Reflections on re-reading these threads

[steve]

Hi TK,

I understand your squeamishness, because I have known that feeling each time my studies have drawn me toward conclusions contrary to those espoused by my favorite teachers. It took me years to shed dispensationalism for this very reason. I knew of no one who taught anything else, even though I believed I was seeing something else in scripture. It was a crisis for me to embrace a view that I knew would exclude me from the circles of those I had respected, and cause me to lose the respect of teachers who had respected me. This, I suppose, is a dynamic at work, not only in you and in me, but in others—including, perhaps, MacArthur, Piper, Sproul, et al.

As a public teacher myself, I do not look upon such men as some elite group of authorities. I see them as imperfect and insecure individuals, just like me and everyone else. The only difference between you and them is that they chose preaching for a career. This does not automatically imbue them with special insight or authority. In fact, it may place a burden of conformity upon them that does not pressure the rest of us. It is one of the occupational hazards of the professional ministry. I will explain where this pressure comes from:

First, such men invest money and years of their lives in specialized training. As you can tell by reading their books, this training has nothing to do with teaching them to think clearly, logically or objectively. They are taught to propagate the doctrines of the institutions that trained them. This is the first disadvantage they face.

Second, they get hired by (or form) institutions that pay them to maintain conformity. Without impugning anything about any man's integrity, I can tell you that being paid to teach something tends to impose a set of glasses upon the mind through which all data is filtered. Whatever ingenuity the man possesses tends to be employed in the task of making disagreeable data fit the desired paradigm. When you are paid to do this, becoming good at it is a matter of professional competence. Besides, it would be shameful disloyalty to receive a paycheck from those who want you to promote a given doctrine, and then not to promote that doctrine.

Third, they write books and make names for themselves. Now they have a reputation—not only as bright teachers, but also as champions of a certain "orthodoxy." The notoriety that this brings results in friendships and associations with other elite defenders of orthodoxy—joint writing projects, shared platforms at conferences, mutual endorsements of each other's books—a very comfortable situation. It is hard to avoid feeling, in such a case, that one has "arrived."

When you have arrived, you don't have it in your head to be moving on to new or different doctrinal discoveries, the doing of which would certainly deprive you of your secure place in that privileged circle. Doing so would not only raise the eyebrows of your fellow defenders of orthodoxy—it would actually recast you, in their eyes, as a betrayer, a Judas to the cause—a danger to the others. You become a man, not only to be avoided, but also to be vilified and crushed (consider James White's book against Geisler, and the many books against Pinnock and Stott—I do not mean merely the disagreement, but the venom and the sense of betrayal the critics exhibit). If you stop being a "good ol' boy" who can be counted on to stay within the club today, there may be a hanging in effigy on your lawn tomorrow (you must know I am speaking figuratively, not literally).

This is not gratuitous cynicism on my part. This is the truth about the challenges involved in becoming a religious celebrity. Not every man succumbs to the pressure (e.g. Stott and Pinnock have shown exceptional courage), but many a lesser man caves-in without ever considering that he is succumbing to such pressures. Religious celebrities come to see themselves as being charged with a divine mission to stamp out heresies—and they cannot grant even a fair hearing to anything that may be on the "heresy list" because that would incur divine disfavor. God may view this inquisitiveness as disloyalty and place you in His "suspicious persons" file. In other words, such men often do not even approach the point of thinking that they are acting out a script written for them by their denominations and their employers, and directed by their professional associates and peers. In their minds, it is God Himself who requires them to take an unyielding stance. Free thinking, in those circles, is not viewed as one of God's values.

You might think I have just judged the motives of certain men, whom I have no right to judge. I will clarify that I do not know the motives of any given man with certainty, but I do know the pressures that are upon men in a certain profession, and I know human nature. I am a human myself (actually, half. The other half is Vulcan), and would find such pressures quite oppressive, if I were in their shoes. It may be that the specific men you have named are spiritual Samsons, and not "as any other man." I will not pretend to know their hearts as individuals. However, knowing about these pressures, it does not surprise me to find teachers who are unwilling even to give honest consideration to doctrines which, were they to become convinced of them, would ruin their careers.

[darinhouston]

I just wonder if either of them have ever SERIOUSLY studied the topic of alternative views of hell, or if they refuse to do so out of fear of what they might discover. if so, that is, for lack of a better word, gaggable.

TK

[note: I just noticed Steve's intervening post after posting this]
I can't begin to presume to know their hearts, but I suspect it is from a sense of over-confidence -- perhaps, it is the same reason some of my Calvinist friends will spend man-months reading Augustine's Confessions and Calvin's Institutes and yet won't bother to read some of the Arminian commentaries on Romans I've provided them. Pride? Over-confidence? Is there a difference?

