God speaking to the ELCA in "the whirlwind"?

[Bob T.] John Piper is wrong on Justification. He holds to a dual Justification declaration theory. First, we are justified before God when saved. Second, there is a final Justification when we stand before God when our works are examined to determine the genuineness of our Justification. This is very serious error and should make one examine closely anything that John Piper teaches.

Bob,

Can you provide a link to any information that would show this? I have not heard this about Piper and am interested in researching it.

[JohnBrian]

[Bob T.] John Piper is wrong on Justification. He holds to a dual Justification declaration theory. First, we are justified before God when saved. Second, there is a final Justification when we stand before God when our works are examined to determine the genuineness of our Justification. This is very serious error and should make one examine closely anything that John Piper teaches.

Bob,

Can you provide a link to any information that would show this? I have not heard this about Piper and am interested in researching it.

I’d be stunned if this were true. I’ve read several books of his and listened to quite a few sermons, but I’ve never heard him teach anything about a second justification at the Throne of God.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/june/29.34.html?start=2

The above link is the second page of a comparison of Piper and N.T. Wright’s views. Scroll down to future justification for a quick synopsis. I am sure he probably expands on this elsewhere.

Again Piper’s assertion that he knew the mind of God regarding the SPECIFIC purpose of the tornado where it had not been revealed in Scripture (hence this is called special revelation or claim by conclusion of special revelation)

Where was this, Alex? The first blog post says (and I quote): Let me venture an interpretation of this Providence with some biblical warrant. He says it is a “venture” (or a guess) and an “interpretation” (not a revelation). So where you are getting your information from?

When you defend Piper’s statement with responses like this: Any kind of disaster should remind us of the judgment of God on us all. He said it clearly in both posts.

You are only revealing your unwillingness to deal with the controversial element and make an argument about an element with which no one is making. No one is making an argument about the general nature of disasters, but even then not all disasters are warnings about sin so even that broad conclusion can be erring. But as I said, this general conclusion isn’t even the controversy.

Are you sure you are reading the posts in question? He made the argument on the general nature of disasters and the particular issue of warnings about sin. Are you saying that disasters should not warn us about the possibility of sin? I can understand that it is controversial that a disaster is necessarily the judgment of God against sin, but Piper nowhere that I can see made that claim. You seem to be the one making the claim that Piper said that.

The controversy here is the claim in Piper’s conclusion that he specifically knows the mind of God for the ELCA regarding a weather event where it is not revealed in Scripture. You are closing your eyes to that element.

I am willing to open them. Please show me any specific claim to knowing the mind of God.

I am not saying Piper was correct or should have said what he said. I am saying that I don’t see where he said what you claim he said. I am willing to see it. Please show it .

As I said, it isn’t easy to watch sacred cows bleed.

What does that mean?

Jay C., John Piper states the following in his sermon on the Judgment seat of Christ at 2 Cor. 5:9-11:

” What Is the Aim of This Judgment?

Now the more difficult question: why is it important? Why are the deeds done in the body the evidence in this courtroom? Is the aim of this judgment to declare who is lost and who is saved, according to the works done in the body? Or is the aim of this judgment to declare the measure of your reward in the age to come according to the works done in the body?

I think the answer of the New Testament is both. Our deeds will reveal who enters the age to come, and our deeds will reveal the measure of our reward in the age to come. I will show you in just a moment why I think this, but let me mention the biggest problem for many Christians in saying this. It sounds to many like a contradiction of salvation by grace through faith. Ephesians 2:8 says, “By grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God—not of works lest anyone should boast.” Salvation is not “of works.” That is, works do not earn salvation. Works do not put God in our debt so that he must pay wages. That would contradict grace. “The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 6:23). Grace gives salvation as a free gift to be received by faith, not earned by works.

How then can I say that the judgment of believers will not only be the public declaration of the measure of our reward in the kingdom of God according to our deeds, but will also be the public declaration of our salvation—our entering the kingdom—according to our deeds?

