Do you personally like John Piper?

Status
Not open for further replies.

hLuke

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

hLuke

Puritan Board Freshman
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
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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

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.
 

jw

Administrator
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.
 

hLuke

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

jw

Administrator
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.
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
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.
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
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.

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.

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?
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
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.



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

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
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.
 
Last edited:

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
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

Puritanboard Brimstone
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

Puritanboard Brimstone
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.”
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 
Last edited:

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top