Do you personally like John Piper?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thomas_Goodwin

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

Thomas_Goodwin

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

Thomas_Goodwin

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
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?
 

MountainPilgrim

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

jw

Administrator
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.
 

Thomas_Goodwin

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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.
 

jw

Administrator
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.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
...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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
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.

Based on comments in another thread... We forget that the exhortation of James in speaking well to one another is based on the fact that we are made in God's likeness. Add to that, as Matthew Henry points out, it's aggravated when done so against one who has been renewed by grace. He goes further and says, Even Michael did not make a railing accusation against the devil. Will we do it to one another?

Political discussions are no exception.

People do not consider that their words will be remembered for a very long time to come. And it will have some lasting impact on every interaction going forward.

We can argue that people should just "get over it", but the fact is James calls the tongue a deadly fire, because that's what it feels like to people to be verbally jabbed, and it takes an extraordinary amount of grace to get over it.

If we're officers, or aspiring, it's more serious. The effectiveness of our oversight and ministry are at stake, and whether people will value our words, or if they'll brush everything off or take it all with a grain of salt. We can't forget Moses.

With things on the internet, the things we type can be read by members without us knowing it, end up being read on the presbytery floor, or for all we know published by historians some day.

In any case, we will answer for them at Judgment Day to the one who has bought with His own blood those we have spoken against. No excuse to be honest or firm or (one wisely-considered occasions) to sharply rebuke. But it does demand careful thought.

It may be fashionable among politicians to speak roughly and criticize those who feel the sting. Right or wrong, James says the tongue is a deadly fire.

@Stephen L Smith posted this article on another thread. The subject matter here is much more concerning to me:

How to Heal Rather than Deepen Divisions

But, I'm just harping on things I've hit on a million times before, and I've probably worn people out with it. Hopefully I'm being consistent in my actions and words and have carefully endeavored to be so. I may bow out now. I've given too much time to this.
What are "fiery" words, and who here has written them?
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
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.
 

MountainPilgrim

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
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.
 

Spurgeonite

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
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.
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
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.
 
Last edited:

hLuke

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top