, please read the article again. Piper never said anyone should be excommunicated from anything. He was talking about what should be EXPECTED from elders and teachers in a reformed church. He even also specifically says that Arminians SHOULD teach in an Arminian instuution. So please get the facts straight, brother. Piper is “fully convinced” of his theology, and we need more, not less of that…or we have nothing at all to stand on. If you want to stand on a moving, swaying foundation, that is your perfect right.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:44 am
What saddens me is that people like Sproul, Piper and many of their disciples/defenders just don’t get that for most of us who react negatively to them it’s about their attitude, rather than about the content of their theology.
I’ve known many “5-point Calvinists” from whom I felt like the overriding emphasis was on what we held in common, rather than on the points where they believed they were more right than everyone else. Being around them was to be drawn closer to Jesus Christ and to be pointed to Him - regardless of whether one shared their particular theology. It was like being warmed by a fire - and it might come as a surprise down the road to learn that they were theologically “Reformed.” But that’s not the case with the Sprouls, Pipers, et als. Rather than focusing (primarily) on serving Jesus and worshipping Him, but (secondarily) within the context of Reformed Theology - they come across as being primarily concerned about Reformed Theology being THE RIGHT context within which to serve and worship Jesus. Perhaps a subtle-sounding distinction, but not so subtle in the way it presents itself to those who don’t share its convictions.
And I agree strongly with Mike and Julie about the arrogance of the suggestion that all those who (a) disagree with reformed theology, or (b) have come to believe the reformed/arminian controversy isn’t nearly as crucial as its combatants seem to think, have arrived at their position due to ignorance or lack of study. Many of us have actually arrived at one or both of those positions precisely as a result of studying Scripture, church history and theology. The frequent patronizing reference in my old reformed church to those in the church who dared voice disagreement with any reformed tenet as being ones who just hadn’t reached a “sufficient understanding” was one such example.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Piper said:
Sure sounds like he’s suggesting excommunication of Arminian “elders and pastors and seminary and college teachers” to me.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I don’t think so Mike. At least not exactly. I think he’s saying those views would disqualify them from holding those posts - but not from church membership (excommunication). I don’t have a problem with a Presbyterian or other Reformed church requiring its pastors and seminary teachers to hold Reformed views any more than I would have a problem with a pentecostal or Assemblies of God church requiring its pastors and seminary teachers to believe that all of the gifts of the spirit are alive and active today, or a Seventh Day Adventist church requiring its pastors to believe the sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday. It’s a significant part of what defines their denominational identity, and I’m ok with that.
It’s the attitude that *some* in any given denomination have about their denominational distinctives, that troubles me - the enormous emphasis placed on them, to the point that it colors everything else. A contributor to Robert Weber’s “Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail” wrote of growing up as a Seventh Day Adventist that he came to feel they were LESS about gathering to worship God on Saturday, and MORE about Saturday being THE correct day to gather to worship God. It’s that attitude, that misplaced primary emphasis on “how we are more right than everyone else” in such a way that it is brought up at nearly every turn, that bugs me. Scripture doesn’t seem compelled to shoehorn the sovereignty of God into every single statement. Jesus didn’t. They (scripture as a whole and Jesus individually) seem free to make a statement and let it stand on its own. I appreciate my reformed friends who are able to do the same, and accept the mystery/tension of it. If Piper and Sproul had been around in Jesus’ day, I fear they would constantly have been interrupting Him or else jumping in after He was done talking, to make sure that everyone understood that He really didn’t mean what it sounded like He just said.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Wow, what an interesting and heated conversation. I realize that my comments will likely contribute to the Arminianism-Calvinism debate . . . when Julie’s main point was about whether we should even talk about excommunicating those with historically orthodox beliefs. I agree with Julie that such talk is unnecessary and divisive in the church universal. It seems that the only “appropriate” place for such talk is in a church or institution that has defined its statement of faith in such a way that a person needs to hold to either a Calvinist or Arminian point of view–or, for that matter, a particular view of women in ministry, or a particular view of baptism, etc.–in order to be part of said church or institution. It seems silly to call for excommunication of Arminians from the holy catholic (small C) church, or even to call people who follow the teachings of Arminius non-Christians or heretics!
