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.

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.

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.

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.

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?