# Who Is the Best "Popular" Preacher Today?



## Marrow Man

I'm sure that I've left off a number of great preachers. Feel free to volunteer your own favorites, brothers and sisters! The only stipulation I would ask is that it not be your own preacher (unless you attend a church where the preacher is well known).


----------



## Knoxienne

Pastor John Weaver and Pastor Thomas Ray Floyd are my absolute favorites and very good friends also! They're both reformed baptists.


----------



## greenbaggins

For bread and butter preaching, constantly nourishing, I like Phil Ryken. I always learn something from him. However, I like Stafford Carson almost equally as well.


----------



## AThornquist

I'm livin' my best life now, baby!  ...And I can't say enough about my Deluxe Joel Osteen teeth cleaning kit...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Dr. Joseph Pipa


----------



## ww

I could listen to John Piper for hours upon end. Passionate Preaching from a man with great humility and transparency. My other favorite was James Montgomery Boice. I learned so much listening to him. Our loss/Heaven's gain!


----------



## tdowns

*I like them all...*

but, although, not totally reformed, it is his 40th anniversary, he is local, and, as far a "Preaching", I just love him. (unless he is talking eschatology)

John Macarther.


----------



## Theognome

Knoxienne said:


> Pastor John Weaver and Pastor Thomas Ray Floyd are my absolute favorites and very good friends also! They're both reformed baptists.



Amen! It don't get no better than that!

Theognome


----------



## Marrow Man

greenbaggins said:


> For bread and butter preaching, constantly nourishing, I like Phil Ryken. I always learn something from him. However, I like Stafford Carson almost equally as well.



Oh, yes, Ryken. I knew I was forgetting someone. He came and preached at Erskine while I was there and I thought he was absolutely fabulous. It was an interesting sermon on the priestly attire. Thanks for the mention!


----------



## SolaScriptura

Piper. Hands down. He probably more than any single living preacher has popularized the doctrines of grace, particularly amongst the evangelical demographic which has virtually no exposure to the more "hard core" preachers of Reformed theology.

Indeed, it was his Desiring God - back when it was still the 1st edition - that got me thinking about the concept of God-centeredness.


----------



## reformed trucker

What, no Rick Warren? He's America's pastor, dontchaknow!


----------



## he beholds

I picked Sproul because he has done the most invaluable work, in my opinion. I am a new Beeke fan, and ♥ him very much, and I love Piper as well! But, in the end, I think R.C. Sproul has been a very consistent help to many, many people. They are all very intelligent, accessible, and wise, but I think there would be the largest void had Sproul never become a preacher.

However, I currently listen to Mark Dever the most. I'm really trying to get through all of his overview sermons on the books of the Bible that someone on the PB recommended to me. OT and NT


----------



## Theognome

reformed trucker said:


> What, no Rick Warren? He's America's pastor, dontchaknow!



That was a purpose driven post.

Theognome


----------



## Marrow Man

he beholds said:


> However, who I currently listen to the most is Mark Dever. I'm really trying to get through all of his overview sermons on the books of the Bible that someone on the PB recommended to me. OT and NT



Jessi, I thought about putting Dever on the list, but I was disappointed in his presentation at last year's T4G conference. I saw him at Ligonier's Pastor's Conference a few years ago, though, and thought he was excellent then.


----------



## LawrenceU

Of the list, Piper, hands down.


----------



## SolaGratia

There is also Sinclair Ferguson and I personally like Cornelius Pronk.


----------



## Marrow Man

SolaGratia said:


> There is also Sinclair Ferguson...



Silly me, how could I have overlooked a fellow ARP?


----------



## he beholds

Marrow Man said:


> Jessi, I thought about putting Dever on the list, but I was disappointed in his presentation at last year's T4G conference. I saw him at Ligonier's Pastor's Conference a few years ago, though, and thought he was excellent then.



Do you remember what disappointed you? We don't know much about him, so a warning of what may creep in would be helpful! Thanks!


----------



## Honor

Driscoll!!!! that's my vote Piper is a close second


----------



## Prufrock

I personally enjoy listening to my own pastor preach. Especially as this means the word preached is combined with prayer, the sacrament, singing of psalms and the fellowship of believers.

*Edit*
Oops. Missed the word "popular" in the opening post. Well, I suppose he's popular within our congregation, so maybe that counts.


----------



## Marrow Man

he beholds said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jessi, I thought about putting Dever on the list, but I was disappointed in his presentation at last year's T4G conference. I saw him at Ligonier's Pastor's Conference a few years ago, though, and thought he was excellent then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you remember what disappointed you? We don't know much about him, so a warning of what may creep in would be helpful! Thanks!
Click to expand...


Oh no, let no fears arise within thee! The man is thoroughly orthodox and has done a great service to the church through 9Marks Ministries. No, he was just a little flat and dry that day, that is all.

He is a Baptist, but not much I can do about that. 

-----Added 2/18/2009 at 02:04:07 EST-----



Honor said:


> Driscoll!!!! that's my vote Piper is a close second



Another choice that should have at least made the list. Thanks!


----------



## Knoxienne

Prufrock said:


> I personally enjoy listening to my own pastor preach. Especially as this means the word preached is combined with prayer, the sacrament, singing of psalms and the fellowship of believers.
> 
> *Edit*
> Oops. Missed the word "popular" in the opening post. Well, I suppose he's popular within our congregation, so maybe that counts.



That kind of contentment is a blessing indeed. And our pastors so need our support!


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

I would add Dr. Ligon Duncan. When I was first exploring expository preaching (after I was already ordained and preaching...) his sermons on Matthew saved my tail!


----------



## matthew11v25

While I love Piper, I have to go with Keller.


----------



## DMcFadden

From the list suggested . . . 

Piper hands down - full of earnest soul stirring passion

R.C. Sproul would be another fav for his incredible role in introducing so many to Reformed Theology

I heard Beeke last Saturday at Nathan Eshelman's ordination and would love to go back to seminary . . . at PRTS! But, he hardly has the following to qualify as "popular."

I can't believe anyone on the PB selected Joel Osteen!!! 
At least you could go for a good "Reformed" preacher like Robert Schuller


----------



## Scott1

For "preaching" John Piper is extraordinarily gifted- passionate, clear, powerful and mostly right in reformed theology.

While I have limited acquaintance with Mr. Beeke, it is very favorable.

John MacArthur should be on the list.

For "teaching" I think of Tim Keller and RC Sproul. Interpreting this poll as the teaching gift, it seems Dr. Sproul is without equal in this generation.


----------



## etexas

Joel...he is so cool.


----------



## SEAGOON

It depends what you mean by "Best." Do you mean preaching ability, content, overall ministry of the word? For instance Tim Keller has greater preaching ability than Joel Beeke, but I'd say in terms of content Beeke wins hands down. 

If you just want "favorite preacher" or best combination of all the qualities I look for in a preacher, that would be someone almost no one has ever heard of - Pastor Mark Herzer.
Christ Covenant Presbyterian Church | Odeo: Search, Discover and Share Digital Media from Millions of Audio and Video Clips

And if you go by "most listened to on Sermonaudio" its Paul Washer, hands down!


----------



## OPC'n

Sproul of course! I never really got into Piper's teachings for some reason.


----------



## Knoxienne

sjonee said:


> Sproul of course! I never really got into Piper's teachings for some reason.



Same here.


----------



## Michael Doyle

The key word in the poll was preacher. Out of the popular it would be Piper at preaching. His delivery and authenticity lend to his popularity. If it were teacher, that would be different. Then it would be between Sproul and Beeke between those listed followed closely by Keller, Piper. Paul Washer was mentioned as well and certainly bears mentioning. I loved Sinclair at the desiring God national conference.