The answer in a couple sentences is that our deeds will be the public evidence brought forth in Christ’s courtroom to demonstrate that our faith is real. And our deeds will be the public evidence brought forth to demonstrate the varying measures of our obedience of faith (cf. Romans 12:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11). In other words, salvation is by faith, and rewards are by faith, but the evidence of invisible faith in the judgment hall of Christ will be a transformed life. Our deeds are not the basis of our salvation, they are the evidence of our salvation. They are not foundation, they are demonstration. “

Biblically, to be Justified is to be declared without guilt or penalty before God. God knows the beginning and the end at the time we are Justified. He needs no future verification of His declaration based on deeds. Our sin has been dealt with. We have the umbrella of God’s declaration that shields us from His wrath. We are to then live under this shield and allow God to deal with the practicality of our sin and service. The issue in this judgment is stewardship not Justification or verification of our faith which God verified when we were initially saved and united to Christ.

In a Christianity Today article that compared the views of N.T. Wright and John Piper regarding Justification, Piper was very clear on his view. They stated:

“Future Justification
Piper: Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.

Wright: Present justification is the announcement issued on the basis of faith and faith alone of who is part of the covenant family of God. The present verdict gives the assurance that the verdict announced on the Last Day will match it; the Holy Spirit gives the power through which that future verdict, when given, will be seen to be in accordance with the life that the believer has then lived.”
Christianity today online 6/26/2009. See the link provided by SHoward above in post # 33.

Who is more right, Wright or Piper?

John Piper also makes a statement on Justification and works in his book “The Future of Justification,” Crossway Books, 2007, at page 110. He makes it clear that obedience is not the basis of our Justification. However, he sees it as evidence and confirmation of Justification. He then relates this to the final judgment on p. 120 as “not based on our works but in accordance with our works.”

Biblically, obedience is an evidence before men of our faith and therefore of our Justification. Piper’s problem is that he makes it as an evidence and confirmation before God. How can this be? It is God that Justifies and who knows those who are His. Obedience pleases him but is not a future confirmation of our Justification that He has already declared in finality.. The logical conclusion to a future confirmation is that we can have no assurance until then. This was the position of many Puritans who died hoping to be received by God, but without assurance in this life. As one Reformed radio preacher recently stated; “all we can say is God be merciful to me a sinner because to say I know I am saved is to exercise faith which is a work and I would be claiming salvation on the basis of works.” (Harold Camping on the Family Radio Network answer time). While this is not the conclusion of many Reformed today it was a conclusion of some Puritans. It is also the implication of Piper’s Puritan theology. Pipers theological outlook is often complex and expressed in an appealing manner. However, it has some major flaws including his view of God and His works. I would encourage one to study and compare. A good understanding of some of the aspects of historical theology is helpful but of course the standard is sola scriptura.

[Larry] Where was this, Alex? The first blog post says (and I quote): Let me venture an interpretation of this Providence with some biblical warrant. He says it is a “venture” (or a guess) and an “interpretation” (not a revelation). So where you are getting your information from?

Are you sure you are reading the posts in question? He made the argument on the general nature of disasters and the particular issue of warnings about sin. Are you saying that disasters should not warn us about the possibility of sin? I can understand that it is controversial that a disaster is necessarily the judgment of God against sin, but Piper nowhere that I can see made that claim. You seem to be the one making the claim that Piper said that.

I am willing to open them. Please show me any specific claim to knowing the mind of God.

I am not saying Piper was correct or should have said what he said. I am saying that I don’t see where he said what you claim he said. I am willing to see it. Please show it .

I believe within my previous posts it can be discovered I have answered all these questions and objections already but here I will attempt to respond to them all in a summation. Here is Piper’s fatal flaw, his undoing:

6. Conclusion: The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA …Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.

In order to interpret an event, particularly a weather event for someone else, it requires special revelation. Piper assumes this gift.

There is no such thing as “interpreting” an event for someone else and then telling that other person what God meant for them unless it is through special revelation, I don’t care how many general verses you line up to justify it, it still requires special revelation to claim God meant such and such for this specific reason. You, nor I, nor Piper know why God allowed the weather event. Piper is speaking specifically and amusingly his presumptive interpretation also includes God thinking thoughts about “left and right wing sinners”.

As to the convenient use of “venturing” an interpretation. Let’s say for argument’s sake Piper was only guessing, speculating and let’s ignore his use of a “conclusion”. Do you then realize what kind of teacher that makes him and what kind of license he is now granting to believers? Right, the license to speculate with conclusions regarding how God is working in the lives of others which is verboten in the Scriptures. We have at no place and at no time any right to claim we know why a disaster has occurred to another person or group but since Piper is only “guessing” this makes him even a worse offender because now he is exampling to others that while we cannot say “dogmatically” we get to “guess”. NO! Again, even here in this context Piper is wrong to both do and say this.

