# Do you personally like John Piper?



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 4, 2021)

I personally dislike the term Christian hedonist, but I love John Piper

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Nov 4, 2021)

I don’t dislike him though I’m not always agreeing with him.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## B.L. (Nov 4, 2021)

I've never met the man.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 4, 2021)

Based on your profile picture, it seems like you are John Piper.

Yes I like him a lot from what I see publicly of him. I do not know him personally though.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ethan (Nov 4, 2021)

He’s not someone I’d ever recommend as he isn’t reformed but many new believers look to him thinking he is. It can cause a lot of confusion. I’m sure he has some good things to say but I find it hard to believe that someone confessional hasn’t already said it better. Desiring God was one of the first books I read when I came to the faith and I loved it but I don’t much agree with its premise anymore.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 4, 2021)

I don't dislike the man but I wouldn't recommend his theology.

Reactions: Like 5 | Sad 1


----------



## jw (Nov 4, 2021)

Can’t say. I’m don’t personally know him.

edit - _*I’m*_?!? REALLY?!

Reactions: Wow 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 4, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't dislike the man but I wouldn't recommend his theology.


I find I am constantly challenged by his joy and worship in Christ, his humility and his hatred and pain that others would know Jesus. Outside the bible and personal friends, he has been a constant reminder of my phariseeic tendencies and also the free grace of Christ and tenderness even in those moments. Paul Washer too if we talk modern day only.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 4, 2021)

Ethan said:


> He’s not someone I’d ever recommend as he isn’t reformed but many new believers look to him thinking he is. It can cause a lot of confusion. I’m sure he has some good things to say but I find it hard to believe that someone confessional hasn’t already said it better. Desiring God was one of the first books I read when I came to the faith and I loved it but I don’t much agree with its premise anymore.


He is Calvinist just not traditionally reformed. I disagree though his theology is non recommendable. I have found many great theologians through Piper, namely Thomas Goodwin, Jonathan Edwards, Michael Reeves, John Macarthur, Richard Sibbes, John Bunyan and John Owen. Not to mention all the right perspective he has helped me to see in scripture (along with other guys like Spurgeon and Samuel Rutherford) the beauty, the sweetness and the fact our savior is all together lovely.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 4, 2021)

Here is a thought experiment: If someone handed you one of Samuel Rutherford's letters to read but changed the name at the bottom to John Piper's, how would you react to it?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 4, 2021)

I should not be wise in my own eyes. I know all men, including our teachers are fallible and I will give ear to any good reason to not recommend the theology. To all people posting I love and thank you for taking time to respond.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 4, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Here is a thought experiment: If someone handed you one of Samuel Rutherford's letters to read but changed the name at the bottom to John Piper's, how would you react to it?


No different I think. A flower by any rose would smell just as sweet. I usually only check the names out as I am not an old and mature believer so I try to go with trustworthy names. Usually if there puritan I read them or if I heard of them from trusted circles. As stated I love Sam Ruth. The Loveliness of Christ and his letters have blessed me greatly.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## jw (Nov 4, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Here is a thought experiment: If someone handed you one of Samuel Rutherford's letters to read but changed the name at the bottom to John Piper's, how would you react to it?


I’d be like, “Call the plagiarism presbyters!”

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## jw (Nov 4, 2021)

@Regi Addictissimus - I don’t understand the sad reaction to my post?


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Nov 4, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Here is a thought experiment: If someone handed you one of Samuel Rutherford's letters to read but changed the name at the bottom to John Piper's, how would you react to it?


I would be considerably perplexed.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## hammondjones (Nov 4, 2021)

I appreciate that he has, to my knowledge, never taken a cent of royalties from any of his books.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 4, 2021)

I’ll always have a feeling of fondness and gratitude for his preaching and ministry, as his sermon series through Romans, which I “happened” to catch on my car radio, was a big part of what God used to open my eyes more fully to the gospel. And as was said above, his writing introduced me to many godly theologians of the past. I can’t recommend him to people anymore, but appreciate many things about his ministry.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 4, 2021)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> I would be considerably perplexed.



Pretend that you do not have prior knowledge that the letter was written by Samuel Rutherford.


----------



## jw (Nov 4, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Pretend that you do not have prior knowledge that the letter was written by Samuel Rutherford.


Reported!


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Nov 4, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Pretend that you do not have prior knowledge that the letter was written by Samuel Rutherford.


I just can't bring myself to do such a thing.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 4, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I’ll always have a feeling of fondness and gratitude for his preaching and ministry, as his sermon series through Romans, which I “happened” to catch on my car radio, was a big part of what God used to open my eyes more fully to the gospel. And as was said above, his writing introduced me to many godly theologians of the past. I can’t recommend him to people anymore, but appreciate many things about his ministry.



For these reasons, I just cannot join in the anti-John Piper pile on whenever it happens. I will not pretend that I do not have serious issues with him, I do. Yet I cannot overlook the good that he has done in pointing broad evangelicals towards Reformed theology. If someone is listening to/reading Dr Piper, I usually respond with, "That is good; you should also read Kevin DeYoung and then some of the men whom John Piper quotes."

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Ethan (Nov 4, 2021)

Thomas_Goodwin said:


> He is Calvinist just not traditionally reformed. I disagree though his theology is non recommendable. I have found many great theologians through Piper, namely Thomas Goodwin, Jonathan Edwards, Michael Reeves, John Macarthur, Richard Sibbes, John Bunyan and John Owen. Not to mention all the right perspective he has helped me to see in scripture (along with other guys like Spurgeon and Samuel Rutherford) the beauty, the sweetness and the fact our savior is all together lovely.


He certainly helped me significantly as a new believer. When I came to faith I immediately joined my college chi alpha (assemblies of God) ministry which wrought great confusion in my life. Piper introduced me to Calvinistic thought. I actually came to the faith through his recitation of Romans 8 on YouTube. It was the first time I heard a plain reading of the scriptures and it blew me away. Some issues with his thought: he denies the covenant of works (as a student of Fuller) and affirms a strange final salvation scheme that is well documented on Scott Clark’s Heidelblog. I’d recommend checking out his blog.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 4, 2021)

Ethan said:


> He certainly helped me significantly as a new believer. When I came to faith I immediately joined my college chi alpha (assemblies of God) ministry which wrought great confusion in my life. Piper introduced me to Calvinistic thought. I actually came to the faith through his recitation of Romans 8 on YouTube. It was the first time I heard a plain reading of the scriptures and it blew me away. Some issues with his thought: he denies the covenant of works (as a student of Fuller) and affirms a strange final salvation scheme that is well documented on Scott Clark’s Heidelblog. I’d recommend checking out his blog.


what is your understanding of the covenant of works and what is Piper's brother? As in how does he reckon the old testament?

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Ethan (Nov 4, 2021)

Thomas_Goodwin said:


> what is your understanding of the covenant of works and what is Piper's brother? As in how does he reckon the old testament?