I almost forgot Ligon Duncan, I could listen to him over and over.


----------



## OPC'n

Actually, Sproul does do preaching along with teaching.


----------



## he beholds

sjonee said:


> Actually, Sproul does do preaching along with teaching.



No thanks left right now, but thanks! I agree!!↑↑↑


----------



## Grace Alone

Sproul has taught me most of what I know about reformed theology, so I'd have to choose him. But I also enjoy Piper occasionally. I love Sinclair Ferguson and wondered why he wasn't on the list, Tim! Haha! I've never heard Tim Keller, but I'd like to sometime.


----------



## Augusta

I voted Sproul as well. I hear of people all the time who came out of modern evangelical churches thanks to God using his preaching, including myself. (hope I used that reflexive pronoun correctly




)

Joel Beeke's name is popping up all over the place and I have never heard him but I have read articles by him in Tabletalk. I would say he is popular.

Paul Washer is very popular and I like him too. I have never heard Piper. I have heard MacArthur and think that he should be on the list.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Theognome said:


> reformed trucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, no Rick Warren? He's America's pastor, dontchaknow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was a purpose driven post.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


"purpose driven post!"


----------



## Knoxienne

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reformed trucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, no Rick Warren? He's America's pastor, dontchaknow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was a purpose driven post.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "purpose driven post!"
Click to expand...


Yes, he's a riot. We have Rick Warren jokes up the Ying Yang. He's home from work now, so my PB shift is over since he'll want the computer. And I have to work on dinner.


----------



## PresbyDane

R.C. Sproul has blessed my christian life in so many ways, that even trying to name them here is close to impossible


----------



## MMasztal

I'll vote for Piper and MacArthur.

BTW, interesting photos, sjonee.


----------



## Ivan

Piper.


----------



## historyb

I voted other for Dr. Albert Mohler, most likely because I listen to Dr. Mohler most


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy

I lived on a diet of Sproul for about 5 years, so when I started listening to Piper, it just blew me away. So I have to pick Piper. The guy can preach. Sproul can certainly preach too, but when I think of him, I think of a teacher first, not a preacher.


----------



## Marrow Man

Calvinist Cowboy said:


> I lived on a diet of Sproul for about 5 years, so when I started listening to Piper, it just blew me away. So I have to pick Piper. The guy can preach. Sproul can certainly preach too, but when I think of him, I think of a teacher first, not a preacher.



 completely.


----------



## kalawine

Knoxienne said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sproul of course! I never really got into Piper's teachings for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same here.
Click to expand...


Same here too. For some reason I really don't know. I don't dislike him though and I believe he is very genuine.


----------



## Marrow Man

All I know is this --> when I find my preaching beginning to get stale, I pull up Piper on the Ipod and I am moved by his passionately penetrating preaching prowess. Positively Piper. Period.


----------



## kalawine

Knoxienne said:


> Pastor John Weaver and Pastor Thomas Ray Floyd are my absolute favorites and very good friends also! They're both reformed baptists.



Those two and Joe Morecraft III


----------



## Kevin

John Weaver & Mark Driscoll are two guys who preach 1 hour plus without ever making you check the time! Pastor Morecraft can do that as well.

But from the list I had to go with Tim Kellor.


----------



## JM

John's Piper and MacArthur.


----------



## Knoxienne

kalawine said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor John Weaver and Pastor Thomas Ray Floyd are my absolute favorites and very good friends also! They're both reformed baptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those two and Joe Morecraft III
Click to expand...


 Another killer Southron preacher!!!


----------



## JM

A couple more...Rolfe Barnard, Don Fortner and Todd Nibert.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

Piper has some major theological problems so I could not endorse him.

I would suggest that the top speakers on Sermonaudio.com should be seen as the judge. By that I mean the ones that consistently have the highest number of sermon downloads over a ten year period. To my knowledge, that is none other than Dr Alan Cairns and Rev John Greer.


----------



## Marrow Man

ThomasCartwright said:


> Piper has some major theological problems so I could not endorse him.



Could you elaborate?


----------



## ReformedWretch

No one will be shocked that I'd say Paul Washer


----------



## kamaujackson811

My tops...

Jim McClarty
Paul Washer


----------



## BG

Joe Morecraft III 


SermonAudio.com - Sermons by Joe Morecraft III


----------



## nicnap

Beeke. I definitely agree with Ben about Pipa...his series in Job is one of the best that I have *ever* heard from Job.


----------



## Edward

Put me down for Sinclair Ferguson.

-----Added 2/18/2009 at 10:27:34 EST-----



ThomasCartwright said:


> I would suggest that the top speakers on Sermonaudio.com should be seen as the judge. By that I mean the ones that consistently have the highest number of sermon downloads over a ten year period.



Most popular doesn't necessarily mean best.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

I voted for Piper, but have to give a nod to Keller. At first, I didn't think he was very challenging, however, the more I listen to him, the more I find him to be deeply convicting, yet unbelievably encouraging.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

My favourite is still Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Though he is dead he still speaketh.


----------



## Jesus is my friend

John Piper!!! and He's coming to Boston Park St. Church April 19th


----------



## kvanlaan

Beeke from the list, but I love Paul Washer.



> There is also Sinclair Ferguson and I personally like *Cornelius Pronk*.



He preaches in St George, not far from where I live - he heads up an FRC church plant there. I've read some of his stuff and am impressed!


----------



## TaylorOtwell

Another came to mind. For good, meat and potatoes preaching, Stuart Olyott is good to listen to.


----------



## sotzo

My vote is with Osteen 666%! He has done for dental hygiene what Machen did for orthodoxy!


----------



## Pilgrim

Stephen L Smith said:


> My favourite is still Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Though he is dead he still speaketh.



Aye. W.A. Criswell too. I have recently started listening and watching some of his sermons and he definitely still speaketh. S. Lewis Johnson as well

Some of my favorites that I don't think have been mentioned, although I don't know that all of them qualify as "popular": 

Alistair Begg
Jeff Noblit
Steve Kreloff
Jack Hughes


----------



## DMcFadden

Love Alistair Begg!

Most of the names mentioned in this thread have been noteworthy.


----------



## JohnGill

Joel Beeke is by far my favorite. His series 9 on the Heidelberg Catechism I still listen to. I recently found Gregory Barkman and Douglas VanderMeulen and enjoy them as well. Next on the list would be Dr. Alan Cairns and John Greer. Then Paul Michael Raymond. Almost forgot about G. I. Williamson and Rolfe Barnard. But for Barnard you need an automatic sound reducer or you'll go deaf. But my top three would have to be Joel Beeke, Gregory Barkman, and Greg Bahnsen. And of course all the Founders preachers. And David Silversides from TBS. I have an almost full 80G ipod.


----------



## OPC'n

MMasztal said:


> I'll vote for Piper and MacArthur.
> 
> BTW, interesting photos, sjonee.



Why thank you! The more modern-art looking they are the happier I am.


----------



## DMcFadden

Chris,

Listening to Beeke in person was a real treat at Nate's ordination last weekend. What an impressive fellow!


----------



## JohnGill

DMcFadden said:


> Chris,
> 
> Listening to Beeke in person was a real treat at Nate's ordination last weekend. What an impressive fellow!



If I drive back from Tech School I'm stopping at his church for a Sunday.