But this is not a general statement alone, this is also a specific interpretation, a special interpretation that requires special revelation, hence Piper is assuming the gifting to receive special revelation. Larry if that is not clear then, with good intentions on both sides we probably won’t get any further and I am not compelled that I must appear to be the victor, rather I am confident that the truth, as God promises, will arise and be evident in the minds of those seeking it so I unless another point is raised I will rest my case and let the truth testify to itself whether it be from you or me.

However, possibly someone can create a new thread on this rather shocking issue of a two-part and “works” oriented future justification Piper teaches that is far more eccentric than his claim of being able to interpret weather for specific people with specific messages.

In order to interpret an event, particularly a weather event for someone else, it requires special revelation.

No it doesn’t. He drew a conclusion. He plainly said it. It doesn’t require special revelation to draw a conclusion. I think you need to read more closely and without prejudice.

As to the convenient use of “venturing” an interpretation. Let’s say for argument’s sake Piper was only guessing, speculating and let’s ignore his use of a “conclusion”.

Why ignore his venturing an interpretation and drawing a conclusion? That is the exactly the point. He clearly puts it in the realm of his own thinking … a conclusion based on revelation, not a revelation in and of itself.

Larry if that is not clear then, with good intentions on both sides we probably won’t get any further and I am not compelled that I must appear to be the victor, rather I am confident that the truth, as God promises, will arise and be evident in the minds of those seeking it so I unless another point is raised I will rest my case and let the truth testify to itself whether it be from you or me.

I think you are very clear, and I think Piper was. And I think your clarity misses what Piper actually said both times. I think Piper was quite clear. We should let it stand as he said it and not attribute some kind of ulterior motive to him. I don’t attribute that to anything other than good intentions on your part. I just don’t see any legitimate way to get out of it what you seem to see. And your explanations don’t clarify it for me, at least.

I love how Bob T. doesn’t give a broader context to these quotes and offers no Scripture for his views on justification. If it sounds different, it must be wrong. Piper is wrestling with Scriptural texts. How do you fit the following passages in with your views on justification?

Rom. 2:6-11 He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.

Matt. 7:18-19 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Luther is credited as saying something to the effect of, “We are saved by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.”

People who are appalled at this teaching on justification probably aren’t familiar with what the Reformed doctrine of “perseverance of the saints” really entails. I get into this in a rather lengthy post that quotes a little from Piper on this point at my blog. The post is entitled: “Once Saved, Always Saved?!?!”

Bob Hayton, thank you for your observations. May I reply with all due respect.
The purpose of my post was to provide some evidence for the purpose of answering another poster so he could pursue this by doing further research regarding Pipers’ viewpoint. Since I give where the quotes come from anyone is welcome to read the book and the broader contexts. The quote from the CT article is Piper’s entire summary statement. It is short.

Also, the issue here is not the relationship of works to faith. The issue is God Himself conducting a further examination of works and obedience with regard to whether a person is actually Justified. No reformer believed that the doctrine of Justification was not a final adjudication declaration at the time one is initially united with Christ.. The issue for them was the relationship of works and faith with regard to obtaining that Justification which was final for all of true faith at the moment of salvation. As to my not citing scripture, that is because I assumed that my statements on Justification were so basic that no Evangelical or Fundamentalists of some theological competence would differ. They were merely reminders. The Reformed statement to the effect “We are saved by faith alone but not a faith that is alone” is regarding the relationship of faith to works in this life for our determining if one is saved, not that God will at our death examine works to determine the finality of Justification when the believer stands before him.

Also, Piper is not wrestling with any particular scripture in his statements in Christianity today or at the pages cited in his book. Based on your use of scripture at Rom.2:6-11 and Matt. 7:18-19 you seem to be advocating Justification based on works. However, I do not think that is probably so. If not, then why are you citing these scriptures regarding this subject? The context easily clarifies these passages. Matthew is speaking of false prophets who obviously are not saved. Romans is in the context of Judgment where the unsaved would be judged worthy of judgement since no can meet the qualifications of works righteousness. In the following clear passages of Romans Justification is clearly explained in the entire book and in Galatians as being apart from works, ritual, or any human obedience. God’s righteousness is given by grace through faith.

