Carol K. Tharp, M.D.: [Paul] Tripp Proffers a False and Misleading Gospel
“But the crux of Tharp’s contention in regard to the gospel staggers the imagination for the following reason: the contradictions between ‘Broken-Down House’ and ‘How People Change’ are so extreme that there are no words that could begin to describe them.”
“What is this guy’s deal? Is he teaching two different dimensional truths (eschatological and something else) to be all things to all people for the purpose of selling books? Or is he just confused?”
Imagine my shock when I opened the newest newsletter from PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries; and lo, an expose on Paul David Tripp’s latest book: “Broken-Down House.” If somebody writes an evaluation of your book in a newsletter called “PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries,” you usually don’t expect a good review, and the review of his book by Carol Tharp is certainly no exception. The reason for my shock is due to the fact that Tripp, until now, has enjoyed a significant degree of freedom from criticism by mainline evangelicals.
In her introduction of part one, in this review, as she is giving a lay of the land in regard to Tripp’s book, she notes some of Tripp’s weird word-craft in quotations as a sort of Huh? commentary. Welcome to my world. She notes how Tripp describes the book as, “drawing a ‘word picture’ of our life.’” Huh? Still in disbelief that the theological Alice in Wonderland work of “How People Change,” also written by Tripp, did not end up on anyone’s radar screen, and regardless of bazaar concepts like asking ourselves “x-ray questions” in order to analyze desires of the heart; I was indeed thankful for this book and the fact that I don’t have to read it. But what an education it was in regard to another major dimension of Paul Tripp’s theology, who is sort of a behind the scenes minion of the Christian Counseling and Education Foundation (CCEF).
The primary doctrine of this book that Tharp concentrates on is the belief that creation is in progressive renewal and that we as believers have a part in that renewal. Put another way: an eschatological, progressive renewal of creation. Tharp notes well that this is blatant error:
**Concerning the future, Tripp claims that the world is “in the process of being restored” (18), but offers no Scriptural support for this optimistic eschatology. He ignores Scripture’s clear message that “the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition” (II Peter 3:5-7). Tripp assures his readers that “evil is in the process of being defeated” (105) and that “the enemies of God and good are being progressively defeated” (106). He ignores Scriptures such as 1 John 5:19 stating clearly that “the whole world lieth in wickedness,- in the power of the evil one. After 222 pages of how to be Living Productively in a World Gone Bad, he claims that -you can, beyond any question. be one of God’s tools of rescue and restoration … with the sure expectation” that God will “put a tender hand on— your tired shoulder and say, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You can do these things” (222, bold added).**
Tharp also notes:
**In contrast to all of this, Scripture presents the world as guilty and groaning under the curse and waiting for the redemption of our bodies. The biblical promise lies in “him who hath subjected” it, not in us. Believers have hope but not in their redeeming creation.**
……and also:
**When Scripture speaks of the restoration of the fallen creation, it speaks of a future restoration which is solely the work of God. Nowhere does Scripture support a notion of “restoration” as being “in process” and something accomplished by man…..There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that we are helping God restore the creation.**
An eschatology that teaches a progressive renewal of creation stands as a blatant and stark contradiction to biblical truth, especially when a supposed role by us is included. Furthermore, Tharp also notes how this eschatology echoes the same beliefs as the emergent church:
**In these assertions, Tripp reveals his kinship with the emergent church. A belief held in common by emergent church leaders is their “eschatology of hope.” For example, Tony Jones says, “God’s promised future is good, and it awaits us, beckoning us forward … in a tractor beam of redemption and recreation … so we might as well cooperate.”6 Emergents Stanley Grenz and John R. Franke declare, “As God’s image bearers, we have a divinely given mandate to participate in God’s work of constructing a world in the present that reflects God’s own eschatological will for creation.”‘ Elsewhere, emergent church advocate Doug Pagitt claims, “When we employ creativity to make this world better, we participate with God in the re-creation of the world.”‘**
But the crux of Tharp’s contention in regard to the gospel staggers the imagination for the following reason: the contradictions between ‘Broken-Down House’ and ‘How People Change’ are so extreme that there are no words that could begin to describe them. Anyone who has studied Tripp’s teachings and actually paid attention in a thoughtful way, would initially find Tharp’s assertions extremely hard to believe. However, she makes her case that Tripp propagates; get this, “environmental determinism.”:
