"From my perspective it looks like Dr. Piper is repeating the worst errors of the neo-evangelicals, and his critics are imitating the worst misconduct of the hyper-fundamentalists."
[Jay C.] The invite to Warren is the first thing I’ve seen, so now I’ve got to put him on my proverbial radar. That’s all I’m saying.Well now that you have been exposed to this past disposition to the Toronto Blessing by Piper and the fact that he accepts charismatic practices and doctrines in varying forms, you can investigate this and see if your radar screen gets a few more flags.
It’s also worth noting that the Toronto Blessing peaked in the late nineties. I was in high school and not planning on entering the ministry at all at the time, so I would have missed Piper’s involvement with it. There’s not exactly an abundance of Vineyard churches in the county that I live in, so I’ve never run into it first hand. The Toronto Blessing has never been mentioned in any of his books that I read. I do know that Piper is friends with some of the guys at Fuller, for which I disagree with him, and of course I think inviting Warren to speak at the Desiring God conference is an disaster.
If what you mean by the previous post is that I should go dig up dirt on Piper in order to let everyone know that he’s had theological problems, then let me ask you why I should. As I noted before, the TB was nearly ten full years ago, and it’s appeared to run its theological course and has (happily) disappeared from the scene.
Is this really about Piper’s problems, or are we just grinding axes so that we can keep swinging at him? Personally, I’m glad that my knowledge and walk with the Lord today is considerably different from what it was ten years ago.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
10 years ago for a man of your age is different than 10 years ago for a man of Piper’s age, Jay. And as many have noted (even as different conclusions are drawn), the Toronto Blessing endorsement was not exactly an isolated incident, especially considering what is generating the current discussion.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
I’ve not read the article by Phil (yet) but the “hyper-fundamentalists” as per the FFF (Fighting Fundamentalist Forum) as IFBX or Joel’s taxonomy AAA+ :) aren’t all that interested in Piper nor are they moved by him. They’ve already labeled him as a compromiser—a long time ago. Many of them don’t read anything unless it is from another so-called fundamentalist. I don’t see this affecting many of them or their ministries. They may not even know who Piper is.
Maybe it’s a different group that Phil is talking about. (Since I’ve not read the original article, I am only writing in response to Alex’s post. I agree completely with Alex here.)
Maybe it’s a different group that Phil is talking about. (Since I’ve not read the original article, I am only writing in response to Alex’s post. I agree completely with Alex here.)
[Jay C.]Including the very pertinent point referred to above, that Piper’s 10 year’s ago is still a considerably advanced point in his ministry unlike your point 10 years ago which speaks volumes along with it not being an isolated incident, I must disagree here with your rebuttal.It’s also worth noting that the Toronto Blessing peaked in the late nineties. I was in high school and not planning on entering the ministry at all at the time, so I would have missed Piper’s involvement with it. There’s not exactly an abundance of Vineyard churches in the county that I live in, so I’ve never run into it first hand. The Toronto Blessing has never been mentioned in any of his books that I read. I do know that Piper is friends with some of the guys at Fuller, for which I disagree with him, and of course I think inviting Warren to speak at the Desiring God conference is an disaster.
If what you mean by the previous post is that I should go dig up dirt on Piper in order to let everyone know that he’s had theological problems, then let me ask you why I should. As I noted before, the TB was nearly ten full years ago, and it’s appeared to run its theological course and has (happily) disappeared from the scene.
Is this really about Piper’s problems, or are we just grinding axes so that we can keep swinging at him? Personally, I’m glad that my knowledge and walk with the Lord today is considerably different from what it was ten years ago.
But to greater issue that seems to be a problem in your mind, namely the normal discovery one involves themselves in when investigating and vetting a teacher of doctrine. When we as students vet or qualify someone to be our teacher it involves evaluating their teaching, wisdom and discernment throughout their ministry and I know you know this so your response is surprising. To place into a context of “digging up dirt” the valid and necessary process of discovery and validation certainly calls into question the cause within the person trying to assert such. A defense mechanism of some sort? I don’t know but describing a valid and necessary process in order to properly vet a potential influence and theological instructor with such terms does not speak to someone seeking all essential information.
