UPDATE (June 1, 2011): John Piper’s Desiring God Ministries has just posted the video of a lengthy 98-minute video of him and Purpose-Driven Rick Warren discussing the latter’s doctrines and ministries. Last year, Piper received a lot of criticism when he invited Warren to his annual pastors’ conference. While I haven’t seen the video (and I have no plans of watching it), there have been many reviews on the blogosphere, and Tim Challies’ “Thinking About Rick Warren & John Piper” was very useful.
Challies noted that Warren’s statements in the interview don’t add up to what he has said and written in his numerous popular books and sermons, ”What he said in this interview simply does not correlate to the facts of his books and ministry.” He is a “chameleon,” a double-speak, saying everything that people with whom he is conversing want to hear. To Roman Catholics, Mother Theresa “offered the same unconditional love our Savior did.” To Jews, he never mentions Jesus as Messiah. In his interview with TULIP believer Piper, he says he believes in the doctrines of grace. And it is evident from his “seeker-sensitive” megachurch and other ministries that his Arminian methods don’t measure up to his “doctrines of grace.” Michael Horton also noted Warren’s great “tailoring” skills.
While I’m not at all surprised by Warren’s sophistry, I’m disturbed by Piper’s affirmations of Warren’s orthodoxy. He says about the Purpose Driven Life, much maligned by most Reformed theologians, but also by a host of other sound evangelicals:
Frankly, I’m appalled at the kinds of slander that have been brought against this book by people whose methods of critique, if they were consistently applied to the Bible, would undo it as the Word of God… When I read the book, I thought “what’s the issue here?”
Piper seemed to take the role of an apologist for Warren’s lack of doctrinal preaching at Saddleback or anywhere, noting “his intention to be theologically sound and practically helpful without using doctrinal or theological terms in his public ministry.” Is that right, or is it plain pragmatism?
So what’s up with John Piper these days?
§
William Tyndale, the sixteenth century English Reformer and Bible translator, is credited with the first use of the word “evangelical” in 1536 when he referred to the good news of Christ as “the evangelical truth.” Later, the Roman Catholic Sir Thomas More derogatorily called the Reformers as “evangelicals”—those who affirmed the doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone in opposition to Rome’s medieval gospel. Martin Luther and other Reformation theologians later called their churches as “evangelical churches.”1
However, since the Reformation, two major major streams of evangelicals developed.2 The first stream, pietism and revivalism, was a reaction to a perception that the piety of Reformation churches were slowly eroding, and repeating seasons of revival were necessary to maintain this piety. Eventually, however, this stream eroded the Reformation’s doctrine, worship and piety, emphasizing instead moralisms, felt needs, innovations, entertainment and social reform, all in the name of fundamentalism and evangelizing the “unreached,” and today, the “unchurched.”
These features, and many other forms of modernity and postmodernity, are what defines “evangelicalism” today, a broad movement of the lowest common denominator that includes a gumbo of political conservatives, Biblicists, fundamentalists, Word-Faith televangelists, prosperity gospel peddlers, Oneness Pentecostals, Zionists, megachurches, Emergents, and practically any church that embraces the word “evangelical.”
But a Reformation stream continues to flow against the strong pietistic/revivalistic current. Its desire is to maintain and contend for the evangelical faith that was once for all delivered to the saints embodied in Reformation doctrine, worship and piety. This essay will use these two broad streams to distinguish between “evangelical” in contrast to “Reformed/Calvinist.”
Maybe due to a lack of Biblical knowledge or to an anti-doctrinal and ecumenical mindset, some in the pietistic/revivalistic stream have elevated even aberrant teachers such as revivalist Charles Finney (Pelagian), evangelist R. A. Torrey (Spirit baptism as a second blessing), Benny Hinn (Christians are “little gods”)Â and Joel Osteen (health and wealth gospel) to hero status. And on the flip side, some evangelical Arminians esteem five-point Calvinists as examples to imitate: missionaries William Carey and David Brainerd; preachers Charles Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards; and theologians J. I. Packer and R. C. Sproul, to name a few.
If You Knew What He Believes. . .
One of these pastor-theologians of our time endeared by both evangelicals and Reformed is Dr. John Piper, senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota since 1980. A man of great learning and zeal for God, he has a multi-faceted ministry as God’s servant. His book Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (1986) established him as a well-respected author, and since then, he has published several other bestselling books on Christian doctrine and practice. Piper is also the founder of Desiring God Ministries, which provides the evangelical world with a treasury of his sermons, essays and conference lectures, mostly free of charge.
In addition to his pastorate, writings, and Desiring God Ministries, Piper’s church runs Children Desring God, which offers resources to equip the body of Christ to reach the next generation; Bethlehem College and Seminary for training pastors and teachers; and Bethlehem Urban Initiatives, a non-profit organization that facilitates Christian community development, evangelism, and discipleship among the church’s inner-city neighbors.
While all of these ministries are well-known to the evangelical world, some of his beliefs are not; indeed, they are ignored by many. In this essay, I will first briefly look at his doctrine on a couple of topics, namely, God-centered pleasure and Biblical church leadership. Then, I will interact with his eschatology in more detail, and lastly, examine his doctrine of salvation more thoroughly than the first three. After examining these subjects, the question that I will leave you is this,
“Are you sure you still like John Piper?”
God-Centered Pleasure
Piper advocates what he terms as “Christian hedonism” in his book Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (1996, 2003). In this book, he echoes Westminster Shorter Catechism’s God-centered hedonism, “The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.”