**Foundational to Tripp’s message [in Broke-Down House] is the psychological doctrine of environmental determinism. Most counselors, secular or Christian, counsel as if people’s problems are caused by their environment. For Tripp, this environment is the “broken- down house” in “a world gone bad.”**
Tharp continues to make her case:
**As he asserts, “It conditions what you face … shapes what you experience … structures the struggles … creates the stresses … determines the issues … molds the work of the church … shapes the struggles of your heart … and even determines the things you deal with in your body” (19). According to Tripp, the reader has been chosen “to embrace the promise and possibility of a restoration lifestyle” (20). He is called “away from self-focused survival to the hard work of restoration” (21). He says that the broken-down house is “the only environment you have” (19), but by “the hard work of restoration,” you can achieve freedom from these environmentally determined problems and lead a “life that can truly be called successful” (209). In other words people have become broken down through external circumstances, but have the ability not only to fix themselves but to fix the world.**
This is in stark contradiction to HPC, which teaches that environment has absolutely nothing to do with heart issues, other than to reveal what the sinful desires of our heart are by asking “x-ray” questions like “what did you want?“ In BDH, he says creation [or environment] “shapes the struggles of your heart.” At the very least, he is teaching (in BDH) that the renewal of creation can facilitate inward change. Is Paul Tripp really that confused? Or, does he just want to sell books? Furthermore, according to Tharp, he says the following in regard to righteous anger:
**Tripp informs his readers, “In a fallen world, people of character and conscience will always be angry” (129) and asks, “What will be the legacy of this week’s anger for you?” (134). He declares, “God is not satisfied with the state of this house, and he calls us to share in his holy dissatisfaction” (20). He says that “the ongoing dissatisfaction of our Redeemer is a theme of this whole book” (196). In seeming denial of Christ’s last words on the cross, “It is finished,” Tripp says that “God cannot and will not be satisfied with His work of redemption as long as the physical world suffers the effects of sin” (197). No explanation is offered as to how God, who creates and destroys by the Word of His mouth, who knows the end from the beginning, and whose ways are beyond our understanding could ever be “a Dissatisfied Redeemer” (196).**
A continuing theme of Tripp’s teachings has always been that anger is almost always the result of sinful desires, and usually treats the whole idea of righteous indignation with a knowing smirk. Also, in HPC, he spills gallons of ink dissing practical application, methods, and “living by list’s.” But yet, according to Tharp, he says the following in BDH:
**Having established this doctrinal base, Tripp, like most psychotherapists, proceeds to offer a number of methods by which a troubled person can supposedly restore his own broken-down house. Describing the Bible as “a copy of [God’s] repair manual” (85), Tripp offers “five ways to pursue the character qualities to which God calls us” (30), forty-four ways to be “an instrument of cross-shaped love” (172-174), five ways to “Celebrate Grace” (188), three approaches to “daily living” (201), and five “principles that help create the sort of legacy each one of God’s children should want to leave for those who follow” (209-222)…..Tripp’s talk of becoming “more authentically human”(91) “in a step-by-step way” (188), **
I’m I here right now? The antithesis of HPC is using the Bible as a “repair manual.” In HPC, he presents the Bible as a gospel narrative and nothing else. What is this guy’s deal? Is he teaching two different dimensional truths (eschatological and something else) to be all things to all people for the purpose of selling books? Or is he just confused?
Never the less, Tharp’s focus is on BDH, and concludes the following:
**As such, Tripp proffers a false and misleading gospel, one that is all too familiar among psychotherapists, both secular and Christian. His gospel is false because it presents an unbiblical view of the problem of man and offers an unbiblical solution.**
“Gospel Driven Divorce”: Is Your Marriage in Imminent Danger?
