Piper.
No, not that Piper. I am talking about Abraham Piper, John’s son. He has written an excellent article in response to a recent post by Scot McKnight regarding advice on handling ungracious and intemperate Calvinists. Piper concludes with these poignant words:
In my marriage, it doesn’t matter whether I’m thankful if I don’t seem like it. And in the church, it doesn’t matter whether we have the fruits of the Spirit if no one can tell.
It won’t be easy to change the pejorative stereotype that clings to Calvinism, but we can start by admitting that it is accurate far too often. Then we can make sure we are manifestly not self-righteous, condescending, arrogant, unfriendly, or argumentative. Also, you can count on us to buy dinner or coffee sometimes.
Paying attention to those who disagree with us and taking them seriously, even if we’re pretty sure we’ll still disagree, is part of what it means to be in the body of Christ. It’s humbling; it sanctifies. It will make us better husbands and wives. It will make us better Christians, and maybe even better Calvinists.
Thank you, Abraham, for such a timely and helpful admonishment. May all who embrace sovereign grace display it in our words and treatment of one another.
I’ve been a Reformed Baptist for about 3 years now, still am, but I GOT OVER IT about 6 months ago! I also just found out yesterday that I will be the daddy of a precious little girl! God IS SO Good!
I understand what Piper is saying though I do not agree with everything he has said.
First of all, it has been my experience that it is those who reject Calvinistic doctrine who make it appear that the Calvinist is argumentative. They engage in pyric polemics, or irenics, and not Scriptural or exegetical exchange. And when the discussion becomes impassioned, they then blame the Calvinism of the Calvinist or his unspiritual sensuality for the “unloving” dialogue. I do not think that I am alone in this and from all the condemnatory rhetoric that comes from the likes of Page, Graham, Vines, and the late Falwell who throw fire bombs and blame those who defend themselves, I would say that the problem is not primarily with the Calvinist.
It is not just the Calvinism, that impassions the debate. The doctrines held by those who oppose it, when drawn out to their logical conclusion as unorthodox. It is the refusal of those who hold them to repent and be silent that is what causes the sparks to fly.
I wonder how Piper would deal with Paul’s admonitions to Timothy, when a person’s doctrine conveys meanings, even unintended to the hearer, or even misunderstood by the speaker, what then is to be done? This charge that Paul gives, is a charge under the judgement of God, a binding. It is in otherwords, a commandment to tell the false teacher to shut his mouth and teach no more. And, it goes along with this. How unkind, and contradictory to 2 Timothy 2: 22-26, if what is meant by those is genteelness, rather than gentleness, which is first in reference to God, and then toward others. Verses 24 and 25 may just as easily be rendered: “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness, if God perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth…”
I am sorry, I do not know how to include tags on your sight. I have posted this at my sight so that the tags can be followed if any one desires.
Thomas,
I think you may have missed the thrust of what Piper is saying. The point is not that whenever we encounter someone who disagrees with us that we automatically roll over, mealymouthed and spineless. The point he makes is what I believe to be true from my own experience: of those who come to embrace the doctrines of grace, when having come from a significantly different theological background, one hundred percent seem to go through an intolerable belligerent phase. Some, alas, (and I think this is what Piper the Lesser is saying) never grow out of it.
These kind of people seem to forget that their own theological journey was a process, and expect anyone who disagrees with them now should have a somewhat speedier…conversion, if you will. There are a variety of dissenters that I’ve encountered. Some have been merely emotional and rhetorically charged in their dissent; others have had legitimate objections and have gone with me to texts (although this breed is more rare). I think those who obstinately refuse to listen to anything one says would fall into the kind of treatment and necessary rebuke that you commend to us above. I also think, however, there are Calvinists who need this same treatment, because they are essentially mere carbon copies of theologians they read and know nothing of the Scriptures, nor can they be kind or gentle in their disputations.
I remember being at a summer project after my freshman year of college, and the kindly pastor of the church where I was for that brief period responded to my inquiries about Calvinism with an invitation to his house, which led (after an immaculate steak dinner) to an incredibly edifying three hour conversation where he patiently listened to and answered every objection I had. I think this is the kind of thing that Abraham has in mind.
Tim,
I have had both experiences. I should have mentioned that. And, I have to admit I wasam one of those ‘cage-stage’ Calvinists, as James White would put it. I have met those who take the conversation seriously, kindly have sat down and spoken with me. Surprisingly, those are the ones who having listened either accepted it, or at least modified their beliefs, somewhat.
I suppose what I was reacting to is the misuse of the 2 Tim 2 passages. I have had this thrown at me too many times to count and it is not what it is made out to be. It has become a gag rule, and nothing more. I also react with anger, because, I was one of those who tried to explain my Arminian position to my children and wife. When I got to the point of explaining God’s foreknowledge I could only do so with a modified open-theism. I was teaching my family heresy because I had been lied to, and those who had lied, knew what they were doing and refused to admit to what they did or believed. What I have found in the flesh and here in the etherworld is that same refusal to admit to the logical conclusions of the beliefs held, or even that there was an alternative to look at (strange coming from people who believe in free-will). Oh, I have gotten some answers, like, “Nothing is impossible for God, therefore God is able to choose to do evil, he just chooses not to[ a defense of free-will]. Or, “faith is what we do not know,” [in defense of contradictions in Arminian thought such as God’s truncated omniciencen and forknowledge, or our inability to understand doctrine] (my former Pastor’s arguements) and “God is both good and evil” the confession of an assistant Pastor under the tutledge of my former Pastor. A brother said the same thing, his source, Adrian Rogers. I heard these same things from numerous Arminian Baptists and people like Herschel Hobbs, are the source of their beliefs.
There is obviously a vast difference between people, and different ways that we should approach them. I suppose my reaction to Piper was too strong, but I was reacting to the false perception, and the non sequitur. A caricature has been shaped and foisted upon the debate that Calvinism is elitist and the doctrine of so called malcontents and ranglers, and deviders, but so what? Shouldn’t the question be answered without consideration of the person? Or, is it loving to treat the sinner with distain, even if a brother? Do a persons unloving actions legitimate an unloving responses? Is it right to react by shunning rather that seeking another’s rescue and reconciliation? You see, the problem is not one-sided and if we are to follow the admonition of the Word not to judge by outward appearance, to hear the end of the matter, to love our enemies as Christ loved us while we were dead in sin and his enemies, we cannot hope to reach any resolution short of disfellowship. So, it really does not and cannot matter what demeanor the messenger has, nor his motivation. For we are not to be as the world that judges by such standards, are we? But, that is what we are being asked to do, if we once begin to admit that the message will not be heard except that it is delivered in an manner expected and accepted by the hearer.