Some people are inclined to believe that Christians are supposed to seek God’s will as opposed to pursuing their own pleasure. But what makes Biblical morality different than worldly hedonism is not that Biblical morality is disinterested and duty-driven, but that it is interested in vastly greater and purer things. Christian Hedonism is Biblical morality because it recognizes that obeying God is the only route to final and lasting happiness.
This runs counter to evangelicalism’s man-centered worship, doctrine and practice, hedonism that promotes the prosperity gospel, instant gratification, consumerism, self-esteem and satisfaction of felt needs.
Biblical Church Leadership
In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, he affirms the authority of men over women in leadership roles in both the church and family.
There are many voices today who claim to know a better way to equip and mobilize the men and women of the church for ministry. But I commend to you this morning with all my heart the plain meaning of these verses [1 Tim 2:8-15]:
- That manhood and womanhood mesh better in ministry when men take primary responsibility for leadership and teaching in the church.
- That manhood and womanhood are better preserved and better nurtured and more fulfilled and more fruitful in this church order than in any other.
Does not this run against the grain of evangelicalism’s “democratic” church polity, where there is gender equality, every member is a minister, and male leadership is seen as old-fashioned, irrelevant, ancient, and patriarchal?
Covenantal Premillennialist?
DGM says that Piper is “probably the furthest away from dispensationalism, although he does agree with dispensationalism that there will be a millennium.” Thus, he aligns himself with historic premillennialism, the premillennialism of some early church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Papias.
My own view is… historic premillennialism. I think amillenialism is the next most plausible view. Postmillennialism has a long and respected history. In fact, the most influential dead theologian in my life, Jonathan Edwards, was a postmillennialist. Indeed, most of the early missionaries of the modern missionary movement, like William Carey, shared this view as well—the strong conviction that the gospel would triumph in all the world and subdue all other religions, with gospel power, not military power.
What is historic premillennialism? It differs greatly from dispensational premillennialism in its hermeneutics and endtime scenario:
I think one of the keys is to understand and make much of the fact that the Church—the followers of Jesus Christ—is the true Israel and that we Gentile Christians will inherit all the promises of Israel by faith in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. We have to see this and make much of this, if our Jewish friends are ever (by grace) going to feel jealousy that we inherit their promises.
What? Piper Agrees with that Tyrant Calvin?
The above doctrines which Piper affirms were discussed very briefly to make room for a bigger presentation of his stance on the so-called Five Points of Calvinism or “the doctrines of grace.” What most evangelicals are not aware of when they listen to or read Piper’s sermons and lectures is that they are getting a good dose of Calvin’s teachings about God, man, sin, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and salvation.
Piper has a very high view of God’s almighty sovereignty in the salvation of his people:
God’s sovereignty is worked out in the area of salvation. To ensure that the salvation of sinners abounds to the praise of God’s glory, God saves His people by grace alone apart from works, lest anyone should boast (Eph 2:8-9). The sovereignty of God’s grace is seen in God’s unconditional election of His people out of the mass of sinful humanity for salvation (Rom 8:29, 9:6-23; Eph 1:4), the glorious atonement of Christ which actually accomplishes the salvation of God’s people (I Pet 3:18), the irresistible grace of God’s effectual call (Rom 8:30; 1 Pet 2:9) and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit (Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 36:26ff, John 3:4; Tit 3:5) which enable and move a person to respond to the gospel of Christ in saving faith, and God’s persevering in grace with his saints (1 Pet 1:5; Jude 1; John 10:28-30; Php 1:6) so that His people will in fact persevere to the end and be saved.
Total Depravity
Nothing in the redemption of man, from election to calling to justification to sanctification to glorification is the work of man. Why? Because man is unable and unwilling to come to God on his own:
Our sinful corruption is so deep and so strong as to make us slaves of sin and morally unable to overcome our own rebellion and blindness. This inability to save ourselves from ourselves is total. We are utterly dependent on God’s grace to overcome our rebellion, give us eyes to see, and effectively draw us to the Savior (Eph 2:5; Rom 8:7-8; 1 Cor 2:14).
Is Piper saying that man has no “free will”? Yes, he affirms that man is a slave of sin and therefore, if a slave, then is not free and his will is not free:
Picking up on the term “flesh” above (man apart from the grace of God) we find Paul declaring it to be totally enslaved to rebellion. Romans 8:7-8 says, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
The “mind of the flesh” is the mind of man apart from the indwelling Spirit of God (“You are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God really dwells in you,” Romans 8:9). So natural man has a mindset that does not and cannot submit to God. Man cannot reform himself.
Since the unregenerate man is totally enslaved to rebellion, it is God’s Spirit who has to make the first move to free him from his slavery:
We don’t cause the Spirit to bring about the new birth any more than we make the wind blow. Or to be more specific, the decisive act of will in the new birth is not ours. The Spirit’s will is decisive. To be sure, our will moves in the moment of the new birth. Change happens in us. There are perceptible effects of the wind—“ you hear its sound.â€
The main effect of the wind—the Spirit—is that we are made alive spiritually—born again—and now our wills move. They move to receive Christ and believe on Christ. But our wills move because the wind is blowing, not the other way around. We don’t move first. Our wills are awakened and moved toward Christ because the Spirit blows where he wills and gives life to whom he wills (John 3:5-8).