----------



## CarlosOliveira

I love Sinclair Ferguson's preaching


----------



## Mayflower

CarlosOliveira said:


> I love Sinclair Ferguson's preaching



Me too he is one of my favourites, see:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f23/sinclair-ferguson-sermons-37717/


----------



## Quickened

Alot of good recommendations it seems. Also this thread couldnt have come at a better time. I was just sitting at work thinking about what sermons i could listen to and by whom so i can get some preaching while i type. Perfect timing!!

Thank you all for your contributions! I will be researching some of these lesser (to me) known names!


----------



## ManleyBeasley

ThomasCartwright said:


> Piper has some major theological problems so I could not endorse him.
> 
> I would suggest that the top speakers on Sermonaudio.com should be seen as the judge. By that I mean the ones that consistently have the highest number of sermon downloads over a ten year period. To my knowledge, that is none other than Dr Alan Cairns and Rev John Greer.



I think you should explain this.


----------



## A.J.

My vote is for John MacArthur.


----------



## Contra Marcion

Piper, no contest. (But then, I was saved hearing Piper on the radio!)


----------



## MLCOPE2

tdowns said:


> but, although, not totally reformed, it is his 40th anniversary, he is local, and, as far a "Preaching", I just love him. (unless he is talking eschatology)
> 
> John Macarther.


----------



## Knoxienne

I forgot to mention William Einwechter. He's another one of our favorites.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Obviously I'm biased, but I gave the nod to Dr. Keller. In terms of pure "preaching" I think he's in very elite company. 

I would also put MacArthur on the list. Very gifted expositor, one of my favorites to listen to during a long drive...


----------



## coramdeo

*Sproul & Begg*

As a teacher, I must go with Sproul. I always learn so much.
But I like MacAurther, Furgerson, Piper,and has no one mentioned Allister Begg?


----------



## Jon 316

Joel... come on ye can take the man out of charismania but you cant taked charismania out the man! only jokin


----------



## SRoper

Alistair Begg.

As an aside, I have to admit that I don't really get Piper. It seems to me like there's some sort of disconnect between what he is saying and how he is saying it along with the gestures he uses.


----------



## Marrow Man

I benefited more from listening to Piper than watching him. I agree that unnecessary gestures are distracting.


----------



## BertMulder

I am of Paul...

Or was that Apollos?

No, Peter, he is the one!


----------



## SpiritAndTruth

Here's my list of "popular" preachers (as defined by those who have broad-based mass media as a regular element of their ministries), all of whom I include in my regular podcast diet:

1. *RC Sproul*: Seriously, can anyone deny that he has been the most notable and influential single individual to carry the banner of reformed theology to the 20th and 21st Century on a broad level? He is my vote for the best reformed THEOLOGIAN and TEACHER today. If we had to call on a group to write a confession or catechism today, this is the guy to write it. I'm speculating that the other reformers listed here would consider Sproul to be the most admired living reformer today...

2. *John Piper*: Hugely respected, not just for his dead-on accurate theology, but more for his PASSION from the pulpit. "Frozen Chosen", what?!?! Not Piper. Though he sometimes sounds a little OVER-emotional (and labored) in his teaching side of preaching, he truly mixes Spirit AND Truth! In my humble opinion, he's tied for the greatest reformed PREACHER today, along with...

3. *John MacArthur*: People have complained that he sounds a bit angry or jaded when he preaches-- but does anyone _lay it down_ (biblical truth) as strongly and as boldly as he does? I don't think so, and I think people who write him off as an angry legalist totally don't understand him-- on the contrary, I believe he is PACKED with Christian love for the body of Christ, eschatology aside.

4. *Alistair Begg*: Honorable mention in "Best Reformed Preacher" category, second only to the two above. He is what I call "Reformed Light"-- you can be relatively unchurched, and still grasp and appreciate his reformed perspective. Love the accent, humor, witticisms, and self-deprecation, though he flies a bit close to the flame with his use of classic rock lyrics to illustrate a point (though I certainly can relate, LOL).

5. *Ravi Zacharias*: I LOVE listening to this guy, as wisdom seems to pour out of him like rainfall-- the people around him always seem to be in awe of his capacity to logically and calmly breakdown the rest of "world religion" in comparison to biblical Christianity. My "hands down" vote for best reformed APOLOGIST alive today, in a walk.

6. *Al Mohler*: Young, vibrant, and theologically spot-on. Can anyone name a more influential reformer in the BAPTIST tradition today? He put the SBC in a tizzy, and I love him for that. I put *Mark Dever* right up there with him in this category--with Mohler paving the way... 

There are several others upon whom I rely for a balanced reformed diet of information, many of whom have been mentioned in this thread.


----------



## Ivan

Interesting analysis. I agree for the most part, although I'm not sure that Ravi is Reformed. I'd be happy to be shown I'm wrong. I think all these gentlemen are great and I have benefited greatly from their ministries.


----------



## turmeric

Sproul is an excellent teacher, but I don't like his sermons so much. Arzudia - but he's kinda like Piper but not as good yet.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

SRoper said:


> Alistair Begg.
> 
> As an aside, I have to admit that I don't really get Piper. It seems to me like there's some sort of disconnect between what he is saying and how he is saying it along with the gestures he uses.



Kinda harsh. They don't bother me at all.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist

I just can't choose. I really like to listen to Ravi Zacharias. I like Keller, but sometimes I wish he would speak more to the heart. Of course, RC Sproul is a great teacher. I am partial to some Begg, Bryan Chapell is also excellent. Ferguson and Beeke are always a joy to hear.
I confess to the PB that I have never heard a Piper sermon. I hope to rectify that soon.


----------



## Ivan

21st Century Calvinist said:


> I just can't choose. I really like to listen to Ravi Zacharias. I like Keller, but sometimes I wish he would speak more to the heart. Of course, RC Sproul is a great teacher. I am partial to some Begg, Bryan Chapell is also excellent. Ferguson and Beeke are always a joy to hear.
> I confess to the PB that I have never heard a Piper sermon. I hope to rectify that soon.



Here you go:

Sermons By Date :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library


----------



## Mindaboo

I voted other and my first choice would be Bill Mencarow. He used to be my elder, and he is honestly one of the most humble and sincere men I know. His sermons when he was my elder are sermons I still remember 12 years later. They impacted me greatly. I chose him because every time I hear one of his sermons I am blessed by what he has to say. He preaches the truth and I learn something new everytime I hear him preach. Brad and I listen to him every week when we come home from church and his series on Revelation is worth listening to if your interested. My second favorite would be Barnhouse. We listen to him every week on the way to church. He passed away years ago. I learn a lot from him too. Our family has been blessed tremendously by the preaching of these two men.


----------



## SpiritAndTruth

turmeric said:


> Sproul is an excellent teacher, but I don't like his sermons so much.



Agreed. His gifts really are as a TEACHER, not necessarily as a PREACHER. Preaching INCLUDES teaching, but goes beyond that, of course. I certainly don't think RC is a "_BAD_" preacher, but he is _nowhere near_ as good a preacher as he is a teacher, In my humble opinion. It is clear how God has gifted him in that way.

His podcast teaching series on rich, theological issues is an absolute staple in my walk. It is *heavy duty stuff*, and not for someone who has a tendency to wool gather. But I enjoy it immensely, as it challenges me greatly to take my walk to the next level.


----------



## Knoxienne

I forgot to mention two other big faves of mine - Lester Roloff and Ovid Need! 

I like to listen to Brother Roloff every now and then to keep reformed hoity toitiness from rearing its ugly head.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

Spurgeon.


----------



## JohnGill

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Spurgeon.



