# what are your thoughts on John Piper??



## jesusslave (Jun 20, 2012)

A sister in Christ, that I dearly love, loves John Piper...listens to his sermons, and reads all of his books. I have heard some things in recent past that make me skeptical.... but I have to say, I haven't really seen any clear doctrinal errors in his books or sermons. Should I beware of him? Or is all this hype just that, hype? It bothers me that on his website you can find a sermon from rick warren.....(I wouldn't listen to Mr. Warren, or study his teachings)...I don't though, know if this is reason enough to say that he (Piper) is off limits.... What say my brothers and sisters on this sight about this?? 

Thanks!


----------



## SolaSaint (Jun 20, 2012)

Piper has rubbed elbows with Warren but I don't believe he is heading down the Purpose Driven highway. I would not hesitate to recommend Piper to enrich your walk with Christ. Seems like there is a lot of guilt by association lately by many who are critical.


----------



## Jack K (Jun 21, 2012)

He seems to be a godly man who's an excellent expositor. I have some theological differences, but he preaches Christ and affirms God's sovereignty in salvation. I've read some of his books and sometimes listen to his preaching. The material has generally been helpful to me, and occasionally supurb.


----------



## gordo (Jun 21, 2012)

I just finished listening to his book Desiring God and found it very edifying. His audiobooks on Hebrews and Romans are also very good. It's sad that people judge a fellow Christian so much when all he did was associate with another Christian with different theology.


----------



## AThornquist (Jun 21, 2012)

None of us are doctrinally perfect. I have a few differences with the brother, but they are overwhelming outnumbered by our commonalities. He has been a great blessing to the church, and I would have no problem suggesting his work.


----------



## NB3K (Jun 21, 2012)

John Piper was the man God used to show me what Roman's 9 was all about! I wish he could teach me Greek! He is an outstanding bible expositor! I would say that Piper is the Baptist version of RC Sproul.


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 21, 2012)

jesusslave said:


> A sister in Christ, that I dearly love, loves John Piper...listens to his sermons, and reads all of his books. I have heard some things in recent past that make me skeptical.... but I have to say, I haven't really seen any clear doctrinal errors in his books or sermons. Should I beware of him? Or is all this hype just that, hype? It bothers me that on his website you can find a sermon from rick warren.....(I wouldn't listen to Mr. Warren, or study his teachings)...I don't though, know if this is reason enough to say that he (Piper) is off limits.... What say my brothers and sisters on this sight about this??
> 
> Thanks!




Hi Kimberly. I notice that you are a member of a Baptist church but list as your confession o faith the WCF. Are you baptist or paedobaptist? In any case have you sought the wise counsel of your elders in the church on John Piper?


----------



## JoannaV (Jun 21, 2012)

He has been a blessing to many people and has many useful resources. At times he has made unwise decisions, and so in some situations someone might wish to avoid recommending him in case it is seen as recommending everyone he's ever talked with. But there is only so far you can go down that road. I would say that his flagship book is probably one of his writings which I least appreciate.
Just test everything you read/hear by the Bible. Don't allow him to take the place of your elders.


----------



## Frosty (Jun 21, 2012)

I love John Piper and how God has used Him to enrich my Christian walk and the walks of many others. As others have said, there are some differences, but they pale in comparison to the great desire he has to make Christ known. He is sold out towards seeking to glorify God and His sovereignty. As with everything, use discernment.


----------



## OPC'n (Jun 21, 2012)

ok well no one is Sproul .......but seriously Piper is a very godly man and the books i've read of his are good. Like Andrew, our birthday guy today said, no one is doctrinally perfect. Even Sproul wears the wrong tie every once in awhile! lol.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 21, 2012)

John Piper is not really reformed in the classical sense, but he is an excellent expositor and an excellent teacher. The fact that he tends to rub elbows with people like Rick Warren does not mean that he necesarily agrees with their theology, but he is just of the conviction that Christians need to be less divisive and treat each other as brothers in spite of our differences. Perhaps we could learn from his example.


----------



## gordo (Jun 21, 2012)

Bill The Baptist said:


> John Piper is not really reformed in the classical sense, but he is an excellent expositor and an excellent teacher. The fact that he tends to rub elbows with people like Rick Warren does not mean that he necesarily agrees with their theology, but he is just of the conviction that Christians need to be less divisive and treat each other as brothers in spite of our differences. Perhaps we could learn from his example.


----------



## jesusslave (Jun 21, 2012)

Thank you everyone... these were all helpful.


----------



## jesusslave (Jun 21, 2012)

well Bob, my beloved pastor has quoted Piper from the pulpit, I believe as a whole, our elders agree with his doctrine...and honestly, I attend this church (baptist) because God used this man of God to lead me to Christ through his radio ministry, and then through sitting under his teaching...as far as baptist, or paedobaptist?? I have to say, I'm not educated much in them both.. except to say, that everything that is taught from our pulpit, is truth, God honoring, and taught with fear and trembling, knowing that God holds our elders at a greater judgment, because of their authority and responsibility of what they preach as truth. Thank the Lord I have my bible, my God's indwelling Holy Spirit, and a husband to fall under, who also falls under submission to our church... in this is my beliefs, the authority structure that God has given to me, a wife and mother. How gracious He is to me


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 21, 2012)

Hi:

I refuse to comment as it has in the past cost me some points here on the board.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## KevinInReno (Jun 21, 2012)

We often try to find the "perfect Pastor" and in doing so, we often cast away those who are profitable, worthwhile, and working for the Lord's Kingdom. Piper is a brother and his ministry a blessing. I personally don't listen to him regularly. The only non Presbyterian Pastor I listen to with regularity is Voddie Baucham (reformed/calvinist SBC) and on occasion I will listen to John Macarthur and goto Grace to You when I visit my sister in LA who lives close by his ministry. But that's more due to the wealth of reformed presbyterian sermons online rather then a avoidance of Piper himself.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 21, 2012)

Well, he's charismatic - sort of. And he's Reformed - sort of. And he's a big fan of the writings of Daniel Fuller - a writer who tends to leave other evangelicals less than thrilled. So, he's kind of a mixed bag.

By the way - I: he'll be leaving his church in about a year from now, after he spends the year showing the new pastor the ropes, etc. At 66, Piper is anxious to do some more writing and hit the Christian rubber chicken circuit.

By the way - II: the church's vote to hire the new guy was almost unanimous, which left me mischievously thinking, "Wow. Were they voting the new guy in or were they voting Piper out?" Heh...


----------



## FenderPriest (Jun 21, 2012)

bookslover said:


> Well, he's charismatic - sort of. And he's Reformed - sort of. And he's a big fan of the writings of Daniel Fuller - a writer who tends to leave other evangelicals less than thrilled. So, he's kind of a mixed bag.
> 
> By the way - I: he'll be leaving his church in about a year from now, after he spends the year showing the new pastor the ropes, etc. At 66, Piper is anxious to do some more writing and hit the Christian rubber chicken circuit.
> 
> By the way - II: the church's vote to hire the new guy was almost unanimous, which left me mischievously thinking, "Wow. Were they voting the new guy in or were they voting Piper out?" Heh...



Both btw's seem rather ungracious to me. It's commendable that Piper would recognize his own frailty and the needs of the church and seek to wisely hand things off (rather than just pull out - or suddenly die - and leave the church hanging like Spurgeon or Lloyd-Jones).

In my mind, Piper is one of the great pastor-theologians of our day. God has used him mightily in advancing both evangelistic efforts and stirring the people of God to love and treasure the deep truths of the Gospel. Why secondary disagreements come out as preliminary thoughts about a brother in Christ is rather baffling to me.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Jun 21, 2012)

In my study on the history of charismatics a while back I discovered that Piper is one of them to some extent. He allows for a "third-way" for prophecy: infallibly from God to you but fallibly from you to others. Look it up on the website if you are interested (there was a sermon on Acts 2 that covered that view). 

Being a former Charismatic, I cannot recommend the man beyond what others note: use discernment. God apparently has used him for much good. 

As another post noted, I, personally, find many other authors whom I have to sift less through that can be edifying. That is my two-cents.


----------



## Jake (Jun 21, 2012)

Although it was Scripture itself that the Spirit used above all to bring me to salvation, and although it was through the works of confessionally reformed men (first James White and then R. C. Sproul) that I was able to systematize the Calvinistic view of soteriology that I had been noting in part as I read the Scriptures, John Piper has served a special place in my spiritual walk, through his books, sermons, and other works.

Through his encouragement of study and new methods that have benefited me greatly (writing the Scriptures, praying through them), I have been brought closer to God.

He has awakened me to understand the Bible in new ways through many of his works. Some of the most influential books I have read include Desiring God, Don't Waste Your Life, and Let the Nations be Glad (although I disagree with much of the theology in the latter now, it has shown me God's passion for missions).

He has also led me to read many other great works, whether it be works of missionaries, the puritans (starting with the half-Jonathan Edwards work God's Passion for his Glory), and others.

This is not to say Piper himself is special, except as an instrument of God. I praise God for him. He is not perfect, but no man is, but I am very thankful for his ministry.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 21, 2012)

Shawn Mathis said:


> In my study on the history of charismatics a while back I discovered that Piper is one of them to some extent. He allows for a "third-way" for prophecy: infallibly from God to you but fallibly from you to others. Look it up on the website if you are interested (there was a sermon on Acts 2 that covered that view).
> 
> Being a former Charismatic, I cannot recommend the man beyond what others note: use discernment. God apparently has used him for much good.
> 
> As another post noted, I, personally, find many other authors whom I have to sift less through that can be edifying. That is my two-cents.



I like Piper for the most part. He has good things to say a lot of the time however, I agree with you. It startled me a bit when I found out he holds to a baptism of the holy spirit that has to be experiential and it's only for those God is call into ministry of some sort (He believes everyone receives the holy spirit at conversion, but it's different from the 'baptism of the holy spirit' he thinks).

But, I won't really say anything else against him, I find there is not a whole lot else. What I mostly disagree with him on is usually purely secondary in comparison to other points since he isn't truly reformed.
If you're looking for purely reformed theology however, Sproul is much better to recommend as has been brought up. Doesn't mean I wouldn't recommend Piper, you just have to pick and choose around certain things of his, like most others.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 21, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> I refuse to comment as it has in the past cost me some points here on the board.
> 
> ...



Apparently you don't - this is, after all, a comment. 

When Piper is right, he is very, very good - brilliant, profound, eloquent. But when he is wrong, it seems that he is wrong rather boldly and dramatically. It's all of a piece, I suppose: those elements in his approach that enable to him set out the truth so vividly, also tend to make him fearless and forthright and even persuasive when he is wrong. And that makes it difficult to endorse him without any qualification. Take Calvin, for instance: he is so solid and sober that even when he makes a mistake, it seems unlikely to do serious damage if he persuades someone else of it; but though John of Damascus is also very good, being persuaded of his errors could be disastrous. I would put embracing Piper's errors as less than disastrous, certainly not as severe as the Damascene's, but a far more significant problem than embracing Calvin's.

If one could be _sure_ that people would read him for what he is good at, there would be little hesitation in recommending him. But once you've had some experience of people embracing wrong ideas because of a gifted teacher, it makes you hesitate more in issuing recommendations. (The same thing applies of course to many people - Edwards, Shedd, Bonar; Aquinas, Francis de Sales, Karl Rahner; C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, G.K. Chesterton; early church fathers, medieval theologians, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, hyper-calvinists, antinomians, etc., etc.) While you don't wish to deprive anyone of the blessings or joy of that wider reading, not everyone is equally able to prove all things and hold fast only that which is good; so sometimes it seems more prudent to recommend only those who are unexceptionable. If someone sticks with Calvin and Matthew Henry and John Bunyan lunacy is very unlikely to be the result.


----------



## MarieP (Jun 21, 2012)

jesusslave said:


> well Bob, my beloved pastor has quoted Piper from the pulpit, I believe as a whole, our elders agree with his doctrine...and honestly, I attend this church (baptist) because God used this man of God to lead me to Christ through his radio ministry, and then through sitting under his teaching...as far as baptist, or paedobaptist?? I have to say, I'm not educated much in them both.. except to say, that everything that is taught from our pulpit, is truth, God honoring, and taught with fear and trembling, knowing that God holds our elders at a greater judgment, because of their authority and responsibility of what they preach as truth. Thank the Lord I have my bible, my God's indwelling Holy Spirit, and a husband to fall under, who also falls under submission to our church... in this is my beliefs, the authority structure that God has given to me, a wife and mother. How gracious He is to me



Our Lord is gracious! We would be lost without our Bibles, the Holy Spirit, and the spiritual shepherds in our lives! 

I think some of us are confused, though, as to why you chose Westminster Standards as your confession? Have you read the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, or at least the Abstract of Principles?


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 21, 2012)

Ruben's comment's above should serve as an example of how we answer such a question as was asked in the OP. When we are asked to give a frank estimation of a particular servant of the Lord, and little in the way of context or parameters is provided, then it is good to speak guardedly and graciously. Even where we believe that a caution needs to be given there should be acknowledgment of positive good that the person has accomplished. 

In more private conversations and with particular, narrower focus of issues then criticism which is sharper may be profitably given and received.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 21, 2012)

py3ak said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Hi:
> ...



I was going to say that that was rather ciceronian of Rob


----------



## SherlockLogic (Jun 21, 2012)

bookslover said:


> Well, he's charismatic - sort of. And he's Reformed - sort of. And he's a big fan of the writings of Daniel Fuller - a writer who tends to leave other evangelicals less than thrilled. So, he's kind of a mixed bag.
> 
> By the way - I: he'll be leaving his church in about a year from now, after he spends the year showing the new pastor the ropes, etc. At 66, Piper is anxious to do some more writing and hit the Christian rubber chicken circuit.
> 
> By the way - II: the church's vote to hire the new guy was almost unanimous, which left me mischievously thinking, "Wow. Were they voting the new guy in or were they voting Piper out?" Heh...



It was Piper's decision to leave. He announced his leave some time ago, long before candidates were even considered. I assure you, Bethlehem is not seeking to oust Piper.


----------



## JoannaV (Jun 21, 2012)

Ruben's answer is exactly what I wish I had been able to articulate.


----------



## Zach (Jun 21, 2012)

John Piper has had a very positive impact on my life. His Ministry put me on the path that eventually led to me eventually becoming a Confessionally Reformed Christian and I am very thankful for that.


----------



## NB3K (Jun 21, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> I refuse to comment as it has in the past cost me some points here on the board.



Then why even say that?


----------



## kodos (Jun 21, 2012)

Piper is a great gateway towards Confessional Reformed Churches. He certainly is better than most of the pop-pastors out there. I have no doubt as to his zeal for God. After becoming Confessional, I don't listen much to Piper having discovered the riches of the Reformed Faith (of which, he seems to mostly scratch the surface of).

But in the world of SuperStar Pastors - he's a gem.


----------



## J. Dean (Jun 22, 2012)

My basic take on Piper is the same as Ruben's.

His book _Counted Righteous in Christ_ is fantastic. It is one of the best explanations of imputation that I've ever read, and it does a very good job in dealing with the New Perspective on Paul. On the core of the gospel Piper stands on the side of God, the angels, and the saints of old.

I have never read his piece "Are there two wills of God?" but from what I understand, it too is a very good piece.

Overall, _Desiring God_ is very good, but I take issue with some of his comments regarding Christians and money. Like David Platt and Francis Chan, Piper in this area falls short. He gives an almost legalistic conditioning with regard to Christians giving every last cent of free money away in ministry-something that is nowhere taught in Scripture. I've referred to it as "evangelical monasticism," and it comes dangerously close to giving the impression that using money for any sort of personal leisure at all is sinful. Certainly Christians should be on guard against materialism and be charitable with their finances (and it's interesting to note that conservative Christians in general ARE more generous than their liberal counterparts), but to place an unscriptural burden such as this on people is at the very least a misguided zeal. 

Regarding the charismatic position, Piper seems to be trying to take a moderate middle position. On this I say use caution, because "moderate" positions on things like this don't stay "moderate;" they end up tipping one way or the other. The Nazarene church I formerly attended is a good example of this. While I don't know what Piper's rationale for such a position is, I wonder whether or not people take positions like this simply to make an appeal to the broader body of Christendom, to try to be "all things to all men." To which I say it is better to take the right unpopular position than take a popular waffling position.