Furthermore, Stephen, I realize you said that Arminianism has only PERVASIVELY taken root in the last 200 years, but surely you know that Jacob Arminius was around and theologizing in the 1500s . . . longer than 200 years ago! Arminius’s thought actually developed as a form of dissent from Calvinism; it is not, as many people think, the opposite of Calvinism . . . nor is it the Pelagian heresy of old. Arminians believe, as Calvinists do, that salvation is God’s work. God’s prevenient grace goes before, softening the hearts of those who ultimately make a (here’s the dissent) free choice for salvation. And I would say that Arminians even believe in total depravity in the sense that every area of life is affected by sin, but not in the sense that every thing and all people are as bad as it/they can possibly be.
I, too, was once swayed by “hardcore” Calvinist beliefs, but those beliefs contradicted the overall view of God shown in the Bible, despite some particular statements in Romans! (And who, after all, can fathom the mind of God and the paradoxes of human realities?!) Like Kristie, hardcore Calvinists beliefs almost destroyed my faith and almost took my life (literally). I believed that if EVERYthing in life, including salvation, was predetermined then that meant that God predetermined the other people’s sin that wreaked havoc in my life, then that meant that God predetermined my depression, and then that meant that even my suicide would be predetermined. So I attempted suicide, at once aligning myself with God’s predestination (he’s controlling it all anyway) and excusing myself from the hellhole called “life.”
For many years after attempting suicide, I still called myself a Calvinist, until I went on to study theology and realized that Arminianism isn’t the Pelagian heresy I thought it was, and Arminianism (at least some of the beliefs) actually coincided with my beliefs about a more grace-full God who doesn’t force himself on people, as if that could possibly show his glory.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Mike, I can certainly see how you might wander so far from biblical truth when you cannot even read the Piper article and repeat its substance with any faithfulness to what he actually said. To distort his point by claiming he is promoting “excommunication” might be good for starting a heated debate, but it does not serve to comminicate the message of the article with any authenticity. So it’s not a stretch by any means to see how you would “read into scripture” anything you heart desires, just as you did so with this article. Makes perfect sense to me.
March 10th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I’m reading all of this with fascination. As a Lutheran, you hear little to none of this particular theological debate. (Of course, in the Lutheran world, it’s instead a question of name-brand: ELCA vs. LC-MS vs. WELS on the questions of the authority of scripture, open/close(d) communion, ordination of women, etc.)
Perhaps it is my Lutheran-ness, perhaps it is my lack of involvement in the Calvinist/Arminian debate, perhaps it is just my own theological leanings, but at the end of the day, I find myself less concerned with whether or not grace is resistible, and more concerned with a God who showed us grace in the first place. And I find myself less concerned with how or when or whether God (pre-)elects people, and more concerned with the fact that God desires our salvation in the first place.
I think that what I am missing the most in this conversation is the recognition that we as humans can neither add nor subtract anything from God and God’s salvific intentions for the world. Perhaps I am too simple-minded about all of this. Yet at the end of the day, is not faith itself more important than the right understanding of how faith happened (gift of God vs. human decision)? And is not God’s grace-filled gift of salvation more important than right understanding of exactly how that grace works?
I’m not saying that discussing these issues isn’t important, but I am saying that God’s intentions will prevail regardless of how we (all!) misunderstand them, and that God’s power to save exists regardless human ability to fully comprehend it. And aren’t we glad for that!
March 10th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Maybe so Karl. It’s hard to tell from the way he phrased his comment.
I don’t have a problem with that either; but I do have a problem with Piper because he is NOT in a Calvinist denomination. He is in the BGC which quite deliberately does not take a stand on the issue. Thus I think it is totally inappropriate for Piper to try to make this a divisive issue within the denomination (as he has done in the past and apparently continues to do). If he is so unhappy rubbing shoulders with Arminians within the BGC then perhaps he should withdraw and go join the PCA or the CRC or some other actual Reformed denomination that would be closer aligned with his doctrinal commitments. Sounds like what he’s really saying is that the Baptist church isn’t for him. If that’s the case then I wish he’d “man up” (as his friend Mark likes to say) and leave already.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Mike,
I’m back after a long day’s work, and read your response(s). I still don’t think Piper called for “excommunication” in his talk - you might consider having a more measured response while reading into someone’s words.
Also, perhaps it is something in reformed theology that gets you so upset? Call me old fashioned, but I still question how profanity squares with Ephesians 5 - or how it doesn’t make you look uneducated or silly.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Mike - one more thing… I just noticed that you’re a pastor! Words fail me.