Covenant is an aspect of providence, not creation, and man as an image bearer posses a telos but no means of reaching that goal. God’s covenant with man was an act of divine condescension by which Adam was provided a way of entering into the eternal beatitude of sabbath rest with his creator in the highest heavens by means of perfect, personal, entire, and exact obedience. Unless something has changed, Piper rejects the covenant of works entirely. I don’t understand the remainder of your question but I hope that helps.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Steve Curtis (Nov 4, 2021)

Thomas_Goodwin said:


> what is Piper's brother?


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 4, 2021)

Ethan said:


> Covenant is an aspect of providence, not creation, and man as an image bearer posses a telos but no means of reaching that goal. God’s covenant with man was an act of divine condescension by which Adam was provided a way of entering into the eternal beatitude of sabbath rest with his creator in the highest heavens by means of perfect, personal, entire, and exact obedience. Unless something has changed, Piper rejects the covenant of works entirely. I don’t understand the remainder of your question but I hope that helps.


I dont disagree at all with what you have said. I was confused if you were stating that people were saved by obedience to the covenenat or works or by looking forward to Christ's death on the cross (as revealed in galatians 3) through the prophesis and the categories the covenant of law set up (as in the demands for blood and sacrifice, high priest, etc). I agree there is a covenant of works as does Piper from my learnings but I don't think me or Piper states salvation is found in the Old Covenenat except in the ways in which it points to what Jesus has done in the New Covenant (namely die for sins and cloth us in his righteousness).

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 4, 2021)

kainos01 said:


>


you havent seen the brother of John Piper in these present days?


----------



## Steve Curtis (Nov 4, 2021)

Thomas_Goodwin said:


> you havent seen the brother of John Piper in these present days?


Would that be "Pied"?

Reactions: Funny 5


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 4, 2021)

kainos01 said:


> Would that be "Pied"?


Peter piper

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 4, 2021)

I no longer have any use for him. His anti-Trump editorial was *so bad* that it revealed his soundness of judgment is completely gone. Like less judgment than Doug Wilson. That bad.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2 | Sad 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 5, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> I no longer have any use for him. His anti-Trump editorial was *so bad* that it revealed his soundness of judgment is completely gone. Like less judgment than Doug Wilson. That bad.



As I said at the time, that article revealed that he is a train wreck as an ethicist. And as a friend of mine said recently, the "Deplorables" are the modern equivalent of "tax collectors and sinners" in the eyes of Bourgeois evangelicals. There is no winsomeness or empathy to be extended to them. No one recommends showing Deplorables the love of Jesus. They only warrant judgmentalism and denunciation.

That does not mean that I write off all the good work that John Piper has ever done, but the extremity of his errors (in relation to completely missing the bigger picture) on gun control, self-defence, Donald Trump, vaccines, and so forth reveal that he has very poor judgment.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 5, 2021)

Thomas_Goodwin said:


> Do you personally like John Piper?





Thomas_Goodwin said:


> I personally dislike the term Christian hedonist, but I love John Piper





Thomas_Goodwin said:


> I find I am constantly challenged by his joy and worship in Christ, his humility and his hatred and pain that others would know Jesus. Outside the bible and personal friends, he has been a constant reminder of my phariseeic tendencies and also the free grace of Christ and tenderness even in those moments.





Thomas_Goodwin said:


> He is Calvinist just not traditionally reformed. I disagree though his theology is non recommendable. I have found many great theologians through Piper, namely Thomas Goodwin, Jonathan Edwards, Michael Reeves, John Macarthur, Richard Sibbes, John Bunyan and John Owen. Not to mention all the right perspective he has helped me to see in scripture (along with other guys like Spurgeon and Samuel Rutherford) the beauty, the sweetness and the fact our savior is all together lovely.



I get it: You love John Piper. That's fine. I guess I just find it strange that you care to gauge our love or lack thereof. I mean, why would it matter? and why do you care?

P.S. I think your choice of avatar adds a bit to the strangeness and awkwardness of this discussion. Just my

Reactions: Like 2 | Sad 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 5, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> As I said at the time, that article revealed that he is a train wreck as an ethicist. And as a friend of mine said recently, the "Deplorables" are the modern equivalent of "tax collectors and sinners" in the eyes of Bourgeois evangelicals. There is no winsomeness or empathy to be extended to them. No one recommends showing Deplorables the love of Jesus. They only warrant judgmentalism and denunciation.
> 
> That does not mean that I write off all the good work that John Piper has ever done, but the extremity of his errors (in relation to completely missing the bigger picture) on gun control, self-defence, Donald Trump, vaccines, and so forth reveal that he has very poor judgment.


When he said that Trump’s (metaphorical) “killing” (with his mean tweets) was worse than the (real) killing taking place in abortion… I about threw away all his books.

Reactions: Like 5 | Funny 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Nov 5, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Here is a thought experiment: If someone handed you one of Samuel Rutherford's letters to read but changed the name at the bottom to John Piper's, how would you react to it?


It's hard to tell. Like somebody once said, I'm almost sure it was Jonathan Edwards, "I have learned to listen to the opinions of others, be it from an enemy or a child."

Before becoming a Christian, I met a very drunken man who repeatedly said, "seek, and ye shall find." I knew enough to know that these were the words of Jesus. I could not get them out of my mind, and for some reason, known only to God, what he said was instrumental in my coming to Christ. So was Garner Ted Armstrong. God can use the lightning in the sky.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## B.L. (Nov 5, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Here is a thought experiment: If someone handed you one of Samuel Rutherford's letters to read but changed the name at the bottom to John Piper's, how would you react to it?



Hey! Leave Ed Litton out of this!!

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 5, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I get it: You love John Piper. That's fine. I guess I just find it strange that you care to gauge our love or lack thereof. I mean, why would it matter? and why do you care?
> 
> P.S. I think your choice of avatar adds a bit to the strangeness and awkwardness of this discussion. Just my


the avatar is funny in my opinion. it was a little tongue and check, but a serious question

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 5, 2021)

Thomas_Goodwin said:


> I find I am constantly challenged by his joy and worship in Christ, his humility and his hatred and pain that others would know Jesus. Outside the bible and personal friends, he has been a constant reminder of my phariseeic tendencies and also the free grace of Christ and tenderness even in those moments. Paul Washer too if we talk modern day only.



No doubt that is true, but he rejects key Reformed categories (like how the Heidelberg Catechism is Guilt, Grace, Gratitude).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 5, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> I no longer have any use for him. His anti-Trump editorial was *so bad* that it revealed his soundness of judgment is completely gone. Like less judgment than Doug Wilson. That bad.


I understand you may have disagreed with it, but is a wrong assessment of Trump and categories to decide an American president worthy of such a strong judgment (worse than Doug Wilson and federal vision)? He may not have said all things correctly, but around where I am many worship Donald Trump viewing him as the inerrant trumpet of truth and a prophetic voice for the generations. Piper in my mind brought up some overlooked considerations. I could never vote democrat because of abortions, but we could at least realize Donald Trump DOES NOT represent all the best interests of the Christian Church. While we should be active in judging the fruits and works of teachers discern false teachers (a task of utmost importance to preserve sound doctrine and keep others from falling into error), we should also watch out for overly harsh and scornful tendencies to brothers and sisters in Christ.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Taylor (Nov 5, 2021)

Thomas_Goodwin said:


> …around where I am many worship Donald Trump viewing him as the inerrant trumpet of truth and a prophetic voice for the generations.


