# John Piper explains his reason for inviting Doug Wilson to the DG conference



## ubermadchen

[video=youtube;gprGHoMzar0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gprGHoMzar0&feature=player_embedded[/video]

I don't know how to post videos so if that doesn't work, here is a link to the entry on his blog:
Why Doug Wilson Is Speaking at DG's Fall Conference :: Desiring God

I'm very disturbed by this. I think that Piper is generally fine with his soteriology but to invite Doug Wilson? To say that he "gets the gospel right?" It just doesn't make sense. I'm really sad and disturbed about this.


----------



## ww




----------



## Parsifal23

I actually wrote Desireing God Ministries a letter over this I was so desturbed this is just sad and shows how far John Piper has slipped.


----------



## Jesus is my friend

I'm sorry i dont know who Doug Wilson is,What is he all about?,as far as Piper slipping I hope that he's not compromising the Word,I just LOVE his teaching and I will pray that God will give him clarity to see if there is bad doctrine involved,Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## brandonadams

Yet again Piper has demonstrated his own confusion about the gospel.

[video=youtube;TLy88cB3gCQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLy88cB3gCQ[/video]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I don't mean for this to sound pejorative but I think his views on how PCA Elders have given Wilson a "bad rap" demonstrates a significant lack of humility on the matter.

The issue of the Federal Vision and its relation to Confessional Reformed Theology has been studied at length by hundreds of elders from across the NAPARC spectrum. Countless hours have gone into study reports to confirm that it is un-Bibilical and un-Confessional.

Yet, on the impression of one man, John Piper, his personal study concludes that the deliberation of thousands is a "bad rap" whereas his own assessment is careful and measured.

In my estimation, this demonstrates the inherent danger of Congregationalism and I think I'll stick with the wisdom of several General Assemblies' conclusions rather than his personal assessment of the matter.

[bible]Proverbs 11:14[/bible]


----------



## Craig

Kudos to Piper on inviting Doug Wilson.


----------



## DMcFadden

John Piper writes books defending imputation against the NPP
John Piper invites a proponent of the FV to his fall conference

Hmmmmmmmm.


----------



## historyb

I never got my invitation


----------



## ww

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't mean for this to sound pejorative but I think his views on how PCA Elders have given Wilson a "bad rap" demonstrates a significant lack of humility on the matter.
> 
> The issue of the Federal Vision and its relation to Confessional Reformed Theology has been studied at length by hundreds of elders from across the NAPARC spectrum. Countless hours have gone into study reports to confirm that it is un-Bibilical and un-Confessional.
> 
> Yet, on the impression of one man, John Piper, his personal study concludes that the deliberation of thousands is a "bad rap" whereas his own assessment is careful and measured.
> 
> In my estimation, this demonstrates the inherent danger of Congregationalism and I think I'll stick with the wisdom of several General Assemblies' conclusions rather than his personal assessment of the matter.
> 
> [bible]Proverbs 11:14[/bible]


----------



## toddpedlar

Craig said:


> Kudos to Piper on inviting Doug Wilson.



Care to explain? Do you honestly think there was nobody better and more qualified to speak on Calvin at this conference? Piper CLEARLY doesn't understand the depths of the errors Wilson promotes. Anyone who says that Wilson "got a bad rap" in obtaining the reputation he has among conservative presbyterians clearly has clouded judgment. (but then Piper thinks Mark Driscoll is someone to admire also)


----------



## Michael Doyle

Kudos Todd and


----------



## lynnie

John Piper did a CD about FV that has to be one of the best sermons ever done on the subject. It is titled "This man went down to his house justifed" and how the Pharisee thanked God for all of his infused righeousness. He gave full credit and thanks to God for not being like other sinful men. But it was the man who recognized that he was nothing but a sinner and cried out for mercy who was justified. 

Piper spent several months of a sabbatical just on FV, and trying to wrap his brain around how guys he knew who had walked with the Lord in sound doctrine for decades had turned to subtle ( or not so subtle) works righteousness. Piper is *NOT* FV at all, he is outspoken against it, extremely outspoken.

I do find this simply mind boggling. Is Wilson some sort of Calvin expert that he was invited?


----------



## Craig

I don't see why I'd need to explain what I said in the least. Wilson affirms all the essentials of the faith, which includes double imputation, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus.

I would invite you men to back up the notion that Wilson gets the gospel wrong with *Wilson's writings*.


----------



## kalawine

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't mean for this to sound pejorative but I think his views on how PCA Elders have given Wilson a "bad rap" demonstrates a significant lack of humility on the matter.
> 
> The issue of the Federal Vision and its relation to Confessional Reformed Theology has been studied at length by hundreds of elders from across the NAPARC spectrum. Countless hours have gone into study reports to confirm that it is un-Bibilical and un-Confessional.
> 
> Yet, on the impression of one man, John Piper, his personal study concludes that the deliberation of thousands is a "bad rap" whereas his own assessment is careful and measured.
> 
> In my estimation, this demonstrates the inherent danger of Congregationalism and I think I'll stick with the wisdom of several General Assemblies' conclusions rather than his personal assessment of the matter.
> 
> [bible]Proverbs 11:14[/bible]



 But I must be careful... the last time I made a comment like you just did (on Congregationalism that is) the objectors came out of the wood work and ate me up.


----------



## SolaScriptura

It is because of Piper's cult-following that his decision is so troubling. I mean, let's face it... he has vastly more clout across the reformed-leaning evangelical world than even the most famous Presbyterian preacher/scholars. The potential impact of Piper's "endorsement" may be great.

1. I found the first clip troubling because he uses ONE ILLUSTRATION from ONE SERMON of Wilson's to conclude - and more significantly, get us to believe - that Wilson is sound. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

2. The second clip was angering, but Rich already explained why so I won't repeat. 

3. I've just got to say this. Piper is unstable. Theologically he's a pariah. I remember a few years ago when he was going through his "let's sort of accept paedobaptism for membership, but make it a 2nd class baptism" thing. I remember how he was hailed on this Board by folks desperate to have their baptism recognized as being somehow legitimate - even if it is in a 2nd class sense - by someone so prestigious. But he was bucking his entire tradition, and in creating his de facto "2nd class" baptized believer status, he was bucking the entire Christian tradition. When the shoe was on THAT foot it was the Baptists (particularly those guys at SBTS) who were being "harsh" in their denouncement. But now that the shoe is on THIS foot... 
The point is that Piper is an authority unto himself and he's an unstable one at that... he's been that way for a while now. Too bad because I used to really like his stuff.


----------



## Kevin

props to Craig for being willing to say it. DW is not (yet and so far as we know...) a heretic.

I am willing to trust PCA RE's that know him well, such as the "Bayly brothers". Did not our own greenbagens debate this topic with "He That Must Not Be Named"? 

My reading of that text was that the participents were orthodox. Was I wrong? Where?


----------



## JOwen

Craig said:


> I don't see why I'd need to explain what I said in the least. Wilson affirms all the essentials of the faith, which includes double imputation, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus.
> 
> I would invite you men to back up the notion that Wilson gets the gospel wrong with *Wilson's writings*.



No need to reinvent the wheel. Do a search on Doug Wilson on PB and you will get more than you can read on the subject.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/doug-wilson-23995/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/short-credo-justification-douglas-wilson-12528/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/not-reformed-all-28920/

Just a few posts.


----------



## Montanablue

Kevin said:


> props to Craig for being willing to say it. DW is not (yet and so far as we know...) a heretic.
> 
> I am willing to trust PCA RE's that know him well, such as the "Bayly brothers". Did not our own greenbagens debate this topic with "He That Must Not Be Named"?
> 
> My reading of that text was that the participents were orthodox. Was I wrong? Where?



Was this in a thread on the PB? If so, I'd be interested to read it. 

Personally, I think Wilson is at least skating on the edge of heresy, but I'd be interested to read more.

-----Added 6/23/2009 at 11:50:19 EST-----

Oops...cross-posted with JOwen. Thanks for the links


----------



## Herald

John Piper does have a lot of clout, but it's more of an informal authority than a heavy handed approach. He's also very likable and affable. People feel comfortable listening to him. 

In my humble opinion the reason Piper invited Doug Wilson is in keeping with his (Piper's) myopia towards the gospel. Piper DOES get the gospel right. It seems that anyone who agrees with him on that point passes his litmus test. Other doctrinal areas are secondary. 

