Thread: John Piper blogs on the tornado and Lutherans/homosexuality

Open theism is aberrant to classic Christian orthodoxy, I agree. I have participated in the ministry of WoodlandHills, know the powerful work for the Kingdom that is done in that place, and while I may not agree with Boyd on this matter, I am ready not to burn him at the stake; even if only very kindly on a message board "electronic age" style



God either allows it or causes it, as with the book of Job. What is manner of such causality though? Is it always direct or sometimes passive in that some things are the natural product of living in a fallen world?

Originally Posted by PilgrimPastor

... and while I may not agree with Boyd on this matter, I am ready not to burn him at the stake.

Nor am I. It's not a personal epithet that I'm throwing at him; rather, an objective fact according to the Scriptures, and supplementary Confessions, Church Councils, Canons, etc.

God either allows it or causes it, as with the book of Job. What is manner of such causality though? Is it always direct or sometimes passive in that some things are the natural product of living in a fallen world?

All things flow from God's decree, and He is active in executing them in time (as we understand time). As you'll see in my earlier post, I believe all calamities, sickness, etc. are a general consequence of sin. However, I think they're specific in some case or another; but just because they are, doesn't mean we humans are privy to the why of the judgments.

Fair enough. You plainly attacked the non-Scriptural status of the Open View and not the man. It was a knee jerk reaction on my part. I respect Boyd, and he gets it very right on so many issues that I am perplexed why he has made such a strong stand for what will prove to be, I am sure, a passing non-classic view of God's sovereignty.

Originally Posted by PilgrimPastor

You plainly attacked the non-Scriptural status of the Open View and not the man.... I am perplexed why he has made such a strong stand for what will prove to be, I am sure, a passing non-classic view of God's sovereignty.

Lest it be misunderstood, I do mean and maintain that he's personally and publicly teaching heresy. What I don't mean is that it's a personal insult coming from me, but an objective fact according to objective standards. Open Theism is not simply a non-classic view of God's sovereignty. It is an all-out assault on the God of the Scriptures and a denial of His sovereignty. If that's the god he serves, it is not the God of Scripture. There's really no way to slice it any nicer. A man can be right on so many things, but if he's wrong on the very essence of God (i.e. His sovereignty, power, etc.) none of the other stuff matters.

Thanks, Josh, for plainly stating the truth.

We are living in such a wimpy age in which it is seen as "unChristian" to negatively evaluate anyone's position on this or that with any degree of certainty. Folks, as Josh has said, Open Theism is HERESY, pure and simple. To teach, contrary to Scripture, and the confessions, that God does not in fact know anything of future events with certainty (let alone that God has not in fact decreed every single event which comes to pass EVER, which is the confessional position) is to teach heresy.

Greg Boyd plainly teaches a heretical view of God's interaction with creation. This cannot be denied, and should not be muzzled in some act of "charity". What good God is doing in Boyd's church is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether the man is teaching heresy. He is, and should be clearly and plainly denounced for doing so.

Originally Posted by PilgrimPastor

Open theism is aberrant to classic Christian orthodoxy, I agree. I have participated in the ministry of WoodlandHills, know the powerful work for the Kingdom that is done in that place, and while I may not agree with Boyd on this matter, I am ready not to burn him at the stake; even if only very kindly on a message board "electronic age" style



God either allows it or causes it, as with the book of Job. What is manner of such causality though? Is it always direct or sometimes passive in that some things are the natural product of living in a fallen world?

Allowing vs. causing is not the question that Open theism wrestles with (and perhaps it was not your intent to imply this). Rather, open theism deals with the question of whether God even has the capability of knowing what is going to happen tomorrow in detail. Open theists like Boyd say, no, God does NOT with certainty know that - though he knows all possibilities, and he knows pretty well what's going to happen - but not with certainty.

This is plain heresy from the pit of hell.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Thanks, Josh, for plainly stating the truth.

We are living in such a wimpy age in which it is seen as "unChristian" to negatively evaluate anyone's position on this or that with any degree of certainty. Folks, as Josh has said, Open Theism is HERESY, pure and simple. To teach, contrary to Scripture, and the confessions, that God does not in fact know anything of future events with certainty (let alone that God has not in fact decreed every single event which comes to pass EVER, which is the confessional position) is to teach heresy.

Greg Boyd plainly teaches a heretical view of God's interaction with creation. This cannot be denied, and should not be muzzled in some act of "charity". What good God is doing in Boyd's church is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether the man is teaching heresy. He is, and should be clearly and plainly denounced for doing so.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by PilgrimPastor

You plainly attacked the non-Scriptural status of the Open View and not the man.... I am perplexed why he has made such a strong stand for what will prove to be, I am sure, a passing non-classic view of God's sovereignty.

