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

Status
Not open for further replies.

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
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
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 :
PM'ed you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Archlute

Puritan Board Senior
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.
To my knowledge, the only formal examination that Doug Wilson has undergone on the matter was with his own CREC presbytery. You can find the manuscript online. I am not aware of a presbytery exam given him within the PCA.
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
When Mr Wilson began to see the need to unite with other churches and form a "federation" so he would not continue to go against his professed presbyerian convictions, I had some exchanges with him by letter and reviewed his statement of faith or the creed for the new federation he was starting with 2 other congregations.
They would offer a baptistic view of baptism and the member could have their choice.
Aren't elders to know the word lead and direct and the members submit?
If you are not willing to submit to the teaching of your elders shouldn't you be encouraged to repent or go elsewhere? We do not change the doctrines and sacraments to adapt to the wishes of the members.
He was very fundamentalist and I mean this not as works salvation but clearly adding to the word, binding consciences and requiring things not required by the word. I knew many of his churches members and those who followed his Credenda Agenda writings and books and perhaps they became more moralizing than he was but they would shun people who wore makeup, and forced their convictions on others that should be areas of conscience.
Though requiring certain behavior as a way of life is not as severe and error as requiring it for salvation, fundamentalism for sanctification can lead to and errant view of salvation and who is a brother.

He would also each it was wrong to use God's creation for our health and instead take pharmaceutical drugs. That the use of herbs and natural health care was wrong. A brief study of the statistics of medical care should have awakened him to this error as the number one cause of death is the medical profession and when you just consider circulatory disease, cancer and only properly prescribed drugs they still come out the 3rd leading cause of death and there is no scriptural warrant to not use plants for our health. In fact plants are food we must have for maintaining health. He led many astray, confused others and caused them to stumble in their conscience.

This is another example of his instability with the word and proneness to follow fables or worldly trends, and overlording.

I tried to help him see that he was indeed schismatic and if he believed in unity as much as purity that he should seek to join with other denominations rather than remain independent or even start a new one. But he new better and would not submit to the errors of all of the other reformed denominations.

I am not advocating we all go back to the Catholic church but isn't one of the doctrines we are supposed to hold in purity that we have unity, be of one mind, and not have divisions?

As much as I see the weaknesses and slowness to change in presbyterian denominations I also will never go back to Independency. Not only does it violate Acts 15 and other scripture but it fosters the idea of the one pastor like Piper or others as being justified to be separate and independent since they understand the scripture better than anyone else. Or they have some special calling that allows for this, or they look to results like numbers of followers or how many books they can sell as validation of their rightness in doctrine, which God never says is proof.

There is safety in submission to others and there is a point to divide, like over the gospel or when Machen recognized too many ministers had left the faith of the Presbyterian Church.

I do say this is the fault of ministers and elders who will not take a stand and require men to continue in Confessional Biblical historic faith in order to be ordained, rather than lowering the standards and making and taking exceptions.

Let these independents have their own schismatic groups and keep the church faithful to the historic faith once delivered. And let them teach that converted people do not split over the color of the carpet or minor doctrines of personal preference. They stay and submit and have their faith and freedom between themselves and God for the sake of the church and her sheep. Or they work through the Councils trusting the spirit to persuade the others and bring this truth to His church, instead of going off in fleshly efforts depending on themselves to build a purer church in their eyes.

Anyone with some charisma can write a book or make a video that attracts a crowd, this does not take the work of the Spirit. But unity, self-sacrifice, submission to the brothers, trust in god to run His church and guide the ministers in the councils, well that does.

How many of you will say my church is better than Calvin's, my knowledge and accuracy overall excels his? Who would leave Calvin's church because it was not faithful enough to the word so they need to start a better church?

Then I say we all need to return faithfully to the Confession and obey the doctrine of unity and seek to be less factious and divisive and a little more humble.
Your hobby horse issue you think you know better about than the denomination is not as important or clear, than the doctrine of unity.

Work through the church courts trusting God to support your idea to the majority if it is His will it is taught in His churches.


Even Paul submitted to the horrid teaching, that the Gentiles should hold onto the abstaining from things strangled pronounced by the Council, for the sake of unity as long as they did see the greatest error of forcing Christians to abide by the rest of the OT laws and ordinances, as the theonomists want to bring us back under today.

He embraced their decision and took it to the people. Though he did later say, as a matter of conscience respect the Jewish brother who may still be weak and think it wrong to eat meat offered to idols, but there is no need really to avoid them, he did not separate over these minor errors of the transforming church.