Rich, I understand why you made your comment about congregationalism, but I think it's more than that. John Piper is not confessional. He does not subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. If he held to a strict subscription of the 1689 LBC I doubt we would be discussing this topic. I can confidently state that those Baptist churches who hold to strict subscription would not share their pulpits with anyone who knowingly holds to an unconfessional position.


----------



## Bladestunner316

Maybe someone can explain this to me. Now granted I dont know a whole lot on DW but enough to stay away given the advice on this board. But how can the gospel be correct according to Piper yet be confusing and ok? I just dont understand that!


----------



## Herald

Herald said:


> John Piper does have a lot of clout, but it's more of an informal authority than a heavy handed approach. He's also very likable and affable. People feel comfortable listening to him.
> 
> In my humble opinion the reason Piper invited Doug Wilson is in keeping with his (Piper's) myopia towards the gospel. Piper DOES get the gospel right. It seems that anyone who agrees with him on that point passes his litmus test. Other doctrinal areas are secondary.
> 
> Rich, I understand why you made your comment about congregationalism, but I think it's more than that. John Piper is not confessional. He does not subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. If he held to a strict subscription of the 1689 LBC I doubt we would be discussing this topic. I can confidently state that those Baptist churches who hold to strict subscription would not share their pulpits with anyone who knowingly holds to an unconfessional position.



A P.S. is in order. While the New Perspective is known about in Baptist circles, the FV isn't. By it's very nature the FV is more of a threat to Presbyterians than Baptists. Still, it's an insidious heresy that has long tentacles. Baptists certainly aren't immune to the havoc it can cause. Anything that weakens one part of the body of Christ weakens the body entire.


----------



## EKSB SDG

*Piper on Doug Wilson*

Thanks for getting this thread started. I'm new to PB and was looking to see what was on here about this controversy. I think that it would be helpful to discuss what the most effective responses (prayer, clearly informing people on this issue, hammering Desiring God ministries, etc.) the reformed community can make to Piper's comments . One of the sad things about this is that Piper and Wilson have both written lots of good, useful, and insightful stuff. Too bad that they're so off track on NPP/FV.


----------



## Poimen

I think this is a mistake; regardless of how orthodox Mr. Wilson might be he associates with some very dubious persons and has given them a pass on a number of occasions. This is certainly bad form on Piper's part. 

On the other hand I would also not have chosen Sam Storms either since his (charismatic) convictions also concern me.


----------



## Reformed Rush

Herald said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the New Perspective is known about in Baptist circles, the FV isn't. By it's very nature the FV is more of a threat to Presbyterians than Baptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FV is a threat to all Protestantism.
> 
> It is an attempt to lure Christendom back to Rome.
Click to expand...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Well at least FV has not been linked to the black death yet.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Reformed Rushs said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the New Perspective is known about in Baptist circles, the FV isn't. By it's very nature the FV is more of a threat to Presbyterians than Baptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FV is a threat to all Protestantism.
> 
> It is an attempt to lure Christendom back to Rome.
Click to expand...


I believe what Bill is saying is that the FV's appeal is mainly towards those who are trying deal with ecclesiastic applications of the sacraments in congregations that hold to paedo-baptism. Thus they have to deal more with the possibility of unconfessing members in their fellowship and how the sacraments relate to them. The FV tries to make everyone in the Covenant family somehow elect. Thus you have two different kinds of election. You also have teaching on how a baptism somehow might be a means of grace in regeneration. Dr. R. Scott Clark did a great discussion on baptism and the FV's understanding of it. 

These are not necessarily things the Baptist Church deals with since Baptism is a sign of regenerate Covenant Membership. It is done with a cognizant knowledge and confession from a person who is presumed already converted to Christ thus putting the application of baptism as a means in a much different light and application. 

I agree Doug Wilson is messed up in his understanding of Covenantalism. He holds to a mono-covenant model and redefines the Covenant of Works which Christ fulfilled for us. This problem redefines the Work of Christ. 

I am once again disappointed in John Piper. As many of you will notice. I don't quote Piper or cite him.


----------



## Craig

JOwen said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why I'd need to explain what I said in the least. Wilson affirms all the essentials of the faith, which includes double imputation, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus.
> 
> I would invite you men to back up the notion that Wilson gets the gospel wrong with *Wilson's writings*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to reinvent the wheel. Do a search on Doug Wilson on PB and you will get more than you can read on the subject.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/doug-wilson-23995/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/short-credo-justification-douglas-wilson-12528/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/not-reformed-all-28920/
> 
> Just a few posts.
Click to expand...


Okay, with the exception of the thread promoting a book by Robbins, those only demonstrated Wilson gets the gospel right.

Note Wilson from his credo:


> I believe that God in His sovereign and secret decree has elected by name a countless number to eternal salvation (Eph. 1:11). Each of these elect are justified individually, and irreversibly, at the point of their conversion, when God imputes to them all the righteousness of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29-30). The ground of this justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, plus nothing, and is appropriated by the instrument of faith alone, plus nothing, and even this faith is to be understood as a gift of God, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-10).



There's an interesting word Wilson retains that many FV advocates would likely spurn: conversion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Craig,

Doug Wilson gets this wrong on so many different levels. Here is what Douglas Wilson says about the Covenant of Works.




> Furthermore, because the first covenant with Adam was a gracious covenant, coming from a gracious God, with the condition of the first covenant being the covenantal faithfulness of Adam, not merit, FV proponents suggest that believers should recognize the essential unity of the covenants from Adam through Christ. They are all basically the same with the same condition, covenant faithfulness. In addition, FV writers unanimously reject the concept of merit under the covenant of works: “God did not have an arrangement with Adam in the garden based on Adam’s possible merit. Everything good from God is grace. If Adam had passed the test, he would have done so by grace through faith". Douglas Wilson, “Beyond the Five Solas,” Credenda/Agenda 16/2:15


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Craig said:


> There's an interesting word Wilson retains that many FV advocates would likely spurn: conversion.



I have not found this to be true. Conversion is in their vocabulary.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Well at least FV has not been linked to the black death yet.



Not yet... but an investigation is ongoing.


----------



## toddpedlar

EKSB SDG said:


> Thanks for getting this thread started. I'm new to PB and was looking to see what was on here about this controversy. I think that it would be helpful to discuss what the most effective responses (prayer, clearly informing people on this issue, hammering Desiring God ministries, etc.) the reformed community can make to Piper's comments . One of the sad things about this is that Piper and Wilson have both written lots of good, useful, and insightful stuff. Too bad that they're so off track on NPP/FV.



Huh? Piper has written a scathing critique of Wright's NPP positions... and he can hardly be called a proponent of the FV.


----------



## ubermadchen

EKSB SDG said:


> Thanks for getting this thread started. I'm new to PB and was looking to see what was on here about this controversy. I think that it would be helpful to discuss what the most effective responses (prayer, clearly informing people on this issue, hammering Desiring God ministries, etc.) the reformed community can make to Piper's comments . One of the sad things about this is that Piper and Wilson have both written lots of good, useful, and insightful stuff. Too bad that they're so off track on NPP/FV.




I agree. We should definitely be praying for John Piper that he will see the errors in Doug Wilson's theology. We should also be praying that God will convict Wilson of Gospel truth. Both these men have huge influences amongst Christians, especially with the newly reformed. I fear for the many who look to these men with little to no discerning eye. I went to bed feeling very defeated last night over the thoughts of FV drawing Piper away from his true love. However God has said that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church so we know that Truth will win (has won) out in the end.


----------



## smhbbag

John Piper is wrong, and this does (in a very small way) show some dangers of congregationalism. And these things are part of the reason I reject congregationalism (the primary reason being that the Bible doesn't teach it).

But there are absolutely no grounds to assert that this shows a lack of humility on his part. It is not inherently arrogant to take a position opposite hundreds or thousands of well-studied and respectable commissions and elders across the NAPARC spectrum.

On the issue, he is absolutely wrong. There is no question that FV is unbiblical, unconfessional, and that Doug Wilson is dangerous.

But to assert a lack of humility in John Piper is a character attack that requires much more than showing that he is in a theological minority. He is a brother who has certainly earned a much greater benefit of the doubt regarding his character.


