“A format had developed, it started in that opening chapel.  A student would give his witness. He would tell about how God was dealing with him about sin in his life.  He’d make his confession, and then he would tell about how God had brought forgiveness to him, and restoration, or how the need of his heart had been met – his spiritual need.  As he would speak, there would be somebody in the audience who would say “that’s like me”.  And then that person would come under conviction, and come forward and kneel at the alter. So a pattern had been developed, of testimony, of sharing, then after the testimony  – prayer.   And after the prayer singing and praise and adoration and then more witnessing, sharing, of how God had met human need…I heard these students sharing what God was doing in their hearts, and how their lives were being cleaned out.  And God was restoring them if they had known him before, or else they they were telling for the first time they had found him.  And how relationships were being straightened out.”

“Now that was the kind of thing that was taking place. An honest candid dealing with person sin, and with personal disobedience and personal problems.”

“Things that were simply tradition became reality.  Things that were simply vocabulary became human experience.  And what had been transmitted from head to head now suddenly became living reality in people’s hearts.”

“It was interesting to me what the emphasis was of the Holy Spirit in those days.  There was an amazing openness and transparency…It was amazing the restraint of the Holy Spirit.  The emphasis was never on the gifts of the Spirit…The emphasis was upon sin the need for repentance, the need for restitution, the need for repairing relationships human being to human being, and the need the need for bringing a life into obedience to the highest and the best.”

It’s right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases. God gives life and he takes life. Everybody who dies, dies because God wills that they die.

God is taking life every day. He will take 50,000 lives today. Life is in God’s hand. God decides when your last heartbeat will be, and whether it ends through cancer or a bullet wound. God governs.

So God is God! He rules and governs everything. And everything he does is just and right and good. God owes us nothing.

If you are troubled by Piper’s concept of God’s morality, you’re not alone!  Bob Anderson from the Society of Evangelical Arminians has written up an excellent response.  It can be found here.  Anderson writes that:

What is at stake is the morality and righteousness of God with the random killing of individuals or groups. The deterministic paradigm, which reduces the very concept of the “good” is manifest in Piper’s statement below:

“It’s right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he
pleases.”

That is an appalling statement, because it contradicts the righteousness of God that we seek to affirm – the righteousness of the God who pleads with sinners to repent so as not to die. It certainly is an expression of sovereignty, but not righteous sovereignty. “In him was life, and the life was the light of all people” (John 1:4 NRS). By definition, Christians define God as the good and the good is for all. Evil, in and of itself cannot be the good. The good can only be derived when God labors within an evil situation to bring it about. Perhaps that is what we should see as the miracle of the transcendent God. God is not part of the evil that exists because of human sin. Rather he brings about good because he is not part of the sin.

Piper believes that God can do whatever he wants on the basis of power.  That is wrong.  There are certain things God won’t do because of his good character, even though he has the power to do so. God is moral and his morality is intrinsic to his character.  He does not arbitrarily kill people.

Christian Theology: Volume 1
Christian Theology: Volume 2
Christian Theology: Volume 3

The Wesley Center Online also has it available in web format here.

HT: Steve Noel

Ben Witherington gives a good critique here: John Piper on Men in Ministry, and the Masculinity of Christianity. From the post:

Well let’s start with the orthodox Christian point that GOD IS NEITHER MALE NOR FEMALE IN THE DIVINE NATURE. The Bible is clear enough that God is ‘spirit’, not flesh and gender is always a manifestation of flesh….Just as it is wrong to say that the father language in the Bible is just a bad outcropping of the thinking of those who lived in an overwhelmingly patriarchal culture and couldn’t help themselves, so it is also equally bad theology to suggest that the reason for the Father and King language in the Bible is because this tells us something about the divine nature or even the divine will that ‘Christianity’ have a masculine feel.

