Thread: John Piper explains his reason for inviting Doug Wilson to the DG conference

I don't know how to post videos so if that doesn't work, here is a link to the entry on his blog:
Why Doug Wilson Is Speaking at DG's Fall Conference :: Desiring God

I'm very disturbed by this. I think that Piper is generally fine with his soteriology but to invite Doug Wilson? To say that he "gets the gospel right?" It just doesn't make sense. I'm really sad and disturbed about this.

I actually wrote Desireing God Ministries a letter over this I was so desturbed this is just sad and shows how far John Piper has slipped.

I'm sorry i dont know who Doug Wilson is,What is he all about?,as far as Piper slipping I hope that he's not compromising the Word,I just LOVE his teaching and I will pray that God will give him clarity to see if there is bad doctrine involved,Thanks for the heads up!

Yet again Piper has demonstrated his own confusion about the gospel.

I don't mean for this to sound pejorative but I think his views on how PCA Elders have given Wilson a "bad rap" demonstrates a significant lack of humility on the matter.

The issue of the Federal Vision and its relation to Confessional Reformed Theology has been studied at length by hundreds of elders from across the NAPARC spectrum. Countless hours have gone into study reports to confirm that it is un-Bibilical and un-Confessional.

Yet, on the impression of one man, John Piper, his personal study concludes that the deliberation of thousands is a "bad rap" whereas his own assessment is careful and measured.

In my estimation, this demonstrates the inherent danger of Congregationalism and I think I'll stick with the wisdom of several General Assemblies' conclusions rather than his personal assessment of the matter.

Kudos to Piper on inviting Doug Wilson.

John Piper writes books defending imputation against the NPP
John Piper invites a proponent of the FV to his fall conference

Hmmmmmmmm.

I never got my invitation

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I don't mean for this to sound pejorative but I think his views on how PCA Elders have given Wilson a "bad rap" demonstrates a significant lack of humility on the matter.

The issue of the Federal Vision and its relation to Confessional Reformed Theology has been studied at length by hundreds of elders from across the NAPARC spectrum. Countless hours have gone into study reports to confirm that it is un-Bibilical and un-Confessional.

Yet, on the impression of one man, John Piper, his personal study concludes that the deliberation of thousands is a "bad rap" whereas his own assessment is careful and measured.

In my estimation, this demonstrates the inherent danger of Congregationalism and I think I'll stick with the wisdom of several General Assemblies' conclusions rather than his personal assessment of the matter.

Originally Posted by Craig

Kudos to Piper on inviting Doug Wilson.

Care to explain? Do you honestly think there was nobody better and more qualified to speak on Calvin at this conference? Piper CLEARLY doesn't understand the depths of the errors Wilson promotes. Anyone who says that Wilson "got a bad rap" in obtaining the reputation he has among conservative presbyterians clearly has clouded judgment. (but then Piper thinks Mark Driscoll is someone to admire also)

Kudos Todd and

John Piper did a CD about FV that has to be one of the best sermons ever done on the subject. It is titled "This man went down to his house justifed" and how the Pharisee thanked God for all of his infused righeousness. He gave full credit and thanks to God for not being like other sinful men. But it was the man who recognized that he was nothing but a sinner and cried out for mercy who was justified.

Piper spent several months of a sabbatical just on FV, and trying to wrap his brain around how guys he knew who had walked with the Lord in sound doctrine for decades had turned to subtle ( or not so subtle) works righteousness. Piper is NOT FV at all, he is outspoken against it, extremely outspoken.

I do find this simply mind boggling. Is Wilson some sort of Calvin expert that he was invited?

I don't see why I'd need to explain what I said in the least. Wilson affirms all the essentials of the faith, which includes double imputation, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus.

I would invite you men to back up the notion that Wilson gets the gospel wrong with *Wilson's writings*.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I don't mean for this to sound pejorative but I think his views on how PCA Elders have given Wilson a "bad rap" demonstrates a significant lack of humility on the matter.

The issue of the Federal Vision and its relation to Confessional Reformed Theology has been studied at length by hundreds of elders from across the NAPARC spectrum. Countless hours have gone into study reports to confirm that it is un-Bibilical and un-Confessional.

Yet, on the impression of one man, John Piper, his personal study concludes that the deliberation of thousands is a "bad rap" whereas his own assessment is careful and measured.

In my estimation, this demonstrates the inherent danger of Congregationalism and I think I'll stick with the wisdom of several General Assemblies' conclusions rather than his personal assessment of the matter.

But I must be careful... the last time I made a comment like you just did (on Congregationalism that is) the objectors came out of the wood work and ate me up.