March 10th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Oh Wes, Wes, the legalism. I’m not necessarily saying swearing is right or wrong, or that Mike’s usage thus far is right or wrong (cause I haven’t read all of his responses), but words are just that: words. It’s the intent behind them that is important. I can say “damn” when something goes wrong, and I wouldn’t say I’m sinning . . . unless, of course, I say “Damn you to hell” or intend something similar. But I wonder if your comment is indicative of a legalistic propensity, that leans toward black and white.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
What is: The more fully biblical view???
Is it biblical or not? How is it “more fully” biblical?
March 10th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Oh good grief boys… do we have to play the “who’s the biggest heretic?” game…
March 10th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Oh Elaina, Elaina.
Could you miss more clearly my point? Mike seems significantly bothered by Calvinism - evidence his language - and I was surprised that a minister would loose his cool in this manner. Words are more than just words - they are a window into your heart. I’m not judging Mike’s heart; I’m just making an observation.
A “legalistic propensity” would be evidenced by a belief that one’s “right behavior” earns something with God. I think no such thing, nor did I imply it here. I do think that Scripture indicates that what comes out of a man is what defiles him…
I think each of us should look carefully at our behavior, not as earning standing with God, but as an indication of our own spiritual temperature/maturity. Teachers like Mike bear a higher standard (according to Jesus). That’s why I’m surprised.
Mike, am I reading you wrong here? More specifically, was your “b—s—” statement common to your language (which I assumed it wasn’t) or was it an indication of your anger/annoyance at the comment trail?
March 10th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
My use of the word “bullshit” wasn’t intended as profanity. It was a technical description.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Just curious, Mike: Do you see the use of this “technical description” as helpful to your congregation or to others who see you as not just an ambassador of the Lord, but also a teacher? Does Ephesians 5 come in to play for you at all in this?
Oh, and what about my real question: What about Stephen’s comment made you angry?
March 10th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I don’t find anything wrong with denouncing things as bullshit, when said things are, in fact, quite a bit like rubbish (not saying, in this case, whether they are or aren’t). But I doubt it’s always appropriate or even accurate to judge someone by their language. Some people seem to assume that swearing is always motivated by sin, but I just don’t think that’s the case. I don’t necessarily think swearing is what Jesus means when he says what comes out of a man/woman is what defiles him/her.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Elaina,
Forget the legalistic/fundamentalist baggage… isn’t it appropriate to observe that when someone (especially a pastor) uses language of this type they are making a point? Aren’t we also specifically commanded by Jesus to evaluate teachers based on the fruit of their lives - language being one part of it? Again, I’m not offended by the word - just that even in our culture, it isn’t just a “technical term” unless you’re talking about bovine waste… it’s generally interpreted as a statement of emphasis and/or anger.
You’ve had several swings at this - I still don’t think anyone has answered my initial or follow up questions. We can keep getting epistemologically focused if you’d like, but why do I think emerging people aren’t interested in “conversation” with those who come from a different perspective?
Here’s my simple question: What is it about reformed theology that angers so many emergents so much (or am I just listening to the wrong conversations)?
March 10th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I don’t think postmoderns or emerging people are uninterested in dialogue. I think the main point of Julie’s post is that many in the Reformed camp (using this example of Piper as an indicator) are uninterested in talking with postmoderns/emergents, preferring instead to denounce them as heretics or to excommunicate them. Sure, each side (emergents and Reformed, etc., etc.) will want to try to persuade the other(s) of what they see as truth, but so long as no one gets belligerent, I think emerging people are interested in dialogue. If I understand the Emergent movement correctly, it is an ancient-future kind of faith. Looking back to what has been historically affirmed and then looking forward for new ways to make that real and break out of age-old quagmires.
By the way, Wes, what were your initial and follow-up questions?
March 10th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
I can’t figure out how to do the fancy quote block thing, but here’s what I originally asked (and I apologize if it was answered somehow and I’ve missed it):
“…what exactly is wrong with Piper (who holds a theological viewpoint) suggesting that those who teach ought to hold that same viewpoint?”
And the follow up:
“Isn’t that just consistent with having a position on an issue? (”Each man ought to be fully convinced in his own mind.”) What exactly is wrong with being consistent?”
March 11th, 2008 at 12:50 am
I thought I made that pretty clear in my original post. It was the arrogance, condescension, and flat out falsity of his claim that anyone who disagreed with his theology must simply not have studied as much as he had.