I am constantly amazed at the number of Fundamentalists who do not appear to sufficiently understand the concept of Grace alone and faith alone as repeatedly explained in scripture. It could be that their view of rules living brings some mental hindrances to properly understand the utter simplicity and freeness of salvation. Augustine, the father of Predestination did not understand it at all. The reformers made great strides but still remained entangled with Augustine and Medieval scholasticism. However, they did get “by grace through faith” better than many of their predecessors, especially the Puritans. Unfortunately, Piper, MacArthur, and some others have become entangled in the Puritan influenced Calvinism. IMHO there is a lack of balance in doctrine within the Neo Calvinist movement (label per CT).

Bob,

Thanks for your response. We’ll have to agree to disagree here. I do believe the issue concerns the relationship of faith and works, and the necessity of works as proving the genuineness of faith. That is what Piper is getting at in my mind. I don’t believe Piper to be heretical on this point. There are multiple uses of the term justification in Scripture, perhaps that trips us up in this discussion too.

Rom. 2 isn’t about judging the lost solely, it specifically mentions eternal life as being doled out on the basis of works. This has to fit our theology somehow. Piper’s attempt seems to do justice to the passage in Rom. 2 among others.

Blessings in Christ,

Bob Hayton

[Bob Hayton]…
Boyd’s open theism is behind much of his reaction. He sets up an impossible either-or situation. Either every single tornado has a divine message to the recipients, or none do.

I’m not sure that this an impossible either-or situation.
Isn’t Piper saying that every single tornado has the same general message?: “You are all sinful and judgment is coming.”
This isn’t message specific for the ELCA it’s a general message for everyone, including the ELCA.
Boyd asks, “1. Why does John discern a divine motive behind a damaged church steeple but not behind any other damage this tornado caused? For example, the roof of the Minneapolis Convention Center was damaged by this same tornado. Was God sending a warning by having his judging tornado damage this building?”
I think that Boyd misreads Piper. Piper sees a message at the MCC. It’s the same message as the Lutheran church damage:
YOU ARE MORTAL.

I think some on this thread would disagree with Piper if he said the the sky were blue, simply because John Piper said it. :)

[rogercarlson] I think some on this thread would disagree with Piper if he said the the sky were blue, simply because John Piper said it. :)

Incredible. Absolutely incredible! The factual evidence of serious error on the part of a popular writer and Pastor is offered from his own words and multiple sources and all one has to say is to attack the credibility of those exposing it and accuse them of some sort of blind prejudice? This is indifference to truth and toleration of serious error. Why? Because of some distant loyalty to a man?

I have not used the word heresy here. However, the doctrine of examination of works after death to verify Justification ( salvation) is similar to the “investigative Judgment” doctrine of the Seventh Day Adventist church. This was based on the revelation of founder Ellen White. She stated that all believers would stand before Christ for an examination of their works for a final determination of the genuineness of their salvation faith. This has always been rejected as heresy by all Evangelical and/or Orthodox churches. In the early 1980s there were three professors at Seventh day Adventist schools and some Seventh Day Pastors who set forth the orthodox Christian doctrine of Justification by faith alone and stated this excluded the Investigative Judgment. Some thought this may be the beginning of a change for the better for Seventh Day Adventist doctrine. However, after much controversy the church counsel met and affirmed the Investigative Judgment and defrocked the dissenters. This was well covered in Christianity Today and other publications.

Now we appear to have some who post on SI who seem to claim to be Fundamentalists (or Evangelicals) who are indifferent to a similar doctrine being set forth by a popular teacher. Perhaps one of their favorite teachers? Absolutely incredible!! Have we really come to this?

[Bob T.]

[rogercarlson] I think some on this thread would disagree with Piper if he said the the sky were blue, simply because John Piper said it. :)

Incredible. Absolutely incredible! The factual evidence of serious error on the part of a popular writer and Pastor is offered from his own words and multiple sources and all one has to say is to attack the credibility of those exposing it and accuse them of some sort of blind prejudice? This is indifference to truth and toleration of serious error. Why? Because of some distant loyalty to a man?