----------



## SolaScriptura

smhbbag said:


> John Piper is wrong, and this does (in a very small way) show some dangers of congregationalism. And these things are part of the reason I reject congregationalism (the primary reason being that the Bible doesn't teach it).
> 
> But there are absolutely no grounds to assert that this shows a lack of humility on his part. It is not inherently arrogant to take a position opposite hundreds or thousands of well-studied and respectable commissions and elders across the NAPARC spectrum.
> 
> On the issue, he is absolutely wrong. There is no question that FV is unbiblical, unconfessional, and that Doug Wilson is dangerous.
> 
> But to assert a lack of humility in John Piper is a character attack that requires much more than showing that he is in a theological minority. He is a brother who has certainly earned a much greater benefit of the doubt regarding his character.



It isn't that he takes a position opposite our denominations... it is that he specifically refers to PCA guys "not thinking clearly."
That IS a statement of arrogance.


----------



## jandrusk

I started questioning Piper's integrity at last years "Desiring God?" conference when he had Mark Driscoll and Paul Tripp there and they are trying to pass of their vulgarity and verbal licentious as perfectly OK. So the invitation I'm afraid comes as no big surprise. I think there definition of holiness is much different than what the scriptures teach.


----------



## Herald

jandrusk said:


> I started questioning Piper's integrity at last years "Desiring God?" conference when he had Mark Driscoll and Paul Tripp there and they are trying to pass of their vulgarity and verbal licentious as perfectly OK. So the invitation I'm afraid comes as no big surprise. I think there definition of holiness is much different than what the scriptures teach.



I'm not prepared to question John Piper's integrity. I believe he is sincere in what he is doing.


----------



## smhbbag

> It isn't that he takes a position opposite our denominations... it is that he specifically refers to PCA guys "not thinking clearly."
> That IS a statement of arrogance.



It most certainly is not. If asserting that someone on the opposite side is not thinking clearly counts as arrogance, this whole board would have to be shut down from the choking pride taking over it.

But it is not arrogant to say someone's thinking is muddy, clouded or wrong, and productive debate occurs while that assertion is out there.

"You're thinking clearly, but you're wrong" is a nonsensical statement, but it appears that is how we must speak if we are to disagree without arrogance, in your mind.


----------



## TimV

Wilson and Piper have huge amounts in common. Both think that they have so much more than their fair share of knowledge and understanding that neither think that they have to be accountable to anyone.


----------



## ubermadchen

TimV said:


> Wilson and Piper have huge amounts in common. Both think that they have so much more than their fair share of knowledge and understanding that neither think that they have to be accountable to anyone.



Yes. I was convicted last night that we can't assume wisdom and Truth will automatically come because one is intelligent, spends long hours studying Scripture, or talks to the right people. Wisdom, truth, discernment, all those things are gifts from God. We need to pray and depend on His grace to give us those things.


----------



## FenderPriest

Where can one get the three hour examination with the PCA that Piper refers to? I've found one with the CREC on his church's website, bu not PCA.


----------



## CDM

There are better ways to spend ones time than listening to an Amyraldian Congregationalist commenting on FV heresy in Presbyterian churches.  

 to Rich above.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

So it looks like Piper is wrong here. This should surprise us? We _are_ Reformed right?

Last time I checked, we follow no man, but the Word of God alone. Piper is a sinner. he will make mistakes and err as will we all.

Call him on it, communicate it to him and use the teachings of his that are sound. Ditch the ones that are not sound. Find me a teacher without blemish and I'll call him your idol.


----------



## Craig

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's an interesting word Wilson retains that many FV advocates would likely spurn: conversion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not found this to be true. Conversion is in their vocabulary.
Click to expand...


From my looking into the issue, the FVers that are Shepherdites like to emphasize baptism and covenant succession to the near exclusion of a conversion experience. They think evangelical conversion to be "Baptistic".

As far as Wilson's stance on the Covenant of Works...I was right with many up until a few months ago. I then argued with a man about it (a man who is not FV, btw) and he made a case I couldn't refute...not Biblically, and not logically.

If man was to "merit" anything in the Covenant of Works, then autonomy would have been man's standing before God.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr

whitway said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean for this to sound pejorative but I think his views on how PCA Elders have given Wilson a "bad rap" demonstrates a significant lack of humility on the matter.
> 
> The issue of the Federal Vision and its relation to Confessional Reformed Theology has been studied at length by hundreds of elders from across the NAPARC spectrum. Countless hours have gone into study reports to confirm that it is un-Bibilical and un-Confessional.
> 
> Yet, on the impression of one man, John Piper, his personal study concludes that the deliberation of thousands is a "bad rap" whereas his own assessment is careful and measured.
> 
> In my estimation, this demonstrates the inherent danger of Congregationalism and I think I'll stick with the wisdom of several General Assemblies' conclusions rather than his personal assessment of the matter.
> 
> [bible]Proverbs 11:14[/bible]
Click to expand...


 your


----------



## Prufrock

Craig said:


> As far as Wilson's stance on the Covenant of Works...I was right with many up until a few months ago. I then argued with a man about it (a man who is not FV, btw) and he made a case I couldn't refute...not Biblically, and not logically.
> 
> *If man was to "merit" anything in the Covenant of Works, then autonomy would have been man's standing before God.*



Then this man you argued with did not faithfully represent how the Reformed have traditionally understood "merit" and the Covenant of Works.

Since this is not particularly germane to the thread, however, I will apologize in advance for my potential derailing of the thread. If you would like to talk about the Reformed understanding of the CoW, go ahead and start a thread so we can chat, and hopefully others will join in to make up for what little ability I have to explain.


----------



## J. David Kear

I am curious that this has surprised so many. Piper may be as far off from the reformed confessions as Wilson is. What we have is a “New Covenant” theologian/pastor inviting a “Federal Vision” theologian/pastor to speak at his conference.

Personally, I have several books from both in my library. Reading them has helped me further distinguish the nuances of the systems that they follow and propagate from that which is taught in the WCF. It has also helped me appreciate and solidify my own adherence to the confession.

But I don’t throw them out because both writers have contributed portions that are very useful and not contra confession. An example might be Wilson’s book, _Easy Chairs Hard Words_.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Maybe time for a new thread for this. There have been other discussions as well over the years (albeit often sidetracks themselves); see
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/mono-vs-bi-covenantal-view-38084/
and 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/dabney-graciousness-covenant-works-15098/
and
http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/trinitarian-relationship-covenant-concerning-fv-15454/



Prufrock said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as Wilson's stance on the Covenant of Works...I was right with many up until a few months ago. I then argued with a man about it (a man who is not FV, btw) and he made a case I couldn't refute...not Biblically, and not logically.
> 
> *If man was to "merit" anything in the Covenant of Works, then autonomy would have been man's standing before God.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then this man you argued with did not faithfully represent how the Reformed have traditionally understood "merit" and the Covenant of Works.
> 
> Since this is not particularly germane to the thread, however, I will apologize in advance for my potential derailing of the thread. If you would like to talk about the Reformed understanding of the CoW, go ahead and start a thread so we can chat, and hopefully others will join in to make up for what little ability I have to explain.
Click to expand...


----------



## Herald

CDM said:


> There are better ways to spend ones time than listening to an Amyraldian Congregationalist commenting on FV heresy in Presbyterian churches.
> 
> to Rich above.



Wait just one second. I do not endorse Doug Wilson speaking at the Desiring God Conference. There have been many criticisms of John Piper in this thread and most of them are valid. But how do you defend accusing John Piper of being an Amyraldian? Everything I have read and heard from the man is orthodox in relation to the doctrines of grace.


----------



## Herald

J. David Kear said:


> I am curious that this has surprised so many. Piper may be as far off from the reformed confessions as Wilson is.



This is the point I tried to make earlier. John Piper is not a confessional Baptist. Just because one is a congregationalist doesn't mean he is marching to his own drum. The 1689 LBC grounds Reformed and Particular Baptist churches. While still independent we have common beliefs and practices. This is not the case with Bethlehem Baptist Church.


----------



## timmopussycat

ubermadchen said:


> YouTube - John Piper - Why Doug Wilson?
> 
> I don't know how to post videos so if that doesn't work, here is a link to the entry on his blog:
> Why Doug Wilson Is Speaking at DG's Fall Conference :: Desiring God
> 
> I'm very disturbed by this. I think that Piper is generally fine with his soteriology but to invite Doug Wilson? To say that he "gets the gospel right?" It just doesn't make sense. I'm really sad and disturbed about this.