Is anyone asking for perfection? No, so introducing any such response would be pointless, no one is making any such demands. But Jay these are more than minor issues and on some points they are significant departures from that which is fundamental or conservative evangelical and vilifying a valid process or those that do isn’t a path that leads to the greatest enlightenment nor personal benefit, particularly in regards to our sources for biblical instruction.
And remember, my initial response and the focus here is that Phil Johnson (or anyone calling themselves a conservative evangelical or fundamentalist) would still consider John Piper their “first choice” for theological instruction as oppose to a source that must be read with a lesser elevation.
the focus here is that Phil Johnson (or anyone calling themselves a conservative evangelical or fundamentalist) would still consider John Piper their “first choice” for theological instruction as oppose to a source that must be read with a lesser elevation.
I don’t really see how you could know that.
Anyway, FWIW, we have a series of articles coming soon dealing w/the continuationism vs. cessationism views of the gifts of the Spirit. They don’t really focus on Piper, but do reference him some I think. I don’t think Toronto Blessing is a factor in them either but the more basic questions of what we should believe about these gifts get a thorough examination.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I am not sure what you mean by not seeing how I could know that. Know what? I think I know what you mean but I am not sure so instead of shooting at a target I’m not sure is or is not intended, what specifically did you have in mind with that? Thanks.
I look forward to the series and I am certain it will generate a great deal of discovery and discussion.
I look forward to the series and I am certain it will generate a great deal of discovery and discussion.
[Aaron Blumer]the focus here is that Phil Johnson (or anyone calling themselves a conservative evangelical or fundamentalist) would still consider John Piper their “first choice” for theological instruction as oppose to a source that must be read with a lesser elevation.
I don’t really see how you could know that.
Anyway, FWIW, we have a series of articles coming soon dealing w/the continuationism vs. cessationism views of the gifts of the Spirit. They don’t really focus on Piper, but do reference him some I think. I don’t think Toronto Blessing is a factor in them either but the more basic questions of what we should believe about these gifts get a thorough examination.
Actually, Aaron, Phil said it himself.
I love John Piper. People often ask me what living preachers I listen to besides John MacArthur. John Piper is my clear first choice. He’s also one of my favorite authors. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23 was the first John Piper work I ever read, and I was hooked. His chapter in Still Sovereign by Thomas Schreiner and Bruce Ware is worth the price of the whole book. The chapter is titled “Are There Two Wills in God?” and if more Calvinists would read that chapter and digest its contents, it would settle most of the interminable debates about the optative language Scripture uses to speak of God’s “desire” for the repentance of reprobate people. I have written elsewhere about how deeply I appreciate Piper’s The Future of Justification. His Don’t Waste Your Life is as profound as it is brief and pithy. I’ve never read any book by Piper that I would give a negative review to. I’ve never listened to a sermon by him without being impacted by the power of truth.
Furthermore, I greatly respect and appreciate Dr. Piper for his courage and persistence as a defender of the faith against Open Theism, not to mention his diligent defense of biblical authority against the juggernaut of egalitarianism. He’s one of the most bold and large-hearted preachers alive today. For those and many other reasons, my appreciation of Dr. Piper runs deep.
My question to Alex is - who else would even compare as a great Bible teacher in our day? I think that Piper and MacArthur are neck and neck, and then after that there’s…crickets. Not that it makes them without flaw, but who else handles the word like they do? Also, I think it’s entirely possible - yea, necessary - to appreciate great teachers even when they make bad mistakes and err. I mean, Paul consented to Stephens’ death. David ordered the murder of a man in order to marry that man’s wife. Do we even need to start unpacking Solomon? Should we remove their books from the Bible?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
My question to Alex is - who else would even compare as a great Bible teacher in our day? I think that Piper and MacArthur are neck and neck, and then after that there’s…crickets. Not that it makes them without flaw, but who else handles the word like they do?There are people we could name, though I would be interested in the criteria by which you arrive at the assessment you do. I am actually not so much down on the men you mention, though, as I am about your apparent dismissal as “crickets” men who labor faithfully in the Word- both names we would recognize and those we would not.