----------



## J. Dean (Jun 22, 2012)

py3ak said:


> If someone sticks with Calvin and Matthew Henry and John Bunyan lunacy is very unlikely to be the result.


But these men were not without their errors, and unfortunately we Reformed can fall into the trap of believing that the people we champion are above reproach if we are not careful-the very thing we accuse others of (and in some cases rightly so). I love the Puritans, but they were not without error in all of their writings.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 22, 2012)

I would agree with most of what has been said, namely:

1. Piper is very good when he's good. He has a clear understanding of the glory of God and enjoying Him as our chief end, and he's a pretty good exegete.

2. He is outside of the reformed camp as regards special revelation, etc. 

There are a couple of other cautions that should be pointed out. I said he's a _pretty_ good exegete because he gets into weird places sometimes, and I for one don't see how he gets away with it. For instance, his unbiblical view of divorce and remarriage, which I don't know that anyone has taken before him (see Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper - Desiring God). Take that together with the attitude of many of the "new Calvinist" laypeople that says essentially, "if John Piper says, it must be true," and he becomes dangerous. Implicit faith in *any* teacher is dangerous, of course, but since Piper essentially makes himself an authority over against of his own (Reformed Baptist) tradition, he becomes a stumbling block to many young Calvinists. It's true, he can be a gateway to the puritans and reformers, but he can also be a gateway to Rick Warren and Doug Wilson, both of whom he has had as conference speakers.

My advice would be listen to him with discernment, appreciate and embrace the truth he teacher (of which there is a great deal), and reject his errors. Also, recognize there are a lot of more solid Reformed teachers out there from whom you can get pretty much any of the good stuff you also get from Piper.

Side note: I love the man, his passion for God's glory, and his transparency. The last point is a rare thing. He puts his heart on display, and it is a heart that loves our Lord, but that does not detract from his errors.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 22, 2012)

Jeremy, you're making a qualification to my post that was already contained in it. I mentioned that Calvin made mistakes. I included those three specifically not because they are infallible but because even IF someone embraces their mistakes as well as their good points, those mistakes will most likely not lead to radical error or dangerous practices. It doesn't mean they didn't make any mistakes. I think Calvin's modesty and hermeneutical caution sometimes lead him to see less than a text includes, where someone like Thomas Goodwin saw more fully; but it's rare for people to go off the deep end because of excessive modesty and caution.


----------



## Supersillymanable (Jun 22, 2012)

A good summary of what to think of Piper sounds like, according to the people commenting:

1. He is very passionate for God, is a good exegetical and expositional preacher as well as being a good gateway to the reformed camp

2. He should be listened to and read, with discernment. Many people have become "Piperites", who accept his word as the word of the bible itself (I doubt he ever intended this, but it has happened). He is not infallible, the same as other preachers. We should test all things and hold to what is good.

3. When recommending him, use caution when thinking of who you're recommending him to. We may want to qualify ourselves when doing so.

Personally: I enjoy his preaching and writings. I have some differences, as others have. But I wont throw the baby out with the bath water. There is much good he has done and is doing.


----------



## J. Dean (Jun 22, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Jeremy, you're making a qualification to my post that was already contained in it. I mentioned that Calvin made mistakes. I included those three specifically not because they are infallible but because even IF someone embraces their mistakes as well as their good points, those mistakes will most likely not lead to radical error or dangerous practices. It doesn't mean they didn't make any mistakes. I think Calvin's modesty and hermeneutical caution sometimes lead him to see less than a text includes, where someone like Thomas Goodwin saw more fully; but it's rare for people to go off the deep end because of excessive modesty and caution.


Ah, you are correct, sir. My apologies and my bad.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 22, 2012)

No worries, Jeremy!


----------



## gordo (Jun 22, 2012)

Just finishing up his Herbrews series that I got from Audible for 6.95. Its basically 40-50 sermons breaking down the first chapters of Hebrews verse by verse. I am excited to delve back into his Romans series which is also on Audible. 133 hours of preaching on Romans (8 years to complete).


----------



## OPC'n (Jun 22, 2012)

py3ak said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Hi:
> ...



I'm curious why you would include Edwards in with the group to be cautious about? What am I missing?