Why can't we submit to minor errors trusting God to actually be able to rule in His church and overthrow error and raise up truth when you present it as Paul did?

And why can't we take a stand for the Confessional faith and not allow men to be elders and ministers who will not submit to these historic doctrines?
 
Last edited:

AThornquist

Puritan Board Doctor
According to Monty Collier's definition of Limited Atonement and Calvinism in general, many Presbyterian elders and members aren't even Calvinist. His definitions are about as useful as watching AndrewcBain videos to expose "heretics." How sad--and what a waste. It's so easy though when one chooses when to cut a sound bit and imply meanings into statements. Yay for striving for unity! :banana: :rolleyes:
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
I stand by my comment on humility. I didn't attack his character but his assumption that individual study of a matter qualifies one to ignore the deliberations of hundreds of other elders, acting in accord out of their understanding of the Scriptures, to come to an exegetical conclusion. No, the studies of hundreds does not make it right nor does the collective wisdom of centuries of Reformed thinking about the nature of Covenant membership make the WCF Confession right. Nevertheless, we do not stand as individuals interpreting the Scriptures for our private use but we confess, with the Church, the Scripures. It is a modernist arrogance that presumes that my individual study and conclusions very likely overthrows centuries of a standard exposition of the text. The Reformers understood this and when they departed from historical understanding they did so with fear and trepidation recognizing our capacity to misapprehend.

This is why I have a problem with the "we have no Creed but Christ" crowd. They boldly proclaim that the Church has no business trying to tell everybody what the Scriptures principally teach but then they slip their Confession under the door where you cannot read it. The sheep, in the pew, confidently assert that their Pastor is "just teaching what the Bible teaches" and accept a personal exposition of the text or, perhaps, each person ends up with their personal exposition of each text and there is no ability for the Church to be led to the unity of the faith, which is what Eph 6 demands of its Pastors and Teachers.

To have faith in the God of the Scriptures is to trust in His Providence that He will guide and direct those in leadership as they watch over our souls. Some violate that trust while many yet labor to be faithful to the doctrines once for all delivered to the Saints. When these men come together, under the authority of the Church, we do well to humbly assume that the Proverbial wisdom is true and that the sinful tendencies to err are dampened by the multitude of deliberators. In contrast, the FV error has been characterized by a few forceful and persuasive individuals who gain a large following and, on their own declaration, decide that the Reformed Confessions have obviously erred and they are just the men to correct it and no Church council has the authority to correct otherwise.

BREAK

On the subject of Doug Wilson, I think I would make a distinction in this discussion that is not being made by some that are defending him. In my post I was less concerned with the exact issue at hand and more concerned about Piper's confidence to declare that Wilson is just being a paedobaptist and that PCA elders err in finding fault.

I think minimalism is a very dangerous tack when one is discussing the Gospel. It is far too common to look at the "does he affirm faith alone by Christ alone?" and then rest easy that a man has gotten the Gospel right whatever else he does with sanctification. I would ask that, if this is believed to be the case, that a person re-read the book of Galatians - especially how Paul notes that the Gospel is corrupted even on the subject of the nature of sanctification. There are also other inconsistencies in Ecclesiology and Sacramentology that will undermine the Gospel in terms of how the Sacraments affirm and build up the Gospel that have to be considered. This is why the Reformers including the Preaching of the Word as well as the correct administration of the Sacraments as two of the three marks of a true Church. I would submit that a person that thinks that a proper understanding of the Sacraments is only incidentally related to the Gospel is one who needs to study the Sacraments more carefully.
 

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:
Where does Piper say that?
:scratch:
The first 30 seconds of the above clip starts off with the following.

Question to Dr. Piper: "Have you found FV theology of Doug Wilson another gospel?"

Piper:
[empatically] No! That's easy. DW doesn't preach another gospel. I don't think N.T. Wright preaches another gospel either."

There are many other clips like these. Either way, I am at a loss for time and desire to lay out info. that is readily available for the impartial observer to come to a sure conclusion.

The Gospel is clear. Wilson, FV & Co. are anything but clear.
 

rbcbob

Puritan Board Graduate
Piper has been slipping for years. He has been weak, at best, on the continuation of charismatic gifts for at least ten years. With such a fractured epistemological base it should not be surprising that the slide continues.
 

