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

Status
Not open for further replies.

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
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.
 

ubermadchen

Puritanboard <strong>Outlaw</strong>
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.
 

smhbbag

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Snowflake
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.
 

jandrusk

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

smhbbag

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
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.
 

ubermadchen

Puritanboard <strong>Outlaw</strong>
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.
 

FenderPriest

Puritan Board Junior
Where can one get the three hour examination with the PCA that Piper refers to? I've found one with the CREC on his church's website, bu not PCA.
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
There are better ways to spend ones time than listening to an Amyraldian Congregationalist commenting on FV heresy in Presbyterian churches. :2cents:

:ditto: to Rich above.
 

Classical Presbyterian

Puritan Board Junior
So it looks like Piper is wrong here. This should surprise us? We are Reformed right?

Last time I checked, we follow no man, but the Word of God alone. Piper is a sinner. he will make mistakes and err as will we all.

Call him on it, communicate it to him and use the teachings of his that are sound. Ditch the ones that are not sound. Find me a teacher without blemish and I'll call him your idol.
 
Last edited:

Craig

Puritan Board Senior
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.
From my looking into the issue, the FVers that are Shepherdites like to emphasize baptism and covenant succession to the near exclusion of a conversion experience. They think evangelical conversion to be "Baptistic".

As far as Wilson's stance on the Covenant of Works...I was right with many up until a few months ago. I then argued with a man about it (a man who is not FV, btw) and he made a case I couldn't refute...not Biblically, and not logically.

If man was to "merit" anything in the Covenant of Works, then autonomy would have been man's standing before God.
 

Julio Martinez Jr

Puritan Board Freshman
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.

[bible]Proverbs 11:14[/bible]
:ditto:
:ditto: your :ditto:
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
As far as Wilson's stance on the Covenant of Works...I was right with many up until a few months ago. I then argued with a man about it (a man who is not FV, btw) and he made a case I couldn't refute...not Biblically, and not logically.

If man was to "merit" anything in the Covenant of Works, then autonomy would have been man's standing before God.
Then this man you argued with did not faithfully represent how the Reformed have traditionally understood "merit" and the Covenant of Works.

Since this is not particularly germane to the thread, however, I will apologize in advance for my potential derailing of the thread. If you would like to talk about the Reformed understanding of the CoW, go ahead and start a thread so we can chat, and hopefully others will join in to make up for what little ability I have to explain.
 

J. David Kear

Puritan Board Freshman
I am curious that this has surprised so many. Piper may be as far off from the reformed confessions as Wilson is. What we have is a “New Covenant” theologian/pastor inviting a “Federal Vision” theologian/pastor to speak at his conference.

Personally, I have several books from both in my library. Reading them has helped me further distinguish the nuances of the systems that they follow and propagate from that which is taught in the WCF. It has also helped me appreciate and solidify my own adherence to the confession.

But I don’t throw them out because both writers have contributed portions that are very useful and not contra confession. An example might be Wilson’s book, Easy Chairs Hard Words.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Maybe time for a new thread for this. There have been other discussions as well over the years (albeit often sidetracks themselves); see
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/mono-vs-bi-covenantal-view-38084/
and
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/dabney-graciousness-covenant-works-15098/
and
http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/trinitarian-relationship-covenant-concerning-fv-15454/

As far as Wilson's stance on the Covenant of Works...I was right with many up until a few months ago. I then argued with a man about it (a man who is not FV, btw) and he made a case I couldn't refute...not Biblically, and not logically.

If man was to "merit" anything in the Covenant of Works, then autonomy would have been man's standing before God.
Then this man you argued with did not faithfully represent how the Reformed have traditionally understood "merit" and the Covenant of Works.

Since this is not particularly germane to the thread, however, I will apologize in advance for my potential derailing of the thread. If you would like to talk about the Reformed understanding of the CoW, go ahead and start a thread so we can chat, and hopefully others will join in to make up for what little ability I have to explain.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
There are better ways to spend ones time than listening to an Amyraldian Congregationalist commenting on FV heresy in Presbyterian churches. :2cents:

:ditto: to Rich above.
Wait just one second. I do not endorse Doug Wilson speaking at the Desiring God Conference. There have been many criticisms of John Piper in this thread and most of them are valid. But how do you defend accusing John Piper of being an Amyraldian? Everything I have read and heard from the man is orthodox in relation to the doctrines of grace.
 
Last edited:

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
I am curious that this has surprised so many. Piper may be as far off from the reformed confessions as Wilson is.
This is the point I tried to make earlier. John Piper is not a confessional Baptist. Just because one is a congregationalist doesn't mean he is marching to his own drum. The 1689 LBC grounds Reformed and Particular Baptist churches. While still independent we have common beliefs and practices. This is not the case with Bethlehem Baptist Church.
 

timmopussycat

Puritan Board Junior
YouTube - John Piper - Why Doug Wilson?

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.
Piper has been becoming more and more influential and not all of those who admire him are thorough in testing what he says against Scripture. We should thank God for this stumble: it will ultimately prove a wake up call to many unthinking followers.

