christianyouth
Puritan Board Senior
No, they just go start a new denomination(a very congregational thing to do).
John Piper explains his reason for inviting Doug Wilson to the DG conference
- Thread starter ubermadchen
- Start date
- Status
No, they just go start a new denomination(a very congregational thing to do).
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
You are to be commended for contacting Mr. Piper's organization. This is the biblical approach, and believe the best in the meanwhile, not descend into speculation. Praying dearly for this dear one.
You will need to do your research, as the OPC study report did. So it is a very good resource (the OPC study report)- and you can commend that to Mr. Piper.
This is a sophisticated and complicated bundle of error- the OPC report cites original sources and you will need to do some research from original sources.
The PCA study report is excellent (you can do a PDF word search, e.g. "Wilson" "justification")
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/07-fvreport.pdf
"Reformed is not Enough" on Google Books:
"Reformed" is Not Enough - Google Books
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
We clearly have different reads of church history.
That's not the point. Rich was merely making the point that if Piper wasn't out on a limb on his own with no accountability above him, but rather was part of, say, the PCA or OPC, he'd be well versed in the controversies, and with the accountability structure of the broader presbyterial bodies, would probably not stray where he has in making his mind up to invite Wilson. Could he still make the same error of inviting Wilson? Sure... but it would be less likely.
Of course you can also argue that independent or not, Piper should have had the wisdom to consult what Reformed denominations have said about the Federal Vision and humbly take the position that MAYBE, just MAYBE, the larger bodies are right and he is wrong on the FV, and not invite Wilson.
Zadok
Puritan Board Freshman
They are independent, and so there may grow another congregation from the one that went awry, but your mind is working overtime to suggest that it would necessarily lead to a "denomination".
You should try reading some Presbyterian Church histories. The accusation you level is truer of Presbyterianism than of Independency!
I ask again, how many Prebyterian churches have succumbed to NPP/FV, and how come your precious system was not the safety net for them that you think it would have been for Piper?
Last edited:
christianyouth
Puritan Board Senior
The Protestant movement was founded by someone who said "to hell with your Councils I'll take Scripture", and yet when a modern day Protestant says that they are considered arrogant, pitting their interpretation against all of these others. But somehow we applaud Luther when he took his interpretation of Scripture and defied all of Christendom at his time, and the great majority of Christians before him.
This smells to me like inconsistency.
This smells to me like inconsistency.
Folks,
The Admins do not want linking to Red Beetle's stuff. He was suspended some time ago from PB. The links above have been removed. If you have other sources use them.
The Admins do not want linking to Red Beetle's stuff. He was suspended some time ago from PB. The links above have been removed. If you have other sources use them.
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
I can argue the same for you, but I won't bother. It's clear you are quite convinced of the superiority of independency.
I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat battle over how many independent vs. how many presbyterian churches have gone awry in one way or another... but you should know that the fraction of Presbyterian churches that are under NPP/FV leadership is VERY small.
Besides, the question of polity is most certainly NOT ever to be argued based on "effectiveness of keeping people 'in check'".
I'm done with this discussion.
Last edited:
christianyouth
Puritan Board Senior
Hey Zadok, I was using the 'they' to refer to Presbyterianism(the 'your denominational structure' from the above post).
Sorry for not being clear!
Personally, I see both Piper and Wilson as brothers in Christ and as wise Christian leaders--even if mistaken on some points. Maybe Piper has erred here, but if so, then he has erred on the side of grace. I would say that it's better to be rightly related than to be right--to err on the side of charity rather than on that of legalism and requiring everyone to cross their theological ts. Even the best theologians are right only about eighty percent of the time anyway.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
One of the things that indicated to me a few years ago that federal vision theology was wrong was the stridency of its proponents. They tended to be strongly defensive, categorical in denials and always claiming to be misunderstood... always.
(I'm not at all putting you, Craig, in this category, this is only by way of context for readers new to this)
One of their approaches was to say that we do not have a high enough view of the (visible) church. Yet when the church spoke, authoritatively, as church and after church researched and denounced its error, initiated discipline, they denounced the church's authority to speak or fled its discipline.
Federal vision has factions, and factions within factions.
You are right on one level, Mr. Wilson has articulated an orthodox position on justification by faith alone, rather than the unorthodox "final verdict of justification" [works] that is related to federal vision.
Charitably, I expect there was an instance where Mr. Piper heard this part, in isolation of the context of federal vision.
He has tried to distinguish and nuance his view, while still being probably the most visible federal vision proponent at the moment.
On another level, he was one of the authors of The Federal Vision that, in it's entirety, either confused it or denied it. Either is unacceptable for one who would presume to teach.
Until he repents of his involvement with this errant theology and comes clean of the whole thing, this is going to be a morass of confusion and error... and make it all the more difficult for Mr. Wilson to distinguish between the areas in which he is orthodox and biblical and those areas in which he is not.
Reformed Rush
Puritan Board Freshman
Piper has erred by identifying with teachings that deny Godly grace.
Relationships mean nothing, if they are not founded and maintained in the truths and proper teachings of Holy Scripture.