Fly Caster

Puritan Board Sophomore
Piper has been slipping for years. He has been weak, at best, on the continuation of charismatic gifts for at least ten years. With such a fractured epistemological base it should not be surprising that the slide continues.
Piper is a Contemporary Reformed Baptist.

As such, he's fantastic when he's being Reformed, not so good when he's being Baptist, and pretty awful when he's being Contemporary.:smug:
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
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:
Where does Piper say that?
:scratch:
The first 30 seconds of the above clip starts off with the following.

Question to Dr. Piper: "Have you found FV theology of Doug Wilson another gospel?"

Piper:
[empatically] No! That's easy. DW doesn't preach another gospel. I don't think N.T. Wright preaches another gospel either."

There are many other clips like these. Either way, I am at a loss for time and desire to lay out info. that is readily available for the impartial observer to come to a sure conclusion.

The Gospel is clear. Wilson, FV & Co. are anything but clear.
Wow. So he did. He affirmed that the Federal Vision is not a problem, but that Wilson's followers are the problem....

WOW.
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
At 4:42 in the first clip I linked to, you will here John Piper's own voice about God loving everyone but the Church he loves differently. Piper begins describing his views at the 7:13 mark. At 7:45, Piper will go on about Limited Atonement complete with all the theologically correct terms.

At the 8:14 mark, in answering the question 'do you believe that Jesus died for all people', Piper says, "I'm going to quote Millard Erickson's theology BECAUSE I THINK HE'S RIGHT..." "God intended the atonement to make salvation possible for all persons...he died for all persons...it becomes effective only when accepted by individuals...If that is the view of Arminians than I TOTALLY AGREE WITH IT. WITHOUT QUALIFICATION!" [emphasis Piper’s]

Does anyone here agree with this? Does anyone here agree that this is Calvinism in the original and historical sense of the word? BTW, Piper’s quote (that he agreed to "without qualification") was taken from Erickson’s chapter entitled UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT.

If I were to be sneaky and replace the word “Piper” with the word “Falwell” I wonder how many defenders there would be?
 

smhbbag

Puritan Board Senior
Piper is a Contemporary Reformed Baptist.

As such, he's fantastic when he's being Reformed, not so good when he's being Baptist, and pretty awful when he's being Contemporary.
This made me laugh out loud. And it's a perfect summation.
 

rbcbob

Puritan Board Graduate
Piper has been slipping for years. He has been weak, at best, on the continuation of charismatic gifts for at least ten years. With such a fractured epistemological base it should not be surprising that the slide continues.
Piper is a Contemporary Reformed Baptist.

As such, he's fantastic when he's being Reformed, not so good when he's being Baptist, and pretty awful when he's being Contemporary.:smug:
I have been a Reformed Baptist for over twenty years and never regarded Piper as a Reformed Baptist. I have been an outspoken critic of his mushy views for over ten years. He has been a Calvinistic Baptist, but I take Reformed to mean much more.
 

Craig

Puritan Board Senior
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
Monty is well-known in his area...his "church", however, is either non-existent, or it's held in his home with his family (maybe a friend or two).

Try to find his church...you won't be able to. You might get interesting stories if you call the local PCA and OPC churches, though. I have a friend who did this.
 

smhbbag

Puritan Board Senior
I stand by my comment on humility. I didn't attack his character but his assumption that individual study of a matter qualifies one to ignore the deliberations of hundreds of other elders, acting in accord out of their understanding of the Scriptures, to come to an exegetical conclusion. No, the studies of hundreds does not make it right nor does the collective wisdom of centuries of Reformed thinking about the nature of Covenant membership make the WCF Confession right. Nevertheless, we do not stand as individuals interpreting the Scriptures for our private use but we confess, with the Church, the Scripures. It is a modernist arrogance that presumes that my individual study and conclusions very likely overthrows centuries of a standard exposition of the text. The Reformers understood this and when they departed from historical understanding they did so with fear and trepidation recognizing our capacity to misapprehend.

This is why I have a problem with the "we have no Creed but Christ" crowd. They boldly proclaim that the Church has no business trying to tell everybody what the Scriptures principally teach but then they slip their Confession under the door where you cannot read it. The sheep, in the pew, confidently assert that their Pastor is "just teaching what the Bible teaches" and accept a personal exposition of the text or, perhaps, each person ends up with their personal exposition of each text and there is no ability for the Church to be led to the unity of the faith, which is what Eph 6 demands of its Pastors and Teachers.

To have faith in the God of the Scriptures is to trust in His Providence that He will guide and direct those in leadership as they watch over our souls. Some violate that trust while many yet labor to be faithful to the doctrines once for all delivered to the Saints. When these men come together, under the authority of the Church, we do well to humbly assume that the Proverbial wisdom is true and that the sinful tendencies to err are dampened by the multitude of deliberators. In contrast, the FV error has been characterized by a few forceful and persuasive individuals who gain a large following and, on their own declaration, decide that the Reformed Confessions have obviously erred and they are just the men to correct it and no Church council has the authority to correct
I agree wholeheartedly with paragraphs 2 and 3.

Based on the bold portion above, is it true then that your comment about his humility came not from his position, or even his words, but that he did those things from an attitude that was without fear and trepidation at the weight of it?

That appears to be an accurate summation of what you have said. If it is, then the critique still stands, as there is nothing quite so nebulous as a perceived lack of humility while stating one's position.

I am also quite confused as to how having "a significant lack of humility in the matter" is not an attack on his character. Is a lack of humility not considered bad character? There are visible actions that we see, and based on that you have ascribed to him an internal motivation or characteristic, assessing it (in this matter) as lacking. That, by definition, is a character attack.

I would understand a great deal more a defense of attacking his character, but not denying it.
 

AThornquist

Puritan Board Doctor
Chris,

Inserting Falwell instead of Piper would be an entirely different situation. John Piper holds a position that many Presbyterian Calvinists (for example) hold to, and it is well defined here. Don't take a small sound bit that is most definitely stated poorly and define his entire understanding of Limited Atonement on it. A little charity would be fantastic. Those Red Beetle videos altogether lack it.
 

Scott1

Puritanboard Commissioner
Many of us are surprised and saddened to hear Mr. Piper say on justification by Christ's righteousness alone the leader of the Federal Vision error gets it right. At best, it confuses it, and that alone is not acceptable.

Biblically, someone who understands these issues with formal theological training needs to contact this esteemed brother and challenge him to explain. Charitably, we ought assume the best until he can respond. It would be helpful if that response could be published and we could review it, even here.

In the meantime, :pray2: we must pray we do not lose one of the apparent great men of God in this generation to the pernicious pride and sin of error toward the gospel itself.

We must face the sobering reality of the allure of lust of the flesh and the pride of life that so easily beset us, and beg our Lord's indulgence that this esteemed brother will see clearly the danger, repent while the time is at hand, and not let this happen.
 

Zadok

Puritan Board Freshman
Wonderment

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]
Cheap shot :down:
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
Sorry. I am not convinced that Piper is Amyraldian. If you where to have heard me preach on Romans 10:9,10 you would be convinced I was Amyraldian or a full blown Arminian. Salvation is a choice. We do choose Christ. It is biblical (and confessional) to call on men everywhere to repent and believe. The mystery of who is elect is hid from us (praise God!). It does not change the surety of election, but it reinforces the scriptural command contained in this question, "How shall they hear without a preacher?"

I heard a Calvinist preacher say this about the atonement:

"Christ's death was powerful enough to save all, if that was the will of the Father. In other words, the atonement is not limited in power. It's limitation is self-imposed. It is one of intent. The Father intends that only a few will be saved, that is, some. But for us, heralds of the gospel message, we know only what we are commanded to proclaim. "Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." Our theological hat tells us that only those called by the Father will believe. Our evangelist hat tells us to plead with all who will listen."

In my humble opinion this is where Piper is coming from. But I am in no way defending his choice of Doug Wilson to speak at the Desiring God conference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
Chris,

Inserting Falwell instead of Piper would be an entirely different situation. John Piper holds a position that many Presbyterian Calvinists (for example) hold to, and it is well defined here. Don't take a small sound bit that is most definitely stated poorly and define his entire understanding of Limited Atonement on it. A little charity would be fantastic. Those Red Beetle videos altogether lack it.
I understand. I did so to touch on the seemingly intractable defenders of Piper where no defense is warranted in this case.

I do not base my opinions off of sound bytes or clips. I have read many of Piper's writings, and listened to many of his sermons. I study.

Did you listen to the audio? This was not Piper "stating things poorly" as you suggest. It was deliberate, emphatic, and fervently proclaimed in the clearest language possible. He even shouts "with no qualification" after his pronouncement of total agreement with Arminian doctrine (BTW, I am content with identifying him as an Amyraldian). He even goes on to expound upon it. It doesn't get any clearer in my opinion. Have you never come across one that holds two opposing ideas as simultaneously true. At one moment you'll hear one position. The next moment you'll here it's opposite affirmed.
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
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]
Cheap shot :down:
Huh? What's cheap about it? It IS a particular danger of Congregationalism that, because there is no check above the local church, doctrine can go awry more easily.

