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:
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
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.
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.
Mike – one more thing… I just noticed that you’re a pastor! Words fail me.
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.
What is: The more fully biblical view???
Is it biblical or not? How is it “more fully” biblical?
Oh good grief boys… do we have to play the “who’s the biggest heretic?” game…
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?
My use of the word “bullshit” wasn’t intended as profanity. It was a technical description.
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?
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.
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)?
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?
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?”
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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.
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?
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.
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…
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.
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”?
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.
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 them as just that: opinions, working hypotheses. And we seek to learn from those who have wrestled with these same issues and come to different conclusions. This applies to issues of practical living (ethics) as well as doctrine – atonement, election, the final destiny of the “unsaved,” etc.
Anyway, I hope that helps give you a sense for how at least I approach questions of orthodoxy and conviction. As I said, I’m interested in hearing your perspective(s).
Kristi, thank you for your sincere question. In answering, it would help me a lot if you could also answer a question. Do you beleive, by faith, in the inerreancy and infalibility of scripture?
The reason I ask is because that is precisely how I would deteremine heresy (on issues that are clearly revealed in God’s word. Some are mystery and not revealed cearly, but not many).
If, on the other hand, you do not beleive in the inerrenacy of scripture, then I could not imagine how you would begin to arrive at any type of solid, foundational truth. Does this answer your question?
Thanks, Stephen. As you may have predicted, I’m not terribly happy with the doctrine of inerrancy – not least because Scripture never claims this for itself. I’m happy to affirm that the word of God is living and active, that it always accomplishes the purpose for which it was intended, and that the message of Scripture is God-breathed. And I believe that it’s trustworthy and authoritative for the faith and practice of the people of God. Is that enough commonality for us to be able to talk about this?
Your comment about your perception of the number of things revealed “clearly” in Scripture as opposed to the number of things that remain “mystery” is very helpful for me. Perhaps our biggest difference is that for me, many things in Scripture are not crystal clear, many remain mysterious and we only perceive them “as in a glass darkly.” Even our friend the Christian Heretic has some scripture passages that seem to lean in the direction of universalism – Romans 5:18, Col 1:20, 2 Pet 3:9, Rev 21:5. So, this doctrine that to you seems to be a clear “heresy,” to me remains a mystery (though I may disagree with the CH at this time.)
All this to say, as much as I think Scripture is central to our ability to understand our faith, I don’t agree that it serves as an objective foundation. Interpretation is always necessary. And that’s where, for me, Spirit-led conversation within a community of believers plays a significant role.
Kristie,
I’ll give you my perspective (I can’t speak for Stephen).
“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’).”
To be honest, it does feel that way to me. Tolerance does seem to trump historically accepted “major” tenants of our Faith. Universalism is one example of that… it really troubles me that the question of whether men apart from Christ are going to hell is viewed as something that reasonable people can disagree on and still call themselves Christian. If we don’t agree on the problem, how can we agree on a solution?
I am grateful for the declaration that Christ is the center of faith for both you and me. I celebrate passion in following Him, and also wrestle with what that looks like in everyday life. I’m also seeking truth, meaning and understanding, and resonate with your suggestion about wisdom (perhaps) over all. Solomon’s request is celebrated in Scripture even if he didn’t follow his own wisdom in the end.
All of those things sound really good to me. But… here’s where I feel confused and concerned: We all agree that there are essential beliefs – but we don’t agree on what is essential. For example, you said that you don’t know any emergent folks who would reject “the major tenets” of the Apostle’s Creed. I think all of the tenents are essential. I hope I’m not making a point out of nothing – it could be the inadequacies of written communication without body language to provide context. But for me, the nature of God and His interaction with us is essential, our eternal destinies are essential and I still don’t understand why Piper’s thought that what he thinks is essential ought not be required by everyone to teach.
