Here is the 6th post in my review of David Platt’s Radical.
Derivative of John Piper:
David Platt should be sued by John Piper for plagiarism. Seriously. There were places in this book where he downright quoted word-for-word things I’ve heard John Piper say or read in one of Piper’s books. I could care less that he didn’t footnote Piper. My main concern here, actually, is that David Platt like so many of the young, restless, and reformed are just copying the ministry and sayings of John Piper and others.
I’m not a fan of the idea that pastors and theologians need to always be coming up with new and fresh things to say. In fact, I hope I never have anything new or fresh to say. But David Platt’s book is simply a repackaging of Piper’s Let the Nations Be Glad and other various works. Sometimes it’s a shameless repackaging.
No, Platt doesn’t need to say anything new. But he can at least say it in his own way.
Straw-Men:
One of the sayings I’ve become very fond of over the last several years is, “Before we say, ‘I disagree,’ we should be able to say, ‘I truly understand.’” Because this is something I feel so strongly about, I feel a lot of frustration when someone misrepresents the position of another person – and, yes, I feel this frustration whether or not I agree with the person being criticized. I want all persons and positions to be fairly represented.
Platt fails to do this on a number of occasions.
The instance that bothered me the most occurred on page 148 in his discussion of Inclusivism (though, he does not use the term). He writes, “Many professing Christians have come to the conclusion that if certain people around the world don’t have the opportunity to hear about Jesus, then this automatically excuses them from God’s condemnation. Such people will go to heaven because, after all, they never had the opportunity to hear about Jesus…but think with me about the logic of this conclusion. It asserts that people will be with God in heaven for all eternity precisely because they never heard of Christ. Their not hearing gives them a pass into heaven.”
The problem with this statement is that no one actually believes this kind of thing. He cites no one. He gives no illustrations. He mentions no names. He made up a straw-man doctrine and then beat the tar out of it.
But what he’s really trying to do is argue against Inclusivism. The problem is, Platt’s description is a terrible misrepresentation of what Inclusivists actually believe. No Inclusivist believes someone will go to heaven (notice, again, the limitation of the gospel to ‘going to heaven’!!!) simply because they never heard of Jesus. Again, no one believes this.
The Inclusivist position, rather, is that some (not all!) people who never heard the name of Jesus will go to heaven based on their positive response to the Holy Spirit, Prevenient Grace, and the revelation of God in creation and conscience. Those who do not respond positively to those things will not be saved.
Platt not only fails to fairly represent what Inclusivists actually believe, but in that failing, he also fails to offer a legitimate, biblical rebuttal.
Unfortunately for most of Platt’s readers, his high powered rhetoric mixed with his appeal to ‘logic’ will be enough to turn them away from any representation of the gospel that differs from Platt’s. This is not to say that Inclusivism is the way to go. But it is to say that Platt’s representation of the gospel is truncated and limited and his rhetoric only serves to seal his readership in that limited understanding instead of offering them an opportunity to consider something outside his little box.
Loving this series. A friend said I should read this book, but after reading about it, I decided that I’d read enough other books about it that I should read something I knew less about. Now I’m even more glad that I gave it pass.
I’m no great fan of John Piper. Calvinism’s not discussed much in my circle (Assemblies of God), but through the influence of JR & Henry, I’ve come to have an intense dislike of it. I’ve never actually read a complete book by Piper, although I’ve read a few articles and listened to a few sermons. I actually find much of his stuff on missions quite good–which makes it as no surprise that Platt ripped him off. I think that if more non-Calvinist denominations did a better job with popular-level missiology, less of this might happen.
As for the strawmen, maybe you could clarify what you mean. You say that no one believes that. I’m guessing you mean that no scholars or theologians believe it because I guarantee that you’re not going to hear the words “prevenient grace” coming out of the average church-goers mouths (and, obviously, neither from the believing unaffiliated). While I have no statistical evidence, I, and I’d bet you, have plenty of anecdotal evidence to support the idea that a good number of people, when probed deep enough, actually do hold to the idea that people that don’t know Jesus (although usually only “the good people,” whatever that means) will go to Heaven. I’d love for you to clarify because I bet what you were saying is more nuanced than I understood.
Great question. I’d be happy to clarify…if possible
I’m sure we could find some anecdotal evidence for it here and there. But being as it is anecdotal, and Platt didn’t mention his argument being against anecdotal evidence, my assumption was that he thinks he addressing something a lot of people believe, not just what fringe people believe. Why else would he even mention it unless he thought it was prevalent?
Problem is, I have NEVER heard anyone – lay or otherwise say such a thing…at least in Evangelical circles, which appears to be Platt’s audience.
I think you’re right, we could probably find some people who do hold to this. But MOST people in Evangelical/Fundamentalist circles hold to a strict heaven/hell dichotomy. The belief Platt is arguing against is probably prevalent in mainline churches. But mainline Christians don’t appear to be his audience.
And, in any case, even in mainline churches, the argument for universalism (which is distinguished from Inclusivism) is still more nuanced than, “Hey, they’ve never heard of Jesus so therefore they go to heaven and not hell.” The topic is much more complicated than Platt lets on. And in keeping it overly simplified, he creates a strawman, even of the people he most fairly represents (which, still, aren’t his audience for this book).
Good question, man. Thanks for probing that.