It is because of Piper's cult-following that his decision is so troubling. I mean, let's face it... he has vastly more clout across the reformed-leaning evangelical world than even the most famous Presbyterian preacher/scholars. The potential impact of Piper's "endorsement" may be great.

1. I found the first clip troubling because he uses ONE ILLUSTRATION from ONE SERMON of Wilson's to conclude - and more significantly, get us to believe - that Wilson is sound. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

2. The second clip was angering, but Rich already explained why so I won't repeat.

3. I've just got to say this. Piper is unstable. Theologically he's a pariah. I remember a few years ago when he was going through his "let's sort of accept paedobaptism for membership, but make it a 2nd class baptism" thing. I remember how he was hailed on this Board by folks desperate to have their baptism recognized as being somehow legitimate - even if it is in a 2nd class sense - by someone so prestigious. But he was bucking his entire tradition, and in creating his de facto "2nd class" baptized believer status, he was bucking the entire Christian tradition. When the shoe was on THAT foot it was the Baptists (particularly those guys at SBTS) who were being "harsh" in their denouncement. But now that the shoe is on THIS foot...
The point is that Piper is an authority unto himself and he's an unstable one at that... he's been that way for a while now. Too bad because I used to really like his stuff.

props to Craig for being willing to say it. DW is not (yet and so far as we know...) a heretic.

I am willing to trust PCA RE's that know him well, such as the "Bayly Bros". Did not our own greenbagens debate this topic with "He That Must Not Be Named"?

My reading of that text was that the participents were orthodox. Was I wrong? Where?

Originally Posted by Craig

I don't see why I'd need to explain what I said in the least. Wilson affirms all the essentials of the faith, which includes double imputation, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus.

I would invite you men to back up the notion that Wilson gets the gospel wrong with *Wilson's writings*.

No need to reinvent the wheel. Do a search on Doug Wilson on PB and you will get more than you can read on the subject.
Doug Wilson
A Short Credo on Justification: Douglas Wilson
Not Reformed At All

Just a few posts.

Originally Posted by Kevin

props to Craig for being willing to say it. DW is not (yet and so far as we know...) a heretic.

I am willing to trust PCA RE's that know him well, such as the "Bayly Bros". Did not our own greenbagens debate this topic with "He That Must Not Be Named"?

My reading of that text was that the participents were orthodox. Was I wrong? Where?

Was this in a thread on the PB? If so, I'd be interested to read it.

Personally, I think Wilson is at least skating on the edge of heresy, but I'd be interested to read more.

-----Added 6/23/2009 at 11:50:19 EST-----

Oops...cross-posted with JOwen. Thanks for the links

John Piper does have a lot of clout, but it's more of an informal authority than a heavy handed approach. He's also very likable and affable. People feel comfortable listening to him.

IMHO the reason Piper invited Doug Wilson is in keeping with his (Piper's) myopia towards the gospel. Piper DOES get the gospel right. It seems that anyone who agrees with him on that point passes his litmus test. Other doctrinal areas are secondary.

Rich, I understand why you made your comment about congregationalism, but I think it's more than that. John Piper is not confessional. He does not subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. If he held to a strict subscription of the 1689 LBC I doubt we would be discussing this topic. I can confidently state that those Baptist churches who hold to strict subscription would not share their pulpits with anyone who knowingly holds to an unconfessional position.

Maybe someone can explain this to me. Now granted I dont know a whole lot on DW but enough to stay away given the advice on this board. But how can the gospel be correct according to Piper yet be confusing and ok? I just dont understand that!

Originally Posted by Herald

John Piper does have a lot of clout, but it's more of an informal authority than a heavy handed approach. He's also very likable and affable. People feel comfortable listening to him.

IMHO the reason Piper invited Doug Wilson is in keeping with his (Piper's) myopia towards the gospel. Piper DOES get the gospel right. It seems that anyone who agrees with him on that point passes his litmus test. Other doctrinal areas are secondary.

Rich, I understand why you made your comment about congregationalism, but I think it's more than that. John Piper is not confessional. He does not subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. If he held to a strict subscription of the 1689 LBC I doubt we would be discussing this topic. I can confidently state that those Baptist churches who hold to strict subscription would not share their pulpits with anyone who knowingly holds to an unconfessional position.

A P.S. is in order. While the New Perspective is known about in Baptist circles, the FV isn't. By it's very nature the FV is more of a threat to Presbyterians than Baptists. Still, it's an insidious heresy that has long tentacles. Baptists certainly aren't immune to the havoc it can cause. Anything that weakens one part of the body of Christ weakens the body entire.

