Near Emmaus

Tag Archives: John Piper


by 31 Comments

Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak: Thoughts on the Rob Bell “Universalism” Drama

While I was enjoying my day at the 2011 ETS Northwest Regional Meeting it appears that Rob Bell was declared the greatest of contemporary heretics. At least that is what I gather from the legions of blog posts, subsequent comments, and tweets that were written in response to this promotional video by Harper Collins for Bell’s forthcoming book Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.

As I gather it the drama began when Justin Taylor wrote a blog post (see here) asking if the video shows Rob Bell to be a universalist. For those who are unfamiliar with universalism it is the belief that God will eventually “empty hell” and everyone will be saved. There have been many people who have been accused of this ranging as far back as Origen and even in the last century as regards Karl Barth.

I have two thoughts on universalism: (1) I do agree that it is a dangerous doctrine, mostly because I don’t see much evidence for it in Scripture. (2) I sympathize with those who want it to be true. Who wants anyone to face eternal punishment? I don’t. That being said, I trust God is good and righteous. God will not make a mistake in his judgments and God is not obligated to any one of us in how he determines the fate of the humans he created.

Anyways, I should get back to Rob Bell. Kevin DeYoung, another personality associated with The Gospel Coalition, wrote a less detailed but similar post questioning Bell (see here). John Piper tweeted something that made it sound like Bell had died (here). Of course, this resulted in all kinds of fun. People who love Bell went crazy attacking the evil Calvinist and the monstrosity known as The Gospel Coalition (remember, The Gospel Coalition has people like Tim Keller and Charles Mahaney….i.e., not everyone in this group is a fighter). Those who follow Taylor, DeYoung, and Piper loyally defended their orthodoxy against Bell’s heresy.

AND YET WE KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT THIS BOOK!!!

Remember, this video has to grab your attention. It is designed by people who do marketing. People who do marketing have a job to do: sell things. Well, someone at Harper Collins is a genius!

Taylor says he has read a few chapters, but that isn’t the full book. Tom Batterson, a book seller, says he has read the whole book (read here). He is convinced that a lot of people will be eating humble pie soon.

I think we all should be eating humble pie, now! Jesus said that the world would know us because of our love for one another. Oops.

Now if Bell is a universalist then I don’t blame Taylor, DeYoung, or others for taking him to task. But we don’t know anything right now for sure. I think Christian charity demands we give Bell the benefit of the doubt. And then, even if he does come out to be a universalist (which the aforementioned Tom Batterson says he does not) we should balance outrage with love for a sibling in Christ.

As I read the blog posts and tweets one thing came to mind, “What about being quick to listen and slow to speak?” In the Book of James we read, “My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for a man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life God desires.” (1.19-20, NIV)

We have been slow to listen and quick to speak. Shame on us. Our anger toward each other has not resulted in the righteousness of God. It has only, once again, made it evident to the world around us that we do not love each other like Christ commanded us to love each other. We don’t, we don’t, we simply don’t.

I end by quoting Scot McKnight who wrote this in response to an email from Sarah Pulliam Bailey that I think is the best response so far (from here):

“I’ve not seen anything like it. And, yes, the quickness of social media have made this such a big issue … today … and in a week it will all be gone. Justin Taylor once generated almost 100 comments by quoting a blurb of mine that was on the back of IVP’s book by Tom Wright on Justification.

Justin may be right about what Rob believes, but if he is wrong then he owes Rob Bell a huge apology. I want to wait to see what Rob Bell says, read it for myself, and see what I think of it. Rob is tapping into what I think is the biggest issue facing evangelicalism today, and this fury shows that it just might be that big of an issue.

The publicity approach of HarperOne worked perfectly. They got huge publicity for a book. They intended to provoke — and they did it well. I think it is wiser to wait to see the real thing than to rely on publicity’s provocations. Justin bit, and so did many of his readers.

Frankly, John Piper’s flippant dismissal of Rob Bell is unworthy of someone of Piper’s stature. The way to disagree with someone of Rob Bell’s influence is not a tweet of dismissal but a private letter or a phone call. Flippancy should have no part in judging a Christian leader’s theology, character or status.”