Thanks for the reminder.

Forgot John Gill and Jonathan Edwards.


----------



## SpiritAndTruth

Ivan said:


> Interesting analysis. I agree for the most part, although I'm not sure that Ravi is Reformed. I'd be happy to be shown I'm wrong. I think all these gentlemen are great and I have benefited greatly from their ministries.



Hmmmm.... Now that you mention it, I'm not 100% sure he is, either-- good catch on that. I have a tendency to AUTOMATICALLY lump people whose doctrine is tightly bound in biblical accuracy as "reformed", when that is NOT always necessarily the case...

His website is a bit vague, in that it makes no denominational or confessional commitment.


----------



## discipulo

I voted Keller for the impact he is making on non Christians, hoping God is using his book and preaching. 

It is available on youtube a lecture he gave about The Reason for God at Google.

I imagine they don’t often invite Pastors for lectures on Faith there.

On deep thorough exposition of Scripture, the late Martyn Lloyd Jones.


----------



## Kevin

SRoper said:


> Alistair Begg.
> 
> As an aside, I have to admit that I don't really get Piper. It seems to me like there's some sort of disconnect between what he is saying and how he is saying it along with the gestures he uses.



I spent about 12 hours driving this weekend & I listened to a lot of sermons. I decided that this was my chance to "catch up" on all of the Piper sermons on my ipod.

I love to read books by Piper but I find him hard to listen to. He has a distinctive *preacher style* of speaking that I find distracting. His varying of his vocal speed is distracting enough to me that I rarely finish listening to his sermons. I love to read them, I just find them hard to listen too.


----------



## SpiritAndTruth

Kevin said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alistair Begg.
> 
> As an aside, I have to admit that I don't really get Piper. It seems to me like there's some sort of disconnect between what he is saying and how he is saying it along with the gestures he uses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent about 12 hours driving this weekend & I listened to a lot of sermons. I decided that this was my chance to "catch up" on all of the Piper sermons on my ipod.
> 
> I love to read books by Piper but I find him hard to listen to. He has a distinctive *preacher style* of speaking that I find distracting. His varying of his vocal speed is distracting enough to me that I rarely finish listening to his sermons. I love to read them, I just find them hard to listen too.
Click to expand...


I hear ya. I love Piper, and his passion, but sometimes when he speaks, it's like he's GIVING BIRTH to the ideas-- with all the pain, joy, anguish, and labor involved in it-- and it can be exhausting to listen to (I can't imagine how exhausted HE is after a sermon ). 

Sometimes, he is the _best thing in the world_ to listen to, but I usually OD on him after an hour or so...


----------



## Knoxienne

"I hear ya. I love Piper, and his passion, but sometimes when he speaks, it's like he's GIVING BIRTH to the ideas-- with all the pain, joy, anguish, and labor involved in it-- and it can be exhausting to listen to."

I find this to be true nowadays about a lot of modern preachers. It's very unsettling.


----------



## turmeric

Arzudia can be like that as well.


----------



## grizzlor

I voted other for Paul Washer.


----------



## Chris Connally

God used John MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to Jesus" to begin me on my journey away from the fluff American brand of Christianity. My life was forever changed by my journey through that book. However, since he was not on the list I put my vote in for John Piper. His evident love for Christ is inspiring and every time I hear or watch him I walk away feeling a greater desire for Jesus and His way.


----------



## PresbyDane

There is a mistake I can see Sproul is loosing to Piper, who got bribed


----------



## Marno

I voted for Sproul. Let me also honorably mention Mark Dever.


----------



## baron

Alistair Begg my favorite love that Scotish accent plus his sermons.

John Macarthur, but at times he leaves me wondering if I'm saved.

Steve Brown though no longer a Pastor, now a Teacher always leaves me knowing that God loves me and is not angry with me.


----------



## KMK

SpiritAndTruth said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting analysis. I agree for the most part, although I'm not sure that Ravi is Reformed. I'd be happy to be shown I'm wrong. I think all these gentlemen are great and I have benefited greatly from their ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.... Now that you mention it, I'm not 100% sure he is, either-- good catch on that. I have a tendency to AUTOMATICALLY lump people whose doctrine is tightly bound in biblical accuracy as "reformed", when that is NOT always necessarily the case...
> 
> His website is a bit vague, in that it makes no denominational or confessional commitment.
Click to expand...


I think he is Christian and Missionary Alliance. C&MA is not reformed.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

Marrow Man said:


> ThomasCartwright said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piper has some major theological problems so I could not endorse him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate?
Click to expand...


Piper believes that the Jesuit, Fracis Xavier was a great Christian missionary and that Mother Theresa is a great type of sanctification. He states this on his website. He also embraces the Toronto Blessing, ecumenism, Rap Music in his worship services, liberals such as Daniel Fuller, and the foul langauge of Mark Driscoll. He certainly does not stand in the historic Reformed tradition that I know off. I can just see Martyn Lloyd Jones turning in his grave at the thought. Dr Peter Masters does an excellent refutation of Piper's unbiblical "Christian hedonism" - an oxymoron if ever there was one.


----------



## TomVols

Alistair Begg is hands down, far and away the best of any mentioned. Piper is good. I enjoy Eric Alexander, Derek Prime, and Dick Lucas. Mohler makes an honorable mention as does Dever.


----------



## Knoxienne

ThomasCartwright said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThomasCartwright said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piper has some major theological problems so I could not endorse him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Piper believes that the Jesuit, Fracis Xavier was a great Christian missionary and that Mother Theresa is a great type of sanctification. He states this on his website. He also embraces the Toronto Blessing, ecumenism, Rap Music in his worship services, liberals such as Daniel Fuller, and the foul langauge of Mark Driscoll. He certainly does not stand in the historic Reformed tradition that I know off. I can just see Martyn Lloyd Jones turning in his grave at the thought. Dr Peter Masters does an excellent refutation of Piper's unbiblical "Christian hedonism" - an oxymoron if ever there was one.
Click to expand...


True. Piper also encourages the Church to celebrate the birthday of communist, liberal theologian, whoremonger, plagarist Michael King (MLK). He also promotes pacifism and teaches that it's wrong to shoot an intruder who breaks into one's home.


----------



## Marrow Man

Knoxienne said:


> ThomasCartwright said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Piper believes that the Jesuit, Fracis Xavier was a great Christian missionary and that Mother Theresa is a great type of sanctification. He states this on his website. He also embraces the Toronto Blessing, ecumenism, Rap Music in his worship services, liberals such as Daniel Fuller, and the foul langauge of Mark Driscoll. He certainly does not stand in the historic Reformed tradition that I know off. I can just see Martyn Lloyd Jones turning in his grave at the thought. Dr Peter Masters does an excellent refutation of Piper's unbiblical "Christian hedonism" - an oxymoron if ever there was one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. Piper also encourages the Church to celebrate the birthday of communist, modernist, whoremonger, plagarist Michael King (MLK). He also promotes pacifism and teaches that it's wrong to shoot an intruder who breaks into your home.
Click to expand...


I must confess that I was not aware of any of this. Can you provide a link to, say, Peter Masters or anything else that might be enlightening?


----------



## Broadus

Quite a few wonderful preachers have been listed. We are tremendously blessed with the technology making so many accessible to us (and, too, the same technology widens the reach of the Osteens, sadly).

John MacArthur gets the nod from me. I cannot think of a man whom God has used more to revitalize the practice of expository preaching. And, as mentioned above, his 1988 _The Gospel According to Jesus_ articulated a lot of the gut reactions I was having as a 33-year-old minister with the problems of easy believism, decisionistic "salvation."