Piper has been becoming more and more influential and not all of those who admire him are thorough in testing what he says against Scripture. We should thank God for this stumble: it will ultimately prove a wake up call to many unthinking followers. 

As James reminds us: "We all stumble in many ways." This is a good illustration of why Christ's church does not ascribe final doctrinal authority to Popes or councils and why the Westminster Standards and the OLC make only Scripture and good and necessary consequence deductions therefrom the final determinants therof. Although Wilson's analogy in that sermon may be right on a key aspect of the gospel, it seems (as this outsider to FV understands the state of the controversy) that several examinations of his position have shown that Wilson does not carry through his analogy throughout his understanding of "the gospel" in the same way historic Reformed theology does. 

Now those critiques may be wrong: as Protestants we know that men and councils err. But if Piper is going to invite someone whose theological positions have been officially rejected by Reformed Christian denominations as being either major heterodoxy or borderline heresy, he owes it to the churches to demonstrate by Scriptural exegesis or GNC deductions therefrom that the critiques of Wilson have somehow misunderstood Wilson's teaching, erroneously concluding him in error when his teaching is (on this hypothesis) within the pale of orthodoxy. At the very least Piper should not have invited Wilson, without providing such a demonstration.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr

Herald said:


> J. David Kear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious that this has surprised so many. Piper may be as far off from the reformed confessions as Wilson is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the point I tried to make earlier. John Piper is not a confessional Baptist. Just because one is a congregationalist doesn't mean he is marching to his own drum. The 1689 LBC grounds Reformed and Particular Baptist churches. While still independent we have common beliefs and practices. This is not the case with Bethlehem Baptist Church.
Click to expand...


Problem I have with that (Independency) is that it ignores the compulsory tenor found in Scripture for unity.


----------



## Herald

jmartinez83 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J. David Kear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious that this has surprised so many. Piper may be as far off from the reformed confessions as Wilson is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the point I tried to make earlier. John Piper is not a confessional Baptist. Just because one is a congregationalist doesn't mean he is marching to his own drum. The 1689 LBC grounds Reformed and Particular Baptist churches. While still independent we have common beliefs and practices. This is not the case with Bethlehem Baptist Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem I have with that (Independency) is that it ignores the compulsory tenor found in Scripture for unity.
Click to expand...


Per the Presbyterian view of ecclesiology, which I naturally disagree with. But that wasn't my point. I was trying to establish that John Piper's church does not align itself with the 1689 LBC, and thus does not have a solid Reformed framework.


----------



## CDM

Herald said:


> CDM said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are better ways to spend ones time than listening to an Amyraldian Congregationalist commenting on FV heresy in Presbyterian churches.
> 
> to Rich above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait just one second. I do not endorse Doug Wilson speaking at the Desiring God Conference. There have been many criticisms of John Piper in this thread and most of them are valid. But how do you defend accusing John Piper of being an Amyraldian? Everything I have read and heard from the man is orthodox in relation to the doctrines of grace.
Click to expand...


It appears this comes as a surprise. Have you never heard this before? Oh, I know he has sermons that are Calvinistic (so does John Wesley). He also has sermons that are clearly Amyraldian. Maybe it’s a case of the whole "paradox" thing I continue to fail to understand.  A PB search will provide material for your reading. Here’s one:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/john-piper-limited-atonement-27430/

Youtube clips often provide many sermons of Piper that make this clear. Here are a couple of clips from a PB contributor:
[video=youtube;r5T7CkSbpOs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5T7CkSbpOs[/video]***moderator video links removed; this person is no longer a PB contributor and PB does not want links to this person's material; sorry. *
Vid Intro:


----------



## CDM

I was waiting to see the thread develop. I'm left to wonder why no one has mentioned the fact that Piper emphatically says FV is NOT a false gospel?


----------



## student ad x

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am once again disappointed in John Piper. As many of you will notice. I don't quote Piper or cite him.



As a PB noob, I can't give out thanks yet.... soooooooo *thank you! *


----------



## jogri17

There are plenty of reformed baptist (and non confessional reformed baptists) who would agree that Doug Wilson is preaching another Gospel (not that he is an heretic necessarily but rather the language is so bad taht it qualifies as another gospel).

-----Added 6/24/2009 at 01:37:04 EST-----



TimV said:


> Wilson and Piper have huge amounts in common. Both think that they have so much more than their fair share of knowledge and understanding that neither think that they have to be accountable to anyone.



Yes but thats to be expected from baptists


----------



## SolaGratia

*RedBeetle*

Chris/CDM,

Do you know who is Monty L. Collier of Geneva Dutch Calvinist Church Kingsport, Tennessee, aka RedBeetle from the youtube links you provided?

Thanks,
Gil


----------



## Fly Caster

SolaGratia said:


> Chris/CDM,
> 
> Do you know who is Monty L. Collier of Geneva Dutch Calvinist Church Kingsport, Tennessee, aka RedBeetle from the youtube links you provided?
> 
> Thanks,
> Gil



I live in Kingsport. I'm pretty familiar with all Reformed Churches in Kingsport (it's not that big of a town and there are not a great number of Reformed churches here) and I met Mr. Collier a few years ago.

I know of no Geneva Dutch Calvinist Church in Kingsport,TN.


----------



## SolaGratia

RedBeetle or Monty is the one providing the videos in youtube. It is very important to know who are these such individuals attacking pastors, professors, churches, teachings, etc. Looks like he is a follower of John Robins, The Trinity Foundation. 


Here is his website or his church website *(link removed by moderator)*


----------



## CDM

SolaGratia said:


> Chris/CDM,
> 
> Do you know who is Monty L. Collier of Geneva Dutch Calvinist Church Kingsport, Tennessee, aka RedBeetle from the youtube links you provided?
> 
> Thanks,
> Gil





SolaGratia said:


> RedBeetle or Monty is the one providing the videos in youtube. It is very important to know who are these such individuals attacking pastors, professors, churches, teachings, etc. Looks like he is a follower of John Robins, The Trinity Foundation.
> 
> 
> Here is his website or his church website :



PM'ed you.


----------



## timmopussycat

CDM said:


> I was waiting to see the thread develop. I'm left to wonder why no one has mentioned the fact that Piper emphatically says FV is NOT a false gospel?



Where does Piper say that?


----------



## Archlute

FenderPriest said:


> Where can one get the three hour examination with the PCA that Piper refers to? I've found one with the CREC on his church's website, bu not PCA.



To my knowledge, the only formal examination that Doug Wilson has undergone on the matter was with his own CREC presbytery. You can find the manuscript online. I am not aware of a presbytery exam given him within the PCA.


----------



## DonP

When Mr Wilson began to see the need to unite with other churches and form a "federation" so he would not continue to go against his professed presbyerian convictions, I had some exchanges with him by letter and reviewed his statement of faith or the creed for the new federation he was starting with 2 other congregations. 
They would offer a baptistic view of baptism and the member could have their choice. 
Aren't elders to know the word lead and direct and the members submit? 
If you are not willing to submit to the teaching of your elders shouldn't you be encouraged to repent or go elsewhere? We do not change the doctrines and sacraments to adapt to the wishes of the members. 
He was very fundamentalist and I mean this not as works salvation but clearly adding to the word, binding consciences and requiring things not required by the word. I knew many of his churches members and those who followed his Credenda Agenda writings and books and perhaps they became more moralizing than he was but they would shun people who wore makeup, and forced their convictions on others that should be areas of conscience. 
Though requiring certain behavior as a way of life is not as severe and error as requiring it for salvation, fundamentalism for sanctification can lead to and errant view of salvation and who is a brother. 

He would also each it was wrong to use God's creation for our health and instead take pharmaceutical drugs. That the use of herbs and natural health care was wrong. A brief study of the statistics of medical care should have awakened him to this error as the number one cause of death is the medical profession and when you just consider circulatory disease, cancer and only properly prescribed drugs they still come out the 3rd leading cause of death and there is no scriptural warrant to not use plants for our health. In fact plants are food we must have for maintaining health. He led many astray, confused others and caused them to stumble in their conscience.

This is another example of his instability with the word and proneness to follow fables or worldly trends, and overlording. 

I tried to help him see that he was indeed schismatic and if he believed in unity as much as purity that he should seek to join with other denominations rather than remain independent or even start a new one. But he new better and would not submit to the errors of all of the other reformed denominations. 

I am not advocating we all go back to the Catholic church but isn't one of the doctrines we are supposed to hold in purity that we have unity, be of one mind, and not have divisions? 