Contrary to what most evangelicals are taught—that God regenerates a person after he first believes out of his own effort—Piper asserts the opposite process. That is, God softens the heart so that he is made able and is willing, even desiring, to believe.
Unconditional Election
Who are those whom God gives a new soft heart of flesh in place of a hard heart of stone? Not all mankind—for then everyone will believe—but only those whom God had chosen before the creation of the world. But does not this doctrine make God unfair, whimsical and arbitrary? Paul says, “God forbid!” (Rom 9:14) and then explains why this is so in the following verses. Piper summarizes Paul’s arguments:
Now the two keys are in place for understanding the argument of Romans 9:15. Paul is arguing that there is no unrighteousness with God when he elects unconditionally. Why? Using our two keys, the answer is: because God’s name, the essence of his glory, consists in his absolute freedom to have mercy on whom he will have mercy. That is who he is. And his righteousness is his unswerving allegiance always to uphold and display this glory. Therefore, he must uphold and display his freedom, if he is to be righteous… To be righteous he must choose the beneficiaries of his electing mercy before they are born or have anything good or evil.
In the decree of election, God upholds his absolute sovereignty over all his creation. If he does not have the prerogative and freedom to elect, then he is less than God. Before time began, he already had a plan to save those whom he elected to be redeemed from sin. How?
Limited or Particular Atonement
The Trinitarian God made a covenant of redemption wherein the Son of God was commissioned by the Father to come down from heaven as a man to accomplish the elect’s salvation by his sacrificial death on the cross and his resurrection from the grave. But for whom did Christ die? Piper says that the extent of the atonement by Christ is “limited” to all the sins of all the elect, not all the sins of all mankind, as many believe:
Therefore it becomes evident that it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement. It is the Arminian, because he denies that the atoning death of Christ accomplishes what we most desperately need—namely, salvation from the condition of deadness and hardness and blindness under the wrath of God. The Arminian limits the nature and value and effectiveness of the atonement so that he can say that it was accomplished even for those who die in unbelief and are condemned. In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible plight of depravity.
Since man is powerless—unable and unwilling—to come to God, if God left him on his own to believe, no one—absolutely no one—will be saved! The Arminian doctrine of universal atonement by Christ will not stand not only Biblical scrutiny, but also simple human logic.
Irresistible Grace
To complete this Trinitarian work of salvation, God the Holy Spirit applies the benefits of Christ’s perfect obedience to the elect. When the Spirit purposes to renew a man’s heart and mind, he will irresistibly accomplish it, for no mere creature can resist God’s decree:
We mean that the Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit, and therefore he is omnipotent and sovereign. And therefore, he is irresistible and infallibly effective in his regenerating work. Which doesn’t mean that we don’t resist him. We do. The Bible is plain about that (Acts 7:51). What the sovereignty of grace and the sovereignty of the Spirit mean is that when God chooses, he can overcome the rebellion and resistance of our wills. He can make Christ look so compelling that our resistance is broken and we freely come to him and receive him and believe him.
Preservation and Perseverance of the Saints
Finally, Piper affirms that the elect to whom genuine saving faith was given will persevere in the faith to the end:
We believe that all who are justified will win the fight of faith. They will persevere in faith and never surrender to the enemy of their souls. This perseverance is the promise of the new covenant, obtained by the blood of Christ, and worked in us by God himself, yet not so as to diminish, but only to empower and encourage, our vigilance; so that we may say in the end, I have fought the good fight, but it was not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
What about those who spoke, behaved and thought just as any other Christian did, but later fell away from the faith? Did they lose their salvation? Piper says this is not possible:
Nevertheless, we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith. The way these two truths fit together is that we are justified through our first act of faith because God sees in it (like he can see the tree in an acorn) the embryo of a life of faith. This is why those who do not lead a life of faith with its inevitable fruit of obedience simply bear witness to the fact that their first act of faith was not genuine.
A good tree bears good fruit; if a professing Christian bears bad fruit, then it simply means the tree is also bad. Genuine saving faith is evidenced by a life of good works; if there are no good works, then that faith is not real.
Conclusion
Just viewing these few screenshots of John Piper’s vast amount of works leads us to see that he is almost completely outside the camp of today’s evangelicalism. His God-centered theology is in stark contrast to evangelicalism’s man-centered emphasis on what Michael Horton calls “Christless Christianity”—self-help, consumerism and prosperity. And his “Biblical manhood and womanhood” stance regarding male leadership and the complementary role of women in the church and home does not sit well in a feminized evangelical world.
Because the Secret Rapture, Left Behind, the Millennium, Zionism, and Temple cultures are ingrained in the evangelical psyche, Piper’s doctrine of the last things—a mostly-unknown historic premillennialism—also sits outside pop eschatology.
Lastly, it might be that for many, the most shocking discovery in the above analysis of Piper’s doctrines is his absolute commitment to the Five Points of Calvinism, a system ridiculed, caricatured and hated by most evangelicals. Unknown to many who are church-history-challenged, this system of doctrine is embodied in the creeds and confessions of the 16th century Protestant Reformation and for which Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Knox would joyfully offer their bodies for burning, and indeed, countless Reformers were martyred for these beliefs.