[SteveF]

Hi TK, I agree with what Steve is saying. One issue I encountered early in my Christian life was whether a Christian could have a glass of wine. Every pastor I knew thought it was a sin. I didn’t know the bible and assumed that since everyone was saying it was a sin then it must be. If anyone thought it was ok to have wine they were considered liberal and/or carnal…. or, at least, heading in that direction. As time went on I began to see the great pains people went to trying to explain that it wasn’t really wine that Jesus and others drank but rather grape juice etc…. This simply seems silly to me now.

If people presuppose that something is wrong and judge others that see it differently (dis-fellowshipping etc…) then there’s enormous pressure to see things a certain way, just as Steve explained. Your default position is to try and interpret scripture with the “orthodox” and “godly” position. If you entertain other ideas then, in your mind, you could be heading towards liberalism and apostasy. You also don't have the freedom to discuss/consider different positions. Therefore, how open can you really be to other points of view?

I think what Steve said is unfortuante but true in many circles.

[steve7150]

For anyone interested in reading an informative paper on christian universalism check out bibletruths.com and the series of articles toward the middle of the page called "The Lake of Fire Series."
Don't be turned off by the author's position on "free will" because he is not a Calvinist, he simply believes our wills are to influenced to be truly free but that we are still accountable to God for our works.

[Troy]

Steve,

I have some questions for you. The early church made clear what they viewed as to be doctrinally correct and the rest was viewed as heresy. Where is the truth that the you think is being with held from us out of fear of someone getting into trouble? If it is not being taught in one of the differing camps - to which they could go if he/she did not have the backing of their current denomination/ministry - what is it? Any "new," revelation is just an old heresy in new clothing.

Do we have such little faith in men and women whom God is elevated as to think that they do not have enough character to stand up for what they truly believe because of a pay check, etc?

Sure institutions have taught them, some one does and needs to. Some of the flakiest people I have ever met had a lot of the Spirit but no education. Education is an enhancement of anointing. Let them teach, and let us build institutions too teach others so we can have a well trained church of Truth.

Finally, the pressures of life is where people usually have a chance to shine for Christ. Most of what takes these teachers out is not some precious doctrine that was not listened to. It is some moral failure that has nothing to do with their training, Girls, Gold, Glory, etc.

P.S. I have adapted these questions from a friend of mine who read your above post.

[steve]

The early church made clear what they viewed as to be doctrinally correct and the rest was viewed as heresy. Where is the truth that the you think is being with held from us out of fear of someone getting into trouble? If it is not being taught in one of the differing camps - to which they could go if he/she did not have the backing of their current denomination/ministry - what is it? Any "new," revelation is just an old heresy in new clothing.

My statements were not with reference to any particular belief of any particular teacher. I was commenting on the dynamics that are behind the observable reluctance of professional and well-known teachers to consider viewpoints other than their own. I am not suggesting that there are no teachers out there (professional or otherwise) who hold to solid beliefs, which could withstand scrutiny. Almost every doctrine that is within the range of biblical belief is held by some church or denomination, but you do not find very many pastors who will give open-minded consideration to views held by denominations other than their own—especially if they are famous.

As far as the alternative views of hell are concerned, they have all been held by some Christians at various times in history. All of them have some basis in scripture to be considered. To call any of them "heresy" would seem presumptuous.

Do we have such little faith in men and women whom God is elevated as to think that they do not have enough character to stand up for what they truly believe because of a pay check, etc?

This would have to be answered case-by-case. I guess you'll have to make your own judgment about such people. Some are more open-minded than others. Usually, the ones who have made their reputations defending some version of "orthodoxy" are the least willing to give contrary views an objective examination. In any case, I was not discussing men who were afraid to speak their true beliefs for fear of losing their jobs (though I have known some who fit that category). I was referring to the pressures that prevent a man from even wanting to consider a view different from his own.

Sure institutions have taught them, some one does and needs to. Some of the flakiest people I have ever met had a lot of the Spirit but no education. Education is an enhancement of anointing. Let them teach, and let us build institutions too teach others so we can have a well trained church of Truth.

In the present controversy over hell, the difference between persons of opposing viewpoints is not a difference in educational prowess. Men of great learning fall into different camps. The same can probably be said about anointing.

Finally, the pressures of life is where people usually have a chance to shine for Christ. Most of what takes these teachers out is not some precious doctrine that was not listened to. It is some moral failure that has nothing to do with their training, Girls, Gold, Glory, etc.

This is probably correct, though I am not sure how this connects with the thoughts I expressed.

[RickC]

On Loyalty to Denominations and/or Belief Systems.

As a public teacher myself, I do not look upon such men as some elite group of authorities. I see them as imperfect and insecure individuals, just like me and everyone else. The only difference between you and them is that they chose preaching for a career. This does not automatically imbue them with special insight or authority. In fact, it may place a burden of conformity upon them that does not pressure the rest of us. It is one of the occupational hazards of the professional ministry. I will explain where this pressure comes from:

First, such men invest money and years of their lives in specialized training. As you can tell by reading their books, this training has nothing to do with teaching them to think clearly, logically or objectively. They are taught to propagate the doctrines of the institutions that trained them. This is the first disadvantage they face.