As much as I see the weaknesses and slowness to change in presbyterian denominations I also will never go back to Independency. Not only does it violate Acts 15 and other scripture but it fosters the idea of the one pastor like Piper or others as being justified to be separate and independent since they understand the scripture better than anyone else. Or they have some special calling that allows for this, or they look to results like numbers of followers or how many books they can sell as validation of their rightness in doctrine, which God never says is proof. 

There is safety in submission to others and there is a point to divide, like over the gospel or when Machen recognized too many ministers had left the faith of the Presbyterian Church. 

I do say this is the fault of ministers and elders who will not take a stand and require men to continue in Confessional Biblical historic faith in order to be ordained, rather than lowering the standards and making and taking exceptions. 

Let these independents have their own schismatic groups and keep the church faithful to the historic faith once delivered. And let them teach that converted people do not split over the color of the carpet or minor doctrines of personal preference. They stay and submit and have their faith and freedom between themselves and God for the sake of the church and her sheep. Or they work through the Councils trusting the spirit to persuade the others and bring this truth to His church, instead of going off in fleshly efforts depending on themselves to build a purer church in their eyes.

Anyone with some charisma can write a book or make a video that attracts a crowd, this does not take the work of the Spirit. But unity, self-sacrifice, submission to the brothers, trust in god to run His church and guide the ministers in the councils, well that does. 

How many of you will say my church is better than Calvin's, my knowledge and accuracy overall excels his? Who would leave Calvin's church because it was not faithful enough to the word so they need to start a better church? 

Then I say we all need to return faithfully to the Confession and obey the doctrine of unity and seek to be less factious and divisive and a little more humble. 
Your hobby horse issue you think you know better about than the denomination is not as important or clear, than the doctrine of unity. 

*Work through the church courts trusting God to support your idea to the majority if it is His will it is taught in His churches. 
*

Even Paul submitted to the horrid teaching, that the Gentiles should hold onto the abstaining from things strangled pronounced by the Council, for the sake of unity as long as they did see the greatest error of forcing Christians to abide by the rest of the OT laws and ordinances, as the theonomists want to bring us back under today. 

He embraced their decision and took it to the people. Though he did later say, as a matter of conscience respect the Jewish brother who may still be weak and think it wrong to eat meat offered to idols, but there is no need really to avoid them, he did not separate over these minor errors of the transforming church. 

Why can't we submit to minor errors trusting God to actually be able to rule in His church and overthrow error and raise up truth when you present it as Paul did?

And why can't we take a stand for the Confessional faith and not allow men to be elders and ministers who will not submit to these historic doctrines?


----------



## AThornquist

According to Monty Collier's definition of Limited Atonement and Calvinism in general, many Presbyterian elders and members aren't even Calvinist. His definitions are about as useful as watching AndrewcBain videos to expose "heretics." How sad--and what a waste. It's so easy though when one chooses when to cut a sound bit and imply meanings into statements. Yay for striving for unity!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I stand by my comment on humility. I didn't attack his character but his assumption that individual study of a matter qualifies one to ignore the deliberations of hundreds of other elders, acting in accord out of their understanding of the Scriptures, to come to an exegetical conclusion. No, the studies of hundreds does not make it right nor does the collective wisdom of centuries of Reformed thinking about the nature of Covenant membership make the WCF Confession right. Nevertheless, we do not stand as individuals interpreting the Scriptures for our private use but we confess, with the Church, the Scripures. It is a modernist arrogance that presumes that my individual study and conclusions very likely overthrows centuries of a standard exposition of the text. The Reformers understood this and when they departed from historical understanding they did so with fear and trepidation recognizing our capacity to misapprehend.

This is why I have a problem with the "we have no Creed but Christ" crowd. They boldly proclaim that the Church has no business trying to tell everybody what the Scriptures principally teach but then they slip their Confession under the door where you cannot read it. The sheep, in the pew, confidently assert that their Pastor is "just teaching what the Bible teaches" and accept a personal exposition of the text or, perhaps, each person ends up with their personal exposition of each text and there is no ability for the Church to be led to the unity of the faith, which is what Eph 6 demands of its Pastors and Teachers.

To have faith in the God of the Scriptures is to trust in His Providence that He will guide and direct those in leadership as they watch over our souls. Some violate that trust while many yet labor to be faithful to the doctrines once for all delivered to the Saints. When these men come together, under the authority of the Church, we do well to humbly assume that the Proverbial wisdom is true and that the sinful tendencies to err are dampened by the multitude of deliberators. In contrast, the FV error has been characterized by a few forceful and persuasive individuals who gain a large following and, on their own declaration, decide that the Reformed Confessions have obviously erred and they are just the men to correct it and no Church council has the authority to correct otherwise.

BREAK

On the subject of Doug Wilson, I think I would make a distinction in this discussion that is not being made by some that are defending him. In my post I was less concerned with the exact issue at hand and more concerned about Piper's confidence to declare that Wilson is just being a paedobaptist and that PCA elders err in finding fault.

I think minimalism is a very dangerous tack when one is discussing the Gospel. It is far too common to look at the "does he affirm faith alone by Christ alone?" and then rest easy that a man has gotten the Gospel right whatever else he does with sanctification. I would ask that, if this is believed to be the case, that a person re-read the book of Galatians - especially how Paul notes that the Gospel is corrupted even on the subject of the nature of sanctification. There are also other inconsistencies in Ecclesiology and Sacramentology that will undermine the Gospel in terms of how the Sacraments affirm and build up the Gospel that have to be considered. This is why the Reformers including the Preaching of the Word as well as the correct administration of the Sacraments as two of the three marks of a true Church. I would submit that a person that thinks that a proper understanding of the Sacraments is only incidentally related to the Gospel is one who needs to study the Sacraments more carefully.


----------



## CDM

timmopussycat said:


> CDM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was waiting to see the thread develop. I'm left to wonder why no one has mentioned the fact that Piper emphatically says FV is NOT a false gospel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does Piper say that?
Click to expand...


The first 30 seconds of the above clip starts off with the following.

Question to Dr. Piper: "Have you found FV theology of Doug Wilson another gospel?" 

Piper:
[empatically] No! That's easy. DW doesn't preach another gospel. I don't think N.T. Wright preaches another gospel either." 

There are many other clips like these. Either way, I am at a loss for time and desire to lay out info. that is readily available for the impartial observer to come to a sure conclusion. 

The Gospel is clear. Wilson, FV & Co. are anything but clear.


----------



## rbcbob

Piper has been _slipping_ for years. He has been weak, at best, on the continuation of charismatic gifts for at least ten years. With such a fractured epistemological base it should not be surprising that the slide continues.


----------



## Fly Caster

rbcbob said:


> Piper has been _slipping_ for years. He has been weak, at best, on the continuation of charismatic gifts for at least ten years. With such a fractured epistemological base it should not be surprising that the slide continues.



Piper is a Contemporary Reformed Baptist.

As such, he's fantastic when he's being Reformed, not so good when he's being Baptist, and pretty awful when he's being Contemporary.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Fly Caster said:


> As such, he's fantastic when he's being Reformed, not so good when he's being Baptist, and pretty awful when he's being Contemporary.



Clever!


----------



## toddpedlar

CDM said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CDM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was waiting to see the thread develop. I'm left to wonder why no one has mentioned the fact that Piper emphatically says FV is NOT a false gospel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does Piper say that?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first 30 seconds of the above clip starts off with the following.
> 
> Question to Dr. Piper: "Have you found FV theology of Doug Wilson another gospel?"
> 
> Piper:
> [empatically] No! That's easy. DW doesn't preach another gospel. I don't think N.T. Wright preaches another gospel either."
> 
> There are many other clips like these. Either way, I am at a loss for time and desire to lay out info. that is readily available for the impartial observer to come to a sure conclusion.
> 
> The Gospel is clear. Wilson, FV & Co. are anything but clear.
Click to expand...


Wow. So he did. He affirmed that the Federal Vision is not a problem, but that Wilson's followers are the problem.... 

WOW.


----------



## CDM

At 4:42 in the first clip I linked to, you will here John Piper's own voice about God loving everyone but the Church he loves differently. Piper begins describing his views at the 7:13 mark. At 7:45, Piper will go on about Limited Atonement complete with all the theologically correct terms.

