God speaking to the ELCA in "the whirlwind"?

I really have tried to avoid most SI debates, but this one caught my eye. In fact, I didn’t notice that the blog was Piper’s when I linked in and quoted I Kings here. I wasn’t trying to tear him down, but it struck me as an unfortunate direction. No doubt, he soft-peddles his conclusion, but even still, he takes a weather event (Natural Revelation) and attempts to garner a message (Special Revelation) from it, and I am not sure that is wise. There is plenty in the Special Revelation we have to condemn the ECLAs position without any further revelation. I continue to have verses such as Matt 5:45 and Ecclesiastes 9:11 pop into my head. I don’t deny the sovereignty of God. I deny our ability to figure out the mind of God apart from Scripture. Maybe it was a warning, or maybe it was something else entirely. Apart from Special Revelation only God knows.

edit: I see that Susan started to make my point after I began typing my response. Sorry to repeat her point.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Norm] Those who are speaking out against Piper should probably question their own grasp of the Scripture before they question his. I only had to read 3-4 comments to get an accurate (and unflattering) picture of those who oppose him and his service to the Lord.

You are conflagrating the issue by attempting to place it in a personal context so that you, by default, accuse anyone objecting of some personal agenda against Piper. No one is speaking out against Piper’s person, this isn’t a personal issue. Piper as a person isn’t being questioned, his judgment in this case and claim of being able to speak for God as to why God decrees weather for certain people at certain times, which requires additional revelation to speak conclusively (yes he made an assertion, built a case and ended with a conclusion) as Piper did, is what is being challenged. But again, Piper is open to the “Charismatic Chaos” as John MacArthur so aptly put it.

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn’t read the comments in the link posted by Mr. Hayton. Otherwise, I’d be curious to know how you square statements such as
We, in all denominations, all people of faith who are striving humbly and wholeheartedly to discern for ourselves what is best and right and true, and who are ALL earnestly trying to interpret the Bible and what it means, for us and for the early church, all seem to come to different conclusions about what the “correct” interpretation is. But, we must acknowledge that we all are equally striving, and can all equally be wrong in our interpretation, as another person might be right

That, to me, sounds like an attempt to undermine clear Biblical teaching about homosexuality, since that is the core component in this particular issue; therefore, it tells me alot about the person who posted the comment. There were quite a few others that seemed pretty ridiculous too, such as the one comparing Piper to Fred Phelps—actually calling him a Fred Phelps wannabe. Or those accusing him of “preaching hate.”

So I stand by my statement that those comments speak more poorly of the spiritual state of the poster than Piper’s comments do about him.

You did not make it clear in your original post(#11) that you were responding to the comments in the link that Mr. Hayton posted (#4). Your comment reads as if you are responding to the comments here at SI.

When I saw Mr. Guggenheim’s post I thought it was either confusion about who I referred to or as I posted above, I assumed he had not read the comments from the newspaper link.

No harm, no foul, as they say.

[Norm] When I saw Mr. Guggenheim’s post I thought it was either confusion about who I referred to or as I posted above, I assumed he had not read the comments from the newspaper link.

No harm, no foul, as they say.

Well, I have to say that I was confused until you pointed out that your comment was aimed at comments from another site entirely. I didn’t go read the comments that Mr. Hayton linked to either.

I think the comments posted there are probably just a sign of the times.

Wow my keyboard is acting up. Sorry for the edits. It’s a wireless so I think the signal is weak. I’m getting about every other letter it seems.

I’m back with a few follow up comments.

1) You may be interested in Christianity Today’s article on this: http://bit.ly/tQcu3. Apparently, some are taking the coincidence and running another way with it.

2) Here’s how I think Piper’s conclusion works. He may be saying more than I’m thinking he is, but here’s how I think it goes.

Major Premise– Luke 13 teaches (along with the Bible’s teaching on God’s sovereignty), that natural disasters are a reminder of the fact that sin is evil.

Minor Premise 1– A natural disaster of some degree happened in Minneapolis.

Minor Premise 2–- This natural disaster happened at a precise moment and place, which corresponds to a vote that was taking place at the ELCA Conference.