May it be said that the next time we have the opportunity to listen quickly while speaking slowly that we take advantage. I think we failed this time. There is a lot of apologizing that needs to take place.

About these ads


by 5 Comments

Wrightians v. the Neo-Reformed?

Is evangelicalism being split into two camps? There has been talk of the N.T. Wright v. John Piper approach to justification for a few years now. Then there has been a conference dedicated to the theology of Wright (which has implication on how we understand the gospel) that occurred the same week thousands of Neo-Reformed Christians gathered to discuss the gospel. Now at ETS this year it will be Tom Schreiner v. Wright discussing justification by faith.

On the one hand, this may be one of those rivalries that disappears quickly–like John F. MacArthur v. Charles Ryrie/Zane C. Hodges on the discussion of “Lordship” v. “Free-Grace” salvation. I was a small child when all that was being debated and discussed and I look at it complexed. I don’t understand what either party is saying.

On the other hand, this may be mammoth. Brett McCracken wrote for Christianity Today on the two aforementioned conferences stating hopefully that one day the two parties would meet together (here). Michael Bird is not very confident that this will happen (see here). I agree. It is not likely these two parties will see eye-to-eye anytime soon. It could be something that will actually create two different trajectories for evangelicalism.

Or it could be something my (future) kids read about asking, “What were they fighting about again?”


by 3 Comments

Why John Piper’s Invitation to Rick Warren is a Good Thing

There is a lot of chatter about John Piper inviting Rick Warren to speak at the next Desiring God Conference. Some think Piper has compromised because Warren is a heretic. Well, I think we need to slow down before we call Warren a heretic because there are some Christians who really, really need his book. In fact, I can think of one particular group of people. If you are on Facebook and you know anyone who plays that stupid game Farmville it may be that the best book for such a person is something like Purposed Driven Life.

God bless Rick Warren.


by 6 Comments

Non-Biblical Language is Essential for Christian Theology

In a recent online discussion with several people I know (and some that I did not know) the subject of fellowship between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals was being discussed. A former professor of mine, who I think is still part of the Oneness sect, said that fellowship could occur when “…both groups decide to limit themselves to biblical language and avoid the use of extrabiblical terminology”. JohnDave Medina, who co-blogs here, rightly pointed out that this would allow Arians (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses) into fellowship as well and I added that this destroys any possibility of doing Christian theology at all. Rather, it regulates us to Scripture memorization and quotation that ends in proof texting as best.

Although I would not say that I am a big fan of John Piper I noted a few things that he said in a lecture on Athanasius that I felt were relevant. He said, “The truth of biblical language must be vigorously defended with non-biblical language.” Then he gave his reason: “You can use Bible language to say things that are false to the Bible”. I think Piper is correct.

It is not that heretical or heterodoxical sects cannot quote the Scriptures. In fact, it is the opposite. Usually it is the goal of such groups to “let the Scriptures speak for themselves” which actually means “we have a predisposed understanding of what this passage means and if we actually think critically about it we would realize our predisposition doesn’t account for what the Scriptures say at all”. Equally, it is forgotten by these people that part of allowing the Scriptures to speak is to actually clarify what the Scriptures mean.

For Athanasius he fought the Arians over a definition of Christ’s relationship to the Father that was only one letter different from his opponents. For Athanasius and the Nicene party Christ was homoousias (of one substance) while for the Arians it was homoi0usias (of a similar substance). That extra iota made the differance between whether or not Jesus was one with God or Jesus was the first created being of God.

If Athanasius would have not used an extrabiblical term like homoousia we may all be Arians today. Let us not forget that the Scriptures were meant to be read, interpreted, and understood, not just quoted. Extra-biblical language is essential to Christian theology. Without it we are left to a church without teachers and text without power.


by Leave a comment

Trevin Wax Interviews N.T. Wright

I apologize for thr numerous N.T. Wright postings as of recent, but I thought I would pass along the following link to an interview done by Trevin Wax of Kingdom People with N.T. Wright regarding his upcoming book on justification and his on going debate with John Piper on the same topic. To read “Interview with N.T. Wright–Responding to John Piper” click here. In addition, Mike Wittmer has asked some follow up questions about the interview which you can read  here.