Rush Limbaugh often says he knows liberals like every inch of his glorious naked body. I must confess, even with all of the study I have done on the *gospel driven life*, or *gospel driven sanctification*, I think I still know my body much better. New revelations concerning GDS are often so bizarre that it takes time to finally come to grips with the fact that its proponents actually advocate various elements. First, for those who are not familiar with GDS, here is a thumbnail of what it teaches:
The same gospel that saved us must be meditated upon every day in order to grow spiritually. The whole Bible is about the gospel and nothing else. According to John Piper: “That’s why the Bible is so big; there’s a gospel application to every event in life” (slight paraphrase-see video entitled “The Gospel in 6 Minutes” Sept. 12, 2007- Desiring God Ministries). Therefore, we meditate on the gospel through looking for it in the Scriptures, and as we meditate on the gospel as seen in the Scriptures, “we are changed from glory to glory,” or in other words: “Beholding as a way of becoming” (John Piper, “The Pleasures of God” pg 15 ). Also, according to John Piper, we should “never, never, never, never, never, never, never, think that the gospel saves us and then we move on to something else”(“The Gospel in 6 Minutes”). In fact, most proponents of GDS think that any “moving on to something else,” even if it falls under the category of discipleship, is a false gospel and you therefore forfeit both justification and sanctification. In other words, if you believe in synergistic sanctification- your lost.
So then, everything in the Bible must be seen in light of the gospel, and interpreted accordingly; marriage and divorce would not be an exception to this rule in any regard. In short, if you are a believing spouse, and your marriage doesn’t “look like the gospel” ( the relationship between Christ and his bride, the church) you are free to divorce your spouse. Buckle-up, here is an article that advocates this GDS view:
Gospel Love, Marriage & Divorce
“Recently, I have been studying the Scriptures and paying closer attention to how it is most of us as Christians have understood love, marriage and divorce. Surprisingly, although we say we believe that the most intimate of marriage relationships is to be modeled by Christ and his relationship to the Church, we do not, in our theology, really seem to believe or practice that.
We seem to have allowed our understanding and definition of marriage be something that is not a reflection of Christ and the Church. Marriage, we are told, is between a man and a woman. Agreed. That is a principle definition of marriage that definitely stems from God’s design of marriage back in the garden of Eden. However, that is only part of the formula for what constitutes a marriage. The most important ingredient that we as the Church have allowed our secular influences to omit is none other than God himself. Biblically, God is necessarily 1/3 of the relational equation in order for a marriage (or a church!) to be “joined together by God.” Likewise, apostate churches that do not properly include God, are not recognized by God. By definition, a true marriage or Church must include the one true God as a common denominator.
As the Church, we have then failed to see the legacies of Divine love, marriage and divorce throughout the Scriptures. And because we have embraced a marital world-view that can be devoid of God, we have found ourselves struggling with the whole subsequent understanding of how to understand divorce.
In Scripture, where divorce is sanctioned by God, the aim is always redemptive in some sense. It is always gospel driven.
Abraham divorced his 2nd wife, Hagar, because of gospel unbelief (Genesis 21:10-12; Galatians 4:29, 30).
Ezra, the prophet, counseled the entire nation of Israel to divorce their foreign/unbelieving wives…”according to the Law” (Ezra 9, 10).
God gave Israel a certificate of divorce for her antinomian apostasy: gospel rejection (Jeremiah 3; John 15; Romans 11).
The men who divorced their wives in Malachi were rebuked for doing so due to the fact that their wives remained faithful to God. These men divorced their “believing” wives only to marry non-believers. This, God hated.
Paul exhorts the believers in Corinth who are still in a mixed marriage to “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers…come out from among them and be separate” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).
Again, Christ divorced the church of Laodicea for its gospel rejection, for embracing an antinomian apostasy as well (Revelation 3).
The common denominator that is found amongst every single divorce that was sanctioned by God was a HEART denominator, a GOD denominator that was identified as not being existent in the marriage.
So when we read the words of Jesus, “Except for fornication, a man must not divorce his wife,” we do not take his meaning of fornication (GK: pornea) as being literal. From the consistent revelation given elsewhere in Scripture, he was understandably speaking of a spiritual fornication: love for the world.
Once this God centered understanding of marriage and divorce is understood, we no longer have to struggle with the idea of “what kind of sins can qualify as “pornea”? We no longer have to tell married wives, “I know your husband beats you, occasionally, and perhaps he only beats your children. However, God never said it would be easy to be a follower of Jesus, so you need to understand that it is His will for you to remain married to your miserable and unbelieving husband (or apostate spouse).”
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.” Luke 18:29, 30.”