Conclusion – The disaster serves to warn the ELCA and everyone about the general truth that we shouldn’t downplay sin.

His conclusion is supported by the minor premises, but doesn’t depend on them. If you cross out the words “to the ELCA” and leave “tornado is a warning… to all of us that…”, we should all agree with his statements. He adds the words “to the ELCA”, because of the minor premises above, the amazing coincidence.

Is his conclusion on par with Scripture? No. Is it on par with some of Pat Robertson’s rantings? I don’t think so. If you read what Piper wrote about the 35 W bridge collapse, you might be more prepared for this. Piper’s theology says natural disasters and suffering in this world, in general, points to the evil of sin. As we feel the horror of disasters and suffering, we should be reminded of the horror of sin. So generally this holds true with the tornado. Given that God does communicate to us through circumstances, and God is sovereign, it just might be this tornado was designed to warn some people in line with what Piper said. Regardless the tornado presents an opportunity for us to remind people of God’s sovereignty and the evil of sin, and that is what Piper did.

I don’t have a problem with it, but I can see why some are reluctant to support Piper’s assessment.

Piper explains his thinking on this tornado and all of life’s tornadoes: http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1968_clarifying_the_tornado/.

And all he did, unfortunately is make clear he persists in his error. He has no authorization from God to claim the ability or gift to interpret why disasters occur SPECIFICALLY for another person or group. His own life is his own and he is permitted to determine, within the privacy and structure of his private life how God is working and if he believes disasters are meant one way or the other, for himself.

But here, he takes the rather arrogant step of elevating his own experience as somehow a license or justification for claiming the tornado was from God and specifically for the ELCA in regards to ordaining homosexuals. Mr. Piper is still riding shotgun with Robertson in his fanciful imagination.

This is not to say other things Piper said are not true, but those are not the point of the debate. His claim of speaking with special revelation is.

Bob, that post [#22] was excellent. Kudos to you.

Here was some additional information from the CT Article that I found compelling:

Hours later, delegates voted on the sexuality statement, which needed 2/3 approval. It passed by exactly that margin: 676-338. One or two votes could have changed the outcome. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune notes that the vote came near dinnertime and some delegates had already started to leave. Twenty-nine of the 1,045 registered voters did not vote on the statement. (Any who opposed the sexuality statement are almost certainly kicking themselves this morning and are probably not telling their friends about it…)

This statement by John Piper attracted attention because some consider him an authority worth listening to. Perhaps they should reconsider that. John Piper is wrong on Justification. He holds to a dual Justification declaration theory. First, we are justified before God when saved. Second, there is a final Justification when we stand before God when our works are examined to determine the genuineness of our Justification. This is very serious error and should make one examine closely anything that John Piper teaches.

In this article he states:

“ 5. When asked about a seemingly random calamity near Jerusalem where 18 people were killed, Jesus answered in general terms—an answer that would cover calamities in Minneapolis, Taiwan, or Baghdad. God’s message is repent, because none of us will otherwise escape God’s judgment.”
“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)”

Actually, this statement by Jesus goes against Piper’s conclusion in point # 6. The Jewish theology on disaster appears to have been that since death was the penalty for sin then an early or tragic death was the result of extreme sin. Jesus indicates that is not necessarily so. He indicates that all death, including tragedy, should remind us all equally of our sin and call us to repentance. This Tornado would be an equal reminder to Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis and to all.

The ELCA has denied the Bible as the infallible, inspired word of God, the Deity of Christ, the Substitutionary Atonement for sin, and many essential doctrines of the faith. It has done so for decades. Many Evangelicals, including some Piper associates with, have been somewhat indifferent to such liberal theology and have criticized those who passionately sought to point out such heresy and protect integrity by separation from such. Now they view the Homosexual issue as something to get upset about. Actually, it is but a natural result of having left God and His word some time ago. That happened in the American Baptist churches. Many Evangelicals decried separation in spite of the ABC having taught heresy for decades. They finally sought to separate over the Homosexual issue.
John Piper left Fundamentalism and its many problems and attended the New Evangelical schools of Wheaton College and Fuller Seminary. He then sought a quick doctorate at a German university. His lack of having a time of sound theological mentoring may be a hindrance to his over all theological outlook.

