# Kevin DeYoung On John Piper and the Word "Reformed"



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 8, 2013)

> "But on the other hand, it doesn't bother me when John Piper is called Reformed. Besides the fact that he could likely affirm 95% of what is in the Three Forms and in the Westminster Standards—and I’m not suggesting the other 5% is inconsequential, I’m just making a point that the differences are not as great as one might think" -- Kevin DeYoung



Is John Piper Really Reformed? – Kevin DeYoung

The problems with this statement are many. At its base it makes the mistake that so many make in thinking the Confession is a bunch of unrelated chapters that can be ignored/scrupled like an ala-carte menu. The Westminster Confession of Faith is a united whole. Take out the section on Baptism, the Church, the Sacraments in general, Worship, and the relevant Catechism questions and you are left with a jumbled mess.

"I like Predestination and Election, but I don't like what the WCF says about Baptism" 

Well the WCF's understanding of Predestination/Election is united to its teaching's on the Church and the Sacraments. So right there John Piper would have to disagree with Chapters 7, 8, 19,21, 25-29, and all the relevant catechism questions. Sounds like a lot more than 95%.

Attempts like DeYoung's are reductionistic to the point of absurdity. In an age where the language is under assault from post-modernism and deconstructionism the church should be recognizing more than ever that words have meanings.


----------



## ZackF (Nov 8, 2013)

I propose using a new word: Reformedish


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 8, 2013)

Anyone for Particular Baptist?


----------



## ZackF (Nov 8, 2013)

Romans922 said:


> Anyone for Particular Baptist?




I don't think Piper would go for that.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Nov 8, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> he problems with this statement are many. At its base it makes the mistake that so many make in thinking the Confession is a bunch of unrelated chapters that can be ignored/scrupled like an ala-carte menu. The Westminster Confession of Faith is a united whole. Take out the section on Baptism, the Church, the Sacraments in general, Worship, and the relevant Catechism questions and you are left with a jumbled mess.



If you are just counting chapters and not how chapters relate to the overall unity of the confessions, D G Hart pointed out someone like Piper would also be in the same amount of agreement with the Augsburg Confession as he is the WSC.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 8, 2013)

The word "Reformed," even when limited to defining a branch of Protestantism, has developed a range of meanings. This is hardly a surprise. The overwhelming majority of all words in all languages have a range of meaning rather than one narrowly defined meaning. Words aren't straight and permanent like a flagpole. They tend instead to grow and evolve and branch out and have pieces snap off, like a tree.

So Piper is "Reformed" by some usage within the range of meaning that word has taken on, and he is not "Reformed" by other usage within that range. That's the way it is based on how Americans actually use that word—and how that tree has grown.

Now, one can complain that words of this sort ought to have more narrowly defined meanings for the sake of clarity, and further that everyone else ought to buy into the narrowly defined meaning _you_ like best and none other, and further that everyone ought to be aware of what a word meant several hundred years ago and never deviate from that or allow the meaning to evolve. But if one does so he should be prepared for much aggravation... because people won't listen. Because words aren't flagpoles. As nice as it might sound, insisting on that is likely only to turn one into a crotchety complainer—because it isn't how language works.


----------



## Herald (Nov 8, 2013)

Interestingly Synergist Baptists label Monergist Baptists "Reformed" as a pejorative. Instead of running from the term I embrace it. 

As my knowledge has increased, so has my understanding of the early use of the term. I recognize the early definition excluded Baptists. But Jack has a valid point. Words are used differently as time progresses. Just look at the word "evangelical". Conservative minded Christians do not want to be referred to as evangelicals anymore because of the negative connotations of the term.

Sent from my iPhone killing Galaxy S-4


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 8, 2013)

Sort of analogous to liberals eschewing that label and instead embracing 'progressives'.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 8, 2013)

I propose the term Calvinish as it rolls off the tongue more easily.