Bill


----------



## ThomasCartwright

Marrow Man said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThomasCartwright said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piper believes that the Jesuit, Fracis Xavier was a great Christian missionary and that Mother Theresa is a great type of sanctification. He states this on his website. He also embraces the Toronto Blessing, ecumenism, Rap Music in his worship services, liberals such as Daniel Fuller, and the foul langauge of Mark Driscoll. He certainly does not stand in the historic Reformed tradition that I know off. I can just see Martyn Lloyd Jones turning in his grave at the thought. Dr Peter Masters does an excellent refutation of Piper's unbiblical "Christian hedonism" - an oxymoron if ever there was one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. Piper also encourages the Church to celebrate the birthday of communist, modernist, whoremonger, plagarist Michael King (MLK). He also promotes pacifism and teaches that it's wrong to shoot an intruder who breaks into your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must confess that I was not aware of any of this. Can you provide a link to, say, Peter Masters or anything else that might be enlightening?
Click to expand...


Piper on Mother Theresa:

How the Spirit Sanctifies :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Piper on Daniel Fuller

Praise God for Fundamentalists :: Desiring God

Piper on Francis Xavier:



> As strange as this may sound to self-reliant, self-esteeming secular people, it is in fact the way many missionaries have conceived of their labor. Francis Xavier (1506-1552), who founded the Jesuit missionary movement and served in India and Japan, was always in pursuit of a deeper life with God. He died at 46 awaiting passage to the great forbidden China. Keep in mind the doctor-patient analogy as you read one of his last letters concerning his desire to enter China. We need not minimize the serious theological problems with sixteenth century Roman Catholic teaching in order to see the truth expressed about missionary motivation in this quotation.



Chapter 9 Missions

Piper on Martin Luther King

When MLK First Met God :: Desiring God

Dr Peter Masters responds to Piper in "Christian Hedonism—Is it Right?" Sword and Trowel (2002): 10–16. 

http://www.metropolitantabernacle.o...s/HEDONISM.html.


----------



## historyb

historyb said:


> I voted other for Dr. Albert Mohler, most likely because I listen to Dr. Mohler most



I been listening to Dr. Charles Stanley lately and he is great where the rubber meets the road. I know the super Calvinist on here will shudder that one could listen to Dr. Stanley, but it is what it is.


----------



## DMcFadden

ThomasCartwright said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. Piper also encourages the Church to celebrate the birthday of communist, modernist, whoremonger, plagarist Michael King (MLK). He also promotes pacifism and teaches that it's wrong to shoot an intruder who breaks into your home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must confess that I was not aware of any of this. Can you provide a link to, say, Peter Masters or anything else that might be enlightening?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Piper on Mother Theresa:
> 
> How the Spirit Sanctifies :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
> 
> Piper on Daniel Fuller
> 
> Praise God for Fundamentalists :: Desiring God
> 
> Piper on Francis Xavier:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As strange as this may sound to self-reliant, self-esteeming secular people, it is in fact the way many missionaries have conceived of their labor. Francis Xavier (1506-1552), who founded the Jesuit missionary movement and served in India and Japan, was always in pursuit of a deeper life with God. He died at 46 awaiting passage to the great forbidden China. Keep in mind the doctor-patient analogy as you read one of his last letters concerning his desire to enter China. We need not minimize the serious theological problems with sixteenth century Roman Catholic teaching in order to see the truth expressed about missionary motivation in this quotation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chapter 9 Missions
> 
> Piper on Martin Luther King
> 
> When MLK First Met God :: Desiring God
> 
> Dr Peter Masters responds to Piper in "Christian Hedonism—Is it Right?" Sword and Trowel (2002): 10–16.
> 
> http://www.metropolitantabernacle.o...s/HEDONISM.html.
Click to expand...


*PUTTING ON MY MODERATOR HAT: I realize that we have differences of opinion over some personalities. I even STRONGLY disagree with Dan Fuller. However, as one who sees him virtually every day at my retirement community, I believe that your characterization borders on a 9th Commandment violation. The man is NOT a "liberal" and would be horrified to hear that term used of him. He believes (wrongly I think, but quite sincerely) that he holds to the infallibility of the Bible. His soteriology is ANYthing BUT liberal. Such sweeping language is defamatory, untrue, and unbecoming in a Christian forum. Please tone down the rhetoric unless you have more direct and first hand knowledge of this person than I do. BTW, I was NOT one of his students in seminary, but my wife was. She was in his Sermon on the Mount course three weeks after the birth of our firstborn 32 years ago.*


----------



## ManleyBeasley

ThomasCartwright said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. Piper also encourages the Church to celebrate the birthday of communist, modernist, whoremonger, plagarist Michael King (MLK). He also promotes pacifism and teaches that it's wrong to shoot an intruder who breaks into your home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must confess that I was not aware of any of this. Can you provide a link to, say, Peter Masters or anything else that might be enlightening?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Piper on Mother Theresa:
> 
> How the Spirit Sanctifies :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
> 
> Piper on Daniel Fuller
> 
> Praise God for Fundamentalists :: Desiring God
> 
> Piper on Francis Xavier:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As strange as this may sound to self-reliant, self-esteeming secular people, it is in fact the way many missionaries have conceived of their labor. Francis Xavier (1506-1552), who founded the Jesuit missionary movement and served in India and Japan, was always in pursuit of a deeper life with God. He died at 46 awaiting passage to the great forbidden China. Keep in mind the doctor-patient analogy as you read one of his last letters concerning his desire to enter China. We need not minimize the serious theological problems with sixteenth century Roman Catholic teaching in order to see the truth expressed about missionary motivation in this quotation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chapter 9 Missions
> 
> Piper on Martin Luther King
> 
> When MLK First Met God :: Desiring God
> 
> Dr Peter Masters responds to Piper in "Christian Hedonism—Is it Right?" Sword and Trowel (2002): 10–16.
> 
> http://www.metropolitantabernacle.o...s/HEDONISM.html.
Click to expand...


Besides being borderline slanderous this kind of language is harsh and cruel. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for so easily insulting a pastor and man of God. I don't agree with everything Piper believes but I also probably don't agree with everything anyone here believes either and would never say things so harshly. As for Dr. Masters, I'll stand with Sproul, MacArthur, and J.I. Packer over him any day of the week. Here are their critiques of Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist by Dr. John Piper.

"...a modern manual of true spirituality" -R.C. Sproul

"[a]...soul-stirring celebration of the pleasures of knowing God...a must read for every Christian, and a feast for the spiritually hungry." -John MacArthur

"The healthy biblical realism of this study in Christian motivation comes as a breath of fresh air. Jonathan Edwards, whose ghost walks through most of Piper's pages, would be delighted with his disciple."-J.I. Packer


----------



## tabrooks

Thank you


----------



## Theognome

DMcFadden said:


