My reaction to John Piper's recent article was strong. That was because his words were extremely troubling. I felt personally wounded by the idea that Arminianism is a "threat to the atonement", because I value the atonement highly. Two further thoughts.
One: Definitions matter. Arminian theology is not Pelagian, nor is it open theism. Arminians believe God is sovereign. The only real question is how. Arminians believe God's foreknowledge is not dependent on an eternal decree. Regarding the gospel, Arminians believe human beings are completely and utterly fallen, unable to in any way affect their own salvation. Arminians believe salvation is a gift that is completely and totally unmerited. In this regard, Arminians are in lock step with Calvinists.
Where the divergence comes is at the point where the atonement becomes limited (a notion nowhere explicitly taught in scripture) and particularly the point where God might be accused of causing the very evil Christ came to remedy.
Arminians believe "no man comes to the father unless the spirit draws him", which means even our faith is a gift - God's Spirit must convict us of sin and enable us to recognize our falleness. No good works will undo the damage of a single sin. All we have to offer God is the empty hands of faith, and at that point, and only at that point, is our will involved. God offers unmerited, unearned Grace to all (explicitly taught in scripture), and beckons to all to come - but not all respond. That is the source of evil - created beings turning their back on a loving God.
What rankles Arminians is the logical problems and the countless scriptural passages that are seemingly ignored in the statement: "There is no atonement and no gospel without God-planned sins". It is the "God-planned" part that is the real problem.
Two: Every action leads to a reaction. And this is disturbing. Other bloggers have reacted strongly to Piper as well, decrying his "arrogance" (and I have written of him as seeming quite humble) in having such strong certainty in his convictions. And sadly, some seem to be going to the opposite extreme. Because conservative theologians like Piper are, in their eyes, too sure of themselves on this issue, they suggest that Christians should make no firm pronouncements on other issues as well - like gender roles, sexual mores and definitions of the nature of God. How sad.
I wish for a Christianity where there is a good balance. It has been said before by many others, and I say it again: Where scripture is clear, we should be firm. Where scripture is unclear, we should be gracious. Where scripture is silent we should be silent. The liberals and many emergents wish to be clear about nothing. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and many Anglicans seem to be extremely devoted to notions and practices not found in scripture at all. Some in the evangelical/fundamentalist camp seem unable to be flexible about anything, even obscure and difficult matters.
And the end result is that scripture itself tarnished as a book that only causes strife.
Lord forgive me where I have erred, have mercy on us all. But let me never abandon the Word in spite of all our human errors and all the shame we bring to it.
5 comments:
Dan,
I had a follow-up comment on your last post, but it seems to have disappeared into the blogosphere somewheres. I kept waiting for it to pass moderation, but when I saw you move on, I realized that you hadn't read it yet.
It said something like this:
I don't blame you for getting "energetic" or animated. If someone told me that my Calvinism was a "threat to the atonement," I would get energetic, too! {As I understand it, that kind of thinking is present at Liberty University and in many SBC circles.}
I think Piper could have been more careful here--and I think he would have been if he wasn't trying to deal with so many errors that touch on the atonement in one teaching time. (And he did recognize differences and levels within Arminianism as I pointed out previously. I think you would agree that some Arminians are basically Pelagian (I'm thinking Finney here for example)--just not the good ones, what I have come to call "Classic Arminians.")
I think what Piper is saying is that the logical implications of Arminianism lead to a distortion of the gospel--especially its God-centeredness (which is what Piper is so hot to defend and proclaim).
I think I would temper that by saying that Arminianism could lead to that kind of distortion (because all error has implications and consequences) though it does not have to and hasn't in the minds and hearts of many many Christ-followers.
I've heard Piper say similar things--including talking about the "Old Arminians" who "really loved God!" (in contrast to many today who seem to devalue Him and place man at the center).
Piper would agree that definitions matter and I think he could have been clearer here on what definitions he was using (though there are plenty of hints that he has distinctions in mind).
As for limited atonement or particular redemption, there are scores of texts that lead me to believe in it (and, yes, cherish it). Especially important are texts that show the Atonement to be effectual and to actually accomplish things in the life of the believer (even me!). But I agree that there is no "silver bullet" verse that is unassailable by other interpretations--it is definitely (pun intended) a cumulative case.
I see what Piper is saying by the "no atonement without God-planned sins." He means there is no atonement without the Cross, no atonement without a Lamb, no atonement without a betrayal/conspiracy/farce of a trial--all of which were planned by God in advance (Ephesians 1, 1 Peter 1, Acts 4, etc).
This is what really rankles you, but I'm not sure how else to think about it. Maybe I have Calvinist glasses glued on my face, but didn't God plan the atonement, including the conspiracy, the chosen Lamb, and the Cross before the foundation of the world?
For Calvinists, this is a great mystery--how does God do that kind of planning and not be the author of sin? We don't know and don't claim to have it all figured out (though sometimes we act like it! It's yucky when Calvinists are prideful--the opposite of what our doctrine should produce), but that's what we see Scripture saying. And it doesn't seem to present a problem to the authors of Scripture.
In Arminianism, is it that those Christ-killing sins are "foreknown" that you don't talk about God planning them, in any sense?
Brother, I too, long for that balance and for that unswerving devotion to the Word.
-Matt
Matt - Sorry about your post getting deleted. Not sure what happened there.
Thanks for the response. Someone else suggested that Piper may have had "open theism" in mind in his broad term "Arminianism". If one believes that God did not plan all events, then perhaps one might conclude that God cannot know future events. That is a difficult distinction, and maybe Greg Boyd was Piper's target.