And I find it rather telling that the Reformed folks here still seem to think this conversation is about disagreements with their doctrine, and seem incapable of grasping that what we’re complaining about is not their doctrine, but their attitude toward those who disagree with them. In fact, Piper’s Reformed doctrine is rather incidental to this conversation. We would be making the exact same complaint if someone had come along and said that people ought to be excommunicated for not being dispensationalists, or charismatics, or whatever.
March 11th, 2008 at 6:06 am
There you go again, Mike…twisting one’s words at will (at least you ARE consistent!). Once again, I never said, “anyone who disagrees with my theology must simply not have studied as much as I have” (see post #17). I said those who DO NOT CARE about the DIFFERENCE in these two theologoies have not really studied the issue. I then went on to simply articulate MY view (yes, with strong conviction. Oh my gosh, how could I?). THIS is what promted your profanity, which was Wes’ point exactly AND the grounds for his question.
Then in that same rant in post #26 (with your “technical descripton” as you call it), you cut & pasted my above comment, then IMMEDIATELY twisted it by saying (your incorrect reference to my words), “If only everyone had thought as deeply as I have about the issue they would obviously agree with me. Gimme a break.” NEVER said they would agree with me…only that they would see the importance of the debate, as I clarified AGAIN in post #29.
Yet still as of last night you insist that what I said wasn’t what I said, and called me arrogant once again to boot (in all Christian love, right Mike?). So I suppose the only way I can get out from under the “arrogant” label is to abandon my convictions. Not gonna happen, dude.
I truly am at a loss, Mike, as to how you can carry on a meaningful “dialogue” with anyone, if this is how you twist and shape one’s words. I am also, as Wes implied, dumbfounded that you are a pastor (your “technical description” not withstanding) if your making mince meat out of my words AND Piper’s words is any indication of how you interpret scripture. Your responsibility is great & weighty, my friend, as you lead and teach those in your church. We are to follow the BIBLICAL JESUS, and I truly hope those you are leading are not following the Jesus of your own imagination or flawed interpreation.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Well, I don’t know how to do the fancy block quote thing either, since I don’t know HTML. So I’ll just cut and paste: “What exactly is wrong with Piper (who holds a theological viewpoint) suggesting that those who teach ought to hold that same viewpoint?”
I think this was answered (but I don’t feel like going back through and looking for the post numbers where I saw parts of your question addressed!
), but the problem with Piper suggesting that those who teach ought to hold the same viewpoint is that that seems to imply that his viewpoint is automatically right and ought to be affirmed by all people. If Piper wants to start his own nondenominational church, and wants everyone who teaches to hold the same beliefs, that’s fine. If Piper wants to start his own institution without denominational affiliation, and wants everyone who teaches to hold the same viewpoint, that’s also fine. Or, if he wants to join a denomination that already has his viewpoint set in stone as one of their doctrinal convictions, then that’s fine. The problem is when a person wants to make something a mandate, when that particular issue has not been set in stone by the particular denomination one is a part of.
As my college history professor used to say, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things love.”
As for your follow-up question: “Isn’t that just consistent with having a position on an issue? (’Each man ought to be fully convinced in his own mind.’) What exactly is wrong with being consistent?” Nothing is wrong with being consistent. I think consistency is the point of systematic theology. I think it’s wrong when a person wants to force their consistent view on other people who also hold orthodox, but different, views . . . especially in a church setting where a completely systematic theology is not already in place and set in stone.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Minstrel Ayreon said…
“And here’s what really rankles, as if the slap against my own belief didn’t already: does this Piper guy think that God actually creates certain individuals for the express purpose of being damned?!”
You know it is one thing to disagree with a man over his theology. But it is another to say, he doesn’t even have a Biblical basis for it. So…to my strong arminian friend…here thee go.
Romans 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.
Are you actually a strong arminian? Do you know the 5 points of Arminianism?
1. Man has total free will
2. Election is conditional
3. General Atonement
4. The Holy Spirit is resistable
5. You can lose your salvation
One thing I will say is that Piper does seem a little out to lunch here…by not condemning his own denomination. He wants everyone else to, but he hasn’t excommunicated his own denomination. Which if he believes what he said, then he should do.
Gage Browning
Post Tenebras Lux
March 11th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Yes, that’s exactly what I was referring to. It is the theological conviction of some here (including myself) that the Calvinism-Arminian debate is not that important and we therefore shouldn’t care all that much about it. It is your theological conviction that this debate is important and we should care. And, as you reiterated in the quote above, it is on this theological issue that you think those who disagree with you must not have studied the issue.