This post is something of an aside to the thread. I hope yous don't mind.

At Central Bible College (AG), I had an excellent hermeneutics course with Dr. Benny Aker, (later of AGTS, retired). I applied what I learned—and became ammillennial soon afterwards. Because the AG does not allow amillennialists to teach what they believe; I went to see Dr. Stanley Horton for counseling, another one of my professors (also later of AGTS, retired). He informed me that I could remain AG as long as I agreed not to oppose official AG doctrine (dispensationalism). This was in 1981. Seeing as I was unable to do this with a clear conscience; I left the college and denomination that same year.

A couple of years ago, I found this "Coffee Talk" interview with Dr. Stanley Horton.
The interview was in 1999; eighteen years after "Brother Horton" (we called our profs bro & sis back then) had our "talk."

In Coffee Talk, Brother H. said:

One thing that no one expects, or at least no one should expect it , is blind loyalty. As Christians, we are to be loyal to God, of course, in all things. However, to our co-laborers in the vineyard of the Lord, we are to be loyal only as long as our fellow Christians live lives worthy of being loyal to, and we are to be loyal to a certain theological system as far as it aligns with truth....

I have an Assemblies of God background (started pastoring in an A/G church in 1976), and the A/G folks are what is theologically called Classical Pentecostals. By definition, to be a Classical Pentecostal, one must hold to the idea that speaking in tongues is the initial, physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. I held to that idea until circa 1995. Confronted with my own exegetical conclusions though personal Bible study, I had to drop that theological perspective. Oops! Now, I am no longer a Classical Pentecostal.

I found this uncanny! Especially "loyalty to truth" in the first paragraph....(was what I did in 1981...and Brother Horton circa 1995). Btw, I no longer hold to the initial evidence belief, but that's beside the point.

So, what's ironic is that the AG did "teach me how to think clearly" (about the Bible, hermeneutics course)...and/but what I saw didn't line up with the AG otherwise!

I understand Bro. H. is still alive. I really ought to look him up....
That would be cool!

Post somewhat off-topic, Thanks

[darinhouston]

Steve,

...
Any "new," revelation is just an old heresy in new clothing.

So, would you consider the Reformation view of the solas just an old heresy in new clothing? The RC church sure seems to have thought so.

I don't think we can judge heresy by the degree to which it is temporally "new." Even if it lacks support in traditional orthodox belief merely makes it heterodox -- to be a heresy is to speak to its distance from scriptural support. Even a traditional view could have been heretical from the first century. "New" should give us pause, but a return to a view once widely held by orthodox scholars should be a bit more reassuring.

Our likely right divining of Truth is along a spectrum, and our vision is not so great to peg a particular doctrine on that spectrum with anything but great humility.

[auggybendoggy]

I'd like to say that the reason why I even joined this forum is because I listened to Steve Gregg debate James White and found myself in love with Greg (not in a romantic way). He manifested a kind spirit and so I d/l other teachings of his (study on Isreal) and again found he is truly refreshing.

Here is a post where I resonate so strongly with him I almost feel like we had a late night theological discussion. It is true i do subscribe to UR after reading Talbott and Macdonalds books and then wrestling with the ideas for about a year. But his (steves) points are SO pointed it describes my experience to a T.

I find I do get frustrated at caricatures or misrepresentations and so I can often come off as a pompous jerk. I can only apologize for this.

I became so disenchanted with this that I started my own forum featuring Gregory Macdonald for Universalists to commune that adhere to biblical understanding.

I still love coming here and sharing and just want to thank Steve for TRULY being objective. It is not important to me to convince anyone or steve that my view is right. It is important to me that people truly seek God in all truth and I think we'll all find out we're all wrong in many areas of our thinking and that alone should humble us before one another.

Thanks Steve for your honesty, your fairness and your faith.

Sincerely,

Auggybendoggy

[steve]

Hi Auggie,

It's good to hear that somebody got a good impression of me from hearing the James White debates. Other than at this forum, most of what I have found, reading assessments of the debate on the web, has been from people who think that Dr. White had me for lunch. I can't say that I thought I did my best work in that debate, but I was personally not very impressed with the demeanor of my opponent, nor with his ability to frame or understand an argument. Most people, it seems, liked the fact that he was aggressive and equally did not like what they saw as my easygoing approach. I guess they thought I should be trying harder to win, and I apparently let them down—the Calvinists, I mean. It seems they were hoping to see more feathers flying—something that I consider to be an undesirable development in many debates.

I think Dr. White and I actually have very different ideas of what the purpose is for Christians conducting debates. Some see a debate as a personal contest that must be won by a champion. I consider a debate to be a vehicle for uncovering the truth, not for demonstrating how correct I am or how effectively I can prove it. Not that I have any doubts about the correctness of my position in the debate—I just prefer to discuss controversies in a less combative atmosphere.

Anyway, if the debates brought you over here, that is one very positive result, and we are all glad, I am sure, to have you participating in our discussions.