Since I’m not a Universalist — Evangelical, Pluralist, or otherwise — I agree with what both John Piper and Rick Warren believe about Hell, watch:
ht: TCR
But that’s it. I don’t endorse or believe or agree with anything else that Piper or Warren articulate de facto [let me clarify something here, as an addendum, per Adam’s point below in the comments: I am not saying that I don’t believe that either Warren or Piper are “orthodox” Christian men who lead their congregations to the best of their abilities and own critical self-reflection on their respective theological thinking; instead I am saying that I don’t follow either fellow — which I think they are like in this — in their theological method, which I say in the following sentence. This is something I continually harp on here at the blog, and in fact our forthcoming book makes the same point, of which Adam and myself contribute chapters to this very section of the book (prolegomena). Adam’s concern has been bothering me all day, actually, and so I just wanted to emboldenly clarify what I meant right here . . . I hope this helps clarify what I meant by disagreeing with everything else these guys say, that is only so “in fact” not “in principle,” and that is because I think they have “started” at the wrong place in their theological methods, even though both are primarily pastors and not professional theologians, per se]. In other words, I am at such strong odds with Piper and Warren in theological method it’s not even funny.
Bobby,
That was surprising somewhat, but I am glad that Warren is biblical here. But as you say, there is much more to the Gospel than this. Personally I am wary of Warren, and really wonder why Piper obliges him? But they are both mega pastors, and in that whole club, etc.
‘Put it on Jesus.’ Yep. That’s right. It’s a disservice, a dishonor a dishonesty and a disgrace to allow the world to hold, unchallenged, the fantastical view of a Jesus who allowed everyone’s opinions to be equally valid. Truth is not negotiable.
Truth is not negotiable… even when it is painful.
Are the only options to either be a universalist or agree with what is presented in this video?
I hope not.
@Fr Robert,
I am wary of Warren too. It’s an interesting mix between Piper and Warren.
@Josh T.,
Yes, we need to point people back to Jesus in Evangelism. Of course that presupposes that we know what Jesus said and believed π .
@Kait,
Hey, welcome. No, I don’t think those are the only options in detail or fact or method; but I think they are representative of at least two of the three major available alternatives. Viz. Either Eternal Conscious Torment or Temporal Conscious Torment (Evangelical Universalism), and then of course there is annihilationism (pace John Stott for example). Which would you prefer? I can’t think of any alternatives within the history of interpretation than these three major perspectives, can you? When it comes down to theological method, though, that’s an altogether different animal (but related). And thus why I end this post with the clause that I do: “In other words, I am at such strong odds with Piper and Warren in theological method itβs not even funny.”
Well, I can think of at least one. Hunsinger calls this “reverent agnosticism” in his book “Disruptive Grace” (which is very similar to “hopeful universalism”). He puts men like Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus and Barth into this category.
Oh yes, I’ve heard that one articulated before too. It’s somewhat like Robin Parry’s “attitude” towards universalism; holding out the hope (not dogmatically so) that what he believes is indeed to the “truth.” Yet, I would still count even this “hopeful universalism” (vs. dogmatic) in the bigger category of universalism (this though, as far as I can gather is really an attitudinal posture vs. actual position). I know that lot’s of Torranceans and even Barthians (in Hunsinger’s vein) hold to this kind of approach. I obviously don’t take it. Maybe I could be labeled a “wishful universalist.” Kait, how would you self-identify, even if you’re in flux right now, which way would you lean (by predisposition)?
I’m not comfortable saying such publicly given my “in-flux” position. But I really shy away from any language of necessity and dogmatism that occurs in relation to speech about the afterlife since I believe that God alone is the one who holds the power and freedom to reconcile anyone onto Himself or not. I find that language of necessity and dogmatism often creep into the position of universalism and the video above. It is discouraging given the fact that we are finite creatures who are saved by grace alone. Such realization of God’s sovereignty should lead us into a bit more humility in our orientation toward the issue and qualify our word selection.