I know that may sound disagreeable, but I see it as logical and important. If I really believe something, shouldn’t I act in a manner consistent with that belief? Is it really loving to say (effectively) that each person can believe whatever they want if I really believe that the consequences of their belief will dishonor God? Or if their belief would result in an eternity in Hell?
While this bears much more explanation, I understand heresy to be anything that contradicts the Gospel as articulated in Scripture. Which begs the question of what the Gospel is, I know… and I think that’s the rub in these conversations – I’m not sure we all agree on what the problem is with Man and what the Good News is that God has accomplished in Jesus.
For me, as I read the Bible, a common understanding about the nature of man, the problem of sin and the nature of the atoning work of Christ are among those things which are essential to the Gospel.
I guess I’m hearing you say (correct me if I’m wrong) that orthopraxy is more practically important than orthodoxy. I’m not saying that I’m hearing you say that anything goes in terms of belief, but that it isn’t important enough to push too hard on. If I’m even close to right, my perspective would feel very different in that I think orthodoxy leads to orthopraxy. And also that wrong thinking/beliefs will lead to wrong behavior.
For me, these are more than just “opinions or working hypotheses” – they are direction, help, practical governing principles… and questions like the “atonement, election, the final destiny of the ‘unsaved,’ etc.” are foundational to orthodoxy, not tangential.
So here’s my question back: How do “non-emergents” like me fit into the conversation you’re having when we see more things as essential – and (at least it feels like) we get labeled and written off?
Let me just say, Wes, that I’m often inclined to write people off when they disagree with me, especially people who take hard stances on doctrines that are not explicitly, step-by-step, laid out in the Bible when such doctrines have almost damaged my faith in God in Christ beyond repair.
Wes wrote, “I still don’t understand why Piper’s thought that what he thinks is essential ought not be required by everyone to teach.” The reason is that Piper is not God, and that kind of thinking and deferral to a particular leader or a particular view is what makes for cults . . . where questioning is not allowed and where a particular interpretation of truth reigns supreme.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there are “many truths,” I believe that truth is singular . . . but I also believe that, about many, many things, only God knows what that truth is. If most of us say we believe in total depravity (though, perhaps, with different nuance), then we have to admit that everything is affected by sin, even our ability to reason and know truth . . . hence Kristie’s we see “through a glass darkly.”
Now, Wes, I would say that yes, if you believe something you ought to act in a manner consistent with that belief, but I don’t think that acting consistently means requiring everyone around you to have the same belief. If we think that a person believes something wrong and that that errant view will affect his or her salvation, then by all means, set out to lovingly, gently tell them how you see truth. But that doesn’t call for forcing truth upon people, especially on issues not integral for salvation.
You say, “I understand heresy to be anything that contradicts the Gospel as articulated in Scripture. . . . For me, as I read the Bible, a common understanding about the nature of man, the problem of sin and the nature of the atoning work of Christ are among those things which are essential to the Gospel.”
I think there are general things we can say about the nature of humans, the problem of sin and the nature of the atoning work of Christ without insisting that everyone else take our specific view of those things. For example, the atoning work of Christ. We can all probably agree that the atonement was necessary. I’m going to wager a guess that you hold to the penal subsitutionary view of the atonement, which I do not. Does that make me not a Christian? I don’t think so. I believe that Christ’s death on the cross ransomed me from the grip of sin and Satan. I also believe that Christ, not only died, but lived in my place; he was my substitute. Does that mean I think God had to PUNISH Christ in order to have his wrath satisfied? I certainly don’t.
Furthermore, I don’t think election is foundational to salvation. See my comment #49. People have disagreed about this for hundreds of years, and only the Pelagians were denounced by the church as heretics. I can, in good conscience, affirm everything in the Apostles’ Creed, but I don’t see a single thing in that creed about election or a view of the atonement.
Strong words by Piper. I believe we should look to the word and not limit ourselves by doctrines of man. We should seek what Jesus says.