----------



## JM (Nov 8, 2013)

Even if we reduce the Reformed confessions to calvinistic soteriology, covenant theology and the regulative principle of worship...Piper would still not be Reformed. Am I crazy in believing that? 

I prefer Particular or Confessional Baptist and prefer not to use the term _Reformed_ before Baptist.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 8, 2013)

My Baptist pastor calls himself "Reformed." He means what we on this board tend to label "Calvinist." It seems Piper belongs broadly to the "Reformed" side of things in the same way. He doesn't share everything folks here typically mean when they say "Reformed" when it comes to covenant theology, approach to worship and confessions.

However, Piper does seem to have leanings in a Reformed direction on each of those matters, avoiding some of bigger non-Reformed errors that have hit much of the evangelical world. He's not dispensational; he puts an emphasis on Scripture in worship; he's serious about meaningful faith statements and catechismal teaching. Overall, I suspect he would relate better to the "TR" crowd than he would to those at the opposite end of evangelicalism.


----------



## sevenzedek (Nov 8, 2013)

JM said:


> Even if we reduce the Reformed confessions to calvinistic soteriology, covenant theology and the regulative principle of worship...Piper would still not be Reformed. Am I crazy in believing that?
> 
> I prefer Particular or Confessional Baptist and prefer not to use the term _Reformed_ before Baptist.



I would not say that you were crazy, but Piper and others do not mean to say that they are Orthodox Reformed Westminster Presbyterians when they say they are reformed. I believe we can consistently argue against aspects of Piper's doctrine, but I don't think we need to get too excited about someone calling themselves reformed or being referred to as reformed as though they stole something from us. It is probably sufficient to say that Piper and others are not Westminster confessors and that their doctrine appears to be lacking from our vantage point; further, they don't appear to see the inconsistencies of their own doctrine the way we do.

When someone asks whether we are a Christian, they may want to know about our brand of conviction. I'll say I'm Reformed Presbyterian. Others might say they are Reformed Baptists.

On the matter of the denial of certain aspects of the WCF, there are others on this very board who hold to a confession that does not hold to a high view of church, covenant, and government as much as the WCF upholds. Shots across the bow do not land only on Piper and his clique.

I don't like the unspoken premise of this thread. So? There are others out in this world who hold different theological convictions than do we. So what? Are we going to tar and feather others with snarky remarks when they are so faithful on other matters more weighty because we think we have our doctrine all figured out? Where is the love and humility in that?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 8, 2013)

Would you mind enlightening me on the "unspoken premise of this thread"?


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 8, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> when they are so faithful on other matters more weighty because we think we have our doctrine all figured out?



Jon, I get your sentiment that we shouldn't be backbiting. You're right. We should be admonishing others toward right doctrine if their position is in error. But, what really is more weighty of a matter than worshipping God in the ways that he has commanded? Should we just act as if it is a light matter for men of influence in 'Reformed' circles to make light of the RPW for instance? "...Our God is a consuming fire."




sevenzedek said:


> Where is the love and humility in that?



Do we owe love to other Christians? Of course. Do we not also owe love to God? And, shouldn't we be equally concerned with humbling ourselves before him? Our love toward our brethren isn't at the expense of our duty to God. The loving thing to do toward our neighbor, and others that may be influenced by him, is to point out these errors in a meek and loving way. Not as an attack of the man himself, but in bringing to light where his teachings are not sound. Our confession is a great help to us in discerning good doctrine from bad.


----------



## JM (Nov 8, 2013)

The unspoken premise is NOT that Piper is a heretic, to be avoid, etc. Just that words have historical meaning.


----------



## sevenzedek (Nov 8, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Would you mind enlightening me on the "unspoken premise of this thread"?



I'm sorry, Benjamin, that I have to go into this discussion. The unspoken premise is that Piper and others have stolen the label "reformed." Others take this as an occasion to be snarky about someone I respect a great deal; flaws and all.