> ThomasCartwright said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must confess that I was not aware of any of this. Can you provide a link to, say, Peter Masters or anything else that might be enlightening?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Piper on Mother Theresa:
> 
> How the Spirit Sanctifies :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
> 
> Piper on Daniel Fuller
> 
> Praise God for Fundamentalists :: Desiring God
> 
> Piper on Francis Xavier:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As strange as this may sound to self-reliant, self-esteeming secular people, it is in fact the way many missionaries have conceived of their labor. Francis Xavier (1506-1552), who founded the Jesuit missionary movement and served in India and Japan, was always in pursuit of a deeper life with God. He died at 46 awaiting passage to the great forbidden China. Keep in mind the doctor-patient analogy as you read one of his last letters concerning his desire to enter China. We need not minimize the serious theological problems with sixteenth century Roman Catholic teaching in order to see the truth expressed about missionary motivation in this quotation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chapter 9 Missions
> 
> Piper on Martin Luther King
> 
> When MLK First Met God :: Desiring God
> 
> Dr Peter Masters responds to Piper in "Christian Hedonism—Is it Right?" Sword and Trowel (2002): 10–16.
> 
> http://www.metropolitantabernacle.o...s/HEDONISM.html.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *PUTTING ON MY MODERATOR HAT: I realize that we have differences of opinion over some personalities. I even STRONGLY disagree with Dan Fuller. However, as one who sees him virtually every day at my retirement community, I believe that your characterization borders on a 9th Commandment violation. The man is NOT a "liberal" and would be horrified to hear that term used of him. He believes (wrongly I think, but quite sincerely) that he holds to the infallibility of the Bible. His soteriology is ANYthing BUT liberal. Such sweeping language is defamatory, untrue, and unbecoming in a Christian forum. Please tone down the rhetoric unless you have more direct and first hand knowledge of this person than I do. BTW, I was NOT one of his students in seminary, but my wife was. She was in his Sermon on the Mount course three weeks after the birth of our firstborn 32 years ago.*
Click to expand...


What I saw were simple statements and links that supported them- as opposed to ad hominem and slander. I hope that we are not falling sway under 'Piper worship'. Let's remember what Paul taught us about going the whole 'of Paul/of Apollos' arguement route.

Theognome


----------



## Marrow Man

Brothers (and sisters), it was never my desire to fall into either "worship" of preachers nor condemnation of them (well, except for Osteen  ). Actually, I just wanted to see who the folks on the PB benefited from in pulpit ministry. While I do appreciate the call to discernment, please let's not turn this into a burning at the stake.

I'm out of thank you's (I didn't get that with the mod license!), but thank you P.S. for the links, thank you Dennis for donning the mod hat, and especially thank you Manley for your wise comments.


----------



## Dieter Schneider

A dangerous question! Should one really attempt to answer it?


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Theognome said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThomasCartwright said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piper on Mother Theresa:
> 
> How the Spirit Sanctifies :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
> 
> Piper on Daniel Fuller
> 
> Praise God for Fundamentalists :: Desiring God
> 
> Piper on Francis Xavier:
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 9 Missions
> 
> Piper on Martin Luther King
> 
> When MLK First Met God :: Desiring God
> 
> Dr Peter Masters responds to Piper in "Christian Hedonism—Is it Right?" Sword and Trowel (2002): 10–16.
> 
> http://www.metropolitantabernacle.o...s/HEDONISM.html.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PUTTING ON MY MODERATOR HAT: I realize that we have differences of opinion over some personalities. I even STRONGLY disagree with Dan Fuller. However, as one who sees him virtually every day at my retirement community, I believe that your characterization borders on a 9th Commandment violation. The man is NOT a "liberal" and would be horrified to hear that term used of him. He believes (wrongly I think, but quite sincerely) that he holds to the infallibility of the Bible. His soteriology is ANYthing BUT liberal. Such sweeping language is defamatory, untrue, and unbecoming in a Christian forum. Please tone down the rhetoric unless you have more direct and first hand knowledge of this person than I do. BTW, I was NOT one of his students in seminary, but my wife was. She was in his Sermon on the Mount course three weeks after the birth of our firstborn 32 years ago.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I saw were simple statements and links that supported them- as opposed to ad hominem and slander. I hope that we are not falling sway under 'Piper worship'. Let's remember what Paul taught us about going the whole 'of Paul/of Apollos' arguement route.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


I was actually responding to a quote that led to that info being posted. The quote was not fully supported by what was posted.


----------



## DMcFadden

Theognome said:


> What I saw were simple statements and links that supported them- as opposed to ad hominem and slander. I hope that we are not falling sway under 'Piper worship'. Let's remember what Paul taught us about going the whole 'of Paul/of Apollos' arguement route.
> 
> Theognome


Bill, it is disingenuous to say that the these were "simple statements and links that supported them." I was not trying to comment on the virtues of Piper or agreement/disagreement with any of his views.

The claim, "liberals such as Daniel Fuller," is verifiably untrue by any standard definition of the term "liberal" (unless it was referencing his politics rather than his religious views???--I am personally unaware of his political position and only protested the untrue reference to his theological views). Using it in this context was excessive, defamatory, and shameful.

Yes, we all have strong feelings about movements and persons with whom we are in disagreement. No problem. We are still called, however, to conform our rhetoric to the canons of "simple" truthfulness.

I am in no position to evaluate the other claims made in the piece, merely the one relating to a man who lives in my retirement community. But, unless the words were a slip of the tongue, they do call into question how carefully the the other claims made _might_ be.

Again, folks, state yourselves forcefully, but truthfully.


----------



## Theognome

DMcFadden said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I saw were simple statements and links that supported them- as opposed to ad hominem and slander. I hope that we are not falling sway under 'Piper worship'. Let's remember what Paul taught us about going the whole 'of Paul/of Apollos' arguement route.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, it is disingenuous to say that the these were "simple statements and links that supported them." I was not trying to comment on the virtues of Piper or agreement/disagreement with any of his views.
> 
> The claim, "liberals such as Daniel Fuller," is verifiably untrue by any standard definition of the term "liberal" (unless it was referencing his politics rather than his religious views???--I am personally unaware of his political position and only protested the untrue reference to his theological views). Using it in this context was excessive, defamatory, and shameful.
> 
> Yes, we all have strong feelings about movements and persons with whom we are in disagreement. No problem. We are still called, however, to conform our rhetoric to the canons of "simple" truthfulness.
> 
> I am in no position to evaluate the other claims made in the piece, merely the one relating to a man who lives in my retirement community. But, unless the words were a slip of the tongue, they do call into question how carefully the the other claims made _might_ be.
> 
> Again, folks, state yourselves forcefully, but truthfully.
Click to expand...


It would be disingenuous if the claim was baseless, true. Personally, I tend to use the term 'liberal' in a religious sense when one's theology sways outside of orthodoxy in very key areas of the Gospel. Thus I saw no offense at the statement of Daniel Fuller having some very liberal views, nor of making a connection between Dr. Fuller and Rev Piper- who studied under him and considered Dr. Fuller's work to be more influential in his life than any other living theologian.

The liberal connection comes into play when we observe the development of the Federal Vision movement, and the part that Dr. Fuller played in it. In his book, '_The Unity of the Bible: Un-folding God’s Plan for Humanity_, Fuller denies the confessional position of the Adamic covenant of works (Westminster confession Ch 7) and instead creates a new model- one in which the covenant of grace is in place from Gen 1 through to the end. The obvious major problem here is that since Adam was under grace in the garden and not under works, then neither was Christ under this covenant and thus His obedience- even unto the cross- carries no true theological weight. Bear in mind that Rev. Piper, in the foreward of his book, '_Future Grace._', gave homage to this principle in the work of Dr. Fuller-

"No book besides the Bible has had a greater influence on my life than Daniel Fuller’s The Unity of the Bible. When I first read it as a classroom syllabus over twenty years ago, everything began to change…. God’s law stopped being at odds with the gospel. It stopped being a job description for earning wages under a so-called covenant of works (which I never could find in the Bible)..."