John Piper is wrong in his conclusion at his point # 6. It was interesting to point out this Tornado, but it should be done as reminder that no matter what men may do, they are not in control and will give an answer to a God who sees all and will make us answerable. Calamities are part of a continuing call to all to repent (turn the mind around) and believe in Christ. They must flee the wrath to come.

This Tornado would be an equal reminder to Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis and to all.

Didn’t he say this, Bob? In fact, if you actually read the posts, you will see that he said it in both posts. You say, John Piper is wrong in his conclusion at his point # 6, which would indicate that the tornado should not serve as a warning to us all about sin. Frankly, that doesn’t make a lot of sense. We do not know with special revelation whether or not a natural disaster is God’s judgment, and I see no place where Piper said he had special revelation about it. But when we see a natural disaster, we should be reminded that God of great power has already destroyed the world with a natural disaster, and will one day destroy it again. A natural disaster should remind us to take sin seriously.

Perhaps the only thing more predictable than someone attributing natural disasters to God’s judgment may be your appearance in a John Piper thread to bash him for something or the other.

On this, I think Piper was clear: Any kind of disaster should remind us of the judgment of God on us all. He said it clearly in both posts. I think you are Alex are reaching for straws here, and not actually reaching any.

Piper has a number of problems. This is not one of them, (nor is his “quick doctorate” in Germany, which took three years, which is about average for a European style doctorate, I think).

[Jay C] Bob, that post [#22] was excellent. Kudos to you.

Thanks Jay.

[Larry] We do not know with special revelation whether or not a natural disaster is God’s judgment, and I see no place where Piper said he had special revelation about it. But when we see a natural disaster, we should be reminded that God of great power has already destroyed the world with a natural disaster, and will one day destroy it again. A natural disaster should remind us to take sin seriously.

I think Larry’s right on here.

Finally, did anyone see Greg Boyd’s response to Piper’s post? It’s sort of predictable. Perhaps those so ready to decry Piper should see how closely Boyd agrees with them. Boyd’s open theism is behind much of his reaction. He sets up an impossible either-or situation. Either every single tornado has a divine message to the recipients, or none do. I don’t see why we can’t allow God to control the weather such that he directs some storms for his purposes. Remember it was a lightning storm that scared Luther into signing up for the clergy. God was totally not behind that one either, right??

[Larry] I see no place where Piper said he had special revelation about it.

Again Piper’s assertion that he knew the mind of God regarding the SPECIFIC purpose of the tornado where it had not been revealed in Scripture (hence this is called special revelation or a claim by conclusion of special revelation)

6. Conclusion: The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA.

When you defend Piper’s statement with responses like this:

Any kind of disaster should remind us of the judgment of God on us all. He said it clearly in both posts.

You are only revealing your unwillingness to deal with the controversial element and make an argument about an element with which no one is making. No one is making an argument about the general nature of disasters, but even then not all disasters are warnings about sin so even that broad conclusion can be erring. But as I said, this general conclusion isn’t even the controversy.

The controversy here is the claim in Piper’s conclusion that he specifically knows the mind of God for the ELCA regarding a weather event where it is not revealed in Scripture. You are closing your eyes to that element.

Sorry there Larry but Piper here is observed to speak in no other fashion than that of having “special revelation”. The general purposes of God or the “mind of God” with respect to many events have been revealed in Scripture and that is reflected in Piper’s thoughts. But Piper exceeds this general application and asserts to know the mind regarding the purpose of this tornado specifically purposed for the ELCA and for a specific reason. This places Piper, by default on the necessary foundation of having “special revelation” for such a claim, in the position of claiming special revelation. If you, Piper, or any one is unable to identify this distinction this is a critical problem and presents future dangers theologically.

So when Piper concluded that he knew the mind of God specifically regarding the purpose of the tornado where it has not been revealed, someone is reaching for straws indeed, his name is John Piper (note here, it isn’t just Alex and Bob T rejecting this error, others have rejected it both here, at Piper’s website and topically in publication after publication by solid men of orthodox and fundamental doctrine, but you seem to have conveniently minimized the objections to two people). As I said, it isn’t easy to watch sacred cows bleed.