This is a beat up Woke evangelical canard which has no basis in truth. I live in the deep South, surrounded by chicken houses and cow pastures. There are Trump signs everywhere, and maybe one person out of every thousand would dare vote Democrat. But I have never met a single person here who worships Donald Trump. This is the same slander that Roman Catholics spew when they accuse Protestants of worshipping the Bible.

Here is a fact: Woke evangelicals are _way_ more prone to worship the likes of Tim Keller and Russel Moore than Republican Christians are to even consider worshipping Trump. At the very least, they listen to these men over the Bible.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 4


----------



## Elizabeth (Nov 5, 2021)

I don't know him, either, but he seems like a nice man from his sermons and writings. 

I think he does the 'emotional' pull real good (sic). Not in the good way of a Rutherford, but in the good way many American women appreciate. 

Therefore, I don't take his theological thoughts too seriously. I know, I know...I am a terrible sexist and use womanly logic, besides.


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 5, 2021)

Taylor said:


> This is a beat up Woke evangelical canard which has no basis in truth. I live in the deep South, surrounded by chicken houses and cow pastures. There are Trump signs everywhere, and maybe one person out if every thousand would dare vote Democrat. But I have never met a single person here who worships Donald Trump. This is the same slander that Roman Catholics spew when they accuse Protestants of worshipping the Bible.
> 
> Here is a fact: Woke evangelicals are _way_ more prone to worship the likes of Tim Keller and Russel Moore than Republican Christians are to even consider worshipping Trump. At the very least, they listen to these men over the Bible.


No it is true. I once heard a man say that Trump has done more for the church than anyone since Jesus. Every single time he sins these people defend it or challenge it as if he couldn't sin. I am not saying all people do or even most do, but it is an issue around where I am. Again I could never vote democrat due to abortion, homosexuality, socialism, their defilements of gender and marriage, and I must encourage us to not let politics do their goal, which is to divide us. I meant no offense brother, and we should both look forward to that day when divine mercy shall hand us up into glory, where we shall worship Christ as He is in perfect holiness free from sin exclaiming He is altogether lovely. Further, I look forward to where in Revelation, where Jesus shall rule as king over all the lands, a perfect beautiful and great Lord to have.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 5, 2021)

Let us emphasize. Politics cannot and will not divide Christian brothers and sisters.

Reactions: Funny 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Taylor (Nov 5, 2021)

Thomas_Goodwin said:


> Politics cannot and will not divide Christian brothers and sisters.


Yes, it can, and in some cases it should. Sure, I will quibble with someone who has a moderately different view of how high or low taxes should be, and I can worship with such a one gladly, but I cannot say "brother" to someone whose political platform asserts that abortion is a human right, that socialism is a societal good, and that white people are evil. He and I do not worship the same God.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## C4MERON (Nov 5, 2021)

I have benefitted greatly from John Piper over the years. The main thing I ever disagreed with him over was, like just about anyone else I have heard from, his political article concerning President Trump. He is a passionate preacher and I do enjoy listening to him.


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 5, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Yes, it can, and in some cases it should. Sure, I will quibble with someone who has a moderately different view of how high or low taxes should be, and I can worship with such a one gladly, but I cannot say "brother" to someone whose political platform asserts that abortion is a human right, that socialism is a societal good, and that white people are evil. He and I do not worship the same God.


I can't tell if you think I support the democratic platform.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Taylor (Nov 5, 2021)

Thomas_Goodwin said:


> I can't tell if you think I support the democratic platform.


No, I don't think you do. My point is that it is _not_ true that politics "cannot and will not divide Christian brothers and sisters." I am saying it can and, in some more severe cases, should divide. "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" Hence my preceding post.

Anyway, this isn't the politics forum. We've gotten somewhat far afield from the topic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 5, 2021)

Taylor said:


> No, I don't think you do. My point is that it is _not_ true that politics "cannot and will not divide Christian brothers and sisters." I am saying it can and, in some more severe cases, should divide. "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" Hence my preceding post.
> 
> Anyway, this isn't the politics forum. We've gotten somewhat far afield from the topic.


I agree with the last point. What I was saying was more a generality.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## hammondjones (Nov 5, 2021)

His preaching through John convinced me of the sovereignty of God in election.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 5, 2021)

His take on self-defense is another example of how he really doesn't understand the Reformed way of thinking. The shorter catechism's view of the sixth commandment says we must preserve life by all lawful means. Piper rejects that, if someone were to break into your house and threaten (or in reality) kill your family. At best, he says we need to call the police rather than take a life. He's not really clear on how it is okay for the police's taking a life makes it any better.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ed Walsh (Nov 5, 2021)

C4MERON said:


> The main thing I ever disagreed with him over was, like just about anyone else I have heard from, his political article concerning President Trump.



The thing that got my attention was his stance on armed self-defense. I heard he recanted a little in recent years, but he was against Christians bearing arms, even in their homes, to defend his wife [his example]. After all, she would be going to heaven. (and whatever he thinks now, his older papers remain online)

Here's one quote that links to his paper.

"I live in the inner city of Minneapolis, and I would personally counsel a Christian not to have a firearm available for such circumstances."


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Nov 5, 2021)

When I became a new believer, it was RC Sproul and John Piper who taught me many things through their various works. I moved away from listening to his sermons but find his teachings helpful at times. I still listen to RC though...

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 5, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> When he said that Trump’s (metaphorical) “killing” (with his mean tweets) was worse than the (real) killing taking place in abortion… I about threw away all his books.



Based.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## aaronsk (Nov 5, 2021)

Piper can be helpful until he starts doing practical application with current events, then I look elsewhere. He was helpful early in my walk but as I came to an increasingly reformed understanding (beyond Calvinism) I used him as a resource less and less - almost never now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Nov 5, 2021)

As other's have mentioned, his Trump stuff and I would say his more recent vaccine stuff, all point to he should just keep his mouth shut sometimes. I think the most troubling thing about him though is his belief in "final justification". I am not sure how some on this board will harp on federal vision so hard (and they should, it's bad), but ignore "final justification", which to me looks very similar.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## aaronsk (Nov 5, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> As other's have mentioned, his Trump stuff and I would say his more recent vaccine stuff, all point to he should just keep his mouth shut sometimes. I think the most troubling thing about him though is his belief in "final justification". I am not sure how some on this board will harp on federal vision so hard (and they should, it's bad), but ignore "final justification", which to me looks very similar.


I’ve not heard of this before, “final justification”. Can you expand on what it is?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 5, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> . I am not sure how some on this board will harp on federal vision so hard (and they should, it's bad), but ignore "final justification", which to me looks very similar.