Lest it be misunderstood, I do mean and maintain that he's personally and publicly teaching heresy. What I don't mean is that it's a personal insult coming from me, but an objective fact according to objective standards. Open Theism is not simply a non-classic view of God's sovereignty. It is an all-out assault on the God of the Scriptures and a denial of His sovereignty. If that's the god he serves, it is not the God of Scripture. There's really no way to slice it any nicer. A man can be right on so many things, but if he's wrong on the very essence of God (i.e. His sovereignty, power, etc.) none of the other stuff matters.

Again, fair enough. I am not in dissagreement that Open Theism is heresy in that it is contrary to the confessions.

I am in disagreement with the general tone of the conversation with regard to our theological that so many of us are comfortable with. This week alone I waded through the "messiness" of more than 7 lives who came through the doors of the church looking for a place to sleep that night and/or food to eat that day. Meanwhile so much of the church sits in comfortable pews looking forward to the meal at potluck time, and the pastor better stay under an hour on the service so the food is warm... or we sit in our seminars which cost 250 bucks a seat or seminaries which cost 250 bucks a seat, per time seated... debating the finer details of supra and sub lapsarianism...

Meanwhile outside the doors of our churches the masses who hunger and thirst for truth, and often physical sustenance, are largely ignored by we who call ourselves followers of the Master of Mercy.



How many of his books have you read? How many of his sermons have you listened to or observed? I am of the impression that the recent resurgence in "confessionalism" is a backlash to the many woeful "heresies" found in the church in our day. I am fearful of backlashing in such a manner as to brand those willing to question MANY of the genuine problems in the church as heretics.

Originally Posted by PilgrimPastor

Again, fair enough. I am not in dissagreement that Open Theism is heresy in that it is contrary to the confessions.

Well, primarily in that it is contrary to the Scriptures. That being the most important offense.

I am in disagreement with the general tone of the conversation with regard to our theological that so many of us are comfortable with.

Can you please specifically point out which text you had problems with that had a perceived poor tone attached to it? It's one thing to be rude, or a jerk about something, but quite another to truthful, firm, and clear. The first is uncalled for, while the latter is demanded.

This week alone I waded through the "messiness" of more than 7 lives who came through the doors of the church looking for a place to sleep that night and/or food to eat that day. Meanwhile so much of the church sits in comfortable pews looking forward to the meal at potluck time, and the pastor better stay under an hour on the service so the food is warm... or we sit in our seminars which cost 250 bucks a seat or seminaries which cost 250 bucks a seat, per time seated... debating the finer details of supra and sub lapsarianism...
Meanwhile outside the doors of our churches the masses who hunger and thirst for truth, and often physical sustenance, are largely ignored by we who call ourselves followers of the Master of Mercy.

I am failing how this particular portion of your post has anything to do with out recent conversation. Is this another caricature cast at those who talk and write about their theology. Certainly we would not pretend to know all of their activities outside of their theological discussions. That wouldn't be too charitable.

How many of his books have you read? How many of his sermons have you listened to or observed?

Zero. Why would I? What a monumental waste of time that would be. I'll leave that to the pastors and theologians that will be taking him on in debate via print. If I know he's an avowed open theist, I don't need to know anything else in order to find better books, by more able men, who write about the few subjects Boyd may get right.

I am of the impression that the recent resurgence in "confessionalism" is a backlash to the many woeful "heresies" found in the church in our day.

Are you calling Open Theism "heresy" or heresy? This is really important. It has no place in Christianity, nor any place on this board. Confessionalism is not a bogey-man that has a mind of its own. The enforcement of Confessionalism is the way to suppress heresy. It's the pervasive lack of enforcement which has falled on hard times and contributed to the diarrhea of heresies purported by professing Christians these days.

I am fearful of backlashing in such a manner as to brand those willing to question MANY of the genuine problems in the church as heretics.

The questioning of genuine problems in the church is not the problem. The problem is when someone has horrible theology and spends all their time on "social problems" of the church, while spreading a weak theology that's no good foundation for right practice whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by PilgrimPastor

Again, fair enough. I am not in dissagreement that Open Theism is heresy in that it is contrary to the confessions.

Well, primarily in that it is contrary to the Scriptures. That being the most important offense.

I am in disagreement with the general tone of the conversation with regard to our theological that so many of us are comfortable with.

Can you please specifically point out which text you had problems with that had a perceived poor tone attached to it? It's one thing to be rude, or a jerk about something, but quite another to truthful, firm, and clear. The first is uncalled for, while the latter is demanded.
I am failing how this particular portion of your post has anything to do with out recent conversation. Is this another caricature cast at those who talk and write about their theology. Certainly we would not pretend to know all of their activities outside of their theological discussions. That wouldn't be too charitable.

Zero. Why would I? What a monumental waste of time that would be. I'll leave that to the pastors and theologians that will be taking him on in debate via print. If I know he's an avowed open theist, I don't need to know anything else in order to find better books, by more able men, who write about the few subjects Boyd may get right.

I am of the impression that the recent resurgence in "confessionalism" is a backlash to the many woeful "heresies" found in the church in our day.