I have not used the word heresy here. However, the doctrine of examination of works after death to verify Justification ( salvation) is similar to the “investigative Judgment” doctrine of the Seventh Day Adventist church. This was based on the revelation of founder Ellen White. She stated that all believers would stand before Christ for an examination of their works for a final determination of the genuineness of their salvation faith. This has always been rejected as heresy by all Evangelical and/or Orthodox churches. In the early 1980s there were three professors at Seventh day Adventist schools and some Seventh Day Pastors who set forth the orthodox Christian doctrine of Justification by faith alone and stated this excluded the Investigative Judgment. Some thought this may be the beginning of a change for the better for Seventh Day Adventist doctrine. However, after much controversy the church counsel met and affirmed the Investigative Judgment and defrocked the dissenters. This was well covered in Christianity Today and other publications.

Now we appear to have some who post on SI who seem to claim to be Fundamentalists (or Evangelicals) who are indifferent to a similar doctrine being set forth by a popular teacher. Perhaps one of their favorite teachers? Absolutely incredible!! Have we really come to this?

Bob,

I was referring more to Alex than you. But seeing how you responded, let me give a couple of observations and comments:

First of all, I am by no means a Piper loyalist. I have often said when Piper is on he is on and when he is off he is REALLY off. I have benefited from some of his stuff and discarded other things.

Secondly, on the topic of this thread, I agree with Bryan Bice, Larry and others. Maybe I am reading it wrongly but I think they were spot on in there analysis of his treatment of last week’s tornado. It seems to me Alex (and you) are nitpicking here.

Thirdly, there have been times you have been harsh on Piper. On the old SI you went as far as to minimize his cancer because you didn’t like how he was handling the problem of suffering. While I am not as experienced or as educated as you are the Lord has given me a little insight into death and suffering. I lost both of my parents to cancer before I was 30. The Lord has given me the privilege of preaching over 150 funerals in 10 years as a pastor. When I was a hospice chaplain, I saw countless people die. As a fire chaplain and part time fire fighter, I see countless people suffer and die. I see suffering more than most people, let alone most pastors. I found Piper’s Suffering and the Sovereignty of God to be very helpful - whether his cancer was as bad as it should have been in your opinion or not. That was the first comments of yours reguarding Piper that I remember and have always led me to take what you say about him with a grain of salt.

Fourthly, you seem willing to give others a pass who have errors as bad, if not worse than Piper’s (i.e. Zane Hodges). You dismissed Lou M’s research very flppantly if I recall correctly

Now reguarding his view on justification. I haven’t studied it out yet. My comment had nothing to do with that post. I did not look at SI all day and was getting caught up. I hadn’t read your comments yet. But I have breifly stated how, on at least one occassion, you were too hard on Piper. Some food for thought

[rogercarlson] I think some on this thread would disagree with Piper if he said the the sky were blue, simply because John Piper said it. :)

[rogercarlson] was referring more to Alex than you. But seeing how you responded, let me give a couple of observations and comments:

While it might be of comfort to you Roger, to convince yourself into believing this is personal and somehow anything Piper would say would be disagree with, particularly by me, but unfortunately you have only demonstrated with such an accusation your lack of trustworthiness and fairness when dealing with the persons and comments of others. I have made two comments diametrically opposed to your exaggeration which intends on painting me or anyone of similar sentiment in the extreme manner you did:

[Alex Guggenheim] No one is speaking out against Piper’s person, this isn’t a personal issue. Piper as a person isn’t being questioned, his judgment in this case and claim of being able to speak for God as to why God decrees weather for certain people at certain times, which requires additional revelation to speak conclusively (yes he made an assertion, built a case and ended with a conclusion) as Piper did, is what is being challenged.

[Alex Guggenheim] This is not to say other things Piper said are not true, but those are not the point of the debate. His claim of speaking with special revelation is.

So what you are doing in presenting your hyperbolic claim to paint Piper’s contenders, and against particularly me, disregards my previous recognition of Piper’s true sayings and declaration that indeed this has nothing to do with his person.

[rogercarlson] It seems to me Alex (and you) are nitpicking here.

Much like an earlier poster you handpick the opposition and present it as if it is two persons simply nitpicking. Whatever you inability is in understanding that there are more than TWO people here opposing and rejecting Piper’s claim or practice of “special revelation” it again testifies against your trustworthiness regarding a fair and accurate rendering of the debate and the persons involved in the debate.