That is exactly what I’ve been reacting to from you this whole time; and yet you keep trying to twist this back into a debate about Reformed theology or another trivial tangent about whether “bullshit” is a bad word. So once again let me be clear, this isn’t about your Reformed doctrine (so you can drop the persecution routine already). This is about your condescension and falsehood in saying that those who don’t care about the same theological debates that you care about haven’t studied enough.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Nice try, Mike. I will say you know how to spin words. Ever considered public office?
What I see as a matter of IMPORTANCE is scripture itself, and how we land an ANY issue. However, the importance of theolgy is not theology. I am referring to the importance of actually HAVING a theology on an issue.
Theology is a particular view of God, interprentaton of scripure, etc. And for you to say that something as central as whether or not God is completey sovereign is NOT important just further undermines your credibility. It doesw not define whether or not you are a Christian, just that it is important, and that when you actually DO study all the BIBLICAL implications of this issue (election vs. free will, eternal security, suffering, eternal desitiny of infants, healing, God’s will for your life, etc….in short, ALL the important things of life) it is hardley a trivial issue.
From what I have seen with the emergent church, it’s “theology” is no theology at all (or possibly some combination of all theologies). You are claiming that my stressing the IMPORTANCE of having a theology is in itself “theology.” This from a pastor? To borrow from Wes, “Words fail me.”
March 11th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Stephen, lots (almost all) of non-Calvinist Christians would affirm that God is completely sovereign. They would disagree with you about what God’s complete sovereignty implies and also about what God, in His complete sovereignty, chooses to do (and not do).
It seems that only ignorance or arrogance could lead anybody to suggest as you have that someone like C.S. Lewis (just to pick a name), who thinks that the Calvinist-Arminian debate isn’t all that crucial - that it isn’t neatly resolvable through the human logic, syllogisms and scriptural parsing of systematic theology (as helpful as systematic theology may be at times) - arrived at that position because of lack of study or intelligence.
They might be wrong. You are free to disagree with them. But to suggest that they arrived at their position due to not understanding the issue, and to a lack of study? Sorry, but no. However, yours is exactly the type of attitude that I’ve encountered in the Rabid Reformed circles I’ve run into.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
If I could interupt for one minute, I have a question:
Do you, Mike or Julie, have any issue with “The Christian Heretic’s view about universalism (comment 3 above)?
I find it interesting that you Mike are all lathered about Stephen’s attitude and communication style than the heresy of CH’s position!
While how we talk to each other is certainly important, is there some point where you draw the line about what is within the pale of orthodoxy?
Looks to me like you all are more concerned about attitude and methods of communication than Truth. Set me straight?
March 11th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Mike - you are right, I forgot that Piper is in the BGC. He’s so staunchly reformed I always think of him as being from a reformed denomination. That being the case I definitely disagree with his suggestion that pastors, elders and seminary teachers should be required to hold reformed views, in a denomination that doesn’t make reformed doctrine part of its denominational identity.
Stephen, I’ve re-read the above post and am sorry if my frustration on this issue crossed the line into angry. I really do get bothered by what I take to be an arrogance in comments of the type you have made, and the attitude I have encountered in (some) folks who are all about being Reformed with a capital R. But that’s no reason to get personally snippy and I apologize for that.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Karl, thank you for your reasoned, controlled response. That’s refreshing and welcome, and deserves further thought. You make some good points, and I understand why you would suggest either ignorance or arrogance would lead me to place such importance on God’s sovereignty (without resorting to the vehemence of people like Mike). So let me explain further…
I have been a Christian for 40 years. For about 37 of those years, I was an Arminian, but was completely mystified as to why so many people in my life debated God’s sovereignty, election vs. free will, etc. I NEVER saw the importance of it. Also during those 37 years, the way I lived my life never really changed. I wasn’t a “bad” guy, I simply was not growing much, and did not seriously study the bible much at all.
About 3 years ago, for whatever reason, God lit a fire in my soul, and I gained a deep desire to understand more about His character, His purpose in the world and in my life, and yes, even His sovereignty vs. free will. So that’s exactly what I did. As you know, this wasn’t easy, and there were many questions. But I spent a LOT of time reading many views, but mostly read a LOT of scripture.
I know that many land on the opposite side that I eventually landed (I landed on “Calvanism,” although I dislike that term). But what surprised me is that as a result of the importance that this issue now had in my life, my view of God not only radicaly changed, but my heart radically changed. This view of God affected EVERY area of my life. I could go into details, but I won’t bore you.