Thanks for getting this thread started. I'm new to PB and was looking to see what was on here about this controversy. I think that it would be helpful to discuss what the most effective responses (prayer, clearly informing people on this issue, hammering Desiring God ministries, etc.) the reformed community can make to Piper's comments . One of the sad things about this is that Piper and Wilson have both written lots of good, useful, and insightful stuff. Too bad that they're so off track on NPP/FV.

I think this is a mistake; regardless of how orthodox Mr. Wilson might be he associates with some very dubious persons and has given them a pass on a number of occasions. This is certainly bad form on Piper's part.

On the other hand I would also not have chosen Sam Storms either since his (charismatic) convictions also concern me.

[quote=Herald;641045]

Originally Posted by Herald

While the New Perspective is known about in Baptist circles, the FV isn't. By it's very nature the FV is more of a threat to Presbyterians than Baptists.

The FV is a threat to all Protestantism.

It is an attempt to lure Christendom back to Rome.

Well at least FV has not been linked to the black death yet.

Originally Posted by Reformed Rushs

Originally Posted by Herald

While the New Perspective is known about in Baptist circles, the FV isn't. By it's very nature the FV is more of a threat to Presbyterians than Baptists.

The FV is a threat to all Protestantism.

It is an attempt to lure Christendom back to Rome.

I believe what Bill is saying is that the FV's appeal is mainly towards those who are trying deal with ecclesiastic applications of the sacraments in congregations that hold to paedo-baptism. Thus they have to deal more with the possibility of unconfessing members in their fellowship and how the sacraments relate to them. The FV tries to make everyone in the Covenant family somehow elect. Thus you have two different kinds of election. You also have teaching on how a baptism somehow might be a means of grace in regeneration. Dr. R. Scott Clark did a great discussion on baptism and the FV's understanding of it.

These are not necessarily things the Baptist Church deals with since Baptism is a sign of regenerate Covenant Membership. It is done with a cognizant knowledge and confession from a person who is presumed already converted to Christ thus putting the application of baptism as a means in a much different light and application.

I agree Doug Wilson is messed up in his understanding of Covenantalism. He holds to a mono-covenant model and redefines the Covenant of Works which Christ fulfilled for us. This problem redefines the Work of Christ.

I am once again disappointed in John Piper. As many of you will notice. I don't quote Piper or cite him.

Originally Posted by JOwen

Originally Posted by Craig

I don't see why I'd need to explain what I said in the least. Wilson affirms all the essentials of the faith, which includes double imputation, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus.

I would invite you men to back up the notion that Wilson gets the gospel wrong with *Wilson's writings*.

No need to reinvent the wheel. Do a search on Doug Wilson on PB and you will get more than you can read on the subject.
Doug Wilson
A Short Credo on Justification: Douglas Wilson
Not Reformed At All

Just a few posts.

Okay, with the exception of the thread promoting a book by Robbins, those only demonstrated Wilson gets the gospel right.

Note Wilson from his credo:

I believe that God in His sovereign and secret decree has elected by name a countless number to eternal salvation (Eph. 1:11). Each of these elect are justified individually, and irreversibly, at the point of their conversion, when God imputes to them all the righteousness of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29-30). The ground of this justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, plus nothing, and is appropriated by the instrument of faith alone, plus nothing, and even this faith is to be understood as a gift of God, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-10).

There's an interesting word Wilson retains that many FV advocates would likely spurn: conversion.

Craig,

Doug Wilson gets this wrong on so many different levels. Here is what Douglas Wilson says about the Covenant of Works.

Furthermore, because the first covenant with Adam was a gracious covenant, coming from a gracious God, with the condition of the first covenant being the covenantal faithfulness of Adam, not merit, FV proponents suggest that believers should recognize the essential unity of the covenants from Adam through Christ. They are all basically the same with the same condition, covenant faithfulness. In addition, FV writers unanimously reject the concept of merit under the covenant of works: “God did not have an arrangement with Adam in the garden based on Adam’s possible merit. Everything good from God is grace. If Adam had passed the test, he would have done so by grace through faith". Douglas Wilson, “Beyond the Five Solas,” Credenda/Agenda 16/2:15

Originally Posted by Craig

There's an interesting word Wilson retains that many FV advocates would likely spurn: conversion.

I have not found this to be true. Conversion is in their vocabulary.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Well at least FV has not been linked to the black death yet.

Not yet... but an investigation is ongoing.