Language evolves and the term "reformed" has taken on a range of meanings that are not in accord with the Westminster Standards. There are other ways of distinguishing ourselves besides using the word "reformed."

By the way, I was not inferring that you were being snarky. There has been a tone against Piper on this board that really rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps I am being overly protective of the rock from which I was hewn. I cannot tell you how many times I went to God through Piper's preaching. I hate to see an under-shepherd/father of my faith maligned. I am guarding against that.

Don't mind me. I'm just the small guy over here in the corner participating in discussions that always seem too big for my "briches."


----------



## lynnie (Nov 8, 2013)

Has anybody the past 40 years had more influence than Piper to introduce young people to the great doctrines of the Reformed faith? I doubt it.

from the linked article: _They are celebrating and promoting Calvin and Hodge and Warfield and Bavinck and Berkhof—not to mention almost all of the rich Scriptural theology they expound—in ways that should make even the most truly Reformed truly happy._

I don't see them as a threat to the term "Reformed". You may think they are deficient, but what they do have is good. The real problem right now is the Federal Vision people calling themselves Reformed.


----------



## MW (Nov 8, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Attempts like DeYoung's are reductionistic to the point of absurdity.



Might I suggest that the problem is not reductionism in the first instance, but individualism. Once the individual becomes the point of reference for terms then the terms are reduced to their lowest common denominator.

The term "Reformed" relates to a "Church" which came out from the corrupt Church of Rome and was constituted a distinct and unified confessing body of people in opposition to the Roman communion. It is a term of ecclesiastical and confessional identification.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Unoriginalname (Nov 8, 2013)

In the article DeYoung sort of exaggerates and says that Piper could agree with 95% of the Westminster Standards, so over on the facebook page for the Aquila Report I tried to do a rough count of where he would differ from what I remembered about Piper. When it comes to the WCF; John Piper would disagree with the theology of worship, the doctrine of the church (in who makes up the church), sacraments, the government of the church, the interaction of church and state, what constitutes the Law of God, he disagrees with the Westminster view of divorce and with the notion of a covenant of works. So practically speaking he would have objections to chapters: 7, 19, 21, 23-25, 27-32.


----------



## One Christian Dad (Nov 9, 2013)

Reformed Christianity is not defined by the doctrines of grace (TULIP), but by a whole system of faith and practice, both personally and corporately – or more correctly, Covenantally (did I just make up a word or spell it wrong?)  If being Reformed can be simply summed up as believing in the sovereignty of God and election, then yes John Piper, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Rick Warren are as Reformed as I am. But Piper is Baptist, Bonhoeffer was Lutheran and Rick Warren…well I am not entirely sure what he is…but all these men are not “Reformed.” I am not saying that they are not believers, I greatly value the ministry of John Piper and I have read books by all three men. However, the Reformed confession is a lot more than simply declaring that God is sovereign.


----------



## JM (Nov 9, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Attempts like DeYoung's are reductionistic to the point of absurdity.
> ...



Thank you Rev. Winzer. I believe both sides of the debate acknowledge it is a reductionist view but you have pointed out _why_ the church feels the need to be reductionist. Currently I'm reading Trueman's Creedal Imperative and see the pieces all fitting together nicely. 

Yours in the Lord,

j


----------



## Tirian (Nov 9, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> I hate to see an under-shepherd/father of my faith maligned.



Amen. I was put off by his book on Christian Hedonism (title escapes me unless that was it) but I can see how tremendously he has been used by God and how genuine his proclamation of the Gospel. He should be respected as one who has been faithful in his calling as a minister of the Word.

I've heard even of criticism recently that he, along with C.S. Lewis isn't/wasn't saved...... absolute nonsense.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 9, 2013)

I have gradually come to appreciate the sensitivity some of the TR have with (mis)appropriation and (mis)application of the title Reformed to people like Piper. As to who has had more influence on spreading Calvinistic soteriology than Piper, I would proffer R.C. Sproul (my fav).