The principle carried forth by Rev. Piper from Dr. Fullers work is quite simple- Since neither Adam nor Christ were party to this so-called covenant of works, Christ could not, did not, and was not supposed to pay the debts of, and earn salvation for, his people. As the Second and Last Adam, Christ did not by his active and passive obedience fulfill the Law of God, pay the debts of his people, and merit their salvation. Thus the denial of the covenant of works is an attack on the justice of God: on the imputation of Adam’s sin to his children, on the active obedience and work of Christ, on the imputation of Christ’s active obedience and righteousness to believers. By denying that Adam and Christ, as federal heads of their respective races, were subject to the covenant of works before the court of God’s justice, not his grace, each Adam being required to fulfill the terms of the covenant, one failing miserably, and the other succeeding perfectly, the doctrine put all believers on probation, and make their salvation depend on their own evangelical obedience.

This principle is at the core of the Federal Vision, though it obviously does not hold water when presented in the confessional language- thus the meaning of the words must be re-defined. However, Dr. Fuller goes even further in attacking the confessional doctrine of Justification, based on the theory that perfect obedience was something Adam was capable of accomplishing. Quote-

"Were…covenant theolog[ians] to perceive that the obedience of faith is the only kind of obedience that is ever acceptable to the “God who will not give his glory to another” (Isa 42:8), they could make the blessing Adam was to receive after passing his probationary test a work of grace rather than the payment of debt, and therefore would not make themselves vulnerable to the charge that the kind of righteousness Adam and Christ were to perform was the highest kind of blasphemy." (Daniel P. Fuller, “A Response on the Subjects of Works and Grace,” Presbuterion: A Journal for the Eldership, Volume IX, Numbers 1-2, Spring-Fall 1983, 76.)

So I must disagree with you, Brother, that referring to Dr. Fuller as a liberal is slanderous. He has, in his writing, clearly denied the confessional stance of justification by re-defining the standards- and thus opened the theological door for the Federal Vision folks to trod through. To stray that wide from orthodoxy is quite liberal in my book.

Theognome


----------



## Ivan

Theognome said:


> The principle *carried forth by Rev. Piper *from Dr. Fullers work is quite simple- Since neither Adam nor Christ were party to this so-called covenant of works, Christ could not, did not, and was not supposed to pay the debts of, and earn salvation for, his people. As the Second and Last Adam, Christ did not by his active and passive obedience fulfill the Law of God, pay the debts of his people, and merit their salvation. Thus the denial of the covenant of works is an attack on the justice of God: on the imputation of Adam’s sin to his children, on the active obedience and work of Christ, on the imputation of Christ’s active obedience and righteousness to believers. By denying that Adam and Christ, as federal heads of their respective races, were subject to the covenant of works before the court of God’s justice, not his grace, each Adam being required to fulfill the terms of the covenant, one failing miserably, and the other succeeding perfectly, the doctrine put all believers on probation, and make their salvation depend on their own evangelical obedience.



Could you please give me a reference where Piper promotes the above statements?


----------



## Theognome

Ivan said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> The principle *carried forth by Rev. Piper *from Dr. Fullers work is quite simple- Since neither Adam nor Christ were party to this so-called covenant of works, Christ could not, did not, and was not supposed to pay the debts of, and earn salvation for, his people. As the Second and Last Adam, Christ did not by his active and passive obedience fulfill the Law of God, pay the debts of his people, and merit their salvation. Thus the denial of the covenant of works is an attack on the justice of God: on the imputation of Adam’s sin to his children, on the active obedience and work of Christ, on the imputation of Christ’s active obedience and righteousness to believers. By denying that Adam and Christ, as federal heads of their respective races, were subject to the covenant of works before the court of God’s justice, not his grace, each Adam being required to fulfill the terms of the covenant, one failing miserably, and the other succeeding perfectly, the doctrine put all believers on probation, and make their salvation depend on their own evangelical obedience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please give me a reference where Piper promotes the above statements?
Click to expand...


His book, '_Future Grace_', he Quotes Dr. Fuller-

"A faith that only looks back to Christ’s death and resurrection is not sufficient…. Forgiveness for the Christian also depends on having…a futuristic faith in God’s promises. Thus we cannot regard justifying faith as sufficient if it honors only the past fact of Christ’s death and resurrection but does not honor the future promises of God… (pp206-207).

Reading from 199-226 gives further support of Rev Piper to Dr. Fuller's position in this regard.

Theognome


----------



## Ivan

Theognome said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> The principle *carried forth by Rev. Piper *from Dr. Fullers work is quite simple- Since neither Adam nor Christ were party to this so-called covenant of works, Christ could not, did not, and was not supposed to pay the debts of, and earn salvation for, his people. As the Second and Last Adam, Christ did not by his active and passive obedience fulfill the Law of God, pay the debts of his people, and merit their salvation. Thus the denial of the covenant of works is an attack on the justice of God: on the imputation of Adam’s sin to his children, on the active obedience and work of Christ, on the imputation of Christ’s active obedience and righteousness to believers. By denying that Adam and Christ, as federal heads of their respective races, were subject to the covenant of works before the court of God’s justice, not his grace, each Adam being required to fulfill the terms of the covenant, one failing miserably, and the other succeeding perfectly, the doctrine put all believers on probation, and make their salvation depend on their own evangelical obedience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please give me a reference where Piper promotes the above statements?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His book, '_Future Grace_', he Quotes Dr. Fuller-
> 
> "A faith that only looks back to Christ’s death and resurrection is not sufficient…. Forgiveness for the Christian also depends on having…a futuristic faith in God’s promises. Thus we cannot regard justifying faith as sufficient if it honors only the past fact of Christ’s death and resurrection but does not honor the future promises of God… (pp206-207).
> 
> Reading from 199-226 gives further support of Rev Piper to Dr. Fuller's position in this regard.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


Thanks, Bill. I'll have to seriously look into that.


----------



## DMcFadden

Bill,

Thank you for taking the time to document your points and doing so in an honorable way.

I stand by my contention that Dan Fuller is hardly a "liberal." Nor is all heterdoxy and even heresy necessarily "liberal." I doubt that many on this board would consider dispensationalism confessional. While that might make it wrong, it does not make it "liberal." Wesley was not "liberal" although he was certainly not Calvinistic or Reformed. Those Pentecostals who are KJV only folks are not "liberal" by any meaningful definition that I know. The vast majority of fundamentalists are opposed to our view of confessionalism, but err on the right not the left. The evangelical community contains any number of people who believe in salvation by grace through faith alone. They are NOT liberals regardless of what they think about the Westminster Confession. Wayne Grudem, not a cessationist or a Presbyterian (he is even premil), could hardly be classified as a liberal.

"Liberal" has a rather specific historical theological meaning (cf. Schliermacher's theology). There are heresies to the right and the left. It is simply wrong to brand everyone we disagree with as a "liberal." And, because of the universal opprobrium attaching to the word in our circles, it is intellectually sloppy to brand everyone with whom we disagree as "liberal." Most of the mainline denominations rightly may be called liberal and would be proud of the moniker.

I can give you any number of reasons why I fault Dan's theology. in my opinion, his attempt to defend the authority of the Bible led him to a minimalist strategy for apologetic defense (oddly quite similar to the reason why Bob Gundry decided to relegate Matthew to the category of Midrash so that he could dismiss harmonistic problems as unreal). Fuller's restricted view of inerrancy was one of the causative factors (in my opinion) that led to the disastrous evangelical surrender of this doctrine.

However, NO one who ever sat under his teaching would confuse his theology with liberalism. Indeed, it has more in common with rationalistic evangelicalism that led him to what I consider untenable conclusions due to his faulty premises.

