2 of 4

I'll let you be an equal-opportunity offender: In what ways do you find the Arminian emphasis on perfection exegetically weak?

The issue is not: Do Christians experience the perfect love of God in this lifetime, which can cast out fear and dramatically improve our Christian life and sanctification? They do, and it should be called a sanctifying or holiness experience. But that experience of perfect love does not make our intentions or us perfect. The word perfect should be reserved for what the New Testament calls perfect—God, his love, and the final, perfect conformity of believers to Christ's image.

When the New Testament talks about completion, maturity or perfection, it's talking eschatologically, not experientially. It's not talking about a second, definitive work of grace in this life, while you're still wasting away in Margaritaville. It's talking about full conformity to the image of Christ, the Son, at the Resurrection. When we get a resurrection body like his—at that point, perfection is possible.

For example, in Philippians, Paul says though he's not already arrived, he's going on towards that goal of perfection, of being fully conformed to the image of the Son. He's not talking about having some kind of crisis experience in this life, short of death and resurrection. He's talking about the eschatological conclusion of God's plan for our lives when Christ returns, the dead are raised in Christ, and through the resurrection we're fully conformed to his image.

We won't belabor the point with the other two theological streams. But now that you have gone public in this book with a critique of the key teachings of Calvinist, dispensational, Arminian, and Pentecostal theologies, do you plan to have any friends left?

I'm obviously a naive person. I'm going to give some lectures in Abilene next week on "Dispensing with Dispensationalism." This is going into dispensational territory, as you know. If you hear of my martyrdom, write a nice obituary.

The serious question is this: These four streams of evangelicalism have more or less learned to co-exist for decades now. Each one brings something unique to the table, so why stir up a theological hornet's nest?

That would suggest that what matters is not truth, what matters is, "Can't we all just get along?" And I would say that the Reformation fathers, especially Luther, would absolutely disagree with that attitude. This is all about truth with a capital T. Therefore, we need to work these things out and ask where in our own tradition we have shipped water.

We have two cries as a result of the Reformation: Sola Scriptura ("only the Bible") and Semper Reformanda ("always reforming"). The more nearly we are conformed to what the Word of God actually says, the more pleasing we are to God in these matters.

Naturally, I don't think we should ever speak the truth in a way that's not loving, but I do think that iron sharpens iron, and brothers and sisters should sharpen each other. So it's absolutely necessary that we call each other to account and help each other shore up our weaknesses and be more faithful to honoring the Word of God.

In the book, your theological critique is made on the way to discussing a larger concern.

Part of the problem is the temptation to form our theology almost independently of doing our exegesis. We run to the biblical text to shore up or find proof texts for things we already believe.

next page... |  2 of 4

November 2005, Vol. 49, No. 11