Originally Posted by EKSB SDG

Thanks for getting this thread started. I'm new to PB and was looking to see what was on here about this controversy. I think that it would be helpful to discuss what the most effective responses (prayer, clearly informing people on this issue, hammering Desiring God ministries, etc.) the reformed community can make to Piper's comments . One of the sad things about this is that Piper and Wilson have both written lots of good, useful, and insightful stuff. Too bad that they're so off track on NPP/FV.

Huh? Piper has written a scathing critique of Wright's NPP positions... and he can hardly be called a proponent of the FV.

Originally Posted by EKSB SDG

Thanks for getting this thread started. I'm new to PB and was looking to see what was on here about this controversy. I think that it would be helpful to discuss what the most effective responses (prayer, clearly informing people on this issue, hammering Desiring God ministries, etc.) the reformed community can make to Piper's comments . One of the sad things about this is that Piper and Wilson have both written lots of good, useful, and insightful stuff. Too bad that they're so off track on NPP/FV.

I agree. We should definitely be praying for John Piper that he will see the errors in Doug Wilson's theology. We should also be praying that God will convict Wilson of Gospel truth. Both these men have huge influences amongst Christians, especially with the newly reformed. I fear for the many who look to these men with little to no discerning eye. I went to bed feeling very defeated last night over the thoughts of FV drawing Piper away from his true love. However God has said that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church so we know that Truth will win (has won) out in the end.

John Piper is wrong, and this does (in a very small way) show some dangers of congregationalism. And these things are part of the reason I reject congregationalism (the primary reason being that the Bible doesn't teach it).

But there are absolutely no grounds to assert that this shows a lack of humility on his part. It is not inherently arrogant to take a position opposite hundreds or thousands of well-studied and respectable commissions and elders across the NAPARC spectrum.

On the issue, he is absolutely wrong. There is no question that FV is unbiblical, unconfessional, and that Doug Wilson is dangerous.

But to assert a lack of humility in John Piper is a character attack that requires much more than showing that he is in a theological minority. He is a brother who has certainly earned a much greater benefit of the doubt regarding his character.

Originally Posted by smhbbag

John Piper is wrong, and this does (in a very small way) show some dangers of congregationalism. And these things are part of the reason I reject congregationalism (the primary reason being that the Bible doesn't teach it).

But there are absolutely no grounds to assert that this shows a lack of humility on his part. It is not inherently arrogant to take a position opposite hundreds or thousands of well-studied and respectable commissions and elders across the NAPARC spectrum.

On the issue, he is absolutely wrong. There is no question that FV is unbiblical, unconfessional, and that Doug Wilson is dangerous.

But to assert a lack of humility in John Piper is a character attack that requires much more than showing that he is in a theological minority. He is a brother who has certainly earned a much greater benefit of the doubt regarding his character.

It isn't that he takes a position opposite our denominations... it is that he specifically refers to PCA guys "not thinking clearly."
That IS a statement of arrogance.

I started questioning Piper's integrity at last years "Desiring God?" conference when he had Mark Driscoll and Paul Tripp there and they are trying to pass of their vulgarity and verbal licentious as perfectly OK. So the invitation I'm afraid comes as no big surprise. I think there definition of holiness is much different than what the scriptures teach.

Originally Posted by jandrusk

I started questioning Piper's integrity at last years "Desiring God?" conference when he had Mark Driscoll and Paul Tripp there and they are trying to pass of their vulgarity and verbal licentious as perfectly OK. So the invitation I'm afraid comes as no big surprise. I think there definition of holiness is much different than what the scriptures teach.

I'm not prepared to question John Piper's integrity. I believe he is sincere in what he is doing.

It isn't that he takes a position opposite our denominations... it is that he specifically refers to PCA guys "not thinking clearly."
That IS a statement of arrogance.

It most certainly is not. If asserting that someone on the opposite side is not thinking clearly counts as arrogance, this whole board would have to be shut down from the choking pride taking over it.

But it is not arrogant to say someone's thinking is muddy, clouded or wrong, and productive debate occurs while that assertion is out there.

"You're thinking clearly, but you're wrong" is a nonsensical statement, but it appears that is how we must speak if we are to disagree without arrogance, in your mind.

Wilson and Piper have huge amounts in common. Both think that they have so much more than their fair share of knowledge and understanding that neither think that they have to be accountable to anyone.

Originally Posted by TimV

Wilson and Piper have huge amounts in common. Both think that they have so much more than their fair share of knowledge and understanding that neither think that they have to be accountable to anyone.

Yes. I was convicted last night that we can't assume wisdom and Truth will automatically come because one is intelligent, spends long hours studying Scripture, or talks to the right people. Wisdom, truth, discernment, all those things are gifts from God. We need to pray and depend on His grace to give us those things.