Jesus, in His parable, said not to pull up the tares because we might pull up some wheat with it. Rather they will both grow along side each other until the harvest. If someone is professing Jesus and the gospel alone for salvation, no matter what their belief on Calvinism/Arminianism, who are we to say WE KNOW whether they are saved or not??? Jesus KNOWS and that’s good enough for me.
Now, if someone in the church is saying or doing something that is outright sinful or against the gospel, then we do rebuke them but that is a totally different subject (church/believers discipline). If someone is professing Jesus as their Lord and following Him accordingly, then we are to fellowship with them. Sigh
To address the “smug” usage. I saw wes’ question as a trap – damned if I do damned if I don’t. It reminded me of the religious leaders trying to trap Jesus – nothing he could say to answer their question would make them happy. That is what I see as smug. So take joy in calling me a hypocrite and asserting that I don’t care about the bible, but I know that to be a lie and unless you desire to continue spreading rumors and lies, I would appreciate it if you would stop saying things like that.
I am not a universalist, but I do know that many of those who are deeply respect the bible and have come to their position from the bible. So please stop assuming that if someone doesn’t come to the same conclusions as you that they must not care about the bible – that just isn’t true. We may not believe in man made concepts like inerrancy, but we still love and respect God’s word (and don’t appreciate having that concept tacked onto the requisites for being a Christian).
But others here have explained that in better detail at the moment…
Julie,
I wasn’t asking the question about CH as a trap. I didn’t call you a hpocrite and assert that you don’t care about the Bible. I’m not spreading rumors and lies. I haven’t said that someone who doesn’t come to my point of view doesn’t care about the Bible.
I assume you’re responding to Stephen – but I’m not him. You accused me of not being civil and respectful. You accuse me of barging into your domains and calling you names, throwing tantrums because you wont pay attention to my “pet theological position” and “pontificat[ing] on how disappointed [I am] that you exist.
Whoa.
Just for the sake of Christian accountability, I went back and re-read all of my comments posted on this blog. Your reactions tells me that I’m not welcome back, and I’ll respect that. But I don’t see that I’m rightfully judged as having done the things you list in comment 84.
Stephen said:
Man, you’re really not listening are you? I’ll say this one last time and then I’m done. I DID NOT accuse you of arrogance because of your convictions. I honestly couldn’t care less whether you’re a Calvinist or not. I accused you of arrogance because of the way you so condescendingly dismissed those who disagree with you. If you’re not willing to hear that criticism and want to continue to interpret it as something else, then I have nothing left to say.
Mike, I did not “dismiss” those who disagree with me. I simply strongly asserted my convictions, which is EXACTLY what promted your profane tyrade, and is exactly what rankles most in your “tolerant” movement. So please at least own up to what you did. I’ve actually had good dialougue with a couple of reasonable folks above who did’t fly off the handle with accusations. So grow up, pastor Mike.
And Julie says, “We may not believe in man made concepts like inerrancy, but we still love and respect God’s word…”
One of the most contradictory statements I have ever heard. In all seriousness, Julie, and without anger, sarcasm or malice on my part, please hear me. If you do not beleive in the inerrrancy of scripture, then all truth is subject to questions and potential falsehood, and no truth has any foundation. This really, really saddens me. So you can all continue to play games with God’s holy word (which you claim you love, but believe is in error). And all this discussion has been pointless.
Stephen, as with the free will/predestination debate, I think the inerrancy question borders on being a red herring also – or at least speaks in categories not contemplated in the world of scripture and seeks to nail down things God seems content to have left open.
You might be interested in this article from the Baptist Standard on “Why Inerrancy Doesn’t Matter”:
http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=4516
“For centuries, equally sincere God-fearing, Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christians were satisfied to say that the Bible is inspired, authoritative, trustworthy and (often) infallible. “Inerrancy” was raised as a standard against liberalism and higher criticism of the Bible by the rationalistic Princeton theologians of the 19th and early 20th century. Their names are familiar to all students of American theology: Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, Benjamin B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen. As a group, they formed a dynasty of conservative evangelical theology that helped launch the fundamentalist movement in the early 20th century.”