----------



## NB3K (Jun 22, 2012)

gordo said:


> Just finishing up his Herbrews series that I got from Audible for 6.95



Why are you paying for something that you can download for free HERE


----------



## nicnap (Jun 22, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> I'm curious why you would include Edwards in with the group to be cautious about? What am I missing?



Hi Sarah, 

Here is a great lecture by Dr. Richard Muller that speaks to Edward's departure from traditional Reformed thinking in a couple of ways -- it is worth the listen.

Media Available: Inaugural Lecture by Richard Muller « Jonathan Edwards Center It is entitled: "Jonathan Edwards and the Absence of Free Choice: A Parting of Ways in the Reformed Tradition”


----------



## py3ak (Jun 22, 2012)

Sarah, here is a link that presents John Newton's gentle critique of Edwards and the New England theology. It's quite short, but rather good.
https://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/j-newtons-critique-of-j-edwards/

In addition, there is the point about idealism that Dr. Clark raised on another thread.

Then there is what Nick mentioned from Dr. Muller. And it seems to me that Edwards' formulation of anthropology was not only too influential on our view of man, but that we then took that anthropological formulation and attributed it to God himself - so that people can speak of God's freedom being the fact that he always does what he desires most! And that can serve to make people ascribe necessity to God, enter into confusion thinking that God is "bound" to his nature as though it were not true that the divine willing is the divine nature, and even opens the door to the attribution of inefficacious desires to God. Now please understand I am not accusing Edwards of all these things, and I am happy to be shown if there was another figure who marked the transition; but my own reading has led me to think that Edwards was a pivotal point for many, or at least instrumental in keeping that version of anthropology and even divine psychology alive in our own time.

And finally, in some cases I have known where people have taken Edwards as their guide and guru, things have not ended well. Now I realize that with the unlearned and unstable people who are out there one can't always blame a teacher (perhaps especially not one who is dead and can't take action to correct misconceptions) for the excesses of his students or groupies. So that anecdotal evidence doesn't make me condemn Edwards, it just makes me cautious about recommending him indiscriminately. Seeing certain outcomes, I don't have the same confidence that Edwards is a stabilizing influence that I have in the case of John Newton.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 22, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> I have never read his piece "Are there two wills of God?" but from what I understand, it too is a very good piece.



If you are interested you might want to do a search here and see why his take on God's will is a tad "off".


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 22, 2012)

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but another interesting factor is the connection with Daniel Fuller's covenant theology.


----------



## AThornquist (Jun 22, 2012)

R. Scott Clark said:


> I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but another interesting factor is the connection with Daniel Fuller's covenant theology.



Would you be willing to summarize what you mean by this, brother? I've never heard of Daniel Fuller's covenant theology, nor do I think I've ever heard Piper's articulation of what he believes about covenant theology.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 23, 2012)

I seem to recall that Piper broke away from some of Fuller's views, no?

AMR


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 23, 2012)

Daniel Fuller seems to have some strange views on Faith as I recall. I read something about this in Dr. Samuel Waldron's book 'Faith, Obedience, and Justification... Current Evangelical Departures from Sola Fide'. Daniel Fuller was a Mentor to Dr. Piper. It seems he doesn't make the correct distinctions between law and gospel that are necessary for understanding the Gospel. His view of Faith is more of a faith that purely works instead of rests upon an object (Christ). He seems to confuse justifying faith and sanctifying faith. That is how I understand what Dr. Waldron wrote. It seems to be very similar to Dr. Norm Shepherd's problem if I am understanding the situation correctly.

Daniel Fuller also seems to be aberrant concerning the Covenant of Works like many who want to turn the Covenant of Works into a Gracious Covenant. This is a strange teaching that is prevalent amongst many in the Federal Vision.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 23, 2012)

AThornquist said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but another interesting factor is the connection with Daniel Fuller's covenant theology.
> ...