In its preface to its affirmation of the Five Points of Calvinism, the staff of Piper’s church declared:
Our experience is that clear knowledge of God from the Bible is the kindling that sustains the fires of affection for God. And probably the most crucial kind of knowledge is the knowledge of what God is like in salvation. That is what the five points of Calvinism are about. We do not begin as Calvinists and defend a system. We begin as Bible-believing Christians who want to put the Bible above all systems of thought. But over the years – many years of struggle – we have deepened in our conviction that Calvinistic teachings on the five points are Biblical and therefore true.
So, if you consider yourself a first stream evangelical, are you sure you still like John Piper?
§
My inspiration for writing this essay is Alan Maben’s “Are You Sure You Like Spurgeon?” Quotations are from Desiring God Ministries.
1 Philip Johnson, “The History of Evangelicalism,” 2009.
2 Michael Horton, “Who Exactly are the Evangelicals?” 2010.
6:35 PM Tuesday, May 21 2013
I didn’t recognise the definition of evangelical at all. Then again, I am based in the UK. Evangelical means something different i guess. It is also quite normal to have Reformed Charismatic churches (e.g. New Frontiers have many churches up and down UK and internationally too, plus many other streams and church families) that hold Piper’s position and would also be called evangelical the UK.
Thanks for the comment. The label “evangelical” goes all the way back to the medieval age, then used to refer to the 16th century Protestant Reformers. So an “evangelical” is one who holds to the Reformers’ doctrine, worship and practice, which would exclude Charismatics/Pentecostals. Although I agree with Piper on many doctrines, he is not truly Reformed or Calvinistic, other than the so-called Five Points. I have a more detailed discussion of the words “evangelical” and “Protestant” here:
http://www.twoagespilgrims.com/doctrine/?p=8678
Great article. I agree with John Piper on everything he has written – can’t say that about any other theologian.
I am very thankful for this Article you posted. Though I disagree with Pipers ecumenical Spirit, as for the man, if there was wanting 1 apostle among the 12 I dont think any other man would be more worthy to be added to the number than John Piper.
The character of John Piper stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lives far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and is one “of whom the world is not worthy.”
Ok now to everyone, why is it that we leave our minds open to our own interpretations of biblical texts? Why is it that we seem to split from the body of Christ every time we “disagree” with something? It is true that we should always employ the Mathew 18 principal but my question to you is why do we have the Bible? Think about it? Is it not so that we can READ the Entire Bible and spend time with God so that we can get His meaning and not our or others interpretations. We should test everything against the word and live for God with all our might, yes we fail and fall but it is our relationship with God that makes it worth it because we LOVE Him and INJOY being with Him, Not to just be saved from hell. The Bible has commas, full stops, verses, chapters and books for a reason let’s spend time in God’s word and let’s get the Truth from HIM and HIM alone.
PIED PIPER JOHN INVITES RICK WARREN HERETIC TO DG 2010
FIRST THE CLOSE WORK WITH EMERGENT CHURCH MARK DRISCOLL FOLLOWED BY A 8 MONTH LEAVE FROM MINISTRY DUE TO †UNNAMED PRIDE ..? †NOW HIS DESIRING GOD CONFERENCE HAS NOTED HERETIC PROSPERITY GOSPEL MONEY HUNGRY MEGACHURCH AUTHOR RICK WARREN AS A SPEAKER. WHAT’S SAD IS SO MANY YOUTH OF TODAY PASTORS OF TOMORROW FOLLOW PIPER’S HEDONIST DOCTRINE OF PREACHING TEACHING & WRITINGS ! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH JOHN, COME BACK TO YOUR FIRST LOVE !!
MRWBBIII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJmkk1XjrGw
(Recent saw the following item of interest on the internet – Betty)
Â
A PRETRIB RAPTURE FIRST !
Joe Ortiz’s “End Times Passover” blog (Mar. 9, ’10) is now displaying (for the first time anywhere) a facsimile copy of the “kernel” of Margaret Macdonald’s 1830 handwritten pretrib rapture account!
The same history-changing account was found in the British Library and is catalogued there as “Margaret McDonald’s Vision.”
Historian Dave MacPherson, who has researched throughout Scotland and England, tracked it down and obtained a copy of the entire 1830 handwritten document which can now be viewed 180 years later.
Â
Â
Â
Almost all my beliefs in the Christian faith matches that of John Piper. This guy has really helped shape my theology today. I’ve used his books as reference to my message series. I also finished my MA Theology from his denomination’s sister seminary here in the Phils.
Do I like Piper? I cannot but reply with a resounding “yes”! But I disagree that the term “evangelical” has lost all its meaning or now stands in opposition to Piper’s theology. To me, “evangelical” means that trinity means more than paedobaptist sacramentology (I am a paedobaptist), that we care more about grace alone than about Prebyterian church polity (I adhere to Episcopal church government) and that it is really not the time to bicker about whether communion bread is to be leavened or not.
On the other hand, I deny that those who are not Nicean and Protestant and “evangelical” at all. In other words, doctrine does unite. The question is; which and how many doctrines are required to unite us to what extent?
@Marcelino
I don’t know. Maybe not. But you can ask them to place an order. What I did was to order online at desiringgod.org and had it delivered to my relatives in the states.
@mario
I have this (unreasonable?) fear of online transactions, fear from my credit card account to be stolen and mis-used. It really sadden me considering that most good books can only be bought through online.
any, thanks
Hi, Marcelino
The credit card is the foundation of online e-commerce. We will just have to trust the system. By God’s grace, all my online purchases were ok. God is good.