At the 8:14 mark, in answering the question 'do you believe that Jesus died for all people', Piper says, "I'm going to quote Millard Erickson's theology BECAUSE I THINK HE'S RIGHT..." "God intended the atonement to make salvation possible for all persons...he died for all persons...it becomes effective only when accepted by individuals...If that is the view of Arminians than I TOTALLY AGREE WITH IT. WITHOUT QUALIFICATION!" [emphasis Piper’s]

Does anyone here agree with this? Does anyone here agree that this is Calvinism in the original and historical sense of the word? BTW, Piper’s quote (that he agreed to "without qualification") was taken from Erickson’s chapter entitled UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT.

If I were to be sneaky and replace the word “Piper” with the word “Falwell” I wonder how many defenders there would be?


----------



## smhbbag

> Piper is a Contemporary Reformed Baptist.
> 
> As such, he's fantastic when he's being Reformed, not so good when he's being Baptist, and pretty awful when he's being Contemporary.



This made me laugh out loud. And it's a perfect summation.


----------



## rbcbob

Fly Caster said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piper has been _slipping_ for years. He has been weak, at best, on the continuation of charismatic gifts for at least ten years. With such a fractured epistemological base it should not be surprising that the slide continues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Piper is a Contemporary Reformed Baptist.
> 
> As such, he's fantastic when he's being Reformed, not so good when he's being Baptist, and pretty awful when he's being Contemporary.
Click to expand...


I have been a Reformed Baptist for over twenty years and never regarded Piper as a Reformed Baptist. I have been an outspoken critic of his mushy views for over ten years. He has been a Calvinistic Baptist, but I take Reformed to mean much more.


----------



## Craig

SolaGratia said:


> Chris/CDM,
> 
> Do you know who is Monty L. Collier of Geneva Dutch Calvinist Church Kingsport, Tennessee, aka RedBeetle from the youtube links you provided?
> 
> Thanks,
> Gil



Monty is well-known in his area...his "church", however, is either non-existent, or it's held in his home with his family (maybe a friend or two).

Try to find his church...you won't be able to. You might get interesting stories if you call the local PCA and OPC churches, though. I have a friend who did this.


----------



## Gloria

John Piper is bad!


----------



## smhbbag

> I stand by my comment on humility. I didn't attack his character but his assumption that individual study of a matter qualifies one to ignore the deliberations of hundreds of other elders, acting in accord out of their understanding of the Scriptures, to come to an exegetical conclusion. No, the studies of hundreds does not make it right nor does the collective wisdom of centuries of Reformed thinking about the nature of Covenant membership make the WCF Confession right. Nevertheless, we do not stand as individuals interpreting the Scriptures for our private use but we confess, with the Church, the Scripures. *It is a modernist arrogance that presumes that my individual study and conclusions very likely overthrows centuries of a standard exposition of the text. The Reformers understood this and when they departed from historical understanding they did so with fear and trepidation recognizing our capacity to misapprehend.
> *
> This is why I have a problem with the "we have no Creed but Christ" crowd. They boldly proclaim that the Church has no business trying to tell everybody what the Scriptures principally teach but then they slip their Confession under the door where you cannot read it. The sheep, in the pew, confidently assert that their Pastor is "just teaching what the Bible teaches" and accept a personal exposition of the text or, perhaps, each person ends up with their personal exposition of each text and there is no ability for the Church to be led to the unity of the faith, which is what Eph 6 demands of its Pastors and Teachers.
> 
> To have faith in the God of the Scriptures is to trust in His Providence that He will guide and direct those in leadership as they watch over our souls. Some violate that trust while many yet labor to be faithful to the doctrines once for all delivered to the Saints. When these men come together, under the authority of the Church, we do well to humbly assume that the Proverbial wisdom is true and that the sinful tendencies to err are dampened by the multitude of deliberators. In contrast, the FV error has been characterized by a few forceful and persuasive individuals who gain a large following and, on their own declaration, decide that the Reformed Confessions have obviously erred and they are just the men to correct it and no Church council has the authority to correct



I agree wholeheartedly with paragraphs 2 and 3.

Based on the bold portion above, is it true then that your comment about his humility came not from his position, or even his words, but that he did those things from an attitude that was without fear and trepidation at the weight of it? 

That appears to be an accurate summation of what you have said. If it is, then the critique still stands, as there is nothing quite so nebulous as a perceived lack of humility while stating one's position.

I am also quite confused as to how having "a significant lack of humility in the matter" is not an attack on his character. Is a lack of humility not considered bad character? There are visible actions that we see, and based on that you have ascribed to him an internal motivation or characteristic, assessing it (in this matter) as lacking. That, by definition, is a character attack.

I would understand a great deal more a defense of attacking his character, but not denying it.


----------



## AThornquist

Chris,

Inserting Falwell instead of Piper would be an _entirely_ different situation. John Piper holds a position that many Presbyterian Calvinists (for example) hold to, and it is well defined here. Don't take a small sound bit that is most definitely stated poorly and define his entire understanding of Limited Atonement on it. A little charity would be fantastic. Those Red Beetle videos altogether lack it.


----------



## Scott1

Many of us are surprised and saddened to hear Mr. Piper say on justification by Christ's righteousness alone the leader of the Federal Vision error gets it right. At best, it confuses it, and that alone is not acceptable.

Biblically, someone who understands these issues with formal theological training needs to contact this esteemed brother and challenge him to explain. Charitably, we ought assume the best until he can respond. It would be helpful if that response could be published and we could review it, even here.

In the meantime,  we must pray we do not lose one of the apparent great men of God in this generation to the pernicious pride and sin of error toward the gospel itself.

We must face the sobering reality of the allure of lust of the flesh and the pride of life that so easily beset us, and beg our Lord's indulgence that this esteemed brother will see clearly the danger, repent while the time is at hand, and not let this happen.


----------



## Zadok

*Wonderment*



Semper Fidelis said:


> In my estimation, this demonstrates the inherent danger of Congregationalism and I think I'll stick with the wisdom of several General Assemblies' conclusions rather than his personal assessment of the matter.
> 
> [bible]Proverbs 11:14[/bible]



Cheap shot


----------



## Herald

Sorry. I am not convinced that Piper is Amyraldian. If you where to have heard me preach on Romans 10:9,10 you would be convinced I was Amyraldian or a full blown Arminian. Salvation is a choice. We do choose Christ. It is biblical (and confessional) to call on men everywhere to repent and believe. The mystery of who is elect is hid from us (praise God!). It does not change the surety of election, but it reinforces the scriptural command contained in this question, "How shall they hear without a preacher?"

I heard a Calvinist preacher say this about the atonement:

"Christ's death was powerful enough to save all, if that was the will of the Father. In other words, the atonement is not limited in power. It's limitation is self-imposed. It is one of intent. The Father intends that only a few will be saved, that is, some. But for us, heralds of the gospel message, we know only what we are commanded to proclaim. "Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." Our theological hat tells us that only those called by the Father will believe. Our evangelist hat tells us to plead with all who will listen."

In my humble opinion this is where Piper is coming from. But I am in no way defending his choice of Doug Wilson to speak at the Desiring God conference.


----------



## CDM

AThornquist said:


> Chris,
> 
> Inserting Falwell instead of Piper would be an _entirely_ different situation. John Piper holds a position that many Presbyterian Calvinists (for example) hold to, and it is well defined here. Don't take a small sound bit that is most definitely stated poorly and define his entire understanding of Limited Atonement on it. A little charity would be fantastic. Those Red Beetle videos altogether lack it.



I understand. I did so to touch on the seemingly intractable defenders of Piper where no defense is warranted in this case.

I do not base my opinions off of sound bytes or clips. I have read many of Piper's writings, and listened to many of his sermons. I study.

Did you listen to the audio? This was not Piper "stating things poorly" as you suggest. It was deliberate, emphatic, and fervently proclaimed in the clearest language possible. He even shouts "with no qualification" after his pronouncement of total agreement with Arminian doctrine (BTW, I am content with identifying him as an Amyraldian). He even goes on to expound upon it. It doesn't get any clearer in my opinion. Have you never come across one that holds two opposing ideas as simultaneously true. At one moment you'll hear one position. The next moment you'll here it's opposite affirmed.


----------



## toddpedlar

Zadok said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my estimation, this demonstrates the inherent danger of Congregationalism and I think I'll stick with the wisdom of several General Assemblies' conclusions rather than his personal assessment of the matter.
> 
> [bible]Proverbs 11:14[/bible]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap shot
Click to expand...