As James reminds us: "We all stumble in many ways." This is a good illustration of why Christ's church does not ascribe final doctrinal authority to Popes or councils and why the Westminster Standards and the OLC make only Scripture and good and necessary consequence deductions therefrom the final determinants therof. Although Wilson's analogy in that sermon may be right on a key aspect of the gospel, it seems (as this outsider to FV understands the state of the controversy) that several examinations of his position have shown that Wilson does not carry through his analogy throughout his understanding of "the gospel" in the same way historic Reformed theology does.

Now those critiques may be wrong: as Protestants we know that men and councils err. But if Piper is going to invite someone whose theological positions have been officially rejected by Reformed Christian denominations as being either major heterodoxy or borderline heresy, he owes it to the churches to demonstrate by Scriptural exegesis or GNC deductions therefrom that the critiques of Wilson have somehow misunderstood Wilson's teaching, erroneously concluding him in error when his teaching is (on this hypothesis) within the pale of orthodoxy. At the very least Piper should not have invited Wilson, without providing such a demonstration.
 

Julio Martinez Jr

Puritan Board Freshman
I am curious that this has surprised so many. Piper may be as far off from the reformed confessions as Wilson is.
This is the point I tried to make earlier. John Piper is not a confessional Baptist. Just because one is a congregationalist doesn't mean he is marching to his own drum. The 1689 LBC grounds Reformed and Particular Baptist churches. While still independent we have common beliefs and practices. This is not the case with Bethlehem Baptist Church.
Problem I have with that (Independency) is that it ignores the compulsory tenor found in Scripture for unity.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
I am curious that this has surprised so many. Piper may be as far off from the reformed confessions as Wilson is.
This is the point I tried to make earlier. John Piper is not a confessional Baptist. Just because one is a congregationalist doesn't mean he is marching to his own drum. The 1689 LBC grounds Reformed and Particular Baptist churches. While still independent we have common beliefs and practices. This is not the case with Bethlehem Baptist Church.
Problem I have with that (Independency) is that it ignores the compulsory tenor found in Scripture for unity.
Per the Presbyterian view of ecclesiology, which I naturally disagree with. But that wasn't my point. I was trying to establish that John Piper's church does not align itself with the 1689 LBC, and thus does not have a solid Reformed framework.
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
There are better ways to spend ones time than listening to an Amyraldian Congregationalist commenting on FV heresy in Presbyterian churches. :2cents:

:ditto: to Rich above.
Wait just one second. I do not endorse Doug Wilson speaking at the Desiring God Conference. There have been many criticisms of John Piper in this thread and most of them are valid. But how do you defend accusing John Piper of being an Amyraldian? Everything I have read and heard from the man is orthodox in relation to the doctrines of grace.
It appears this comes as a surprise. Have you never heard this before? Oh, I know he has sermons that are Calvinistic (so does John Wesley). He also has sermons that are clearly Amyraldian. Maybe it’s a case of the whole "paradox" thing I continue to fail to understand. :um: A PB search will provide material for your reading. Here’s one:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/john-piper-limited-atonement-27430/

Youtube clips often provide many sermons of Piper that make this clear. Here are a couple of clips from a PB contributor:
[video=youtube;r5T7CkSbpOs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5T7CkSbpOs[/video]**moderator video links removed; this person is no longer a PB contributor and PB does not want links to this person's material; sorry.
Vid Intro:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
I was waiting to see the thread develop. I'm left to wonder why no one has mentioned the fact that Piper emphatically says FV is NOT a false gospel?
:scratch:
 

jogri17

Puritan Board Junior
There are plenty of reformed baptist (and non confessional reformed baptists) who would agree that Doug Wilson is preaching another Gospel (not that he is an heretic necessarily but rather the language is so bad taht it qualifies as another gospel).

-----Added 6/24/2009 at 01:37:04 EST-----

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 but thats to be expected from baptists ;)
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
RedBeetle

Chris/CDM,

Do you know who is Monty L. Collier of Geneva Dutch Calvinist Church Kingsport, Tennessee, aka RedBeetle from the youtube links you provided?

Thanks,
Gil
 
Last edited:

Fly Caster

Puritan Board Sophomore
Chris/CDM,

Do you know who is Monty L. Collier of Geneva Dutch Calvinist Church Kingsport, Tennessee, aka RedBeetle from the youtube links you provided?

Thanks,
Gil
I live in Kingsport. I'm pretty familiar with all Reformed Churches in Kingsport (it's not that big of a town and there are not a great number of Reformed churches here) and I met Mr. Collier a few years ago.

I know of no Geneva Dutch Calvinist Church in Kingsport,TN.
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
RedBeetle or Monty is the one providing the videos in youtube. It is very important to know who are these such individuals attacking pastors, professors, churches, teachings, etc. Looks like he is a follower of John Robins, The Trinity Foundation.


Here is his website or his church website (link removed by moderator)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top