(Noticed your mention of a “secret rapture.” You may be interested in the following which I glimpsed a few minutes ago while attending to my computer.  Trevor]
Â
Â
PRETRIB RAPTURE SECRECY
by Dave MacPherson
Enter Margaret Macdonald in 1830. She saw “the one taken and the other left” before “THE WICKED” [Antichrist] will “be revealed” – and added that her pretrib rapture would not be “seen by the natural eye” but only by “those who have the light of God within.” Her rapture was doubly secret: at an unknown day and hour and also invisible to “outsiders.”
Desperate to eliminate Margaret as the pretrib originator and the Irvingites as the first public teachers of pretrib, Darby defender Thomas Ice foolishly claims that they taught a secret POSTTRIB coming even though he knows that when Hal Lindsey teaches “one taken” etc. before the Antichrist “is revealed” Lindsey is expressing the kernel of the pretrib view – what MM and the Irvingites clearly taught before Darby did! Google “X-Raying Margaret” and “Edward Irving is Unnerving” to see why they are properly labeled “pretrib.”)
As early as June 1832, Irving’s journal taught that only “to those who are watching and praying…will Christ be manifested…as the morning star. To the rest of the church, and to the world, this first appearance will be…unintelligible.” (“Present State of Prophetic Knowledge” etc., p. 374)
Always trailing and “borrowing” quietly from the Irvingites who in turn had “borrowed” from Margaret, Darby in 1845 finally sounded like them when he wrote that “the bright and morning Star…is the sweet and blessed sign to them that watch…And such is Christ before He appears [at the final advent to earth]. The Sun will arise on the world….The star is before the [Sun], the joy of those who watch. The unwakeful world, who sleep in the night, see it not.” (“Thoughts on the Apocalypse,” p. 167)
And Lindsey’s “Late Great Planet Earth,” p. 143, says that “the second coming is said to be visible to the whole earth (Revelation 1:7). However, in the Rapture. only the Christians see Him – it’s a mystery, a secret.” Â
My bestselling book “The Rapture Plot” (available at online stores including Armageddon Books) has 300 pages of such documentation and proves that Margaret was the first to “see” a secret, pretrib rapture, that the Irvingites soon echoed her in their journal (which Darby admitted he avidly read), and that Darby was last on all of the crucial aspects of dispensationalism.
Shockingly, all of the earliest pretrib development rested solely on unclear OT and NT types and symbols and NOT on clear Biblical statements. Margaret’s rapture was inspired by Rev. 11′s “two witnesses.” And her “secret visibility” rested on the “types” of Stephen, Paul, and John – all of whom saw or heard what others couldn’t see or hear.
For 30 years Darby’s pretrib basis was the rapture of Rev. 12′s “man child” – actually his plagiarism of Irving’s usage of this “pretrib” symbol eight years earlier!
As I said at the start, the “second advent to earth” is secret in point of time with its unknown “day and hour,” as Christ stated. Pretribs assert that if Christ returns for the church after the tribulation, we could count down the days and figure out the actual date of His return – which would contradict Christ’s words.
But pretribs deliberately ignore the fact that Christ said that the tribulation days will be shortened – and He didn’t reveal the length of the shortening!
Our opponents also assume that the “watch” verses prove the “any-moment imminence” of Christ’s return. But do they? II Peter 3:12 says we are to be “looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God” which all premills claim is at least 1000 years ahead of us and therefore hardly “imminent”! What’s the difference between “watching for” and “looking for”?
You have just learned a few of the many secrets that the Secret Rapture Gang has hidden for a long time. Evidently they have forgotten Luke 12:2′s warning that “there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed”!
PS – For the ultimate in uncovered secrets, see engines like Google and type in “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty.”
1. He’s not selfish with his intellectual property.
Unlike some, he does not collect royalty payments for his works. In fact many of them are available for free in the internet. Sadly, for many of us who still prefer to read his works on books, his books are not readily available in Christian bookstores (but OMF promises to procure the requested titles for us the next time they place an order). For this, I thank my sister in law for squeezing John Piper’s books (among others) into her baggage when she came home from the US. … See More
2. He does not have the Calvinist hubris
I love this article:
http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/934_be_a_kinder_calvinist/
3. He is willing to praise John and Charles Wesley
Yes, he defends the TULIP. And yet he is not embarrassed to recognize the good deeds of the major figures of Arminianism. He praised John Wesley as “the great evangelist” (The Pleasures of God [Multnomah, 2000], page 257). Piper admitted that John Wesley was “not a professional academic” (Ibid, 296), perhaps as a polite way of saying that he did not agree with his school of thought. But he also praised him for being “not an ivory tower inhabitant” (Ibid, 295) who “rode 250,000 miles on horseback and preached 40,000 sermons, often starting at daybreak and preaching three times in a day. He started medical clinics for the poor, found cures for diseases, wrote incessantly in his journals, and left 5,000 written tracts, pamphlets, and sermons….” (Ibid, 295). Maybe he was challenging the Calvinist to match their sound doctrine with good works.
He also generously quotes from Charles Wesley, who wrote wonderful hymns (for example, Future Grace [Multnomah: 1995], page 323, 323)
4. His ministry extends help to the poor.
While John Piper’s view on the Haiti earthquake and Hurricane Katrina is consistent with his Calvinism (“the sovereignty of God”), hiis Desiring God foundation is very active in mobilizing resources to help the victims. Yes, prayer is not enough. We need to help the poor victims.