As far as the Biblical examples you cited- there is a difference between disobedient actions and teaching errant principles. Again, I am not suggesting Piper has no value. But Paul the believer would never have taught that consenting to putting a Christian to death was acceptable. The only Psalms David composed about his adultery were of repentance, not justifying his actions. Whatever else you say about Piper’s errors, he clearly does not believe that they are errors and teaches that his decisions we are discussing here are Biblically justifiable.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
who else would even compare as a great Bible teacher in our day?
Plenty- but they haven’t been Published. They are just working faithfully with their own flocks, printing outlines and studies for use by their own congregations. We live in a world where ‘being published’ is given a significance that IMO it does not deserve… mainly because in order to get published you need a ‘schtick’, a unique approach, a marketability. Which doesn’t negate the quality or value of some available printed materials, or successful authors such as Piper and MacArthur, but we need to take into account that not all Godly and powerful teachers are interested in being published authors.
Every time I hear someone bemoan the ‘fact’ that there are only a ‘few good men’ left, I’m reminded of Elijah’s wake up call in I Kings 19:18, repeated in Romans 11:4.
My question to Alex is - who else would even compare as a great Bible teacher in our day? I think that Piper and MacArthur are neck and neck, and then after that there’s…crickets. Not that it makes them without flaw, but who else handles the word like they do?
Some of you have objected to this phase, and it seems like I need to re-work it. What I should have said is:
My question to Alex is - who are the foremost Bible teachers in our day for younger men and preachers to model themselves after? I think that Piper and MacArthur are neck and neck, and then after that there’s…crickets. Not that it makes them without flaw, but who else handles the word like they do?
I’m not suggesting that publishing is the end-all be all criteria of the day or that there’s no one left, as Susan’s Elijah reference would suggest. What I’m saying is that Piper and MacArthur are pretty much the universally acknowledged leaders of “evangelicalism” because of their skill in handling the Word. If Piper is to be avoided because of the Toronto Blessing thing - which I still feel is ridiculous - who else would you put forth as a role model / “hero” (as much as I dislike the word) for people to model themselves after?
I’m trying to draw the distinction between the cult-like following of some that I have seen in the past but I also want to acknowledge the fact that men like myself are looking for guides and leaders as we navigate the landscape in the 21st Century. I’m blessed in that I do have a Paul type mentoring me personally. He can’t, however, deal with some major issues in the Evangelical / Fundy landscape [Open Theism, The Role of Women and Men, the Jesus Seminar, etc] and present clear, reasoned, Biblical responses to the ideas of the day because he’s busy presiding over his church of 140 people and heading up the Northeast chapter of a major association. Piper and MacArthur do have that gift / ability, and I thank God that someone else can interact with these ideas and ‘counterpunch’ with the authority of God via His Scripture. We desperately need more of those guys!
So, in essence, I’m really mirroring Phil’s reflections in his originial PyroManiacs post, and I’m a little dismayed that some seem ready to kick Piper to the curb for (what I see as) a display of naivete or poor judgment.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Aaron Blumer]Aaron,the focus here is that Phil Johnson (or anyone calling themselves a conservative evangelical or fundamentalist) would still consider John Piper their “first choice” for theological instruction as oppose to a source that must be read with a lesser elevation.
I don’t really see how you could know that.
You asked me a question earlier and I took the time to respond in seeking clarity:
[Alex Guggenheim] I am not sure what you mean by not seeing how I could know that. Know what? I think I know what you mean but I am not sure so instead of shooting at a target I’m not sure is or is not intended, what specifically did you have in mind with that? Thanks.But I have yet to hear from you so are you still seeking an answer to the question or have you learned something additional that already existed which answers this? I am happy to respond but still, I will need some clarity.
Alex, if I remember right I misunderstood what you were saying (#36). Sounded like you were attempting some mind reading (nobody around here ever does that!). Jay seems to have straightened me out in #38.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion