SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Well at least FV has not been linked to the black death yet.
Not yet... but an investigation is ongoing.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well at least FV has not been linked to the black death yet.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
There are better ways to spend ones time than listening to an Amyraldian Congregationalist commenting on FV heresy in Presbyterian churches.
to Rich above.
I am curious that this has surprised so many. Piper may be as far off from the reformed confessions as Wilson is.
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.
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.
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.
There are better ways to spend ones time than listening to an Amyraldian Congregationalist commenting on FV heresy in Presbyterian churches.
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.
I am once again disappointed in John Piper. As many of you will notice. I don't quote Piper or cite him.
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.
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