Piper has since clarified that he would not apply this comment to Arminian institutions (I misworded this statement when I first posted the comments--I doubt very seriously that Piper would consider Wesleyan or Arminian thought to be truly evangelical):
"how should we regard these errors [Wesleyanism and Arminianism] in relationship to the teaching office of the church and other institutions?..."
"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."
Ha! He made this comment at Resurgence 2008, which is an arm of Mars Hill Church in Seattle where Mark Driscoll is the pastor (not to be confused with the Mars Hill where Rob Bell is). In other words, this group has nothing to do with my own circles. Resurgence is a group that aims to resource multiple generations. It is emerging rather than emergent, a new distinction that has emerged (Ha!) so that people can distinguish between the orthodox (e.g., Mark Driscoll) and the unorthodox (e.g., Doug Pagitt).
Wesleyans have nothing to fear from the emerging--an "emerging" Wesleyan on this definition is a "missional" Wesleyan who is simply one focused on the Christian mission in all its dimensions. I could mention several individuals who I fully believe will be future leaders and general superintendents of TWC who would fall into this category.
By one person's reckoning, Brian McLaren stands right on the cusp of the distinction between emerging and emergent. Frankly, if you are solid in your theology, then we don't need to fear engaging these people's ideas. You can learn something from everyone if you know where you stand, everyone from the most fundamentalist to the most liberal.
In any case, Wesleyans should be very cautious of using any of Resurgence's materials, as they should in general of material from John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Gary Shavey, etc... I believe Driscoll is a good man from whom we can no doubt learn much, but his theology is not our theology.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Most Calvinists have a very subtle but pervasive belief that Arminians are just barely Christians.
I'd rather be "barely a Christian" than believe in a God who causes evil and delights in the death of the wicked.
The "biblical view of grace" is, unfortunately for the Calvinist, not Calvinism.
Hey Kyle, I'm just now putting two and two together that you are the same Kyle from the Asbury Coffee House. Sorry I didn't make the connection before!
By the way, just to reiterate why Calvinism is unbiblical, five points:
1. It is possible to be justified and not be saved in the end.
So Paul expresses the possibility he might not be resurrected. On this point alone, the entire Calvinist system falls like a deck of cards.
2. Calvinism underestimates God's sovereignty.
It does not think God is "man" enough to allow people to have free will. He apparently has a "little man complex" and is so insecure that He blows His top at the very hint of imperfection of any kind.
3. Calvinism does not take God's love for the world seriously or Scriptures that tell us God would prefer everyone to be saved.
It thus misses the fundamental point of the gospel, which is [truly] good news for the whole world. It pictures a God who stabs us, hangs us within an inch of our death, bludgeons us, then wants us to thank Him for his great love in giving us CPR and sowing up our wounds. Calvinism pictures God as the most narcissistic, self-centered being in the universe who created the world solely so he could "get off" on everyone telling Him how great He is.
4. Calvinism thinks God has to obey the rules of human logic.
Thus He could not possibly know what people would choose without making them choose that. He could not possibly predestine without precluding free will. After all, we couldn't do this and these things don't make sense to our minds.
5. Calvinism tends to overemphasize logic when the biblical priorities are heart and behavior centered.
It tends to make ideas the touchstone of faith while underestimating God's [truly] gracious character as well as His empowerment for righteous living. It trivializes Christ's death on the cross and turns it into some mathematical equation God had no choice but to follow.
I find point 4 humorous, because in overemphasizing what you call "human logic" Calvinists are actually making quite the illogical move:
It certainly is the case that IF God were to predetermine everything that He would have perfect knowledge of that which he predetermined.
This can be shown using simple modus ponens (If P then Q, P therefore Q).
If God has predetermined everything (E), then God knows that E
God has predetermined E, therefore God knows that E
This is valid, but the entailment is not mutual.
If God has predetermined E, then God knows that E
God knows that E
Therefore, God has predetermined E
This formulation is completely invalid, and it shows the simple point that omniscience does not presuppose determinism. Just because we grant that God is omniscient we are not logically obligated to posit determinism along with omniscience.
If I have to play by the rules of human logic, the most free will seems to me to require is Molinism, that God moved from potential to actual knowledge of everything in the moment of creation. As you mention, foreknowledge does not imply determinism in itself any more than my knowing what's going to happen on a video means I determined it to happen.
But I'm willing to allow that God might have knowing tricks that don't make sense to me.
Yes this is Kyle from ACH, your resident anti-Calvinism and pro-Biblicist! =)
It is very ironic how philosophically entrenched Calvinism is, given their general repudiation of philosophy for "just the Bible."
Here is my trenchant, but nevertheless accurate, article about what you must believe in order to be a consistent Calvinist.
http://preachfaith.blogspot.com/2008/02/few-things-you-have-to-believe-to-be.html
Whoops, let me space out the URL
http://preachfaith.blogspot.com/2008
/02/few-things-you-have-to-believe-
to-be.html
Driscoll's relationship with Emergent is storied. From what I understand, he was actually on board until the last few years when some more theologically liberal statements came out from those in the Emergent camp. Then he jumped shipped and has been famous for pretty much being the "anti-Emergent" Emergent. Odd.
As far as him being a "good guy"...ehh...he may be, but perception is reality, and my perception of his comments in the past have been "this guy is a jerk." There. I said it. The sad part is that he is a wonderful communicator and gifted pastor, but he has no filter. He flies off the handle, says something controversial stupid, and then comes crawling back begging for forgiveness. It's getting old.
Sounds like me :-)
Nah, not even close. See his comments about "pastor's wives letting themselves go" being the reason why pastor's have affairs. You've never quite gone out on that limb.
As a Calvinist, I would say you are my kind of Arminian/Wesleyan. There are too many out there who want unity by asserting there are no real differences or 5% difference rather than just agreeing to disagree.
"You're theology is not my theology" so beware of using Weslayan materials or materials by John Maxwell, Keith Drury, James Dobson and the like.
Maybe you should provide a list of of emergent that you hang with so we know who to avoid.
Are we particularly crusty (Calvinists) if we use statements similar to "I find your brand of Arminianism repulsive."
I do believe there is much to learn from holiness types if only to temper some of the crustiest of us. However, it seems "crusty" may describe some Wesleyans, even in the emergent crowd. Love Wins.
Stu
My frustration with Calvinism here in Europe is that it's latent in much evangelical thought yet not explicitly so. Thus you hear preachings on the gift of free will followed by assurances that God holds all matters in His hands.
Calvinism is coherent, given a few axioms, yet detached from reality so I think it's OK to be a Calvinist but only a 5-point Calvinist and not pick and choose and get incoherent.
Post a Comment