5. He recognizes the proactive role of Christians in the salvation of others.
His book “Finally Alive: What Happens When We Are Born Again” (Chrisitian Focus: 2009) is perhaps the best book on the issue of “being born again” from the Calvinist point of view.
While your usual Calvinist literature would tell you that “God chooses those who will be born again” or “Just preach the word with the correct exegesis and hermeneutics and God will bring them to salvation”, John Piper put these matters in the proper perspective and wrote in Finally Alive:
“…God’s role in bringing about the new birth is decisive, and our role in bringing about the new birth is essential. If these things are so, what should we be doing to help unbelievers be born again?
“The biblical answer is not obsure, and it’s not complicated. The answer is: Tell people the good news of Christ from a heart of love and a life of service…
“Haughty, condescending proclamation of Christ, with no feeling of brokenness or servanthood, contradicts the gospel. And silent servanthood that never speaks the gospel contradicts love.” (page 166-167).
6. John Piper is a continualist
I’m charismatic. And yes, those who believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts are Christians, too.
Does OMF have “Finally Alive” in dead tree format? I’m usually visit OMF in Boni Station to see books worth buying for.
Heh, I have to admit that when I read the title of the article and the first intro, I thought you were going to write about how you don’t agree with his doctrinal views. I was (pleasantly) surprised to find it was the complete opposite.
Curtis, I also love to listen to Driscoll!
I am not popular here because I proclaim Piper preaches another gospel, with his universal aspects of the atonement, universal love, desire for God to save all people, etc. Driscoll is all that and WORSE. HE teaches that Jesus actually had desires to sleep with women, being a man that was tempted in all ways. Driscoll is a heretic. Beware of the poison he is feeding you. If you belong to GOd, he will confirm this to you.
Driscoll, of course, is one of those aberrant Emergents.
Yes I definitely like Piper and am praying that he will continue to preach and teach the God of abundant grace.
Â
The first book I read is the Pleasures of God. The first chapter caught me and made me see that God is so happy and I realize that to be adopted by God is the greatest thing that can receive, more than mere heaven itself!
Also, his view on unconditional election and particular redemption made me reconsider the doctrines of grace.
I got a bit nervous with the title! But yes, I still do like Piper. Let The Nations Be Glad was the first Piper book that I read and I was introduced to “Christian Hedonism.” I praise God for using him because I saw things differently from then on.
Yeah, I am very much a Calvinist as Piper is… I like this article Pastor Nollie.
Yes, thank you for reminding me of Piper’s reaffirmation of Gospel-centered truths.
However, I like to remember that even though I like what one man teaches or don’t like what another teaches, I solely follow Christ. And every teacher and preacher that hits a homerun or just a double, I take to heart only the parts of their teachings that point to Christ. But just as Piper is very sound in biblical truth, he’s got his own areas of sin and depravity… And praise God that God uses Piper anyway. He’s blessed my life in more ways than one!
But we could sit down with any preacher and author and chew on what they believe down to why they wear the color socks that they wear with a particular suit. And even though Piper hits homeruns more often than not, I also love to hear the truth reaffirmed from the hearts and minds of preachers like Driscol and Chaddick as well!
Â
Thanks for reminding me that even our great pastors and teachers are also fallible sinners like everyone. Only the Word of God is the final authority, and being Bereans is our responsibility, no matter who we’re reading or listening to.
Thank you for reminding me why I read Piper, why I like him. God-centered theology – crazy these days huh?
I assume “they” are common evangelicals (that you seem to assume are ignorant), but in any case… I think the issue is that they do not know or understand the category of “evangelical” and the typical (though varied) doctrines held by them, rather than their ignorance of Piper’s foundational beliefs. Â He is extremely open about his positions, and DesiringGod.org makes those resources widely available. Â However, “evangelicalism” is much more varied and subtle. Â This essay would have attained its goals better by examining and defining “evangelicalism” rather than pointing out one individual and his beliefs for effect.
Thanks for the comment, Justin. Michael Horton has food for thought regarding the definition of an “evangelical” in his essay, “Who Exactly are the Evangelicals?” Like many of the Reformed, he differentiates between the two streams of evangelicalism: the Reformed and the Pietistic/Revivalistic. He says,
But he hasn’t completely given up on evangelicalism:
Had me going there for a minute. If you cut Piper, I’m sure, like Bunyan and Edwards, he would bleed Bibline.
Ha ha ha! My wife also had this perplexed look as she was reading this post.
These are the reasons I have always liked Piper.
yep, i’m sure i still like him. Â :)
You forgot to include that he’s a continuationist in spiritual gifts(http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/BySeries/36/) but unlike most pentecost and charismatics, he gives more emphasis on the edifying benefits of the gifts, rather than mere display nor source of extra-biblical revelations.
I only wanted to emphasize those of his beliefs that are not popular with evangelicals, but they don’t even realize that he doesn’t agree with their beliefs.
What is a shame is this: It should be so clear that Piper believes those things and not some hidden unknown by many evagelicals. Why is that? IT is because Piper still considers the Arminian gospel to be a gospel that God uses to regenerate his people. I have audios of Piper agreeing with universal atonement. He talks out of both sides of his mouth, and I’d suggest avoiding him. He considers that God has more than 2 wills and even desires the salvation of the reprobate.