Not me. I am very critical of both, though Wilsonites are far more annoying and vocal.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 5, 2021)

aaronsk said:


> I’ve not heard of this before, “final justification”. Can you expand on what it is?











The Reformed Brotherhood: Overcoming Confirmation Bias On Piper And Final Salvation Through Works


Does John Piper teach a two-stage doctrine of salvation wherein the initial stage is said to be justification by grace alone (sola gratia), through faith alone (sola fide), on the basis of the impu…




heidelblog.net

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Nov 5, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The Reformed Brotherhood: Overcoming Confirmation Bias On Piper And Final Salvation Through Works
> 
> 
> Does John Piper teach a two-stage doctrine of salvation wherein the initial stage is said to be justification by grace alone (sola gratia), through faith alone (sola fide), on the basis of the impu…
> ...


Thanks for posting this info. This is a good summary. There is nothing I can add.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jw (Nov 5, 2021)

I’m still not understanding the sad reaction to my post. @Regi Addictissimus ?

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## augustacarguy (Nov 5, 2021)

Thomas_Goodwin said:


> No it is true. I once heard a man say that Trump has done more for the church than anyone since Jesus. Every single time he sins these people defend it or challenge it as if he couldn't sin. I am not saying all people do or even most do, but it is an issue around where I am. Again I could never vote democrat due to abortion, homosexuality, socialism, their defilements of gender and marriage, and I must encourage us to not let politics do their goal, which is to divide us. I meant no offense brother, and we should both look forward to that day when divine mercy shall hand us up into glory, where we shall worship Christ as He is in perfect holiness free from sin exclaiming He is altogether lovely. Further, I look forward to where in Revelation, where Jesus shall rule as king over all the lands, a perfect beautiful and great Lord to have.



I’ll bet you aren’t aware at all of your descent into straw man building. At first you say “it is true,” that you “once heard” one man say something, and then in the next sentence you’re broadening it to “these people.” That’s a really clever trick you’re playing in order to smear an entire broad group of people. This sounds exactly like Jemar TIsby and Anthony Bradley and the rest. Just smacking around the bride of Christ with baseless, nameless, allegations. If there are actual Christians that see Trump and say that he is without sin, or actually any Christian that believes anyone is without sin, prove it. Name them. Show us all how this is more than just a single kook, and is actually descriptive of a large portion of Christianity. I don’t believe that.

Reactions: Like 2 | Sad 1


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 5, 2021)

augustacarguy said:


> I’ll bet you aren’t aware at all of your descent into straw man building. At first you say “it is true,” that you “once heard” one man say something, and then in the next sentence you’re broadening it to “these people.” That’s a really clever trick you’re playing in order to smear an entire broad group of people. This sounds exactly like Jemar TIsby and Anthony Bradley and the rest. Just smacking around the bride of Christ with baseless, nameless, allegations. If there are actual Christians that see Trump and say that he is without sin, or actually any Christian that believes anyone is without sin, prove it. Name them. Show us all how this is more than just a single kook, and is actually descriptive of a large portion of Christianity. I don’t believe that.


I didnt say they were Christians did I (some of them are carnal "christians" who do not know the Lord from my judgment)? These people was a reference to the people who worship trump nothing else. We are called to share the scripture even with nonbelievers.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 5, 2021)

augustacarguy said:


> I’ll bet you aren’t aware at all of your descent into straw man building. At first you say “it is true,” that you “once heard” one man say something, and then in the next sentence you’re broadening it to “these people.” That’s a really clever trick you’re playing in order to smear an entire broad group of people. This sounds exactly like Jemar TIsby and Anthony Bradley and the rest. Just smacking around the bride of Christ with baseless, nameless, allegations. If there are actual Christians that see Trump and say that he is without sin, or actually any Christian that believes anyone is without sin, prove it. Name them. Show us all how this is more than just a single kook, and is actually descriptive of a large portion of Christianity. I don’t believe that.


I didn't even say they think one can be sinless. They only faile to recognize his moral failings of Trump as they are.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 5, 2021)

Thirdly, evil inluences in a community can corrupt and taint if one is not educated and firm in the Lord. It is important to be educated against the idolatries of others.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## chuckd (Nov 5, 2021)

I like his writing, but turned off by his preaching style.


----------



## jw (Nov 5, 2021)

Leftists!

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## jw (Nov 5, 2021)

Especially @Jerrod Hess !


----------



## Logan (Nov 5, 2021)

Perhaps he was saddened by your abuse of English grammar.

"*I’m* don’t personally know him."

What would JoshMom say if she found out?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1 | Wow 1


----------



## MountainPilgrim (Nov 5, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I think the most troubling thing about him though is his belief in "final justification". I am not sure how some on this board will harp on federal vision so hard (and they should, it's bad), but ignore "final justification", which to me looks very similar.


To be fair to Piper, he does distinguish between "final justification" and "final salvation," for what it's worth.

I am very thankful for the role Piper played in my transition from the Arminian-Dispensational-Broader Evangelicalism in which I was raised to the Confessional Reformed world. He was indeed a "gateway drug" of sorts, but the more I learned the more issues I began to take with much of his teaching, to include his denial of the Covenant of Works, his "Christian Hedonism," and his doctrine of dual-stage salvation. At this point, I frankly have little use for him, though I am thankful for his continued role in exposing folks to God's sovereignty and glory.

It seems few have been much concerned with the doctrinal issues present in Piper, and have often provide excuse after excuse to demonstrate how he doesn't actually mean what he says with his dual-stage salvation. I'm afraid Piper has gotten away with a lot of heterodox teaching simply because he's Piper, but that few others would be so tolerated. 

Yet what amazes me the most is that while the aforementioned troublesome doctrine was continuously tolerated or explained away and Piper passionately defended, once he made some stupid political comments, _that was too far_ and suddenly he was written off as errant. Once again, we have demonstrated our tendency to care more about politics than we do about critical doctrines.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## jw (Nov 5, 2021)

Logan said:


> Perhaps he was saddened by your abuse of English grammar.
> 
> "*I’m* don’t personally know him."
> 
> What would JoshMom say if she found out?


Wow. That is egregious! I’m clearly a leftist now.  Gonna have to emoji react sad that thing.


----------



## ZackF (Nov 5, 2021)

jw said:


> Wow. That is egregious! I’m clearly a leftist now.


That’s always been clear.


----------



## jw (Nov 5, 2021)

ZackF said:


> That’s always been clear.


Takes one to know . . . wait.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Nov 5, 2021)

Logan said:


> Perhaps he was saddened by your abuse of English grammar.
> 
> "*I’m* don’t personally know him."
> 
> What would JoshMom say if she found out?


I have been known to police grammar with some members that have went out from us.