Fighting over words is silly and unproductive. Besides, Piper is an amalgam of several theological currents. Edwards, the charismatic movement, Calvin, broad evangelicalism, Wheaton and Fuller, and more strands can be delineated in his writings. You could just as easily characterize him as a charismatic Baptist who emphasizes the sovereignty of God. If you wanted to classify him by his alma mater, you might lump him with Rick Warren (D.Min), Rob Bell (M.Div.), Bill Mounce (M.A.), Leith Anderson (D.Min.), Bill Bright (B.S.), Tony Jones (M.Div.), John Maxwell (D.Min.), and John Ortberg (Psy.D.). But, that is even less helpful. 

That is my point. Such characterizations of persons by label are nearly always arbitrary: they include things that ought not to be included and exclude things that ought not to be excluded. Is Piper "Reformed" in the Puritan Board sense of the term? No. But, we could cherry pick some persons in "Reformed" denominations who are no more (or even less) "Reformed" than Piper. Are you speaking about the RPW? What of John Frame? Thinking of inerrancy? What of Peter Enns? The Limited Atonement? How about the PCUSA? General conservative orthodoxy? How about some at Calvin? Or the former president of Piper's seminary? Accepting ecclesiastical connection to the denomination and eschewing independence? What of Sproul?

It was a little odd for me to get used to Lutheran writers characterize pretty much anything that was not Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Lutheran as "Reformed.". In Lutheran literature everything Calvinist, Arminian, evangelical, and charismatic falls under the term "reformed." The logic seems to be that even when you depart from Calvinist soteriology, the basic architecture of non-Lutheran Protestantism bears the tell tale shadow of a Reformed skeleton. So, while name-it and-claim-it types are Finneyesque (or even Finneyesque hucksters), the way they see the faith (or react to older expressions of it) has a Calvinist provenance.


----------



## sevenzedek (Nov 10, 2013)

DMcFadden said:


> I have gradually come to appreciate the sensitivity some of the TR have with (mis)appropriation and (mis)application of the title Reformed to people like Piper. As to who has had more influence on spreading Calvinistic soteriology than Piper, I would proffer R.C. Sproul (my fav).
> 
> Fighting over words is silly and unproductive. Besides, Piper is an amalgam of several theological currents. Edwards, the charismatic movement, Calvin, broad evangelicalism, Wheaton and Fuller, and more strands can be delineated in his writings. You could just as easily characterize him as a charismatic Baptist who emphasizes the sovereignty of God. If you wanted to classify him by his alma mater, you might lump him with Rick Warren (D.Min), Rob Bell (M.Div.), Bill Mounce (M.A.), Leith Anderson (D.Min.), Bill Bright (B.S.), Tony Jones (M.Div.), John Maxwell (D.Min.), and John Ortberg (Psy.D.). But, that is even less helpful.
> 
> ...



You're hired.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 10, 2013)

I'm good with skipping the term "Reformed Baptist" because it ticks off so many of my TR friends.

Realize, though, that "Reformed Baptist" does NOT mean a Reformed person who practices believer baptism any more than orange chocolate means an orange with chocolate on it.

The "Reformed Baptist" does not mean that the Baptist is simultaneously a Presbyterian. It is more like "born again" (or evangelical) Catholic. An evangelical Catholic is not an evangelical. It is a fully Romanist, assumption of Mary, Pope obeying Catholic who has adopted SOME of the ELEMENTS normally descriptive of an evangelical. The term "evangelical" is used descriptively to differentiate the Catholic from other "flavors" of Catholicism.

Among Baptists, there are "Free Will" (or Arminian) Baptists, "Reformed" Baptists, Dispensational Baptists, and Charismatic Baptists, to name a few. I even know a mainline ABC Baptist who calls himself a "Buddhist" Baptist. Each of these expressions of the faith (except for the last one that is frankly stupid in my opinion) is FULLY Baptist and probably argumentatively so (proving that they have the Baptist DNA!) The descriptives are merely meant to differentiate them from one another, NOT to claim that they hold to the full system of the descriptive, merely that it "flavors" their Baptist position (cf. Cherry Coke).