God is patient.
God is kind.
He is not envious.
He does not boast.
He is not proud.
He does not dishonor others.
He is not self seeking.
He is not easily angered.
He keeps no record of wrongs.
He does not delight in evil,
He rejoices with the truth.
He always protects,
always trusts,
always hopes,
and always perseveres.
God never fails.

Inclusivism is often maligned by those from the Reformed perspective.  It has nothing to do with universalism or pluralism (see this post, where I address what it is, and what it is not).  Inclusivists believe that non-Christian religions are in error and keep people from God.  But we also believe that God has the capability to save some non-Christians.  This is in spite of their errors, not because of them.  Inclusivists believe that Jesus is the only way.  We also believe that those who reject Christ will be eternally lost.

I am a hopeful inclusivist.   Given what scripture teaches about the character of God, inclusivism makes the best sense to me.  God can be trusted.  He sees the heart.  Through Christ, God is capable of saving those who have a distorted view of who he is.

Biblical support
A plenary reading of scripture gives us evidence that inclusivism is likely to be true. God shows no favoritism, but accepts people everywhere who fear him.  God is love.  Jesus’ blood purchased people from every tribe and nation.  Jesus is good news and great joy for all people.  The shepherd seeks out the lost sheep.  Jesus is the light of the world.  Jesus came to seek and save the lost. Jesus died for the world. God is not willing that any should perish, but wants all to repent. The grace of God brings salvation to all men. God did not send his son to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Jesus is the propitiation not just for our sins, but also for the sins of the whole world. When Jesus is lifted up he will draw all men to himself. The servant who does not know his master’s will is beaten with few blows. A multitude that no one can count will be before the throne.  These verses (and other verses like them) make inclusivism probable.

Every Tribe and Nation?
After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb (Revelation 7:9). People from every tribe and nation will be represented in heaven.  Every tribe.  This presents a problem for exclusivism, as there are tribes who have not heard of Christ.  Moreover, there are extinct people groups who never heard the preached word.   Inclusivists believe that people from those groups will be represented before the throne, just like John’s vision affirms.  One such tribe is the Teotihuacans – a group that lived in southern Mexico between 300 BC and 900 AD.  Other tribes in the Americas (and throughout the world) disappeared prior to the arrival of  missionaries.  Since these tribes never heard the preached word, they will only be represented in heaven if inclusivism is true.

Mercy Trumps Doctrine – the Good Samaritan
The Samaritans were the heterodox heathens of Jesus’ time.  We have a tendency to romanticize them today, however, their history and religion were despicable.  Imagine a voodoo worshiper who integrates a few Christian symbols into his religion, and you have a pretty good idea of what Jews thought about Samaritan religion.  The Samaritans were those from the northern kingdom that had intermarried with pagans, and had worshiped Baal.  In Jesus’ time they refused to worship in Jerusalem, and they had dedicated their mountain temple to Zeus.₁  In one case they opposed Jesus simply because he was on his way to Jerusalem.  James and John despised them so much they asked Jesus if they could call down fire from heaven to have them all destroyed (Luke 9:51-56).  Yet only a few verses later in Luke, an expert in the Law asked Jesus what he needed to do to be saved. Jesus’ answer was the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Jesus said that the Samaritan who had mercy was preferable to the Levite and Priest who did not.  Jesus said the same thing about the sheep and the goats. “Whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me.” (Matt 25:31-46). John said the same thing about love.  Everyone who loves others has been born of God. Whoever “claims” to love God yet hates his brother is a liar (1 John 4:7-21).  In God’s view, mercy trumps doctrine every time.

The Shortcomings of the “Biblicist” Argument
Exclusivists argue that inclusivism is wrong because it is not explicitly affirmed in a particular proof-text. But there are other doctrines that exclusivists do not hold to the same standard – such as the doctrine of the Trinity, and the doctrine of Prevenient (or Irresistible) grace.   A teaching that deserves special attention is the “age of accountability”. Outside of a few hyper-Calvinists, there is broad consensus that those who die in infancy and the severely mentally handicapped will be saved.  This doctrine is arrived at through a plenary reading of scripture that appeals to the character of God.  The “age of accountability” is a type of inclusivism. It affirms that God will not by default reprobate those who lack the capability to understand the gospel.  In order to be consistent, those who reject inclusivism because it’s not “Biblical”, also ought to hold the same standard for infant salvation.