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Nov 5, 2021)

MountainPilgrim said:


> To be fair to Piper, he does distinguish between "final justification" and "final salvation," for what it's worth.
> 
> I am very thankful for the role Piper played in my transition from the Arminian-Dispensational-Broader Evangelicalism in which I was raised to the Confessional Reformed world. He was indeed a "gateway drug" of sorts, but the more I learned the more issues I began to take with much of his teaching, to include his denial of the Covenant of Works, his "Christian Hedonism," and his doctrine of dual-stage salvation. At this point, I frankly have little use for him, though I am thankful for his continued role in exposing folks to God's sovereignty and glory.
> 
> ...


I was about to say the same thing. His statements on final justification have concerned me, but why we reserve the fiery words for political disagreements I think shows misplaced emphaisis.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## jw (Nov 5, 2021)

Thomas_Goodwin said:


> I was about to say the same thing. His statements on final justification have concerned me, but why we reserve the fiery words for political disagreements I think shows misplaced emphaisis.


Cuz it’s a discussion board, and the subject of liking JP is a very wide & general field. Of course, all our conversation should have an eye toward charity and winsomeness to the utmost degree it can be put forward.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Nov 5, 2021)

Thomas_Goodwin said:


> ...why we reserve the fiery words for political disagreements I think shows misplaced emphaisis.


Because politics is inescapably religious, and Christianity is inescapably political. As others have noted, Piper rejects the Reformed understanding of sin, namely, that "some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others" (WSC 83). His thinking that arrogance is just as bad as murder poisons his politics as well as his ethics.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 5, 2021)

Thomas_Goodwin said:


> I was about to say the same thing. His statements on final justification have concerned me, but why we reserve the fiery words for political disagreements I think shows misplaced emphaisis.


I attacked both. His take on politics reflects an incoherent, quasi-pacifist ethical framework.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Nov 5, 2021)

RPEphesian said:


> There ought to be discussion of politics and ethics, because they are indeed Christian subjects.
> 
> But the question is about fiery words. There is a Christian standard for how conversation ought to go, politics or not.
> 
> ...


What are "fiery" words, and who here has written them?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Nov 5, 2021)

RPEphesian said:


> You made no retort to John when he talked about fiery words being used in politics, but only went on to say that it's because politics is a religious subject. So it sounds like to me you acknowledge things get heated in these discussions and perhaps is even warranted. Though, maybe your words should have been subject to another interpretation.


That was not my intent. I suppose I should have asked him what he meant by "fiery," but given his engagement in this entire thread, it seemed to me that he might think _any_ political discussion is "misplaced emphasis." I understood him that way because he said here that "politics cannot and will not divide Christian brothers and sisters." Given this previous context, I assumed he meant "fiery" to be "anything political at all," hence my general response. But, as far as I am aware, nothing "fiery" has happened here, unless, again, by "fiery" we mean anything other than agreement (which is why the term itself is unhelpful). Either way, surely you would agree that there are types of verbal "fire" that are _more_ than warranted by Scripture. James 3 is not a blanket prohibition against all uncomfortable criticism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 5, 2021)

I find this entire discussion very odd.


C. M. Sheffield said:


> I get it: You love John Piper. That's fine. I guess I just find it strange that you care to gauge our love or lack thereof. I mean, why would it matter? and why do you care?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MountainPilgrim (Nov 5, 2021)

For my part, the intention was not to discount politics as unimportant or unrevealing to deeper issues, but rather question the disparity by which certain men seem to be judged based on their political positions as opposed to their doctrinal convictions. I've dealt with some circles who held Piper as essentially above reproach, excusing, ignoring, or outright denying his problematic doctrinal assertions, yet once Piper's politics were made known, these same immediately cast him aside as errant and not to be trusted or recommended. Inversely, I've seen many of the same folks partner under the same banner with Federal Visionists for the sake of political causes - and not out of ignorance of the FV error or presence.

This indicates that many tend to be far more tolerant and gracious toward serious doctrinal issues than they are of differing political persuasions. If a teacher/theologian is "cancelled," it is for their political positions rather than for doctrinal heterodoxy, and I for one find that troubling.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Nov 5, 2021)

MountainPilgrim said:


> For my part, the intention was not to discount politics as unimportant or unrevealing to deeper issues, but rather question the disparity by which certain men seem to be judged based on their political positions as opposed to their doctrinal convictions. I've dealt with some circles who held Piper as essentially above reproach, excusing, ignoring, or outright denying his problematic doctrinal assertions, yet once Piper's politics were made known, these same immediately cast him aside as errant and not to be trusted or recommended. Inversely, I've seen many of the same folks partner under the same banner with Federal Visionists for the sake of political causes - and not out of ignorance of the FV error or presence.
> 
> This indicates that many tend to be far more tolerant and gracious toward serious doctrinal issues than they are of differing political persuasions. If a teacher/theologian is "cancelled," it is for their political positions rather than for doctrinal heterodoxy, and I for one find that troubling.


This is helpful. Thank you. I understand. I think my point is right in line with this: Theology and politics are inseparable.


----------



## FivePointSpurgeonist (Nov 5, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> When he said that Trump’s (metaphorical) “killing” (with his mean tweets) was worse than the (real) killing taking place in abortion… I about threw away all his books.


Can you link this quote for me please? I can't seem to find anything about him saying that mean tweets are worse than abortion, this is serious.


----------



## MountainPilgrim (Nov 5, 2021)

Taylor said:


> This is helpful. Thank you. I understand. I think my point is right in line with this: Theology and politics are inseparable.


I agree they are inseparable, but that is not to say they are equal. Theology informs politics (or, it should). If I disagree with someone politically when I know them to be theologically sound, I find it much easier to graciously approach those differences. Theology is the unifier, and perhaps one of us is simply being inconsistent.

If that same person is not theologically sound, then I take greater issue with their heterodoxy than their political differences. 

If that same person is politically identical to myself, yet heterodox (or worse) theologically, I am far more concerned about their doctrinal error than I am encouraged by their political agreement. In the case of some of the FV guys, their political persuasions are not enough to discount the grave error of their theology, and thus they will not receive my endorsement through partnership. I really don't care what someone's politics are if they are preaching another gospel, we are not on the same team. 

To tie this back to the OP, what I noticed was this:

- Piper taught seriously problematic doctrines for many years, consistently and well-documented. Few seemed concerned that maybe we ought to at least be cautious.

- Then Piper voiced his problematic political views. Everyone seems concerned and now caution is of the highest order. Again, not because of his demonstrated errant doctrines, but because of the deeper issues his political positions indicate. 

It is my opinion that this exposes that political tribalism has infected even the Confessional world and we ought to be exhorted to reevaluate our priorities, and admonished for considering politics as more important than doctrine.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Nov 5, 2021)

MountainPilgrim said:


> I agree they are inseparable, but that is not to say they are equal. Theology informs politics (or, it should). If I disagree with someone politically when I know them to be theologically sound, I find it much easier to graciously approach those differences. Theology is the unifier, and perhaps one of us is simply being inconsistent.
> 
> If that same person is not theologically sound, then I take greater issue with their heterodoxy than their political differences.
> 
> ...