Kait,
Yes, but Scripture indicates a particular position; that to me is the issue. And then of course there is the history of interpretation etc. These are substantial things. If Scripture left this to the periphery then I would be happy to as well, but I don’t believe it does. That said, we can talk about these realities with humility vs. arrogance. TF Torrance believed in ECT hell, but he does not make this the center of his theological approach; which of course for those who follow a particularist understanding of election, in a classic sense, and an analogy of being type method and doctrine of God where the attributes of God are framed through essentialist thought; they will end up with a theology wherein hell plays a prominent role as the place where God’s attribute of justice is given full revelation upon the reprobate. This is why I said that I strongly oppose Piper (and even Warren, although he’s not a “Calvinist” per se) and his approach; since he follows an idea of God that sees him as metaphysically shaped by “Law” and not “Love/Grace.”
@ Bobby ~ I think the existence of the Bible presupposes God’s desire and our ability to understand what Jesus said and believed. π
@Josh,
Me too. I guess my point was that I’m afraid there are many many biblically illiterate Christians π .
Without commenting on the particularities of Warren’s view on hell, I have to say frankly that I find the comment you posted below the video disappointing. You don’t agree with ANYTHING else these two guys have to say? I could possibly understand such a comment if the video was of a chat between Deepak Chopra and Richard Dawkins and you found yourself surprisingly in agreement with something they both said, but Piper and Warren are servants of the Word and I thank God for their ministries. Most of what they have to say is about faith in Christ and glorifying the Father. Yes, theologically I’ve got my disagreements with both of them, not least in terms of method, but as brothers in Christ and fellow servants of his gospel what unites us is certainly greater than what divides us. Shouldn’t we want to emphasize that even as we distinguish our own theological positions?
@ Bobby,
Yeah, I know. Which I say at the risk of sounding like I’m not one of them. So much treasure in that living book! The more I dig, the greater is my awareness of how shallow I’ve scratched in the surface of its depth! Thanks for the post.
Josh
@Adam,
Let’s not polarize this more than we ought. I specified what it is that I am at strong odds with both of these brothers in Christ with; viz. “theological method.” I never said anything about how I view these guys as brothers in Christ. You just put that on me. I would imagine that you too would have heavy problems with both of these guys’ theological method, and that is all I said. But, having said that, no, I am not excited about their ministries; I think that theological method has real consequences on people’s Christian spirituality. These things are not unrelated, and I’m surprised that you don’t see that.
@Josh T.,
Yeah, we all have room to grow. I’m just generalizing. It’s troubling to me though, that folks, in general, just don’t know their Bibles. That’s only left for the theologians and pastors; or for the “smart” people.
@Adam,
Just one more point. Of course I agree with Piper and Warren de jure relative to the historic orthodox points of the faith. But I don’t agree with them in the way that they articulate that for the “people” (that’s why I said de facto). I don’t agree with the theological grammar they have chosen. I don’t agree with the soteriological emphases they articulate. I don’t agree with their hermeneutical approaches. I don’t agree with the way they teach their congregants to read and interpret Scripture. I don’t agree with their doctrine of God. These are not throw away issues. To me this isn’t a theological game with no impact on real people. It’s for real. If it’s not, and all this is is a matter of exchanging theological ideas and writing papers etc., then forget it; to me it’s a waste of time. In my minds eye Piper and Warren have a huge and immediate impact on regular Christians (same with John MacArthur for that matter), and I find what they are communicating (or not communicating) to be damaging. Certainly none of us are perfect, and are all open for critique; and that’s where I’m at with these two brothers. But again, please don’t attribute to or read more into what I must think about these guys than I do. I never questioned their relationships with Christ, or any such thing.
Hey Bobby, thanks for clarifying. I did understand your beef with both guys was in matters of theology, not the sincerity of their hearts, and I of course agree that theology matters. My concern regards the level of polarizing rhetoric amongst fellow Christians and, at least concerning Piper, fellow theologians in our public discourse – the blogosphere is, after all, entirely public. I do understand the particularity of your remark, but I think its brevity and severity make it feel perhaps a bit too derisive. It is entirely proper to critique particular theological claims or even entire theological agendas through carefully reasoned and sober arguments in a public forum, but antagonistic dismissal is something different, especially if it is of someone who we admit is basically orthodox in their preaching and theology, which both these guys are. At that level, critique needs to take place from within a constantly recognized and articulated set of shared convictions.
Of course, I claim no sainthood here – I have made sweepingly dismissive statements about Christian public figures myself, have been called on it, and in retrospect appreciate having been called out in the interest of civility and grace in public theological discourse. If my comments here have missed that mark, I apologize.
Thanks, Adam.