Huh? What's cheap about it? It IS a particular danger of Congregationalism that, because there is no check above the local church, doctrine can go awry more easily.

Rich's point was that Piper is ignoring what most of the more conservative NAPARC member denominations have loudly and in great detail claimed, that the Federal Vision represents "another gospel".


----------



## Reformed Rush

CDM said:


> Have you never come across one that holds two opposing ideas as simultaneously true. At one moment you'll hear one position. The next moment you'll here it's opposite affirmed.



(We believe speaking out of both sides of one's mouth, is a mark of Amyraldianism.)

"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1:8

"They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak." Psalm 12:2


----------



## christianyouth

jogri17 said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson and Piper have huge amounts in common. Both think that they have so much more than their fair share of knowledge and understanding that neither think that they have to be accountable to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but thats to be expected from baptists
Click to expand...


And Martin Luther.


----------



## Parsifal23

Can anyone direct me to some quotes by Doug Wilson on Justification? I just got a email from Desiring God Ministries asking for quotes and so far All I have found are some foot notes from The Report on Justification
Presented to the Seventy-third General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church but no actual quotes yet could someone point me in the right direction thanks


----------



## CDM

Herald said:


> Sorry. I am not convinced that Piper is Amyraldian. If you where to have heard me preach on Romans 10:9,10 you would be convinced I was Amyraldian or a full blown Arminian. Salvation is a choice. We do choose Christ. It is biblical (and confessional) to call on men everywhere to repent and believe. The mystery of who is elect is hid from us (praise God!). This is where I believe Piper is coming from on this issue.
> 
> I heard a Calvinist preach say this about he atonement:
> 
> \"Christ's death was powerful enough to save all, if that was the will of the Father. In other words, the atonement is not limited in power. It's limitation is self-imposed. It is one of intent. The Father intends that only a few will be saved, that is, some. But for us, heralds of the gospel message, we know only what we are commanded to proclaim. \"Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.\" Our theological hat tells us that only those called by the Father will believe. Our evangelist hat tells us to plead with all who will listen.\"
> 
> In my humble opinion this is where I think Piper is coming from. But I am in no way defending his choice of Doug Wilson to speak at the Desiring God conference.



You’re qualifying Piper’s words yet he says “I TOTALLY AGREE WITH IT. WITHOUT QUALIFICATION!” when he agrees with the Arminian Erickson’s teaching of Christ dying for each man. 

If a professed Calvinist can in any sense affirm that Christ substitutionarily died for each and every man he is at best an Amyraldian at worst (and more consistent) an Arminian. Even Wiki knows what Amyraldism is.

How do you define Amyraldism?


----------



## AThornquist

CDM said:


> Did you listen to the audio? This was not Piper "stating things poorly" as you suggest. It was deliberate, emphatic, and fervently proclaimed in the clearest language possible. He even shouts "with no qualification" after his pronouncement of total agreement with Arminian doctrine (BTW, I am content with identifying him as an Amyraldian). He even goes on to expound upon it. It doesn't get any clearer in my opinion. Have you never come across one that holds two opposing ideas as simultaneously true. At one moment you'll hear one position. The next moment you'll here it's opposite affirmed.




Yes, I did listen to it. Blah, I don't even care to discuss this anymore. I wrote out a long post but it just would not be fruitful to post it. You are convinced he should be labeled a certain way and that's fine. I certainly disagree, but what he is labeled means nothing one way or the other.


----------



## Craig

Scott1 said:


> Many of us are surprised and saddened to hear Mr. Piper say on justification by Christ's righteousness alone the leader of the Federal Vision error gets it right. At best, it confuses it, and that alone is not acceptable.



No matter how many times people insist on this...I've never seen anyone substantiate it. Doug Wilson has errors...when it comes to justification and imputation...he does NOT equivocate. *He is dead on*. At what point do these unsubstantiated assertions become "theological libel"?


----------



## Zadok

toddpedlar said:


> Huh? What's cheap about it? It IS a particular danger of Congregationalism that, because there is no check above the local church, doctrine can go awry more easily.



Historical rubbish. It is clear from church history that your connectional system actually accounts for more casualties from error and heresy than Independency.
By the nature of the case if an Independent church goes awry, the others do not necessarily follow, whereas in your denominational structure whole swathes of churches fall together.

The point I was giving a thumbs down to was that Rich should use this incident to take a pot shot at Congregationalism. Is it really the fault of Congregationalism that Piper is in error? Are there no Presbyterian. churches sold out to FV and NPP?


----------



## christianyouth

Zadok said:


> By the nature of the case if an Independent church goes awry, the others do not necessarily follow, whereas in your denominational structure whole swathes of churches fall together.



No, they just go start a new denomination(a very congregational thing to do).


----------



## Scott1

Parsifal23 said:


> Can anyone direct me to some quotes by Doug Wilson on Justification? I just got a email from Desiring God Ministries asking for quotes and so far All I have found are some foot notes from The Report on Justification
> Presented to the Seventy-third General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church but no actual quotes yet could someone point me in the right direction thanks



You are to be commended for contacting Mr. Piper's organization. This is the biblical approach, and believe the best in the meanwhile, not descend into speculation. Praying dearly for this dear one.

You will need to do your research, as the OPC study report did. So it is a very good resource (the OPC study report)- and you can commend that to Mr. Piper.

This is a sophisticated and complicated bundle of error- the OPC report cites original sources and you will need to do some research from original sources.

The PCA study report is excellent (you can do a PDF word search, e.g. "Wilson" "justification")

http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/07-fvreport.pdf

"Reformed is not Enough" on Google Books:

"Reformed" is Not Enough - Google Books


----------



## toddpedlar

Zadok said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? What's cheap about it? It IS a particular danger of Congregationalism that, because there is no check above the local church, doctrine can go awry more easily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historical rubbish. It is clear from church history that your connectional system actually accounts for more casualties from error and heresy than Independency.
> By the nature of the case if an Independent church goes awry, the others do not necessarily follow, whereas in your denominational structure whole swathes of churches fall together.
Click to expand...


We clearly have different reads of church history.



> The point I was giving a thumbs down to was that Rich should use this incident to take a pot shot at Congregationalism. Is it really the fault of Congregationalism that Piper is in error. Are there no Presbyterians sold out to FV and NPP?



That's not the point. Rich was merely making the point that if Piper wasn't out on a limb on his own with no accountability above him, but rather was part of, say, the PCA or OPC, he'd be well versed in the controversies, and with the accountability structure of the broader presbyterial bodies, would probably not stray where he has in making his mind up to invite Wilson. Could he still make the same error of inviting Wilson? Sure... but it would be less likely.

Of course you can also argue that independent or not, Piper should have had the wisdom to consult what Reformed denominations have said about the Federal Vision and humbly take the position that MAYBE, just MAYBE, the larger bodies are right and he is wrong on the FV, and not invite Wilson.


----------



## Zadok

christianyouth said:


> Zadok said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the nature of the case if an Independent church goes awry, the others do not necessarily follow, whereas in your denominational structure whole swathes of churches fall together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they just go start a new denomination(a very congregational thing to do).
Click to expand...


They are independent, and so there may grow another congregation from the one that went awry, but your mind is working overtime to suggest that it would necessarily lead to a "denomination". 

You should try reading some Presbyterian Church histories. The accusation you level is truer of Presbyterianism than of Independency!



toddpedlar said:


> The point I was giving a thumbs down to was that Rich should use this incident to take a pot shot at Congregationalism. Is it really the fault of Congregationalism that Piper is in error. Are there no Presbyterians sold out to FV and NPP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the point. Rich was merely making the point that if Piper wasn't out on a limb on his own with no accountability above him, but rather was part of, say, the PCA or OPC, he'd be well versed in the controversies, and with the accountability structure of the broader presbyterial bodies, would probably not stray where he has in making his mind up to invite Wilson. Could he still make the same error of inviting Wilson? Sure... but it would be less likely.
> 
> Of course you can also argue that independent or not, Piper should have had the wisdom to consult what Reformed denominations have said about the Federal Vision and humbly take the position that MAYBE, just MAYBE, the larger bodies are right and he is wrong on the FV, and not invite Wilson.
Click to expand...


I ask again, how many Prebyterian churches have succumbed to NPP/FV, and how come your precious system was not the safety net for them that you think it would have been for Piper?


