# Is John Piper charismatic



## govols (Feb 23, 2005)

I had heard somewhere at a local gathering that John Piper is charismatic. Not so much in worship but in the belief of the Apostolic (Sign) gifts still being used today.

Is this true?


----------



## heartoflesh (Feb 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by govols_
> I had heard somewhere at a local gathering that John Piper is charismatic. Not so much in worship but in the belief of the Apostolic (Sign) gifts still being used today.
> 
> Is this true?



Here's your answer:

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


----------



## Bryan (Feb 23, 2005)

To quote from Piper's sermon found here:




> Now we are right at the heart of the charismatic controversy and I want to try to sort out some things and let you know where I stand and why I think this stance is Biblical. What is clear so far is at least this: if anyone ever asks you, "Have you been baptized with the Holy Spirit?", your first response should be to say, "What do you mean by baptism with the Holy Spirit?" So many of our arguments could be avoided if we just started off defining our terms. Suppose the definition they gave was this: "Baptism with the Holy Spirit is an experience you have with God after conversion in which the Holy Spirit falls upon you in such a way that your heart bursts forth in the utterance of tongues (some ecstatic speech or unknown language)." What would our answer be, then? Some of us would say, "Yes, I have experienced that." Others would say, "No, I never have spoken in tongues." But both of us should then say, "But, you know, that definition of baptism with the Spirit is not a Biblical one." There is no way to argue rightly from the book of Acts that God intends for baptism with the Spirit always to be accompanied by speaking in tongues. And Paul teaches plainly in 1 Corinthians 12:10 that God does not give the gift of tongues to everyone. Being baptized with the Holy Spirit may or may not result in glossalalia (tongues-speaking) and therefore, speaking in tongues is not a necessary part of either Luke's or Paul's definition of baptism with the Spirit.
> 
> I want to stress here though, that I do not reject the validity of the gift of tongues for our own day. It is wrong to insist that they are a necessary part of the baptism of the Spirit; it is not wrong to insist that they are a possible part of that experience today. When I was in high school I listened to Mr. DeHaan on the radio. I was standing in my bedroom one morning listening to him try to argue from the New Testament that the so-called sign gifts like tongues and miracles and healing were intended by God to come to an end at the close of the apostolic age, so that they are no longer valid today. And I can remember even in those early years saying to myself, "Mr. DeHaan, those arguments are not valid. All you are able to show is that if there are no tongues today you can see some possible reasons for it. But nothing that you have said proves that God intends for these gifts to end before this age closes." And now after 20 years of Bible study and friendships with charismatic believers I will say with even more assurance: Let us not reject or despise any of God's gifts, including tongues.



Bryan
SDG


----------