I know that many do not see this issue as important as, say, the atonement. And I would agree that it isn’t. But I am thouroughly convinced that studying this issue with an open mind and heart has a GREAT affect. C.S. Louis may have said that it’s not all that important, but he has arrived at a view of God that brings incredible glory to His name. I doubt that this happened in a vacuum without the extent of God’s sovereignty being one of the things on which he meditated (and if I remember correctly, C.S. Lewis was an Arminian). But serious study, and thinking through all the issues of scripture shaped this wonderful brother into the kind God-centered man that he was.
So I will agree with you that many have studied this particular debate, and have come away claiming it is not important. But practically speaking, I cannot see how it can be anything other than important, because it shapes our view of God, how we pray, how we evangelize, how we accept or live with suffering, etc. That it affects these things simply cannot be helped.
My problem with Mike is the vehemence of his reaction (not the “profanity” but the obviously implied attitude) and that, as a pastor, he is trivializing one of the deepest facets of God’s character that is talked about ALL OVER scripture. I may be wrong, but that leads me to conclude that scripture may not be all that important to people like Mike.
And Mike, let me just say that you are a brother in Christ, and I do apologize if I did come across as arrogant. But please don’t accuse me of arrogance simply because of the strength of my convictions…which IS what you did.
Believe me, Karl, this is not the first time I have been called arrogant (hard to believe, right?). But this is the problem that I see, not only in Christianity, but in all of current culture. Anyone who takes a strong stand is labeled as arrogant and intolerant, and those who, in effect, stand for nothing are embraced as having great virtue in being tolerant. Yet they are quite INTOLLERANT of those who claim to have settled an issue. I am just trying to call attention to the fact that taking a stand is not only a good thing, but is a biblical command “to be fully convinced in ones mind.”
I guess pointing this out on an “emergent” blog is just asking for trouble, eh? Peace to you, Karl…
March 11th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Wes - what a smug little question. We are friends with CH. We have discussed these issues before and know to an extent where each other stands. We have a relationship. I don’t see how not going around and pointing our fingers at people we want to label heretics is a disregard for truth (why do you see the need to capitalize it btw?). We believe what we believe and he believes what he believes and we respect that (I can say the same thing about you or Stephen). But unlike with you guys, we have been able to have civil respectful conversations with CH. He doesn’t barge into our domains and call us names, throw tantrums because we wont pay attention to his pet theological position, or pontificate on how disappointed he is that we exist. Loving others is far more important than minutia of doctrine. We’ve said that over and over here, but you guys insist on playing the victim and call us intolerant of your beliefs. You really are missing the point which doesn’t do anything for moving a conversation forward.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
julie,
i’m surprised (and i’m being careful not to capitalize). what did i say that was not civil or disrespectful? isn’t universalism “out of bounds”?
March 11th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Julie says, “Wes - what a smug little question.” Do you see the hypocrasy in that very first line of your post? You insist that Wes and I are arrogant, yet you call Wes “smug?” This is the tolerance that your movement is so proud of? That to rightfully call Universalism heresy is being “smug?” Do you have not have ANY regard for the truth of God’s word?
I can certainly extend love to someone and at the same time point out the complete and obvious non-biblical nature of such a position. Holding up truth is not mutually exlusive with love. Wow. Your words truly confound and amaze me, Julie. Now please don’t call me “unloving.” What’s unloving is allowing a friend to think that it’s ‘OK” to beleive something so completely unbiblical. But, I forgot…I guess the bible just doesn’t matter.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Stephen and Wes, can I ask a question? I genuinely want to hear what you have to say on this. For you, what determines whether something is “heresy”?
I ask this because my sense is that you feel emergent folks are simply wishy-washy and hold no passionate convictions (except perhaps “tolerance”). But Christ is the center of our faith, just as he is the center of yours. And we are passionate followers of him and are constantly wrestling with what that means and what that looks like in everyday life. We seek truth and meaning and understanding–and perhaps above all, wisdom. And I don’t personally know any emergent folks who would reject the major tenets of the Apostle’s Creed. We recognize there are beliefs that integral to our faith.
But when it comes to interpreting these central beliefs and the Scripture passages they derive from, the love of Christ compels us to allow for different perspectives. We don’t want doctrine to be more important than people. We don’t want to use doctrine to crush people. I believe this was the mistake of the Pharisees - they acted as though Torah was made in God’s image, rather than people. That doesn’t mean that we individually don’t have our (sometimes strong!) opinions. But we hold