I think we're saying the same thing, just in different ways. Of course theological convictions and teachings are more important than politics. However, political positions, just like ethical ones, stem from theology. So, if one's politics is bad, it could be an indicator that one's theology is bad. Of course, as you said above (and rightly so), it could just be inconsistency. In Piper's case, though, I think that it can be demonstrated that his bad politics can be tied directly to bad theology.

So, yes, you are right: I can certainly be gracious to a political opponent if their theology is otherwise sound (to a certain extent, anyway; some political positions, regardless of one's theology, are just evil; e.g., socialism). However, I think it is also important to recognize that theology and politics form a package, theology being at the center, of course. Again, I think we're saying the same thing. You make some very good points, brother.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## MountainPilgrim (Nov 5, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I think we're saying the same thing, just in different ways.


Yes, I think we are, and I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote. I appreciate the dialogue, Brother.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 5, 2021)

It's not that we are more concerned about his terrible views on politics than we are for his bad theology. I am saying his incoherent ethics stems from an unstable theological system. Christian hedonism is not stable.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 5, 2021)

Spurgeonite said:


> Can you link this quote for me please? I can't seem to find anything about him saying that mean tweets are worse than abortion, this is serious.


Here’s the sentence:

“I think Roe is an evil decision. I think
Planned Parenthood is a code name for
baby-killing and (historically at least)
ethnic cleansing. And I think it is baffling
and presumptuous to assume that pro-
abortion policies kill more people than a
culture-saturating, pro-self pride.”

For the context, in which (among other things) he expresses his shock that we think abortion policies are more urgent than Trump’s character, just read the op-ed he wrote on Oct 22, 2020.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 5, 2021)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> I have been known to police grammar with some members that have went out from us.


Subtle use of the long-forgotten subjunctive....right?


----------



## hLuke (Nov 5, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> Here’s the sentence:
> 
> “I think Roe is an evil decision. I think
> Planned Parenthood is a code name for
> ...


I think Piper was very measured in his article. I hope to think that we all agree that he is entitled to his own opinion— from a God given conscience and mind to rationalise. Speaking generally.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 6, 2021)

I make it a point to dislike any and all pastors who spoke publicly denouncing Trump. Their denunciations were lop-sided and they said little about the other side. We can blame them for the growing disaster our country is now facing.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## FivePointSpurgeonist (Nov 6, 2021)

How do we love our brothers in Christ, but just dislike them?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## hLuke (Nov 6, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> I make it a point to dislike any and all pastors who spoke publicly denouncing Trump. Their denunciations were lop-sided and they said little about the other side. We can blame them for the growing disaster our country is now facing.


Blame the democrats. No, actually the republicans. Wait, maybe both.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 6, 2021)

jw said:


> the subject of liking JP is a very wide & general field.


Aww shucks. I'm flattered, don't personally know him.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 6, 2021)

Spurgeonite said:


> How do we love our brothers in Christ, but just dislike them?



Classical theology defines love as willing the objective good towards a person. I can find fault with his ethics, politics, and theology while still hoping for the objective good.


----------



## hLuke (Nov 6, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Classical theology defines love as willing the objective good towards a person. I can find fault with his ethics, politics, and theology while still hoping for the objective good.


Here is love-- that willing objective good to which you refer:
1 Cor 13.4-8

4 Love is patient, love is kind, is not jealous, does not brag, is not puffed up;
5 t does not act unbecomingly, does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered;
6 it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
7it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails...
LSB

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth:...
KJV

4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant
5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.
7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never ends...
ESV

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails...
NIV

4 Love is patient, love is kind. Love does not envy, is not boastful, is not arrogant,
5 is not rude, is not self-seeking, is not irritable, and does not keep a record of wrongs.
6 Love finds no joy in unrighteousness but rejoices in the truth.
7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never ends...
CSB

4 Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud
5 or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged.
6 It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out.
7 Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.
8...Love will last forever!
NLT

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 6, 2021)

hLuke said:


> Here is love-- that willing objective good to which you refer:
> 1 Cor 13.4-8
> 
> 4 Love is patient, love is kind, is not jealous, does not brag, is not puffed up;
> ...



All of which I have done towards Piper. For example, people in my church like Piper's stuff. Except for his sermons on Romans 9, I think he is overrated, yet I don't attack him in front of people at my church.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jw (Nov 6, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> All of which I have done towards Piper. For example, people in my church like Piper's stuff. Except for his sermons on Romans 9, I think he is overrated, yet I don't attack him in front of people at my church.


And in this soy age, we must resist the temptation to acquiesce and call every valid criticism _attack_. It’s true we should take great care to season our words with charity, but sometimes that means a dispassionate objective take that cannot have care bear positivity with it.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## hLuke (Nov 6, 2021)

jw said:


> And in this soy age, we must resist the temptation to acquiesce and call every valid criticism _attack_. It’s true we should take great care to season our words with charity, but sometimes that means a dispassionate objective take that cannot have care bear positivity with it.


Well said. I think we must also be willing to evaluate criticisms from different viewpoints to our own. Our emotions are unreliable.


----------



## hLuke (Nov 6, 2021)

jw said:


> And in this soy age, we must resist the temptation to acquiesce and call every valid criticism _attack_. It’s true we should take great care to season our words with charity, but sometimes that means a dispassionate objective take that cannot have care bear positivity with it.


Josh, your eloquence is uncanny, for lack of a better term.


----------



## Taylor (Nov 6, 2021)

hLuke said:


> Josh, your eloquence is uncanny, for lack of a better term.


He is also capable of maddening brevity. A man of many talents.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## hLuke (Nov 6, 2021)

Taylor said:


> He is also capable of maddening brevity. A man of many talents.


Indeed. But perhaps I need to repent of my coveting... to have such eloquence


----------



## hLuke (Nov 6, 2021)




----------



## jw (Nov 6, 2021)

Fellers, thank y’all for the kind words. I cannot agree with them, and I’m uncomfortable having them distract in the thread, but thank you nevertheless.

Reactions: Love 2 | Funny 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 6, 2021)

Anyway… ANYONE who can consider the 63,000,000+ abortions that have taken place since Roe v Wade and say that Trump’s behavior is worse, and an even greater “killer”… whoever says that is a moron and not to be taken seriously.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Nov 6, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> When he said that Trump’s (metaphorical) “killing” (with his mean tweets) was worse than the (real) killing taking place in abortion… I about threw away all his books.





Spurgeonite said:


> Can you link this quote for me please? I can't seem to find anything about him saying that mean tweets are worse than abortion, this is serious.



It's important to be accurate and truthful and not devolve into mischaracterization. The article referred to is found here.

Nothing is ever said about mean tweets. Nothing is ever said about it being "worse".

Piper says "When a leader models self-absorbed, self-exalting boastfulness, he models the most deadly behavior in the world. He points his nation to destruction...It is naive to think that a man can be _effectively_ pro-life and manifest consistently the character traits that lead to death---temporal and eternal...Jesus set me at odds with death---death by abortion and death by arrogance."