----------



## christianyouth

The Protestant movement was founded by someone who said "to hell with your Councils I'll take Scripture", and yet when a modern day Protestant says that they are considered arrogant, pitting their interpretation against all of these others. But somehow we applaud Luther when he took his interpretation of Scripture and defied all of Christendom at his time, and the great majority of Christians before him.

This smells to me like inconsistency.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Folks, 
The Admins do not want linking to Red Beetle's stuff. He was suspended some time ago from PB. The links above have been removed. If you have other sources use them.*


----------



## toddpedlar

Zadok said:


> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zadok said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the nature of the case if an Independent church goes awry, the others do not necessarily follow, whereas in your denominational structure whole swathes of churches fall together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they just go start a new denomination(a very congregational thing to do).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are independent, and so there may grow another congregation from the one that went awry, but your mind is working overtime to suggest that it would necessarily lead to a "denomination".
> 
> You should try reading some Presbyterian Church histories. The accusation you level is truer of Presbyterianism than of Independency!
Click to expand...


I can argue the same for you, but I won't bother. It's clear you are quite convinced of the superiority of independency. 



> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point I was giving a thumbs down to was that Rich should use this incident to take a pot shot at Congregationalism. Is it really the fault of Congregationalism that Piper is in error. Are there no Presbyterians sold out to FV and NPP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the point. Rich was merely making the point that if Piper wasn't out on a limb on his own with no accountability above him, but rather was part of, say, the PCA or OPC, he'd be well versed in the controversies, and with the accountability structure of the broader presbyterial bodies, would probably not stray where he has in making his mind up to invite Wilson. Could he still make the same error of inviting Wilson? Sure... but it would be less likely.
> 
> Of course you can also argue that independent or not, Piper should have had the wisdom to consult what Reformed denominations have said about the Federal Vision and humbly take the position that MAYBE, just MAYBE, the larger bodies are right and he is wrong on the FV, and not invite Wilson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ask again, how many Prebyterian churches have succumbed to NPP/FV, and how come your precious system was not the safety net for them that you think it would have been for Piper?
Click to expand...


I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat battle over how many independent vs. how many presbyterian churches have gone awry in one way or another... but you should know that the fraction of Presbyterian churches that are under NPP/FV leadership is VERY small.

Besides, the question of polity is most certainly NOT ever to be argued based on "effectiveness of keeping people 'in check'". 

I'm done with this discussion.


----------



## christianyouth

Zadok said:


> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zadok said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the nature of the case if an Independent church goes awry, the others do not necessarily follow, whereas in your denominational structure whole swathes of churches fall together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they just go start a new denomination(a very congregational thing to do).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are independent, and so there may grow another congregation from the one that went awry, but your mind is working overtime to suggest that it would necessarily lead to a "denomination".
Click to expand...


Hey Zadok, I was using the 'they' to refer to Presbyterianism(the 'your denominational structure' from the above post).

Sorry for not being clear!


----------



## Philip

Personally, I see both Piper and Wilson as brothers in Christ and as wise Christian leaders--even if mistaken on some points. Maybe Piper has erred here, but if so, then he has erred on the side of grace. I would say that it's better to be rightly related than to be right--to err on the side of charity rather than on that of legalism and requiring everyone to cross their theological ts. Even the best theologians are right only about eighty percent of the time anyway.


----------



## Scott1

Craig said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us are surprised and saddened to hear Mr. Piper say on justification by Christ's righteousness alone the leader of the Federal Vision error gets it right. At best, it confuses it, and that alone is not acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times people insist on this...I've never seen anyone substantiate it. Doug Wilson has errors...when it comes to justification and imputation...he does NOT equivocate. *He is dead on*. At what point do these unsubstantiated assertions become "theological libel"?
Click to expand...


One of the things that indicated to me a few years ago that federal vision theology was wrong was the stridency of its proponents. They tended to be strongly defensive, categorical in denials and always claiming to be misunderstood... always. 
(I'm not at all putting you, Craig, in this category, this is only by way of context for readers new to this)

One of their approaches was to say that we do not have a high enough view of the (visible) church. Yet when the church spoke, authoritatively, as church and after church researched and denounced its error, initiated discipline, they denounced the church's authority to speak or fled its discipline.

Federal vision has factions, and factions within factions.

You are right on one level, Mr. Wilson has articulated an orthodox position on justification by faith alone, rather than the unorthodox "final verdict of justification" [works] that is related to federal vision.

Charitably, I expect there was an instance where Mr. Piper heard this part, in isolation of the context of federal vision.

He has tried to distinguish and nuance his view, while still being probably the most visible federal vision proponent at the moment.

On another level, he was one of the authors of _The Federal Vision_ that, in it's entirety, either confused it or denied it. Either is unacceptable for one who would presume to teach.

Until he repents of his involvement with this errant theology and comes clean of the whole thing, this is going to be a morass of confusion and error... and make it all the more difficult for Mr. Wilson to distinguish between the areas in which he is orthodox and biblical and those areas in which he is not.


----------



## Reformed Rush

P. F. Pugh said:


> Personally, I see both Piper and Wilson as brothers in Christ and as wise Christian leaders--even if mistaken on some points. Maybe Piper has erred here, but if so, then he has erred on the side of grace. I would say that it's better to be rightly related than to be right--to err on the side of charity rather than on that of legalism and requiring everyone to cross their theological ts. Even the best theologians are right only about eighty percent of the time anyway.



Piper has erred by identifying with teachings that deny Godly grace.

Relationships mean nothing, if they are not founded and maintained in the truths and proper teachings of Holy Scripture.


----------



## DonP

Piper is like many Arminians who begin to get an awareness of the doctrines of grace and try to rationalize them somehow with their Arminian thinking rather than humbling themselves to their error, examining themselves to see if they are in the faith, and seeking education from wiser brothers and those with more complete experience in the reformed doctrines and solid answers and understandings of verses like 1 Jn 2:2 or 1 Tim 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9

Some do not want to admit they were that wrong, others do not want to ostracize Arminians, but for whatever reason they have not been soundly educated in the faith and so have faulty human reasonings which are inconsistent and bounce back and forth depending on the scripture they are on. 

The only way to know for sure what they personally believe, which is only one issue, is to pin them down with specific questions. 

But regardless if they are sound in their belief if they cannot stomach preaching the exclusivity of truth then they are heretical, schismatic and we should not listen to them or endorse them 

1 Tim 2:4
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
NKJV

2 Peter 3:8-9
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 
NKJV

2 John 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds. NKJV

Piper is guilty of doing this with Wilson. 

The question is not: In how many places is what he says truthful and useful. 
It is where is he wrong, is it heretical. 

You only have to be wrong enough in one place to be a heretic. 

Even King Saul had victories and the R Catholic church holds to a lot of truth. 

It is not how much truth they have that determines if we can fellowship with them.


----------



## py3ak

It would not seem that matters are being clarified or the saints edified by this thread.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

As the thread is closed, I don't want to make any more comments that might be construed as not edifying but I do wish to clarify about a misperception.

First, my comments about about "...the arrogance of modernism..." were not levied directly at John Piper. I sometimes am not very clear about how my thoughts flow from one thought to another. In the context, my target was intended to be broader about how we confess Theology within the Church.

Secondly, I would suggest all read Owen on Overcoming Sin and Temptation:

Amazon.com: Overcoming Sin and Temptation: John Owen, Kelly M. Kapic, Justin Taylor, John Piper: Books

One thing we need not be prideful about is our pride. To note that a man is displaying a lack of humility is not a character assault unless we hold our natures to be so above reproach as to assume that we are always without guile in how we approach things. Taken within its original context, my comments were directed at a direct criticism of the deliberations of hundreds vs. an "I've studied this" - there was a display of confidence there that I found troubling and still do. I have no doubt that, when it comes to humility, I could likely learn something from Dr. Piper but, on this point, I don't think I'm alone in my observation that his attitude needs to be considered.

Thirdly, this is a Confessional board and it is not a "cheap shot" when a Presbyterian notes that he believes Congregationalism is inherently dangerous. We can certainly take that subject up in another thread but it is the Confession of my Standards to have an inherent distrust in local Church government that completely lacks the check and oversight of Presbyteries and Synods and I believe that is borne out in the Scriptural data. Sociological studies about the rise and fall of various forms of government don't really impress me as extremes exist for every form of Church government.

Blessings!

Rich


----------

