# Question About John Piper's "Arc" Method



## nicnap (Jul 18, 2004)

I know that John Piper isn't always looked on favorably, but I here that his ";;Arc";; Method of interpreting Scripture is pretty good. Can someone explain what his method is, or whether or not it is a sound hermeneutical ";;device";;? (I'm not looking for: Well, he's a Baptist, so his hermeneutics are wrong from the gate  .)


----------



## heywhatsup (Dec 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nicnap_
> I know that John Piper isn't always looked on favorably, but I here that his ";;Arc";; Method of interpreting Scripture is pretty good. Can someone explain what his method is, or whether or not it is a sound hermeneutical ";;device";;? (I'm not looking for: Well, he's a Baptist, so his hermeneutics are wrong from the gate  .)



WHAT!?! not looked on favorably....john piper is the man.

JOHN PIPER ROCKS!!!!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 25, 2004)

I like Piper, but there was some issue here a little while ago that I seem to recall a few people having an issue with,


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by heywhatsup_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by nicnap_
> ...



Well, he is charismatic for one thing, and also seems to place an overly-exaggerated (talk about a redundancy!) centrality on the pursuit of pleasure, even though I agree with his thesis at heart. Some of his works just seem too on-the-surface-evangelical. But I do have respect for him, as he was the one who first introduced me to the doctrines of grace. But I digress...I'd also be interested in hearing what this "arc method" of his is.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 25, 2004)

I didn't know he was charismatic!

Wow, consider me one now to have an "issue" with him. Man, what next? MacArthur is dispensational, Piper is Charismatic....just so D. James Kennedy doesn't start healing people with his suite coat!


----------



## turmeric (Dec 26, 2004)

He is NOT charismatic as far as I know, just a little over-emotional about the glory of God. He speaks Evanjellyfish well, which makes him a good missionary to that unreached people group!


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 26, 2004)

Measure the 'arc' of this passage!

Piper was key to introducing me to the Reformed faith. His sermons on Romans 9 were amazing! I would have some issues with him, though. He is post-trib, which I am not, but he speaks like an amill/postmill with respect to world missions; I don't think twice about it. I don't think he is a Grudemite, although he did recommend his Systematic on the blurb of it, as well as having Grudem speak at his conference. If I were to introduce someone to the Reformed faith from a baptistic background, Piper is my man.


----------



## Ivan (Dec 26, 2004)

> Well, he is charismatic for one thing



Could you please provide evidence.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> > Well, he is charismatic for one thing
> ...



For the record, I like Piper. But he is certainly a non-cessationist:



> I am one of those Baptist General Conference people who believes that "signs and wonders" and all the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 are valid for today and should be "earnestly desired" (1 Corinthians 14:1) for the edification of the church and the spread of the gospel. I agree with the words of Martyn Lloyd-Jones, preached in 1965:



from
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/spiritual_gifts/signs_wonders.html


----------



## Irishcat922 (Dec 26, 2004)

As much as I have loved and appreciated Lloyd-jones' ministry as well as Piper. I think their views in regards to the gifts are dangerous. And the results can be detrimental to a Church.

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?576


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Measure the 'arc' of this passage!
> 
> Piper was key to introducing me to the Reformed faith. His sermons on Romans 9 were amazing! I would have some issues with him, though. He is post-trib, which I am not, but he speaks like an amill/postmill with respect to world missions; I don't think twice about it. I don't think he is a Grudemite, although he did recommend his Systematic on the blurb of it, as well as having Grudem speak at his conference. If I were to introduce someone to the Reformed faith from a baptistic background, Piper is my man.




Jacob,
Bear with me here. Is the "Reformed Faith" in any way independant or baptisitic? This has been one of my pet peeves. THE 'reformed' need to get on the same bandwagon in regards to what and whom we quote, whom we refer as a reputable source etc. The ball of knots is great. The last thing we would want to do was throw another knot into the mix. Let us just introduce the unreformed to that which is truly reformed. As I have said, I appreciate J. MacArthur for many things, as I do Piper. Just my take on things Jacob. There's enough confusion. Let us as the informed/Reformed, help shine some clearity upon the soup of obscurity.

May God bless you.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> > Well, he is charismatic for one thing
> ...



As Fred's quotation showed above, Piper is definitely "open to the possibility" of charismatic gifts, as I have heard it put on one site. And while he actually made comments that even sounded cessationist to me in his _Legacy of Sovereign Joy_, part of the reason he has since opened up to the non-cessationist view is because of the extensive work he did with C. J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries. More of his material can be found here, and a simple web search can find info on his involvement with Sovereign Grace.