Piper clearly condemns both abortion _and_ other sins. His point is that Christians should be _consistent_: they should not excuse or justify one set of sins (unrepentant sexual immorality, boastfulness, vulgarity, factiousness, etc.) simply because they believe that abortions are the greater sin. Both should be condemned. The ends should not justify the means. To do otherwise undermines the message we preach.

I don't care to defend Piper but I do care to defend truthfulness. After reading the actual article I don't see how the first quoted sentence is a truthful statement at all. Disagree with him but I exhort us all to do it without resorting to untruthful rhetoric.



SolaScriptura said:


> Anyway… ANYONE who can consider the 63,000,000+ abortions that have taken place since Roe v Wade and say that Trump’s behavior is worse, and an even greater “killer”… whoever says that is a moron and not to be taken seriously.



Piper never said that in the only article you've cited...although he did note that such behavior does indeed lead to death (spiritual) as well. Can we deny that, based on Scripture?

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 6, 2021)

Logan said:


> It's important to be accurate and truthful and not devolve into mischaracterization. The article referred to is found here.
> 
> Nothing is ever said about mean tweets. Nothing is ever said about it being "worse".
> 
> ...


??? Are you blind? I referenced the sentence. And please spare me the pedantic and Pharisaic quibbling.

Reactions: Wow 1 | Sad 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 6, 2021)

Some of you are so eager to support this judgmentally challenged old man that you intentionally overlook what he’s saying. His errors of judgment have been seen for years in his doctrinal and exegetical work, and now his powers have so diminished that he actually attributed more killing to Trump (because that, dear useful idiot - that’s the term, so don’t blame me for it, - is the person he’s writing against) than to 47+ years of Roe v Wade. He should not be consulted for anything. Ok, maybe read stuff published prior to 2000 if it’s too much to cut him off cold turkey.

For those on Facebook, I encourage you to find Dr Robert Gagnon’s page and read his incisive critique and response to Piper’s op-ed. The best out there.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 6, 2021)

Here’s another gem from early in his op-ed in which he’s targeting Trump and he uses sleight of hand and equivocation to make it seem like Trump’s behavior is at least as bad as abortion:

“Actually, this is a long-overdue article attempting to explain why I remain baffled that so many Christians consider the sins of unrepentant sexual immorality (porneia), unrepentant boastfulness (alazoneia), unrepentant vulgarity (aischrologia), unrepentant factiousness (dichostasiai), and the like, to be only _toxic_ for our nation, while policies that endorse baby-killing, sex-switching, freedom-limiting, and socialistic overreach are viewed as _deadly_.”

It only gets worse from there.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 6, 2021)

I think the problem is that many people don’t know what it actually looks like to hear/read reasonably presented bad exegesis, theology, or moral reasoning.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 6, 2021)

Found it! Gagnon’s critique is spot on. 

John Piper and the Suicidal Folly of Evangelical Never-Trumpism - Robert A. J. Gagnon 

“Evangelical leader John Piper's article making the case for Evangelical Never-Trumpism (“Policies, Persons, and Paths to Ruin: Pondering the Implications of the 2020 Election”) goes something like this:

Evangelical Voter: “Candidate A keeps hitting me, my spouse, and my children repeatedly on the head with a hammer. I'm going to vote for Candidate B.”

John Piper: “Yes, but Candidate B is arrogant. That's just as deadly.”

Evangelical Voter: “Ah, John, not to me it isn't. Did you hear me? Candidate A keeps hitting us on the head repeatedly with a hammer. And Candidate B is opposed to the hammer hitting.”

Oh, the scale of difference.

Dr. Piper, a man whom I greatly appreciate in many other areas, argues not merely that arrogance is a bad trait in a leader but, more, that the effects of Trump’s arrogance is every bit as “deadly” and "nation-corrupting” as what the Dems are going to do to us in terms of policy (on top of their own arrogance).

Piper attempts to establish this not by any concrete evidence of pervasive harm (for which he has none) but by appeal to Scripture. His “proofs” (e.g., Jer 48:29-31, 42; Acts 12:20-23) are not convincing. Jeremiah condemns Moab for laughing at Israel’s destruction and comparing Yahweh unfavorably with Moab’s god Chemosh. Herod Agrippa is struck down for persecuting Christians and not disclaiming public acclamations that he was a god. Trump has sought to protect the free exercise of religion, welcomed into his administration evangelical Christians like Mike Pence, and honored Christ and God in Good Friday and Easter proclamations. He is not the king of Moab or Herod. That description is better reserved for Democratic Party leadership.

John highlighted the "arrogance/pride/boastfulness" motif in all three of his sidebar quotations in his article, including from the one from his conclusion: "I will explain to my unbelieving neighbor why my allegiance to Jesus set me at odds with death — death by abortion and death by arrogance." John, "death by arrogance" is a metaphor; "death by abortion" is actual death. See the distinction?

His second highlighted quotation proffers the same inaccuracy: "It is baffling to assume that pro-abortion policies kill more people than a culture-saturating, pro-self pride." "Baffling"? What are the statistics on homicides caused by Trump's "pride" to the nation in the past 4 years? So far as I know, zero. But I'd be glad to hear from John whether he has different statistics. In that same time period, there have been at least 2.5 million abortions. 

Has John known a president without pride? Don't mistake a politician's ability to mask vote-detracting prideful remarks as evidence for humility. Does Piper have a pride meter that registers an increase in arrogance among Republicans? For surely Piper can’t make Trump responsible for Democratic arrogance. 

Did you also notice how John contrasts abortion with "pride"? "Than ... pride"? "Pride" is a central feature of pro-abortion policy, with actual, immediate, palpable consequences. "Pride" is the self-chosen moniker of the extreme “LGBTQ+” sexual immorality promoted by the Democratic Party with compulsory and punitive laws. These policies are not something other than "pride." They are instances of pride with horrific and patently obvious consequences. While being prideful about himself, Trump regularly denouncing abortion as the taking of human life and protecting religious liberty are the opposite of pride.

John's first highlighted quote adds to Trump's "flagrant boastfulness" the sins of "vulgarity, immorality, and factiousness," which he claims are just as "nation-corrupting." "Vulgarity"? This is as "nation-corrupting" as some of the issues at stake in this election that I point out below? Give us a break. What is at stake in the current election? A candidate's personal pride or vulgarity (we’ll return to the “sexual immorality” and “factiousness” charges)? No, matters infinitely greater. To put the analogy I made above more precisely:

Evangelical Voter: “Candidate A will not only treat you as the dregs of society, as the moral equivalent of a virulent racist because of your views on sexual ethics, but he will also codify that view into law; the legal equivalent of beating and kicking you and your children regularly.

“He will deprive you of your rights, penalize you for not complying with compulsory speech codes regarding ‘transgender gender,’ and take away your children if you don't promote their ‘LGBTQ+’ identify. He will deprive Christian schools not only of state funding for student loans and research grants but also of accreditation (effectively closing their doors). He will force-feed your children radical gay-transgender indoctrination like "Drag Queen Story Hour" that denies their biology; and put men in women's private spaces (restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms), shelters, prisons, and sports.