Get the picture? The crux of the article is this excerpt: “In Scripture, where divorce is sanctioned by God, the aim is always redemptive in some sense. It is always gospel driven.” Basically, what it boils down to is this: in reformed circles where GDS is propagated, all bets are off; any marriage that doesn’t “look like the gospel” is possible fodder for divorce court. But who in the world would be the judge of that? No marriage is perfect; at what point would one decide that it is or isn‘t? Well, welcome to the nebulous world that is GDS.
However, in this environment, any mixed marriage (believer and unbeliever) would certainly be doomed to failure, for no unbelieving spouse could live up to a picture of God’s marriage with the church. The believing spouse, once in such a church, will have a green light to divorce the second the ink is dry on the membership application. But here is a problem as well: now you have a situation where the marriage is only valid if a certain standard is met. Isn’t that the antithesis of the gospel? Well, welcome to the contradictory world that is also GDS. But you say, “hey Paul, at least the other spouse has to be an unbeliever. If your both saved; and in such a church, your safe, right?” Yes you are, if you both are proponents of GDS. Remember, more traditional views of the relationship between justification and sanctification are deemed to be a false gospel in GDS circles.
The proof is in the pudding. I predict that divorce will soon become rampant in reformed churches, if it isn’t already. I know of a few that actually pride themselves in “building marriages that look like the gospel.” Unfortunately, this is often done through divorce and remarriage, with God’s supposed stamp of approval. Some of these churches, even small ones of 200 or 300 members, average a divorce and remarriage to the tune of one per year. I also predict that as the word gets out, spouses will begin to go to these churches with the ill intent of getting a church-sanctioned divorce. Stay tuned.
paul
The Newest Fad Among Contemporary Antinomians: Skeletons
Life can be really interesting. Some people I know are infatuated with all the nuances of nature that they discover; for example, a type of butterfly they had never seen before and so forth. Me? I just love to watch all of the new “discoveries” found by propagators of the antinomian doctrine known as the *gospel driven life* or *gospel sanctification.* Gospel sanctification is a tenet of New Covenant Theology, and can best be described as plenary monergism in every aspect of salvation, whether justification or sanctification.
As with most false doctrines, the advocates are primarily focused on the novelty of it. So when the novelty wears off, some new twist in essence, or a “deeper” understanding must be brought forth to recharge the faithful as they wait with bated breath at the doors of the Church Of The Potted Plant. This is nothing new for this doctrine. J.C. Ryle contended against a very similar doctrine in the 19th century and had this to say accordingly:
“There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad, and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten path of our forefathers. Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine, without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true.”
While I am still looking for new and exciting trends to come out of this movement like the anticipation of daily baptisms for believers (since we are saved by the gospel everyday), one has come forth that I never saw coming: the depiction of Christians as skeletons. Man! How could I not see that coming? It is a perfect picture of their theology; Christians are dead and can do nothing. From blog handles to Facebook status pictures, the GS faithful are proudly presenting themselves as empty skeletons, humbly praying, unlike those arrogant, hateful skeletons we often see in Hollywood movies. In Micheal Horton’s book “Christless Christianity (pg 189),” he presents Sunday worship as a valley of dry bones event; a reference from Ezekiel, chapter 37:
“ God gathers his people together in a covenantal event to judge and to justify, to kill and to make alive. The emphasis is on God’s work for us – the Father’s gracious plan, the Son’s saving life, death, and resurrection, and the Spirit’s work of bringing life to the valley of dry bones through the proclamation of Christ.”
So in other words, Sunday worship, like the rest of the Christians life, is a passive event in which dry bones are brought to life on a continual bases. Christians are therefore just a valley of dry bones and unable to do anything but wait for God to give us life on a continual bases. And even if he does, we are only then able to get on our skeleton knees and pray for more life. The skeleton is now the new colors of the Christian clan. Hopefully, the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang will not sue for copyright infringement.
But there is only one thing missing. They forget to put their favorite Bible verse (slogan) over the praying skeleton, Galatians 2:20;
“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
It would be perfect (even though the context of this passage is clearly justification by works): a black leather jacket with the praying skeleton, and an arching, fancy font of Galatians 2:20 over the praying skeleton. Then you could have a sub-title underneath like “Ride to Live. Live to Ride”; except we would say, “Live to Do Nothing. Do Nothing to Live.” Would that seem offensive? Why? Christians are more and more like motorcycle gangs these days; nether care very much for the Law of God.
paul
2 Peter Chapter One: Obtaining a Rich Entry
It is so very tempting for me to think that 2 Peter chapter one is one of the most important segments of Scripture in all of the Bible. Peter writes this letter towards the end of his life, and the truth that he wants to continually remind them of is in verses 5-11. This is a primary focus of his teaching in the final lap, so that they will recall these things after he is gone:
“So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things”(verses 12-15).