Could you post the link of the sermon that agrees in universal atonement?
http://testallthings.com/2009/04/10/john-piper-millard-j-erickson-and-universal-atonement/
from John Piper’s sermon http://www.acts29network.org/sermon/the-whole-glory-of-god-imputation–impartation-of-his-righteousness-part-2/
http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=304
John Piper says he agrees with limited atonement to have the Calvinists happy, and he speaks peace to Arminians too. that is why both camps like Piper, and Macarthur, etc. They are affected by doctrine of Amyraldism. It is classic Fullerite theology and it is heresy. They believe the atonement is ‘sufficient for all’ and effective for those that believe and they make ‘faith’ a “condition for salvationâ€.
Now I see where you’re coming from… You’re one of those. Tell me why faith is not a condition for salvation, or if you believe in the free offer of the gospel.
Nollie,
This site is unusual to me. I cannot tell if you are asking me a question. Assuming you are, I may be ‘one of those’. I am a believer in the gospel. Nowhere in the bible is faith called a condition. It is called “evidence”, or in other words, it is fruit of regeneration has taken place. If you are bent on using the word “condition” for salvation, the ONLY CONDITION is perfect righteousness. ONly those that are perfectly holy, perfectly as righteous as God Himself can be saved. That is the only condition. OFfer…I don’t see that word in the bible, but we are to PRESENT the gospel to EVERY person. The GOSPEL is a command, not an offer. How does it say in the bible that many don’ t OBEY the gospel if it is an offer. How does a person disobey an ‘offer’? That is why I am not ‘reformed’. I am a gospel believer. 2 wills in god, well -meant offer, conditional salvation (conditioned on faith) is all unbiblical doctrine and leads to worse heresy of universal atonement. Piper even says in the sermon i posted that Christ died IN A SENSE for those in in hell, but did a bit MORE for the elect. THis is false and heresy. SHow me ONE verse of Christ dying for the reprobate. Just ONE.
The righteousness of Christ is the ground for our justification. Faith is the instrument. So how is someone going to have the righteousness of Christ without faith? Westminster Confession of Faith XI:2:
Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.
Belgic Confession of Faith Article 22:
However, we do not mean, properly speaking, that it is faith itself that justifies us– for faith is only the instrument by which we embrace Christ, our righteousness.
But Jesus Christ is our righteousness in making available to us all his merits and all the holy works he has done for us and in our place. And faith is the instrument that keeps us in communion with him and with all his benefits.
Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Article 5:
“Moreover, the promise of the Gospel is, that whoever believes in Christ crucified, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel.”
On the free offer of the gospel, Calvin had this to say:
“[The Gadarenes] too were scattered, and here is a shepherd to collect them or rather, it is God who stretches out his arms, through his Son, to embrace and carry to heaven those who were overwhelmed by the darkness of death. They choose rather to be deprived of the salvation which is offered to them, than to endure any longer the presence of Christ… In the person of one man Christ has exhibited to us ‘proof of his grace’ which is extended to all mankind.”
I don’t see the word “Trinity” or “Holy Communion” in the Bible either. So we are all heretics for believing in these things.
Did I say anywhere that Christ died for the reprobate? And I have to check Piper’s books if he actually said so. I don’t want to depend on the Internet alone.
Q:Â Did John Piper teach that Jesus died for the reprobate?
A: No. Piper affirms the letter LÂ in the 5 Points.
“The Son lays down his life for the sheep.”
Reference: The Pleasures of God (Multnomah: 2000), page 140 (quoting John 10:11, 15)
Â
Q: Is faith the condition of salvation or fruit of salvation?
A: John Piper believes that in one sense it is a condition and in another sense it is a fruit.
1. It is a condition ….but check how he qualifies –
“Faith is our act, but is possible because of God’s act.
“Repentance and faith are our work. But we will not repent and believe unless God does His work to overcome our hard and rebellious hearts. This divine work is called regeneration. Our work is called conversion.”
Reference: Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (Multnomah: 2003), page 65
Â
2. Faith is also a fruit of salvation
“We can say, first, that regeneration is the cause of faith. That’s plain in I John 5:1: ‘Everyone who believes [that is, has faith] that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.’ Having been born of God results in our believing. Our believing is the immediate evidence of God’s begetting.
“Second, we can say that loving people is the fruit of this faith. That’s the way John argues in verse 4: The victory that overcomes the world–that is, that overcomes the obstacles to loving others– is our faith.
So in the order of causation, we have 1) new birth, 2) faith in Jesus, and 3) the doing of God’s commandments without a sense of burdensomeness, namely, loving others. …”
Reference: Finally Alive (Desiring God Foundation and Christian Focus: 2009), pages 138-139
Â
Â
I think your No. 2 should say, “Faith is also a fruit of regeneration,” to make it clearer that he believes regeneration precedes faith.
Faith is a requirement for salvation, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved.” But even this requirement is given by God himself (Eph 2:8), not from us, just as righteousness, the ground of our justification, is also not ours, but Christ’s.
ah yes. of course. i stand corrected.