You can believe in the full authority, truth, power, weight, etc. of Scripture without claiming the “inerrancy” of Scripture. Inerrancy is not a biblical word. “God-breathed,” yes. “Living and active,” yes. But “inerrant,” no. Don’t raise inerrancy to a biblical criteria when Scripture doesn’t use that kind of language about itself.
I personally prefer the Wesleyan quadrilateral anyway – Scripture, tradition, reason, experience. We need and use all of these. And you can even hold sola scriptura simultaneously with the Wesleyan quadrilateral, since the reformers said that Scripture was the primary/ultimate norm, not the only one.
I always hesitate to get into the inerrancy conversation, because it is such a huge topic, and because people feel so strongly on all sides of the issue, but I have an honest question/curiosity about the whole situation in regards to the question of truth.
Theologically, I have been taught (and it seems rightly so?) that the true Word of God is the person of Jesus Christ, and therefore that the truth of the word of God is the truth of the person and work of Jesus Christ. And so my ability to understand God’s truth is dependent not on the inerrancy of scripture, but on the person of Christ. And so in this way, I have never really thought about my understanding of God’s truth as having shaky foundations, regardless of my view of scripture.
The Bible, then, is a witness to the truth of God’s intervention in the world and to the community of faith’s experiences of God and Christ. I think that at the end of the day, the fundamental truths of God’s intentions for the world and Christ’s saving actions for the sake of the world will emerge, regardless of view of scripture.
For me, the inerrancy debate matters more in terms of discussing the normative power of scripture – that is, its influence over particular issues and particular demonstrations of faith/morality/etc. I think that in those arenas, differing views of scripture indeed are in tension with one another (but can certainly mutually benefit one another!), but in terms of the fundamental truth of God and the person of Christ, I think that many many many people (believers in inerrancy and otherwise)wold agree and would consider those basic truths essential.
I wonder what others think about this – am I sorely misunderstanding those who adhere to inerrancy or those who don’t? And if these essential truths do exist and all sides agree with those truths, could this be a more useful point at which to begin true dialogue on the subject?
Karl, Melissa, and “gduckgreg,” thank you for your thoughts. I really don’t want to get into a debate over innerrancy, but I will make one important point. Julie’s idea that it’s “OK” to accept someone’s embrace of Universalism is a perfect example of the logical end of rejecting the innerancy of scripture. If scripture is open to error, where do you draw the line? The error of Universalism is not simply an “alternative interpretation” of a difficult or mysterious text. This is directly contrary to crystal clear teachings of scripture, and the basic, central truths of the gospel. But if you believe the bible can be in error, then the fact that it IS contrary to clear scripture means absolutely nothing. This is my point.
It is precisily my faith in the AUTHOR of the bible (God, not men) that grounds my belief in it’s innerancy. Without faith in it’s innerrency, debating the issue will go nowhere, and will simply be an argument grounded in Human logic.
Thanks again for hearing me, and not accusing me of being arraogant in my strong convictions.
I don’t believe in universalism because I believe in the authority of scripture; and I just can’t get to a belief in universalism from scripture as much as I’d like it to be true. I don’t need inerrancy as basically invented and defined within the last century, to get to that position though.
At the same time, there have been a few people in the church down the ages who held universalist beliefs, and who I think also had real faith in God and respect for scripture. Among the church fathers and theologians, Origen was one. Somewhat more recently, George MacDonald (who had a great influence on C.S. Lewis though Lewis wasn’t a universalist) was another. I side with the historic church in thinking that they’re wrong, and that universalism is a fairly dangerous error, out of the various errors (man, I hate that word but here I am using it) that Christians can fall into. But I’m not going to make quick pronouncements on the eternal destiny of their souls, either.
Karl: amen!