What things? The things he previously writes of in verses 5-8. It is sort of a if you forget everything else I write, don’t forget this exhortation.
What is the end of following this instruction? Peter states the end of this teaching in verse 11:
“and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
The goal of this teaching is a rich entry into the kingdom. Obviously then, we can have an unfortunate entry fraught with fear and doubt. Peter states this by antithesis in verses 9 and 10:
“But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall,”
This is what Matthew Henry said in regard to the above text:
“He cannot see far off. This present evil world he can see, and dotes upon, but has no discerning at all of the world to come, so as to be affected with the spiritual privileges and heavenly blessings thereof. He who sees the excellences of Christianity must needs be diligent in endeavours after all those graces that are absolutely necessary for obtaining glory, honour, and immortality; but, where these graces are not obtained nor endeavoured after, men are not able to look forward to the things that are but a very little way off in reality, though in appearance, or in their apprehension, they are at a great distance, because they put them far away from them; and how wretched is their condition who are thus blind as to the awfully great things of the other world, who cannot see any thing of the reality and certainty, the greatness and nearness, of the glorious rewards God will bestow on the righteous, and the dreadful punishment he will inflict on the ungodly!
But this is not all the misery of those who do not add to their faith virtue, knowledge, etc. They are as unable to look backward as forward, their memories are slippery and unable to retain what is past, as their sight is short and unable to discern what is future; they forget that they have been baptized, and had the means, and been laid under the obligations to holiness of heart and life. By baptism we are engaged in a holy war against sin, and are solemnly bound to fight against the flesh, the world, and the devil. Often call to mind, and seriously meditate on, your solemn engagement to be the Lord’s, and your peculiar advantages and encouragements to lay aside all filthiness of flesh and spirit.”
Following Peter’s instruction as contained in verses 5-8 results in a surety of our election. Obviously, we cannot earn our election, but following Peter’s instruction will make us sure that we belong to God. If one is sure that they belong to the kingdom and have extensive knowledge of its glories, they are truly unshakable and will not stumble in this present life. Peter says to be “eager” and diligent to make our calling sure, resulting in a rich entry into the kingdom of God.
Peter teaches the practice that leads to this rich entry in verses 5-8:
“For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Again, Peter emphasizes the importance of effort on our part. We are to make “every” effort to add these qualities to our life. To the degree that we practice these things, we will have surety and a rich entry into heaven. The goal is to implement these qualities in increasing measure, which also keeps us from being unproductive in our knowledge Christ. To the degree that we know Christ, we can effectively follow him as he commanded. However, sandwiched in between these qualities is the working together of knowledge and practice (add). We can’t follow what we don’t know, so adding knowledge is of great import, but the Holy Spirit will not give a continued, increased understanding along with true discernment without our practice. This is a theme throughout Scripture (John 7:17 Hebrews 5:14).
Peter starts with the foundation of faith which can only come from God, and then we supplement or add to faith the following seven categorical qualities: goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and finally, love. Don’t miss this: all of these qualities are connected or build on each other. You can’t build on any of these qualities without the foundation of the prior. You can’t add knowledge to faith unless you have goodness first. Peter doesn’t say to add knowledge to faith, he says to add goodness, and then knowledge, and so forth. Call it a building; the foundation is faith, and each floor provides a foundation for the next until you get to the top floor which is love. Or call it a chain; the chain is made up of eight links, and it is not a complete chain without all of the links. But I prefer to think of this concept as an electrical circuit. Every electrical circuit needs a power source and a proper load (components on the circuit and complete connection between them) to work properly.
Whatever your analogy, we are on safe ground as follows: it is absolutely essential that all of these elements are in operation daily in order for each element to be functioning properly. They all work together to maximize each other. Obviously, to the degree that we add to goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, and brotherly kindness; we have a higher quality of love. Think of love and how it would be diminished if one of the other elements were missing. For instance, lack of knowledge would end up as an attempt to love with a love that is not according to God’s way of love. Love would not last very long without perseverance, etc. Therefore, let’s look at each quality individually.