----------



## sevenzedek (Nov 10, 2013)

DMcFadden said:


> I'm good with skipping the term "Reformed Baptist" because it ticks off so many of my TR friends.
> 
> Realize, though, that "Reformed Baptist" does NOT mean a Reformed person who practices believer baptism any more than orange chocolate means an orange with chocolate on it.
> 
> ...



Cherry Coke Baptist?

How about Vanilla Presbyterian, Baptyterian, Presbychostal, Baptichostal, Reformed Hip-Hop guru; or even Dordty Baptist?


----------



## nick (Nov 10, 2013)

Just like the obsession over vintage clothes the New Calvinist (their term, not mine) hipsters took the word reformed, because it's part of vintage Christianity. Seems cooler even if they don't understand the meaning.  Driscoll has a teaching on what New Calvinism is and how his church is the perfect church that he gave at some State of the Union-style address a few years ago.

They seem to equate holding to 3-5 points of TULIP as being reformed. Never mind the fact that most of the people they look up to in reformed Christianity from way back when would call them heretical.

I'm not shocked that DeYoung would say this as he is part of The Gospel Coalition with Piper.

I agree with some of the others though who have already said the word reformed has changed meaning over time.


----------



## sevenzedek (Nov 10, 2013)

So have words like wit, gay, stream, and awful. If we use these words according to the modern meaning, should we then be seen as participating in post-modernist deconstructionism? Accusing people who use the word "reformed" to describe an aspect of their theology would appear to be more deconstuctionistic because it ignore's the author's intentions. We do this kind of thing every day. For instance, we say "Reformed Baptist."

Should we take Jesus' words to be deconstuctionistic when he said that those who are well do not need a physician? Of course, we know that there is no one who is "well." Most people would probably not do this because we understand the sense of his words.

There is not a movement, of which I know, that is trying to redefine what it means to be reformed according to the sense that the WCF upholds. If our goal is to preserve clarity of language, we have a multitude of ways to distinguish ourselves without needing to use the word "reformed."

There is a way of using language with integrity, but this idea that reformed must always equal the Westminster Standards does not violate that integrity.

The words of this world will always be subject to change, but God's words should not. Dictionaries change; the Bible's definitions should not.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 10, 2013)

nick said:


> They seemed to equate holding to a 3-5 points of TULIP as being reformed. Never mind the fact that most of the people they look up to in reformed Christianity from way back when would call them heretical.



Because it ticks off Reformed Christians, it probably should not be used. 

However, don't make the mistake of thinking that putting "Reformed" and "Baptist" together means that you have 100% Baptist + 100% Reformed. It only means that you have a Baptist who shows a fascination for, interest in, or shares SOME affinities for, SOME of the distinctives of the Reformed. Otherwise you might be accused of promulgating an oxymoron. Do we complain that "artificial turf" is not really turf or that it lacks several of the essential characteristics of grass? If a Baptist were completely, fully, absolutely, 100% Reformed, he would be Reformed and not Baptist.

Words are funny. "Watergate" is NOT a gate for water. A "butterfly" is not what you get when a fly smacks into a glob of butter. And, who knows what Dr. Lloyd Jones was as a "Calvinistic Methodist." The mother of one of my grandchildren once described herself on Facebook as a "Irish Mexican, Agnostic Catholic" (she is now a baptized Methodist in an evangelical church. Is that much better?).

The term Baptist is the controlling term. "Reformed" is used as a temporizing descriptive.

If you are a Baptist, please avoid the term "Reformed Baptist" lest it precipitate a paroxysm in your Reformed brethren. If you are Reformed, please get over it.


----------



## KMK (Nov 10, 2013)

I wonder if believing Jews and believing Gentiles had similar discussions in the first century?


----------

