J. Dean
Puritan Board Junior
My basic take on Piper is the same as Ruben's.
His book Counted Righteous in Christ is fantastic. It is one of the best explanations of imputation that I've ever read, and it does a very good job in dealing with the New Perspective on Paul. On the core of the gospel Piper stands on the side of God, the angels, and the saints of old.
I have never read his piece "Are there two wills of God?" but from what I understand, it too is a very good piece.
Overall, Desiring God is very good, but I take issue with some of his comments regarding Christians and money. Like David Platt and Francis Chan, Piper in this area falls short. He gives an almost legalistic conditioning with regard to Christians giving every last cent of free money away in ministry-something that is nowhere taught in Scripture. I've referred to it as "evangelical monasticism," and it comes dangerously close to giving the impression that using money for any sort of personal leisure at all is sinful. Certainly Christians should be on guard against materialism and be charitable with their finances (and it's interesting to note that conservative Christians in general ARE more generous than their liberal counterparts), but to place an unscriptural burden such as this on people is at the very least a misguided zeal.
Regarding the charismatic position, Piper seems to be trying to take a moderate middle position. On this I say use caution, because "moderate" positions on things like this don't stay "moderate;" they end up tipping one way or the other. The Nazarene church I formerly attended is a good example of this. While I don't know what Piper's rationale for such a position is, I wonder whether or not people take positions like this simply to make an appeal to the broader body of Christendom, to try to be "all things to all men." To which I say it is better to take the right unpopular position than take a popular waffling position.
His book Counted Righteous in Christ is fantastic. It is one of the best explanations of imputation that I've ever read, and it does a very good job in dealing with the New Perspective on Paul. On the core of the gospel Piper stands on the side of God, the angels, and the saints of old.
I have never read his piece "Are there two wills of God?" but from what I understand, it too is a very good piece.
Overall, Desiring God is very good, but I take issue with some of his comments regarding Christians and money. Like David Platt and Francis Chan, Piper in this area falls short. He gives an almost legalistic conditioning with regard to Christians giving every last cent of free money away in ministry-something that is nowhere taught in Scripture. I've referred to it as "evangelical monasticism," and it comes dangerously close to giving the impression that using money for any sort of personal leisure at all is sinful. Certainly Christians should be on guard against materialism and be charitable with their finances (and it's interesting to note that conservative Christians in general ARE more generous than their liberal counterparts), but to place an unscriptural burden such as this on people is at the very least a misguided zeal.
Regarding the charismatic position, Piper seems to be trying to take a moderate middle position. On this I say use caution, because "moderate" positions on things like this don't stay "moderate;" they end up tipping one way or the other. The Nazarene church I formerly attended is a good example of this. While I don't know what Piper's rationale for such a position is, I wonder whether or not people take positions like this simply to make an appeal to the broader body of Christendom, to try to be "all things to all men." To which I say it is better to take the right unpopular position than take a popular waffling position.