Are you calling Open Theism "heresy" or heresy? This is really important. It has no place in Christianity, nor any place on this board. Confessionalism is not a bogey-man that has a mind of its own. The enforcement of Confessionalism is the way to suppress heresy. It's the pervasive lack of enforcement which has falled on hard times and contributed to the diarrhea of heresies purported by professing Christians these days.

I am fearful of backlashing in such a manner as to brand those willing to question MANY of the genuine problems in the church as heretics.

The questioning of genuine problems in the church is not the problem. The problem is when someone has horrible theology and spends all their time on "social problems" of the church, while spreading a weak theology that's no good foundation for right practice whatsoever.

No need to defend yourself. It is I who am woefully off topic and rambling Blessings.

I didn't realize I was defending myself?

Originally Posted by Joshua

I didn't realize I was defending myself?

Joshua doesn't defend himself. He just prevents people from making fools of themselves.

Seriously though, I think that all calamities could be considered punishment of sin. After all, if Adam hadn't sinned, would we have these calamities?

God vs. the ELCA on Homosexuality

God 1, ELCA 0

If tornadoes were judgment, I assure you, my house would have crumbled.

Exactly. I have a friend who is also from Memphis (where you guys seem to have lots of tornadoes. Anyway, a few years ago, there was a huge tornado that did a lot of damage to a local high school. A number of people proclaimed it the judgment of God on the public education system and that school in particular. They neglected to note that my friend's church (a conservative Reformed church taught by a PCA-ordained pastor that was across the street from the school) was also damaged extensively. Strangely enough, no one assumed that God was judging the church. (But maybe He was - who knows?)

Like Josh has said, we can't know the mind of God. And I think its risky and ridiculous to pretend that we do.

Originally Posted by lynnie

Jesus: “Those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:4-5)

6. Conclusion: The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.

I think if you will re-read the passage you will find that the point of the passage you quoted is the exact opposite.

Jesus says do you think this calamity fell on them because they are worse sinners. No, it did not. You all will like wise perish

So unless we are specifically told that it was a judgment on those people form some specific thing, like Babel, we do not know.

We know God controls the weather and calamities. But Christians may be killed in a tornado as well as presumptuous sinners.

So calamity may be seen in general as one of God's temporal judgments on man and sin in general, but without revelation we can not say God did this to each one of those people because of their specific sin.


God can kill Christians right along with willful sinners. It is still judgment. It is still as a result of sin in a fallen world. But to go farther and make it specific we have no warrant.
It would be something a charismatic would do.

God told me to ....

Just as we know sickness can be from God to judge, to drive us to repentance, or it can not be a result of someone sinning.
"Who sinned this man or his parents. Neither but that the glory of God may be shown."

We cannot speak to these things with specifics and certainty.

We must seek to check our ego and arrogance against such proclamations.

Though we can still make the general warning that God does avenge evil, so beware, but only sometimes in this life, sometimes not until the judgment.

We Christians would do well to care more about judging ourselves.

I blogged about this on Saturday. One of my five readers ( ) thought I might not have a traditional view of providence (I do) or that I might not be cutting Piper enough slack. I think I was. I just don't think it is wise or safe to claim to know the mind or purposes of God, when he has not revealed them.

Piper must have gotten a lot of similar remarks, because he clarified his post today, making his Falwellian pronouncement a good deal more general...and biblical.

Originally Posted by kevin.carroll

I blogged about this on Saturday. One of my five readers ( ) thought I might not have a traditional view of providence (I do) or that I might not be cutting Piper enough slack. I think I was. I just don't think it is wise or safe to claim to know the mind or purposes of God, when he has not revealed them.

Piper must have gotten a lot of similar remarks, because he clarified his post today, making his Falwellian pronouncement a good deal more general...and biblical.

I read your post and thought of my post, Kevin, and immediately thought "Brilliant Minds think Alike!" After that, though, I remembered only one of us was brilliant, and it t'weren't me.

Frankly, folks, I don't get the squeemishness over this one. Piper did not make a Falwellian nor a Robertsonian statement. He cited the Gospel incident about the tower and drew the same conclusion that Jesus did: you cannot know for certain if this was because of that, etc. However, calamity has a way of capturing our attention and the biblical response is to receive it as a reminder of the omnipotent one who stands as the ultimate judge of all the earth.

Off the record . . . as one who has been frustrated about mainline defections for years (as a lifetime mainliner), the photo was shockingly powerful imagery with or without the inferences drawn by Dr. Piper.

I think, Dennis, that you're a closet Charismatic!!!!!

I'm just joshin' ya, of course.

Should have left it with the picture and said draw your own conclusions.

Interpreting Providence

I believe it is important to not chalk natural events up to mere chance, or "natural causes," just because we might not be able to interpret God's motivations for allowing or sending such calamities.

God is Sovereign, and to resort to explaining events away scientifically or randomly, is to deny God's control over every element of nature.

I believe God caused the tornado.

Why? Is not for me to say.

But God caused it, and I bow before Him and pay Him heed by witnessing and acknowledging His great powers over all His creation!