Now, for the record, I with everyone reading wish to remove back to the topic and not be forced to address personal implications.

I must agree rather strongly, though, with Bob T:

[Bob T.] Now we appear to have some who post on SI who seem to claim to be Fundamentalists (or Evangelicals) who are indifferent to a similar doctrine being set forth by a popular teacher. Perhaps one of their favorite teachers? Absolutely incredible!! Have we really come to this?

It is rather startling to watch the silence of so many here who claim to pursue “sound doctrine” yet when a favorite of many offers what is a clear and rather radical departure, instead of immediate red flags being raised motives are impugned regarding the intent of those toward Piper.

This is a radically erring teaching by Piper and should be rather clear that there is something fundamentally wrong when Piper. Piper, without caution, boldly asserts his radical view on justification. And if people have been “hard” on Piper could it be they have seen much of what his followers have closed their eyes to but now are having to come face to face with (forgive me grammarians)?

If anyone is being “personal” it is those who are making it personal by appealing to their personal life, experience, situation, Piper’s personal experience, the views and treatment of other teachers who might be erring in their view, and so on. I realize not all those favoring Piper or defending or minimizing either the “special revelation” now “dual justification” doctrine are guilty of this. Some simply do subscribe to what Piper is saying and teaching or are simply unaware, indifferent or do not view as serious, his increasingly obvious departure from orthodoxy, particularly with such a critical doctrine as justification. I accept that, they are wrong but I accept their defense of Piper is doctrinal and not personal.

However, here Roger, you are making it, as some others have at the varying websites discussing this, quite personal and it is not. It has nothing to do with experiences, yours, mine or anyone else’s. It has to do with the truth.

And the truth is Piper is introducing a parallel heresy that is astoundingly passing by many of his students who, with their lips and fingers on a keyboard confess orthodox doctrine and generally strongly and vigorously refute such error. Sorry but there is something amiss here.

So in general and not specifically of anyone I present a further observation and consideration as to why there seems to be such silence from some orthodox students of Piper on this radical teaching of his regarding justification. It might be that people have invested much more than reading and learning from Piper as many students do which is exactly why I refer to him as a Guru because this is just the normal reaction students have when gross flaws are discovered in their Guru, they either justify it, minimize it or deny it altogether. When Guru-like personalities in the church, men in whom students have invested an inordinate amount of confidence and possibly part of their own person (seeing that many of their theological arguments lie, not enough in their own development but rest heavily upon another and this phenomenon is certainly not irregular but all too common) manifest poor judgment, it is a difficult task for such students to handle.

The reason it is so difficult to the kind of students described above is because in recognizing the error of their Guru, they then must examine their own judgment and render an adjudication unfavorable to themselves and the human ego is not so eager to do this. They must admit they have accepted too easily and swallowed too wholly or else how could they have by-passed, failed to recognize, minimized or denied what was before them. So really, not for all but for many when their Guru or Guru-like teacher departs so egregiously on a fundamental doctrine, the painful obstacle isn’t necessarily the error of the teacher but coming to grips with their naivety and lack of judgment. Hence, to guard themselves from having to indict themselves, they defend their teacher in some form or fashion. Remember for those who have trouble properly quoting others, I am making this as a general consideration and not pointing or directing it toward anyone specifically. It is a general consideration regarding the phenomenon.

This is not to say I am not without some sympathy for Piper’s position. Whether he is elevated by his own schemes, God’s or man’s is not mine to worry about, nevertheless he is in a high place and men in such places, being fallible are prone to exaggerations and imaginations that they have gifts and callings beyond the pedestrian, hence this lesser violation by Piper (though is does not stand alone as some exaggerated postures by him) in claiming to know why God sent a tornado is almost tolerable (though still wrong), particularly seeing that he attempted to address it and modify it and probably won’t be doing it again.

But this doctrinal departure into what is synonymous to, from another time, that which was called heresy, now forwarded by Piper in his dual justification or whatever title you want to give it, isn’t an occupational hazard or a theological indiscretion. This is a five alarm fire than should be concerning all of his students. Piper is erring on a fundamental concept. This should tell anyone that if indeed he is departing here and failing to grasp orthodoxy, there is a critical point that either needs repaired or this ship abandoned since the damaging implications, impact and theological consequences of what he is teaching go too far, deep and wide for safe passage through remaining theological waters.