In prior posts it’s been made clear that some commenters and writers of this blog believe that authentic dialogue is a good and proper thing. OK. Fine.
But how does a context of dialogue deal with a Pauline category of thought that identifies a class of people as the “false brethren,” “dogs and evil workers,” of whom Paul would say that “their condemnation is just?”
This is a point Doug Wilson had brought up in his “dialogue” with N.T. Wright’s recent work on justification:
Of what teachers would he say that they are false teachers, come in to spy out our liberty? My point here is not that Wright needs to draw the line in the same place that I would. The point is that (given the condition of the modern Church) if he never draws such a line, never fights the wolves within the fold, calling them wolves as he does so, then he is not being Pauline. And my point is not that Wright is not resisting false teaching — he most certainly is, and in a number of quarters, more effectively than a number of conservative defenders of the faith who eat broken up shards of truth for breakfast. But Wright still resists drawing appropriate Pauline conclusions about his adversaries. He does not have the bar set too low on what constitutes a legitimate matter for debate. He does seem to have the bar set too low on how to understand his discussion partners. And this means that I don’t think he can quite have his mind completely around Paul’s worldview yet.
I’m curious to find out who people think modern day ‘dogs’ are. And Wilson is right, if we can’t identify (some) people in that category then we aren’t being especially Pauline.
As for me, I’m going to have to place my vote for this guy. I think JI Packer would agree.
Matthew 13.29 is another alternative to what you have described as the Pauline approach. There is a recognition that the wheat and the tares are growing together. But we do not uproot the weeds lest the wheat is also be damaged. But there is also this in Paul (2 Tim 2.24-26): “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, ?and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”
N. T. Wright belongs to a long tradition in the Anglican church of politeness with those who are wolves in the flock. Their approach would bear more resemblance to Paul in 2 Tim 2.24-26 or to Jesus advice in Matthew 13.29, than to the Paul that Doug Wilson insists is pauline.
Wilson’s tendency – and it’s a very Reformed tendency – seems to be to search for theological enemies. Sometimes there are enemies, but if you don’t attenuate this behaviour, then you tend to make enemies.
Peter: Matt 13.29 can be interpreted in a way that still does justice to Paul’s harsh language for false teachers. Now this harsh language is not just Pauline, it’s found in the gospels as well. Look at Christ’s words in Matt. 23:13, 16-21, 27-28. And when it comes to the Pastoral epistles, 2 Tim. 2:24-26 is not the whole story – see Titus 1:10-14. And for pete’s sake Galatians 5:11-12 takes the cake. Undoubtedly this a theme in Scripture. To be truly faithful it has to have some modern day application. All I was saying was that for someone like Wright these texts seem to have no application. They’re a surd. Off the top of my head I see a way to harmonize the texts you have presented with the texts I have presented. Wright’s approach either doesn’t seem to be able to harmonize both sets of texts or if it’s possible, does so very weakly.
Dan: true true. Frame’s article, “Machen’s warrior children” definitely showed that. But the Reformed tendency is to fight and die on non-essentials like theonomy, eschatology or something like paedocommunion. I’m talking about false teaching that challenge core Christian beliefs.
In that case:
Benny Hinn’s 9-part Trinity definitely counts.
Absolutely.
I think whether one puts the emphasis on the texts suggesting patience or the texts suggesting censure and excommunication depends on context, temperament and the leading of the Holy Spirit–and of course as you have pointed out, whether core Christians beliefs are threatened.
For sure with regards to excommunication. But I’d like to see some more … speech with a cup on when it came to false teaching. That of course wouldn’t necessarily lead to censure of excommunication.
“comes to” instead of “came to.”