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
Piper is like many Arminians who begin to get an awareness of the doctrines of grace and try to rationalize them somehow with their Arminian thinking rather than humbling themselves to their error, examining themselves to see if they are in the faith, and seeking education from wiser brothers and those with more complete experience in the reformed doctrines and solid answers and understandings of verses like 1 Jn 2:2 or 1 Tim 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9
Some do not want to admit they were that wrong, others do not want to ostracize Arminians, but for whatever reason they have not been soundly educated in the faith and so have faulty human reasonings which are inconsistent and bounce back and forth depending on the scripture they are on.
The only way to know for sure what they personally believe, which is only one issue, is to pin them down with specific questions.
But regardless if they are sound in their belief if they cannot stomach preaching the exclusivity of truth then they are heretical, schismatic and we should not listen to them or endorse them
1 Tim 2:4
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
NKJV
2 Peter 3:8-9
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
NKJV
2 John 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds. NKJV
Piper is guilty of doing this with Wilson.
The question is not: In how many places is what he says truthful and useful.
It is where is he wrong, is it heretical.
You only have to be wrong enough in one place to be a heretic.
Even King Saul had victories and the R Catholic church holds to a lot of truth.
It is not how much truth they have that determines if we can fellowship with them.
Some do not want to admit they were that wrong, others do not want to ostracize Arminians, but for whatever reason they have not been soundly educated in the faith and so have faulty human reasonings which are inconsistent and bounce back and forth depending on the scripture they are on.
The only way to know for sure what they personally believe, which is only one issue, is to pin them down with specific questions.
But regardless if they are sound in their belief if they cannot stomach preaching the exclusivity of truth then they are heretical, schismatic and we should not listen to them or endorse them
1 Tim 2:4
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
NKJV
2 Peter 3:8-9
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
NKJV
2 John 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds. NKJV
Piper is guilty of doing this with Wilson.
The question is not: In how many places is what he says truthful and useful.
It is where is he wrong, is it heretical.
You only have to be wrong enough in one place to be a heretic.
Even King Saul had victories and the R Catholic church holds to a lot of truth.
It is not how much truth they have that determines if we can fellowship with them.
As the thread is closed, I don't want to make any more comments that might be construed as not edifying but I do wish to clarify about a misperception.
First, my comments about about "...the arrogance of modernism..." were not levied directly at John Piper. I sometimes am not very clear about how my thoughts flow from one thought to another. In the context, my target was intended to be broader about how we confess Theology within the Church.
Secondly, I would suggest all read Owen on Overcoming Sin and Temptation:
Amazon.com: Overcoming Sin and Temptation: John Owen, Kelly M. Kapic, Justin Taylor, John Piper: Books
One thing we need not be prideful about is our pride. To note that a man is displaying a lack of humility is not a character assault unless we hold our natures to be so above reproach as to assume that we are always without guile in how we approach things. Taken within its original context, my comments were directed at a direct criticism of the deliberations of hundreds vs. an "I've studied this" - there was a display of confidence there that I found troubling and still do. I have no doubt that, when it comes to humility, I could likely learn something from Dr. Piper but, on this point, I don't think I'm alone in my observation that his attitude needs to be considered.
Thirdly, this is a Confessional board and it is not a "cheap shot" when a Presbyterian notes that he believes Congregationalism is inherently dangerous. We can certainly take that subject up in another thread but it is the Confession of my Standards to have an inherent distrust in local Church government that completely lacks the check and oversight of Presbyteries and Synods and I believe that is borne out in the Scriptural data. Sociological studies about the rise and fall of various forms of government don't really impress me as extremes exist for every form of Church government.
Blessings!
Rich
First, my comments about about "...the arrogance of modernism..." were not levied directly at John Piper. I sometimes am not very clear about how my thoughts flow from one thought to another. In the context, my target was intended to be broader about how we confess Theology within the Church.
Secondly, I would suggest all read Owen on Overcoming Sin and Temptation:
Amazon.com: Overcoming Sin and Temptation: John Owen, Kelly M. Kapic, Justin Taylor, John Piper: Books
One thing we need not be prideful about is our pride. To note that a man is displaying a lack of humility is not a character assault unless we hold our natures to be so above reproach as to assume that we are always without guile in how we approach things. Taken within its original context, my comments were directed at a direct criticism of the deliberations of hundreds vs. an "I've studied this" - there was a display of confidence there that I found troubling and still do. I have no doubt that, when it comes to humility, I could likely learn something from Dr. Piper but, on this point, I don't think I'm alone in my observation that his attitude needs to be considered.
Thirdly, this is a Confessional board and it is not a "cheap shot" when a Presbyterian notes that he believes Congregationalism is inherently dangerous. We can certainly take that subject up in another thread but it is the Confession of my Standards to have an inherent distrust in local Church government that completely lacks the check and oversight of Presbyteries and Synods and I believe that is borne out in the Scriptural data. Sociological studies about the rise and fall of various forms of government don't really impress me as extremes exist for every form of Church government.
Blessings!
Rich
- Status
Similar threads