Â
I tried to send the link, but it got deleted. If you want it, along with other heresies of J.Piper, email me BLUESFORJESUS@GMAIL.COM
‘nesto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5T7CkSbpOs
 http://www.acts29network.org/sermon/the-whole-glory-of-god-imputation–impartation-of-his-righteousness-part-2/
NO, I don’t like Piper. Here are some heretical quotes from a book of his>
Statements from John Piper:
<<When the Old Testament says that covenant-keeping is the condition for receiving God’s lovingkindness, that’s what it meant. (Future Grace)>>
<<All the covenants of God are conditional covenants of grace–both the old covenant and the new covenant. They offer all-sufficient future grace for those who keep the covenant. (Future Grace)>>
<<But what it does mean is that almost all future blessings of the Christian life are conditional on our covenant-keeping. (Future Grace)>>
<<Not everybody is saved from God’s wrath just because Christ died for sinners. There is a condition we must meet in order to be saved. I want to try to show that the condition, summed up here as repentance and faith, is conversion and that conversion is nothing less than the creation of a Christian Hedonist. (Desiring God)>>
<<New birth is not conditional. No act of ours brings it about. It is supernatural. Final salvation from future judgment is conditional. It will not happen apart from our persevering faith. (Desiring God)>>
<<But if “salvation” refers to our future deliverance from the wrath of God at the judgment and entrance into eternal life, then yes, conversion is a condition of salvation. When we cry, `What must I do to be saved?” we are asking how to be forgiven for sin, and have fellowship with God and escape from the wrath to come. The answer is always, Meet the condition: Be converted! (Desiring God)>>
<<Saving faith is no simple thing. It has many dimensions. “Believe on the Lord Jesus” is a massive command. It contains a hundred other things. Unless we see this, the array of conditions for salvation in the New Testament will be utterly perplexing. (Desiring God)>>
<<How do faith and love relate as prerequisites for final salvation? This book is a response to questions like these. (Future Grace)>>
<<But there are cherished parts of our salvation that are conditional. The condition of justification is faith. “A man is justified by faith apart form works of the Law” (Romans 3:28; 5:1; Galatians 2:16; 3:24). The condition of sanctification is also faith. “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by…faith in the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13). The condition of final glorification is persevering in this same faith and hope. “[God will] present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach–if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel” (Colossians 1:22-23). (Future Grace)>>
<<Some great works of grace are unconditional and some are conditional. Election and new birth are not conditional on any human act. God does them freely without reference to our works or our faith. Justification, sanctification and final glorification, however, are all conditional upon faith. These are still acts of great grace. But God has ordained to make this grace a response to faith, whereas the grace of election and new birth precede and produce faith. (Future Grace)>>
<<It should be plain from this, that fulfilling conditions does not imply earning anything or meriting anything. Grace is still free, even when it is conditional. There is such a thing as unmerited, conditional grace. (Future Grace)>>
<<Therefore the two conditions of Romans 8:28 are simply clarifications of what it really means to trust God for this great promise of future grace. Trusting him for this promise is not merely believing that he will work for your good. You can believe that and be wrong. It means looking through the promise to the one who promises, and by grace–that is, by his sovereign call–apprehending in him the spiritual worth and beauty that will go on satisfying your heart forever; and then embracing that beauty as your chief treasure above all that the world can give. This is the meaning of loving God, and this is the essence of faith in future grace. When you have this faith–when you fulfill this condition by God’s gracious call–God works all things together for your good. The promise of future grace is conditional. But it is not earned. And it is not merited. It is believed, trusted, hoped in. And the essence of this belief and trust and hope is that we are satisfied with all that God is for us in Jesus. (Future Grace)>>
<<We are not saying that final salvation is unconditional. It is not. We must meet the condition of faith in Christ in order to inherit eternal life. (“What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism”)>>
Nesto, your view of the covenant, held by only a tiny fraction of Reformed churches, is very simplistic and untenable. To you, all others are heretics, including the 16th century Reformers:
Olevianus: Even in the covenant of grace after the fall, God “promises eternal life on the condition that I keep the law perfectly my whole life long.”
Ridderbos: “In other words, that very thing which in the Sinaitic covenant was so plainly set down as a condition, belongs in the new covenant to the benefits promised by God in the covenant itself.”
Berkhof: “The covenant of grace is not a covenant of works; it requires no work with a view to merit. However, it does contain requirements and imposes obligations on man. By meeting the demands of the covenant man earns nothing, but merely puts himself in the way in which God will communicate to him the promised blessings. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that even the requirements are covered by the promises: God gives man all that He requires of him. The two things which He demands of those who stand in covenant relationship to Him are
(a) that they accept the covenant and the covenant promises by faith, and thus enter upon the life of the covenant; and
(b) that from the principle of the new life born within them, they consecrate themselves to God in new obedience.
“The covenant is both CONDITIONAL and UNCONDITIONAL. It is conditional because it is dependent on the merits of Christ and because the enjoyment of the life it offers depends on the exercise of faith. But it is unconditional in the sense that it does not depend on any merits of man.”
Faith and repentance and perfect obedience are conditions of the covenant of grace, because these are the things that Adam failed to do in the covenant of works (which covenant I’m sure you deny). But even these conditions are given to us by God in Christ. He’s the one who met all the conditions of the covenant of grace.
All others throughout 2,000 years of the church are heretics because of this doctrine?
An example of a quote that you took out of context and misunderstands: “We are not saying that final salvation is unconditional.” The whole paragraph says:
He says that faith is a condition for eternal life, but it is God himself who “brings us to faith.” You came to your view because you’re trying to rationalize a paradox that we can’t comprehend: faith is required, but God himself gives it to us, and we do not merit our salvation because of it. Many people have ended in error because they try to rationalize things like the Trinity, God’s sovereignty and evangelism, election and human responsibility, etc.
BTW, I deleted some long quotes from your last comment because it is just too long.