Rich's point was that Piper is ignoring what most of the more conservative NAPARC member denominations have loudly and in great detail claimed, that the Federal Vision represents "another gospel".
 

Reformed Rush

Puritan Board Freshman
Have you never come across one that holds two opposing ideas as simultaneously true. At one moment you'll hear one position. The next moment you'll here it's opposite affirmed.
(We believe speaking out of both sides of one's mouth, is a mark of Amyraldianism.)

"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1:8

"They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak." Psalm 12:2
 
Last edited:

Parsifal23

Puritan Board Freshman
Can anyone direct me to some quotes by Doug Wilson on Justification? I just got a email from Desiring God Ministries asking for quotes and so far All I have found are some foot notes from The Report on Justification
Presented to the Seventy-third General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church but no actual quotes yet could someone point me in the right direction thanks
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
Sorry. I am not convinced that Piper is Amyraldian. If you where to have heard me preach on Romans 10:9,10 you would be convinced I was Amyraldian or a full blown Arminian. Salvation is a choice. We do choose Christ. It is biblical (and confessional) to call on men everywhere to repent and believe. The mystery of who is elect is hid from us (praise God!). This is where I believe Piper is coming from on this issue.

I heard a Calvinist preach say this about he atonement:

\"Christ's death was powerful enough to save all, if that was the will of the Father. In other words, the atonement is not limited in power. It's limitation is self-imposed. It is one of intent. The Father intends that only a few will be saved, that is, some. But for us, heralds of the gospel message, we know only what we are commanded to proclaim. \"Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.\" Our theological hat tells us that only those called by the Father will believe. Our evangelist hat tells us to plead with all who will listen.\"

In my humble opinion this is where I think Piper is coming from. But I am in no way defending his choice of Doug Wilson to speak at the Desiring God conference.
You’re qualifying Piper’s words yet he says “I TOTALLY AGREE WITH IT. WITHOUT QUALIFICATION!” when he agrees with the Arminian Erickson’s teaching of Christ dying for each man.

If a professed Calvinist can in any sense affirm that Christ substitutionarily died for each and every man he is at best an Amyraldian at worst (and more consistent) an Arminian. Even Wiki knows what Amyraldism is.

How do you define Amyraldism?
 

AThornquist

Puritan Board Doctor
Did you listen to the audio? This was not Piper "stating things poorly" as you suggest. It was deliberate, emphatic, and fervently proclaimed in the clearest language possible. He even shouts "with no qualification" after his pronouncement of total agreement with Arminian doctrine (BTW, I am content with identifying him as an Amyraldian). He even goes on to expound upon it. It doesn't get any clearer in my opinion. Have you never come across one that holds two opposing ideas as simultaneously true. At one moment you'll hear one position. The next moment you'll here it's opposite affirmed.

Yes, I did listen to it. Blah, I don't even care to discuss this anymore. I wrote out a long post but it just would not be fruitful to post it. You are convinced he should be labeled a certain way and that's fine. I certainly disagree, but what he is labeled means nothing one way or the other.
 

Craig

Puritan Board Senior
Many of us are surprised and saddened to hear Mr. Piper say on justification by Christ's righteousness alone the leader of the Federal Vision error gets it right. At best, it confuses it, and that alone is not acceptable.
No matter how many times people insist on this...I've never seen anyone substantiate it. Doug Wilson has errors...when it comes to justification and imputation...he does NOT equivocate. He is dead on. At what point do these unsubstantiated assertions become "theological libel"?
 

Zadok

Puritan Board Freshman
Huh? What's cheap about it? It IS a particular danger of Congregationalism that, because there is no check above the local church, doctrine can go awry more easily.
Historical rubbish. It is clear from church history that your connectional system actually accounts for more casualties from error and heresy than Independency.
By the nature of the case if an Independent church goes awry, the others do not necessarily follow, whereas in your denominational structure whole swathes of churches fall together.

The point I was giving a thumbs down to was that Rich should use this incident to take a pot shot at Congregationalism. Is it really the fault of Congregationalism that Piper is in error? Are there no Presbyterian. churches sold out to FV and NPP?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top