Piper says he's close to NCT than CT let me find the article.....
What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology? - Desiring God


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 23, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I seem to recall that Piper broke away from some of Fuller's views, no?
> 
> AMR



I asked him about that in a late-night meeting at ETS in San Diego a few years ago. He said his views hadn't changed. I asked because it seemed, after his defense of imputation, they had changed.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes, Shepherd identified with Fuller's cov theology. There are strong similarities between their views of redemptive history.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 23, 2012)

Reviews of/Comments on Fuller's cov theol:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Fuller

http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086_CHID559376_CIID1787572,00.html

http://www.dennyburk.com/review-of-daniel-p-fullers-gospel-law-contrast-or-continuum/

http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/Kline_cov_theo.html


----------



## PastorTim (Jun 23, 2012)

As with any public teacher we must test their teaching. Even RC Sproul celebrates non biblical holy days. Pipers teachings on God's sovereignty and his beauty and the excellence of Christ are superb. His Edwardsian view of God's glory is second to none.


----------



## J. Dean (Jun 23, 2012)

PastorTim said:


> Even RC Sproul celebrates non biblical holy days.


Last time I read the Scriptures, I'm pretty sure nobody's saved or damned based upon celebrating Christmas or Easter 

Back to Piper, part of the problem with the association with Rick Warren comes on Warren's part. Warren is really a mixed bag at times: sometimes the way he speaks comes across as a diehard Calvinist. Other times he sounds like an Arminian. He comes across as a chameleon adapting to his settings, so he could very well have told Piper what he wanted to hear. 

Plus, I would add that Piper may be falling into the trap that many of us--ALL of us--fall into at times: namely, that because a ministry is big or "successful" that by default it is a movement of God. I'll bet more of us have been sucked in at this point than we may be willing to admit. How often do we judge evangelistic endeavors, outreach programs, or the vibrancy of a church by how many people it brings in? How many of us have said "Oh, it's not bringing in more people; therefore we must be doing something wrong and need to change things up." We point the fingers at Wesleyans, Arminian Baptists, and others for this mindset, but in frankness I've heard Calvinists starting to fall into this trap as well, placing a premium on "visible results" for personal evangelism and outreach, when in truth nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to be so externally focused. 

A lot of people who look at Rick Warren will admit that the man has weak theology, but they say "Well, at least he's getting people in through the door to church!" They see success and champion it, even if comes with bad doctrine, such as mixing law and gospel. They see the numbers of attendees, and in so doing soften their criticism in order to accommodate. While I don't know whether or not this is what Piper himself has done, is it really so hard to believe that such a temptation to see your ministry and your congregation grow and spread like Warren's doesn't exist?


----------



## SherlockLogic (Jun 23, 2012)

Piper's passion for affirming Christian Hedonism is real and passionate, where a great deal of other men seem like stone-cold exegetes. He has flaws, but I think a simple solution is listening to other Godly men in addition to him. I'm sure many of the new Calvinists ONLY listen to Piper. I don't think bringing up the attitude of "If John Piper says, it must be true," is profitable or legitimate, as that can me said of a large amount of other men. No doubt, the attitude is dangerous, but he's not asking for people to have the attitude toward him. In regards to Warren and Wilson, I agree that I don't know exactly why he has ties with them, but I do believe they are both chameleons and will say what they need to in particular scenarios to fit in. That is a possibility.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 23, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Last time I read the Scriptures, I'm pretty sure nobody's saved or damned based upon celebrating Christmas or Easter



This may be true but even violating the principles and law of God do bring problems into life. As a friend of mine use to say, "They that go against the grain of God's Law shouldn't complain when they get splinters." Pastor Cotton's point was that Dr. Piper has been beneficial in proclaiming many good truths even if he doesn't have it all lined up. It wasn't about being damned or saved. 

But at the same time teachers do bare the heavy burden of being correct. Even more so than the average layman. 



> (Jas 3:1) Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.





> (Mat 5:19) Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 23, 2012)

Here is Fuller's lecture at the 1994 Pastor's Conference at Bethlehem Baptist. Dr. Piper introduces Fuller, and describes his relationship with him, as well as the influence that Fuller has had on him.

Sanctification by Faith Alone: Believing in*Jesus 1994 Desiring God Conference for Pastors - Desiring God


----------



## Francisco Luna (Jun 26, 2012)

I was reading that book of him "Future Garce" and honestly, It was disappointing. Many writers nowadays, "force" the scriptures in order to "make" their point. That was the case with this book, trying to make the point about "future Grace", dismissing the biblical concept of gratitude. Time is the best proof that any book must pass.


----------

