John Piper Show and Tell
SHOW
TELL
For some strange reason, evangelicals continue to tolerate John Piper’s bizarre teachings—including the belief that Christians are still dead in trespasses and sins. However, and per the usual, he chooses his words very carefully so as to not come right out with stating it. Nevertheless, just in case you think he is speaking of the unregenerate, consider that he says: “….why you would call dead people to do things.” If he had the unregenerate in mind, this is certainly a strange choice of words. One might also think to himself: “Wasn’t Lazarus a believer?”
Furthermore, Piper shows his close kinship with Sonship Theology with the whole concept of “speaking life into people.”
And by the way, what’s the difference between what he is saying in the video and this description of metaphysical Christian Science: “In metaphysics the higher rules the lower. What we control in the spiritual realm will manifest in the physical. This process is done by seeing or speaking, affirmations. In the word faith philosophy words have power, they contain the force when spoken in faith…. The concept is to have it birthed in the spiritual realm first and then it will come about in the natural. As one takes the Scripture believing and confessing it the process of supernatural faith begins. One is to speak what they want into existence.”
And no John Piper verbiage would be complete without a direct contradiction to the plain sense of Scripture. He says we “can’t please God” when the apostle Paul makes it clear that we “make it our goal to please Him” and will be judged accordingly at the Bema Seat judgement.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Of course it is good news of the Kingdom but it has nothing to do with an earthly kingdom for Israel. It is the kingdom established in the hearts of God’s elect through the redemptive work of Christ. That will ultimately blend into the eternal kingdom when God will be all in all
LikeLike
Randy, you ruled out human agency here and explained some of your beliefs about the Sovereignty of God, and this was in response to me asking how you defined the Gospel. In Scripture, this is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, that individuals can be redeemed from sin through the Blood of Jesus Christ.
The message of the Gospel is to believe in Jesus Christ, confess that God raised Him from the dead, and the benefit of that is that you become a new creation in Christ Jesus, and we are made alive in Christ.
You never identified this as the Gospel until I asked 20 more questions. I asked them to demonstrate how these traditions of men (be they consistent with what the Australians, Piper, Zens or anyone else taught or not) have caused many to be lead astray through subtle deception because they lost sight of the simplicity of the Gospel: Receive redemption through the Blood of the Lamb, God’s free gift to you by grace through faith in Jesus, and you will be redeemed from the law of sin and death and translated into the Kingdom. That is the simplicity of the Gospel.
What you responded with was not simple but talked about many things that had to do with the Gospel. In earlier comments, you seemed to indicate that this was not the Gospel.
I find that confusing. And as I stated earlier, is this not proof of the problem? Unless we don’t agree that Scripture is the only aut
Randy Seiver said, on September 2, 2011 at 10:21 am
Cindy,
Of course the term gospel means good news. It is good news that God is in sovereign control of the universe, but that is not the gospel in the context in which I am using the term. The gospel is good news but everything that is good news is not the gospel in that sense.
Randy
Randy Seiver said, on September 2, 2011 at 10:26 am
Cindy,
What I am saying is that the gospel presentation is not “Believe and you will be regenerated.” It is regeneration that enables one to believe in the first place. No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him Jn. 6:44. It is God’s work that makes the objective good news, subjective good news to us.
Randy
LikeLike
Cindy,
Certainly you can’t be that stupid. I was using an illustration of something that was good news but that wasn’t the gospel. READ THE STATEMENT!!!!!!!!! The Sovereign rule of God IS NOT THE GOSPEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But it is GOOD NEWS. EVERYTHING that is good news is NOT THE GOSPEL I am understanding why you people can’t understand Piper. You must be brain dead. If you can get that out of what I wrote you need to be locked up somewhere. Learn to read.
LikeLike
Cat on keyboard!
Randy, it may be that we don’t agree that Scripture itself should interpret itself (what I was trying to type in the previous comment). The only authoritative interpreter is Scripture. We may disagree on hermeneutics. We may disagree on definitions or how we can rightly use those terms from Scripture. I really don’t know where the disconnect is coming from, but I have tried to honor you as a fellow Believer and continue to do that.
Earlier, Lydia said that she became more confused the more she read of what you’ve written. I agree. I’ve devoted time here to try to communicate with you. I’m afraid that I’ve run out of time to devote to this, especially considering that the more I say, the less we seem to communicate. Einstein said doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result was the definition of insanity. So I’m breaking the cycle.
I am still confused about why you are frustrated that people do not understand that you are not affiliated with Zens and Reisinger if you use the exact same, very specific name that they do to describe what you state is a very different concept. You also stated earlier that you went on a missions trip and Zens was on it. That is an additional example of why there is additional confusion.
If you came up with a soft drink made of pomegranates and you called it Pepsi, does the burden of proof that demonstrates that your product is different fall to the consumer or to you? I think that it falls to you, and I think it is the same with your version of NCT. The burden of proof that you teach something different does not fall to those here on this blog to read and understand. It falls to you. Name it something different, and then you don’t have that burden to overcome. You seem to be saying that the burden belongs to those of us in this forum concerning the COG.
I’m also confused that if you realize that you don’t have anything to do with this other variety of NCT, then why are you participating in this discussion about the group that is affected by the Centrality of the Objective Gospel, as it was called by the “Aberrant Anglicans and their partner, the Seventh Day Adventist.” If you know nothing of these people and were not affected by them, and you were not in any way influenced by Zens or Reisinger or others affiliated with this movement, then why would you be upset by this or why would you want to defend it? (Earlier comments you made to Lydia and Paul seemed to me to defend it, and Lydia stated so.)
Earlier you stated:
Actually, I was looking for sites about NCT and found this guy who thinks he knows what he is talking about and doesn’t have a clue.
As interesting as it may be to others, I did not come here today to debate what NCT is or is not and whether your version of it is different or whether it compares to the COG. So I’m disengaging, because it appears that we have entirely different purposes here, and I didn’t understand that when I engaged you as “anonymous.” I wish to better discern the nature and origins of the the COG, and I will focus on that. May every blessing of the Kingdom and every good thing be yours.
Cindy
LikeLike
Cindy,
I don’t really know what all of that was about. You need to focus. Concerning my statement you have so badly misinterpreted, perhaps it would help you to actually type it out word for word rather than cutting and pasting it. Then, maybe, you would actually read it. I don’t mind you disagreeing with what I write. I do mind you imputing ideas to me that have never entered my head. One of the rules for my web site is that people must state another person’s position to that person’s satisfaction before responding to it. I think that would be a good rule for this site. I am sure that will never fly here since the whole idea here is to distort what others believe, not to promote unity and truth.
LikeLike
BTW, I didn’t say I wasn’t affected by Reisinger. There again, you have misquoted me. I have been affected by many people as have we all. Please people, learn to read, listen and think.
LikeLike
I don’t claim him because I had no association with him. Like it or not, it is true.
LikeLike
R, So what if you only met him once. He’s still your daddy. He’s the father of NCT and you have a NCT blog. Doesn’t seem all that complicated to me.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
That is because you can’t think. I did not get my views from him and had no association with him.
LikeLike