I wouldn’t make any quick pronoucements about their souls either, Karl. Glad we agree on that. Also, nothing I have said prior to this was ever intended to imply I was judging anyone’s salvific standing before God. If that came across for some reason, I apologize.
Obviously I do not share your dislike for the word “error,” but I thank you anyway for your thoughtful response. I also wanted to thank you for your apology in post #73, even though I did not see any reason for you to apologize. You strongly disagreed with me (which is your perfect right), but your attitude came across as worlds apart from Mike’s. I know I sarcastically “dug in my heals” with Mike as a result. But that’s not his fault, only mine, and I should not have done that (hope you can accept this apology to you, Mike. Seriously, brother, I was wrong to react that way, regardless if your response to me was wrong or right). But you, Karl, even used the words “arrogance” and “ignorance” without making it a personal attack.
What I just do not understand is how disgreeing, and even stongly stating a profound concern for error in someone’s theology is turned into percieved hatred for that person themself. I’m simply not going to follow up everything I say with, “But that’s just my opinion, and yours is just as valid.” If I thought their opposing view was valid, then I would not actually have a conviction. I certainly understand that others disagree with me. We can still talk and present our views (yes, even with strength and conviction). I am just shocked at some of the vehemence I have seen from so many (not just here) the minute someone actually takes a stand. Thank you, Karl, for not being one of them.
I count 25 instances of dung aka shit of several animals and men in the bible KJV. Two were by Jesus. My dad’s favorite is horse shit. This is not profane or swearing. It is vulgar. Vulgar is not bad it is common or gutter. I don’t use this kind of language much but I don’t fault those who do.
“The classic response of one railing against God’s complete sovereignty in all things is totally centered in man’s pride. [MISREPRESENTING ARMINIAN POINT OF VIEW. GOD SOVEREIGNLY CHOSE TO OFFER PEOPLE THE CHANCE TO CHOOSE HIM. HE CAN DO THAT--HE'S GOD.] 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. [THIS IMPLIES THAT IF ONE SERIOUSLY STUDIES, THEN ONE WILL NECESSARILY COME TO THE REFORMED POINT OF VIEW.] I hate to have to agree with Mike, but you did imply that if one is not Reformed then one in ignorant. And you were snarky and arrogant. I bet your wife has told you that before
I know this thread is nearly a year old, but I have to take issue with the original posting: Piper is NEVER discussing excommunication–rather he saying it is wrong to do so over non-creedal issues like the old Calvinist/Arminian debate.
Piper’s main point though is that there are higher standards of precision and orthodoxy in leadership, than in lay persons–(and yes, he includes acceptance of Romans 9 as part of that precision.) His standard would not excommunicate an Arminian leader in his church…it would just remove him from the privilege of leadership.
Expecting leaders to have precision of belief is entirely consistant with long-standing, common-sense practices across the denominational spectrum.
I might find a Calvinist at a Methodist church, but I wouldn’t expect the Pastor to be that way… In the same way, I might find a person baptized as an infant at a Baptist Church (a Piper/tolerant one anyway), but I wouldn’t want infant-baptism being taught from that pulpit…(or then the name “baptist” is misleading)(yes I do know Piper is tolerant toward infant baptism). And I’m a Calvinist infant baptism proponent!
I used to attend a Bible Church on Sunday nights, and it really was strange to have one pastor preaching one week, on how John Calvin was an amazing guy, then the next week another pastor saying the idea of Christians as an “elect people” (a New Testament term) is hogwash… That Church did not demand agreement on Calvinist/Arminian theology amidst it’s leadership, and that bred confusion in the flock. I know a lot of people now who USED to attend that mega-church.
Other than for post-modernist relativism seeping (or flooding?) into the Church, I really don’t see why holding leaders up to a standard higher, and a lot more precise, than lay persons is that big of a deal. But hey, I’m not a baptist.
Maybe Piper is just in the wrong denomination.
If a person can find God on their accord does that not minimalize God’s sovereignty?