Goodness (arete): it means courage and valor. The idea of an excellent or praiseworthy courage. We are to nourish or add courage to our faith. Knowledge (gnosis): knowledge. Self-control (egkrateia): temperance or moderation. We cannot serve multiple masters. Perseverance (hupomone): patience, continuance, joyful enduring, waiting. Godliness (eusebeia): piety, holiness. Brotherly kindness (Philadelphia): brotherly love. Love (agape): benevolence.
It would seem that forgetfulness is one of our more formidable nemeses in regard to adding these qualities to our faith. But as you can imagine, it would be easy enough to fill our daily lives with the practice of these qualities. Certainly, life its self offers plenty of opportunity to practice the one element of patience. Do you struggle with patience? Take note of how well you apply the other elements, they all contribute to our grand goal of love.
paul
Why? Because Piper is an Antinomian, That’s Why
“Let me suggest that Piper’s indifference to this behavior is spawned by his theology. Has that thought ever crossed anybody’s mind?”
Well, I didn’t expect to be posting this topic this morning. I was perusing stuff from the 2010 Shepard’s Conference and saw something taught by a Mark MacArthur (Not John; who is he?). That really got my curiosity gong, so I googled the name. What I ended up seeing first was an article asking why John Piper invited Mark Driscoll to his 2008 Desiring God Conference. The answer was left open. It seems that nobody really knows the answer as to why; other than the explanation given by Piper himself, and that doesn’t seem to be good enough. But what shocked me was the discovery in the same article concerning a series John MacArthur did about a year ago in regard to Driscoll’s handling of the Song of Solomon. I was unaware of it, but it was surprisingly candid / scathing, and four parts long! The article also noted that MacArthur related his concerns to John Piper directly, and apparently, to no avail.
So why would John Piper associate with “Mark the cussing pastor,” and even invite him to speak at his Desiring God Conference? Well, we get a clue in another spectacle that occurred at the same conference, an interview with Paul David Tripp in which he relates having a cussing contest with his own children while in the family car. If you can still find the video, it has a lame disclaimer in the introduction claiming that Paul Tripp doesn’t condone cussing; he was only cussing, and encouraged his children to do so as well in order to make a point. The video even offended Steve Camp, who railed about it on his blog: http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2008/09/paul-tripp-ing-likes-to-say-s-word-has.html
But whether it’s Mac, or Camp, or all of the people who comment, they seem perplexed by this behavior and Piper’s indifference to the issue. Camp closed his scathing commentary with this comment:
“Anyone seen the real John Piper lately? If you do, tell him that he is missed and that we want to hear him just preach the Word again and leave behind his fascination with this high-school, emerging, juvenile, lascivious mentality once for all.”
This is what’s frustrating to me: I have seen the real John Piper for a long time, and I am really just a dumb hillbilly from Portsmouth, Ohio. Let me suggest that Piper’s indifference to this behavior is spawned by his theology. Has that thought ever crossed anybody’s mind? Piper has a problem with a Christian obligation to uphold the law. Christians are not listening to what he says in careful, studious, fashion. If Steve Camp would carefully examine the preaching from the John Piper who was supposedly missing while at his own conference, he will find a marvelous, masterful, exposition of God’s word; but strictly in vertical form. Piper’s teaching is all but completely void of instruction and practical application. His ability to proclaim the glory of God camouflages his plenary monergism, and his disdain for a synergistic approach to sanctification. As a matter of fact, like Paul David Tripp, he often cites Scripture that concerns our condition prior to salvation to make specific points about our walk with God as Christians. Like Tripp, he does not believe that we are anymore equipped to have a part in our sanctification than we were before justification. That is why Piper said in one sermon: “Never, never, never, never, separate the gospel from the sanctification process.” Do Christians really know what he is saying when he says those things?
Yes, yes, yes, I know, these guys believe in the upholding of the law; they just don’t believe that we can have a part in it, don’t miss that point. In the final analysis, it needs to be called what it is: antinomianism. You may not agree with me, but my premise certainly explains Piper’s indifference to the behavior of Mark Driscoll and Paul Tripp. John Piper has never been missing in my mind. And by the way, who is Mark MacArthur?
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
6 comments