You wrote Piper may feel that "the logical implications of Arminianism lead to a distortion of the gospel--especially its God-centeredness". But certainly one could also say that the logical implications of Calvinism can also lead to a distortion of the Gospel - placing God's sovereignty above all other attributes, such as justice and compassion. A God who is pure "will" hardly seems like a God of "good news". Certainly there isn't much good news available to those who are predestined to eternal damnation from before the foundation of the world.
You also write, "He means there is no atonement without the Cross, no atonement without a Lamb, no atonement without a betrayal/conspiracy/farce of a trial--all of which were planned by God in advance."
I believe all those things! Not sure you have honed in on my point. Arminians would not discount that God might influence some events and some individuals for a larger purpose, knowing their hearts already, including the treachery that led to Jesus trial and Pharaoh's hard heart.
But that is not a solid exegetucak basis for saying all actions of every human being in all history were irrevocably planned by God or that human will cannot have a component of freedom that is genuine and not a mere cooperation with the eternal Divine decree.
That's what rankles. It is that if God planned, and not only planned but irrevocably decreed ALL evil choices of ALL human beings, there is no rational way to deny that God is responsible for evil. Nor can one in any understandable way deny that God's justice in the condemnation of billions of living souls who were destined to act according to his iron-clad decree is incomprehensible and dubious.
None of the attempts to harmonize God's justice with hard predestinarian views or limited atonement has been convincing to me. Such attempts seem to be more of a dismissal "it's just beyond human understanding" so we should "just accept that God is just when he seems to be a maniacal tyrant." Such arguments essentially make any discussion of justice impossible. They don't really deal with the issue. They just sequester God's justice into an untouchable mysterious realm and imply that if we can't muster the faith to accept the intolerable truth, we are deficient in faith or humility.
The thing is, we can justify just about anything by saying "it's not something humans can understand." Not sure we can ever do any real theology if we can dismiss genuine questions by saying it is just beyond understanding. What's the point of trying to understand anything in scripture once we go there?
We've discussed this before, face to face, which is always better. Always glad to do so and hope we don't think less of each other as a result of vigorous debate.
I am, however, rather amazed that you find "scores of texts" that lead you to a cherishing of limited atonement. You'll have to send me a list.
Oops. The phrase "solid exegetucak" should have read "solid exegetical". Poor finger coordination.
Dan,
You're right, we've discussed this before face-to-face, and that's much better. I hope we're face-to-face again before too long (though we may or may not want to talk about this stuff)! And greater minds and communicators have debated these issues for several hundred years. I don't expect to change your mind.
And yet, here are few brief responses after a few days' reflection:
- I doubt that Piper was thinking "Open Theism" when he said "Arminianism" (though he might categorize Open Theism as a variant of the larger category). He has fought against Open Theism long and hard within his own fellowship of churches and calls it by name elsewhere. It seems like he would do so here to be clear.
- I can't agree that Calvinism presents a God who is "pure will" or places God's sovereignty over His other attributes. I resist that caricature. Calvinists believe that there is good news in Jesus offered to whosoever believes.
- I do agree, however, that an unbalanced Calvinism could lead to a distortion of the Gospel--and has in the history of the Church. Hyper-Calvinism springs to mind.
- I recognize that classic Arminians are trying to protect something valuable in the Gospel by going down the route they do. And that is God's goodness. They do this by positing libertarian free-will as the answer. I very much appreciate that even when I disagree with some of their presuppositions and conclusions. And I have fellowship with them (most of the members of my church!) and don't call them false-teachers or threateners of the atonement. [I do think that some Arminians are trying to protect and celebrate free-will itself and that God's goodness is more of an after-thought.]
- The reason I honed in on the betrayal, the Lamb, Cross, trial, etc is that that was Piper's point in that section of the outline. Piper was saying that God planned the sinful acts of men that led to the atonement. If God is not sovereign over their actions, then we have no planned atonement and no gospel (I think that Acts 4:24-28 speaks to this clearly). I understand now that the Arminian version of foreknowledge is how you explain those texts.
- I think that a heaping dose of mystery is inevitable in Christian theology, especially because our thoughts are not God's thoughts. I am not saying by invoking mystery, however, that these questions cannot be explored by the faithful, trying to understand how divine sovereignty and human responsibility co-exist in perfect tension. I am saying that once we locate the mystery where Scripture locates it, we have to humble ourselves before God's Word and not force it to answer questions as we demand of it. The secret things belong to the Lord.
- The reason I cherish "limited atonement" is not because someone else is shut out of the Kingdom by it, but because I believe God saves me through it. In my understanding, this doctrine is that God secured the salvation of His chosen children by the Cross--including their faith. Not just their potential salvation, but their actual salvation. For a list of such verses, I'll refer you to Piper's outline in his class on the doctrines of grace.
This is your blog, my friend and brother, and I look forward to you having the last word.
-Matt
Matt. Thanks for hanging in there. Like I said, this is the one issue that nearly caused me to lose my faith, so I do get a bit passionate about it. I simply cannot, ever, biblically or logically, embrace double predestination of limited atonement. I just don't see it in scripture.
But I do truly understand that Calvinists dealing with Romans 9 can honestly feel called to submit to what they believe they find there. So I can respect you for your faithfulness to Scripture, even if I do not agree. That to me is the central issue - is this debate centered on scripture.
Ultimately, I think both Calvinists and Arminians are seeking to avoid extremes. Calvinists are attempting to battle against any human earned form of righteousness that robs God of his glory and the thanks we might owe Him. Arminians are attempting to battle against any notion that God is unjust. Both find much support for their views in Scripture.
My disappointment with Piper was that he normally seemed not to be too strident and his recent comments seemed to me to go over the top.
Let me know if you are in the area. We need to catch up on other things...
Post a Comment