As to Piper's veneration for Fuller, you are quite correct in your quotations. Piper adored the man who taught him to love the Bible and to seek truth relentlessly as a "Berean" (one of Dan's favorite descriptors). Ironically, Dan feels as if Piper has abandoned the cause by becoming more consistently (albeit evidently not enough for you) Calvinistic. After years of force feeding Edwards down the throats of Fuller students, one of Dan's prize students, Piper became more of an Edwardsian Puritan Calvinist than he was.

Another irony of your analysis is that it is John Piper who strongly opposes Tom Wright and Bob Gundry and has written books defending the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Indeed, his work has been hailed as the best defense of imputation in 50 years.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

DMcFadden said:


> Bill,
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to document your points and doing so in an honorable way.
> 
> I stand by my contention that Dan Fuller is hardly a "liberal." Nor is all heterdoxy and even heresy necessarily "liberal." I doubt that many on this board would consider dispensationalism confessional. While that might make it wrong, it does not make it "liberal." Wesley was not "liberal" although he was certainly not Calvinistic or Reformed. Those Pentecostals who are KJV only folks are not "liberal" by any meaningful definition that I know. The vast majority of fundamentalists are opposed to our view of confessionalism, but err on the right not the left. The evangelical community contains any number of people who believe in salvation by grace through faith alone. They are NOT liberals regardless of what they think about the Westminster Confession. Wayne Grudem, not a cessationist or a Presbyterian (he is even premil), could hardly be classified as a liberal.
> 
> "Liberal" has a rather specific historical theological meaning (cf. Schliermacher's theology). There are heresies to the right and the left. It is simply wrong to brand everyone we disagree with as a "liberal." And, because of the universal opprobrium attaching to the word in our circles, it is intellectually sloppy to brand everyone with whom we disagree as "liberal." Most of the mainline denominations rightly may be called liberal and would be proud of the moniker.
> 
> I can give you any number of reasons why I fault Dan's theology. in my opinion, his attempt to defend the authority of the Bible led him to a minimalist strategy for apologetic defense (oddly quite similar to the reason why Bob Gundry decided to relegate Matthew to the category of Midrash so that he could dismiss harmonistic problems as unreal). Fuller's restricted view of inerrancy was one of the causative factors (in my opinion) that led to the disastrous evangelical surrender of this doctrine.
> 
> However, NO one who ever sat under his teaching would confuse his theology with liberalism. Indeed, it has more in common with rationalistic evangelicalism that led him to what I consider untenable conclusions due to his faulty premises.
> 
> As to Piper's veneration for Fuller, you are quite correct in your quotations. Piper adored the man who taught him to love the Bible and to seek truth relentlessly as a "Berean" (one of Dan's favorite descriptors). Ironically, Dan feels as if Piper has abandoned the cause by becoming more consistently (albeit evidently not enough for you) Calvinistic. After years of force feeding Edwards down the throats of Fuller students, one of Dan's prize students, Piper became more of an Edwardsian Puritan Calvinist than he was.
> 
> Another irony of your analysis is that it is John Piper who strongly opposes Tom Wright and Bob Gundry and has written books defending the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Indeed, his work has been hailed as the best defense of imputation in 50 years.



Dennis

It is a question of how you define these terms. Clearly you believe that a man can be orthodox and not a liberal if he adopts an unorthodox/hertical view of soteriology and Biblical inerrancy. I beg to differ. It would be interesting to note how you objectively and historically define an evangelical and a liberal.

We used to call Fuller's views liberalism or modernism, so I cannot understand why you would argue that I have violated the 9th Commandment. That is a big charge you have made against a fellow believer so you need to have very good grounds to sustain it. Indeed, the Evangelical Theological Society makes inerrancy a cardinal doctrine of what constitutes an Evangelical. 

ETS Constitution | The Evangelical Theological Society

So, I fail to see why you are claiming that I am out of sync with mainstream Evangelical thinking here. It is only fair to point out that if you are going to re-define all traditional definitions of orthodox and evangelical to be fluid concepts embracing everyone from Karl Barth to Fosdick then what is the point of us debating here and using these terms. After all both these men believe the Bible is the Word of God and is infallible! I have defined Fuller using traditional definitions and the burden of proof is on you to show that I am wrong. You cannot simply claim that I have violated the 9th commandment just because you believe so. 

Please read just a few chapters of Dan Fuller's rejection of the orthodox evangelical view at Fuller:

Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller ... - Google Book Search


----------



## DMcFadden

> It is a question of how you define these terms. Clearly you believe that a man can be orthodox and not a liberal if he adopts an unorthodox/hertical view of soteriology and Biblical inerrancy. I beg to differ. It would be interesting to note how you objectively and historically define an evangelical and a liberal.



NO! I do NOT believe that a person is orthodox who holds an unorthodox view of soteriology or bibliology! All liberals are heretics; not all heretics are liberals. Some of the heterodox are neo-orthodox and even fundamentalists too.

But, we simply do not have the right to employ standard terminology (particularly when it carries strong negative connotations) to describe every possible deviation from our own view. It misuses language and falsely slanders people. 

You mention the ETS. They all sign on to inerrancy and presumably have an orthodox view of soteriology. However, they are not all Reformed. Charismatics, Pentecostals, Dispensationalists, Arminians, etc. all claim the shelter of ETS identity. If I call anyone who does not agree with me a liberal, then the KJVO folks are liberals, the fundmentalists are liberals, dispensationalists are liberals, EP people are liberals, hyper-Calvinists are liberals . . . and I suppose you must be one too! 

I STRONGLY disagree with Dan Fuller's view of the Bible. But, there is a difference between his approach and that of almost anyone in the mainline denominations. Most of them, in my experience, actually are liberals.

One rule I try to operate with is to use terms that people freely "own." Most "evangelicals" are proud (or at least willing  ) to be called that; similarly true liberals generally accept the term as an honor (or at least being called a "progressive"). If you called Dan Fuller a liberal he would probably have a heart attack. In my mind that is prima facie evidence to cause one to pause and try to find a more accurate descriptor.


----------



## Theognome

DMcFadden said:


> One rule I try to operate with is to use terms that people freely "own." Most "evangelicals" are proud (or at least willing  ) to be called that; similarly true liberals generally accept the term as an honor (or at least being called a "progressive"). If you called Dan Fuller a liberal he would probably have a heart attack. In my mind that is prima facie evidence to cause one to pause and try to find a more accurate descriptor.



That can be a difficult rule to live within. For example, have you ever heard an antinomian fellow 'own' that term?

Theognome


----------



## DMcFadden

Theognome said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> One rule I try to operate with is to use terms that people freely "own." Most "evangelicals" are proud (or at least willing  ) to be called that; similarly true liberals generally accept the term as an honor (or at least being called a "progressive"). If you called Dan Fuller a liberal he would probably have a heart attack. In my mind that is prima facie evidence to cause one to pause and try to find a more accurate descriptor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That can be a difficult rule to live within. For example, have you ever heard an antinomian fellow 'own' that term?
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


That's why I say "try."  Some people are just plain jerks and they will never own their views. But, those people are generally habitually pugnacious, difficult to live with, and spend their time posting on internet message boards. 

I have, however, found that when you don't slander people or tar them with overly broad brushes, they will quite often be honest about their positions. Mr. Obama refusing the moniker "socialist" in his interview with the _NY Times_ may be a notable exception! 

In the case of Dan Fuller or John Piper there are far more accurate ways of registering your disagreement without resorting to inaccuracy or name calling.


----------