“That’s not all. He will make it nigh impossible for Christians to work in certain professions. He will expose all Christians who dare to express a view consistent with Jesus' teaching to being fired from their place of employment even if they only post in social media. He will force us all into ‘struggle sessions’ at work requiring us to recant our ‘bigotry.’ He will try to withdraw the church's tax-exempt status for their opposition to homosexual and transgender immorality.

“There’s more: He will put the most hard-left extremists on the court to insure that these draconian policies are in place for decades to come, probably for good. He also wants to subvert the Republic by packing the courts, adding DC and Puerto Rico as states to pack the Senate, and promote unlimited illegal immigration to pack the voter rolls so that Republicans never again exert influence on any of the major branches of government (a subversion amply illustrated in their attempts to impeach Candidate B after the latter was duly elected).

“And, oh yes, did I forget to mention that he promotes the killing of babies in the womb by virtually any means necessary for all nine months of potential pregnancy? He also promotes a do-nothing approach to riots and racial division in the country at the expense of reasoned discussion; and mandatory ‘racial sensitivity’ training that requires persons to confess the intrinsic racism that accompanies their skin color (‘whiteness’). Moreover, the financial corruption and influence peddling going on between himself and his son is of epic proportions.

“One other thing: His VP is even more extreme than he is, with a record of prosecuting pro-lifers and obstructing any faithful Christian from serving in any government position. And she's likely to replace him before his term is up.”

John Piper: “Yes, but Candidate B is arrogant. That will hurt our Christian witness!”

Alan Noble: “Not only that, but Candidate B also engenders epistemological chaos!”

As if "arrogance" and "epistemological chaos" is not entailed in stripping us of much of our civil liberties, freedom of conscience, and freedom of speech, calling us the virulent dregs of society, promoting the killing of babies, and requiring us all to confess that biology is of little relevance for determining gender or for treating an unborn baby as a human person. Arrogance and epistemological chaos with real policy consequences for the foreseeable future affecting hundreds of millions of people on a daily basis.

This is mind boggling coming from an Evangelical leader like John Piper whose Christian conviction and wisdom I have appreciated a great deal in the past. It literally makes me feel like my head is exploding.

What further evidence does John need for how absurd this view of voting is?

Does he need Biden and Harris to stab a viable preborn in front of his very eyes on national television before he will wake up to realize what terrible advice he has given Christians? Or do they need to do it on John's doorstep? Or how about if they do it at his church?

Does he need to see them come to his children's school to impose on them Drag Queen Story Hour?

Does he need Biden/Harris to come to his adult child's place of employment to lobby to have his child fired?

I mean, what would it take to wake him up to the extraordinary danger posed to us by a Biden/Harris victory?

Does he need to see them come to his home with a megaphone to declare to all his neighbors that he is a hateful, ignorant bigot, one of the dregs of society, who is an indecent human being that should be given no responsible role in society?

Does he need to watch them pull his grandchild from his child's home because his child won't consent to giving John's grandchild puberty blockers or "sex-reassignment" surgery or just because his child won't call John's grandchild by a name or pronoun at odds with the grandchild's biological sex?

What's going to do it for John and other NeverTrump evangelical leaders? If not this, then what? Is there no abuse on Dems' part so great that would cause John to encourage believers to cast an effective vote against Biden-Harris that will prevent them from being elected?

What of Trump’s sexual "immorality"? Maybe John has some information to which the rest of us aren't privy, but so far as I know Trump has not engaged in sexually immoral intercourse for over 12 years. He issued a general apology in 2016, saying, "I’ve said and done things I regret.... I’ve said some foolish things." John mentions Trump's "sins of unrepentant sexual immorality" without ever bothering to note at least a general apology and, more importantly, transformed sexual behavior for the past 12+ years (quite unlike Bill Clinton's performance). 

Most important of all, Trump hasn't actively promoted sexual immorality as a policy in the way that Dems have. These contrary facts must be a grave disappointment to John, since otherwise he would mention them in the interests of fairness. He doesn’t mention them because they pull the rug out from under one of his few arguments.

It's curious that John spoke at an ERLC/TGC Conference honoring the civil rights legacy of MLK even though MLK never repented of his gross sexual immorality over more than decade leading up to the night in which he was assassinated. John was a lone voice among persons who noted MLK"s immorality but he still honored MLK's legacy despite the fact that he was honoring a man whose personal sexual behavior was about as deplorable as it gets. Apparently he's not the purist on the matter of moral imperfections that he makes himself out to be.

"Factiousness"? No one excels more in factiousness than Dems, who have a take-no-prisoners approach to any challenge to their "gay-transgender" and abortion idols. Is John not aware of the violence (even killing) and over a billion dollars worth of property damage done in rioting this past year, largely coming from the Left's attempts to stoke racial animosity for personal gain? So it was Trump that promoted the factiousness of multiple attempts by Dems to remove him from office, from the day that he was elected? 

Yes, Trump can work on being less factious, but don't for a moment compare the consequences of his factiousness with those of the Democratic Party. Biden has called those who oppose the so-called "Equality Act" as "virulent people," "forces of intolerance," and "the dregs of society." What has Trump said that even remotely compares to this statement, a statement that not only slanders half the nation but also has huge policy consequences. 

Was it due to Trump’s “factiousness” that all the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee boycotted the vote on Judge Amy Barrett? The Dems hate anyone who does not capitulate to their twin idols of abortion and homosexual-transgender coercive laws. Trump's “factious” statements and actions, while not always commendable, have had a salutary effect in showing the utter rot within the Dem platform for the nation.

Applying John's argument about personal moral imperfections to military leadership would have meant pulling some of our best generals in WWII (MacArthur and Patton, hardly exemplars of modesty), which would have been a ridiculous move.

Personal imperfections that do not have direct policy consequences, while a consideration for voting, cannot outweigh a plethora of draconian policy consequences that will devastate the Republic. To pretend that these things are all equal as regards evaluation of one's job performance is so untenable that John cannot not know this (the double negative is intentional). Can John seriously not think of a policy consequence so bad that it does not overwhelm any concerns about another candidate's personal moral failings that have no direct adverse policy consequences?

It is time for Evangelical Never-Trumpers to wake up. The barbarians are at the gate.”

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Nov 6, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> Some of you are so eager to support this judgmentally challenged old man that you intentionally overlook what he’s saying.



Essentially I'm a disinterested party who feels completely neutral toward Piper. I read what he actually said.

You (and Gagnon) are _re-writing _what he said and then interacting with that. The one sentence you quoted didn't even say what you re-interpreted it to say, particularly in the immediate context. The context and the content of the article do not at all support your claims...not even a little.

Me saying that is neither pedantic or Pharisaic. That's just the truth.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 6, 2021)

IF one wants to discuss Piper's view of the 2020 election, discuss that in Politics & Government. Mods and Admins will review this thread on Monday to see if it should be reopened.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