Inclusivism in the Early Church
Perhaps without realizing it, today’s exclusivists are promoting doctrinal prejudices that are holdovers from Roman Catholicism. Wesleyan Jerry Walls notes that “There is a significant tradition of Inclusivism going all the way back to the church fathers.”₂  Forms of inclusivism were advocated by church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria,  Origen, Athanasius, and others (see this post).  These include the same fathers who spoke Greek natively, defeated Arianism and wrote the creeds.  But after Rome began to control the church, inclusivism dropped off the radar until the time of the Reformation.  The state church had a vested interest in dictating who was and wasn’t saved.  Augustine went so far as to state that all Christians not submitting to Rome were damned₃, as were all non-baptized infants₄.  Augustine’s view became the default one.  During the Reformation, theologians both inside (Erasmus) and outside the Catholic Church (Luther, Zwingli) began to consider inclusivism once again.  They placed more emphasis on scripture, and less on Catholic tradition.  Some Reformers continued to hold to exclusivism, replacing “Catholic” with their own state sponsored Protestant denominations.

Exclusivism is Synonymous with Calvinist Thought
All Arminians ought to reject exclusivism for the same reasons they reject Calvinism. Our view of God ‘s character demands it.   Calvinists claim that God wants everyone to be saved, but then go on to argue that God doesn’t give grace to everyone, and justly leaves the reprobate in their sin.  Exclusivists claim that God wants everyone to be saved, but then go to argue that some don’t hear the gospel, and God justly leaves them in their sin.  There is no practical difference.  Neither group has genuine means to be saved. Anyone who believes that God is drawing everyone to himself ought to be at least sympathetic with the inclusivist view.  We can leave those who do not hear the preached word to our good and capable God.  He always does what is right.

—————————————————————–
_{(1) David Carson, Who were the Samaritans?
(2) Jerry Walls, Heaven: The logic of Eternal Joy, p81
(3) Augustine, Address to the People of the Church at Caesarea “Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church”
(4) Augustine, On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants}

HT: Hans Deventer

Right now they have a free t-shirt offer for the first 500 people who “like” their Facebook page.  There were 420 likes at the time of this post, so there’s still time to snag one for yourself. :)

He is going to think you are a nut. You cannot just walk up to someone’s house that you don’t know and expect to talk to them. Are you a stalker? However, I countered this with a classic: Michael, you are probably the only one crazy enough to do something like this so it will work.

Odon is one of my favorite theologians.  Reading his work  is like drinking from the fire hose.

You can find the series HERE, go to the one called “Chosen and Choosing” (October 11, 2011). It is available in either audio or video.

Cavey is Anabaptist, and he provides a unique perspective. He is a very rapid speaker, so you have to pay attention or you’ll miss something. :) He is a former Calvinist, and articulates Calvinism very well (without making caricatures of it). He spends a lot of time addressing questions that Calvinists ask non-Calvinists (like the sovereignty of God, whether or not faith is a “work”, etc). He is irenic, and stresses the importance of Christian unity – that neither Calvinism or Arminianism is the gospel. In the series he goes over the 5 points of TULIP. He addresses most of the main scripture texts that both C’s and A’s appeal to. He also has a question and answer time in each session. And he even gets a marriage proposal. :)

One minor issue to be aware of is that in the first session he seems to conflate Arminianism with semi-Pelagianism, however, this is corrected in the second session, and he accurately describes Arminianism from that point forward.

The Meeting House describes itself as “a church for people who are not into church”. It is Anabaptist in perspective, and is based near Toronto, Canada.