Really good point about audience. Thanks.
The thought that comes to my mind is that, for Evangelicals, this thought isn’t too far removed from the concept of “age of accountability.” It’s an idea that isn’t expressed in the Bible, but that many–honestly, myself included–hold on to nonetheless because it’s comforting. If most Evangelicals, who are more Bible illiterate than you or Platt (even if Platt’s Gospel is truncated, I believe he’s familiar with the Bible in a decent way), don’t hold to this strawman, what do you think they believe? That those who don’t hear go to Hell? That God reveals Himself to those who want to know Him supernaturally? Or something else?
This is something I have heard debated. Does God punish someone who never had a chance to accept him. This concept is kind of out there now, but go back a couple of hundred years and you have indians here in the US, and many of them would never have heard of Jesus…. Are those people to be condemned just because? I’m not sure my self, and anyone who thinks they are makes themselves equal to God, only he can say for sure. I think you missed the point Platt was trying to make. I didn’t agree with everything he had to say in this book, but the point here is that we are to spead the word of God to everyone, no exceptions. Why argue with that? I believe things that you don’t, and you believe things I don’t, but if it gets you closer to God, I’m not going to stand in your way. I would step back and think about why you are attacking this book.
Bound for Grace,
No one is attacking this book. Did you read the previous sections of this review? I spent 5 posts praising Platt. Please read those before you say I’m attacking anyone. I’ve gone out of my way to offer positive and negatives of the book.
These are the negatives. Not an attack.
The discussion of Inclusivism goes back nearly 2,000 years. We have very early documentation of Inclusivists in the Christian church within the first few centuries.
Furthermore, you say Platt’s point is that we are to spread the word of God to everyone, no exceptions. And then you ask why I argue with that.
Simple answer: I’m not. Where do I argue with that specific statement? That would be ridiculous of me. I believe word of God should be spread to the nations. If you have concluded that I believe something else from this review, please read it again…carefully.
I can disagree with David Platt and not be attacking him. I can disagree with his method and not disagree with his goal. The differences between these things are important for a review.
@bound4grace: I think “attacking” is an unfair adjective to use. “Criticizing,” “critiquing,” or “challenging” would all be better. “Attacking” suggests he’s doing it to hurt Platt. “Critiquing” suggests he sees something untrue or dangerous that he wants to correct. As people who follow the one called Truth, we should find value in greater truth being revealed wherever we see it.
I’m with you on spreading the word of God, though. I just think that how and why are important questions to ask, too.
Scott,
I think most Evangelicals hold that people go to heaven or hell and that’s the whole of the gospel. And most Evangelicals are Southern Baptist (and other Baptist mixes), which clearly teach their people this dichotomy and its implications for those who have never heard.
Again, I’m not saying they’re right or wrong. I’m just saying that it’s pretty prevalent and generally unquestioned, in my experience.
But I totally understand how it could be different in someone else’s experience.
Tom,
So, are you suggesting that because they unquestioningly affirm the heaven/hell dichotomy, that the question of those who have never heard never arises? Or that if it does arise, they simple say, “Well, that sucks for them”? I’m not talking broadly about what evangelicals believe about heaven and hell, but more narrowly about what evangelicals believe about heaven and hell *as it relates to those who have never heard*.
Scott,
I’m merely saying that for Platt to say people get to go to heaven JUST BECAUSE THEY NEVER HEARD is something no one believes that I have ever met or heard of.
People may affirm that ‘good’ people from other religions go to heaven. But they posit that BASED ON THEIR GOODNESS, not on the fact that they’re ignorant of the gospel.
In other words, ignorance of the gospel is not, in itself, the reason some people believe people have never heard are ‘saved.’ There’s usually something else with it…i.e. goodness, positive response to general revelation. But never ignorance, itself.
With that said, I still think most people would say even ‘good’ people who never hear the gospel still go to hell because there are no such things as ‘good’ people.
BUT EITHER WAY, ignorance is never the reason people just automatically get a bid into Heaven. Platt has created strawman that looks like nothing I’ve ever seen or heard.
Does that clarify any?
I do have to apoligize! I didn’t look far enough into your reviews to see that you had given a fair review, both good and bad. I just saw the bad. Although I do still disagree that the “inclusivist” story he was using was bad, I do think he wasn’t as clear on the point as he should have been. I am sorry for my misinturpritation of your review!
No big deal, man. Lord knows I’ve done that my fair share of times, too.
I do appreciate your comment and criticism. And you are welcome back to any conversation hosted here!
Tom,
It does clarify things a bit. It’s possible that I’m once again conflating his intended audience (Evangelicals) with another audience (in this case, less Biblically knowledgeable theists). I have in fact met people who believe what he’s describing, but they didn’t tend to be people that would necessarily fit into the category of Evangelicals–they tended to be nominal Protestants who rarely if ever went to church and had a kind of “Touched by an Angel” theology.
And that totally makes sense. So I get where you’re coming from and if you were writing, I’d give you a pass because of your experience
My suspicion is that Platt shouldn’t get a pass. But if someone can demonstrate for me that he has a larger/different audience in mind, I’ll happily retract my comments…with the qualification that there’s no ‘official’ position out there that espouses what he says people believe.
But the ‘official/non-official’ discussion is, in itself, an interesting discussion.