But to get back to this thread's topic, the page Jacob referenced above summarizes Piper's "arcing" as follows:



> Arcing is a tool for following and documenting the flow of thought in the Biblical text. In brief, arcing involves dividing the text into its propositions and then noting the logical relationship between the propositions.
> 
> A proposition is an assertion, or statement, that affirms or denies something. For example, the sentence "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe" in Romans 1:16 has two propositions:
> 
> ...


----------



## ChristianasJourney (Dec 26, 2004)

When a man like John Piper is 'charasmatic' (or holds a belief I don't agree with) it always causes me to go back and look at scripture and think 'it's possible I could be wrong.' I suspect they look at their beliefs as being "grounded in scripture" so there must be a reason why they believe what they believe....Unless I'm so confidenant in myself that I think I know the answers to the all the questions.


----------



## Ivan (Dec 26, 2004)

> And while he actually made comments that even sounded cessationist to me in his _Legacy of Sovereign Joy_, part of the reason he has since opened up to the non-cessationist view is because of the extensive work he did with C. J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries.



Ah, yes, the Sovereign Grace Ministries, connection. I'd forgot about that. A curious group they are, indeed. 

I've noticed a lot of "crossover" of Evangelicals, Charismatics and Calvinists. Frankly, some of the mixing is perplexing to me. I can't remember all of the occurences I've seen lately but they are there. 

Of course, I go to a church where some of the members are horrified by the prospect of anyone holding to the tenets of the Reformed faith. I guess if I'd fellowship only with others who believed EXACTLY as I do, it would be a very small gathering.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 26, 2004)

Any thoughts on the summary of Piper's arc method cited above?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ChristianasJourney_
> When a man like John Piper is 'charasmatic' (or holds a belief I don't agree with) it always causes me to go back and look at scripture and think 'it's possible I could be wrong.' I suspect they look at their beliefs as being "grounded in scripture" so there must be a reason why they believe what they believe....Unless I'm so confidenant in myself that I think I know the answers to the all the questions.



The problem Janice, is that if the charismatic is right, your method is flawed, because your Bible is insufficient. Better to sit and wait around for those chilli-cheese fries to give you a "word of wisdom."

I hear Scott's concerns about independency and such, but for my money, non-cessationism is a hundredfold more dangerous than that. Even rabid Clarence Larkin dispensationalists can be conversed with on the grounds of the Scriptures. Talking with a non-cessationist is like wrestling wih ice-cubes dipped in oil.


----------



## Ivan (Dec 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Any thoughts on the summary of Piper's arc method cited above?



Not really. Seems to be a logical method.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Talking with a non-cessationist is like wrestling wih ice-cubes dipped in oil.



Not to get further away from the thread's topic, but I can attest to this from personal experience all-too-well!


----------



## Areopagus (Dec 29, 2004)

Odd...Piper is a "charismatic?" So, do we discount those who have been gifted with the ability to teach and preach? What about those who encourage? My, those charismatics. We should label and shun them all. In Piper's church, do they speak in "tongues?" Does Piper hold "healing revivals" and so forth? 

Janice, I appreciate your words. I agree.

As far as Pipers "Arc" method, I agree with Ivan in that it seems extremely sound. Where is Piper off?

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## Ranger (Jan 3, 2005)

From that summary of arcing, I don't see what the big deal is. It appears to be simple analysis of the text based on propositional statement relations. It doesn't look like anything dangerous.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 3, 2005)

I didn't detect a problem with his "arc" method from anyone here. It was asked about, and in the course of talking about it, a side-point of Piper's charismatism got brought up, which many people do see as problematic. But I don't think anyone has yet criticized the "arcing," and I agree that it seems basically helpful.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 3, 2005)

Piper's "arcing" method is just a way to note the logical relationships between propositions in a given passage. It is taught by some profs at SBTS (though they call it "tracing" - as in, tracing the flow of the argument). The strength of the method is that it causes you to SLOW DOWN and consider the relationships between propositions. I've done it with several passages and if you do it even half-way correctly, you can easily take your results and come up with a very solid sermon outline. I think it is fantastic in that it forces us to put the emphasis where the text logically puts its emphasis... so it keeps preachers and teachers in check.


----------



## Preach (Jan 3, 2005)

Ben, you mentioned that 'arcing' was basically the same as 'tracing', which is taught at Southern. I sat under Hershael York for preaching class. He taught us 'diagramming'. Is that the same as 'tracing'?
"In Christ",
Bobby


----------

