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 
Randy,
If you use the same term as the loons and the loons defined the nuts and bolts of the doctrine and propagated it, then that is a risk that you take when you use that title, no?
If you helped define the position in the first place, did you capitulate to the loons or share ideas with them? Why didn’t you call your system something different? You could have avoided the label all together and become an Independent Baptist if that is your tradition, or you could have gone non-denominational and developed a presbytery.
There are many people out there who left Dispensationalism over the past 20 years because they found it intellectually unsatisfying. Where do you go then? You have to go to Covenant Theology. Do you have to accept everything about Covenant Theology? Look at the Covenant of Redemption which I find to be more like confabulated science fiction (forget the Covenant of Works/Grace stuff). Do you have to accept a Post-milliennial Second Coming? Do you have to be a preterist? Do you have to follow federalism?
There are lots of Reformed Baptists out there who don’t follow the ideas set forth in traditional Covenant Theology. If you’re not one of them, then fine.
If you’re not one of them and this stuff does not apply to you, why is it an issue? You follow NCT that is distinctly different from these early pioneers? If you think these other NCT guys are loons, then we likely agree.
But isn’t it interesting that NCT was influenced by the same root ideas as the New Calvinists? I spoke at a Bible college once and actually distributed something that was extensively adapted out of Present Truth magazine, and I accepted it because it came from a very orthodox Presby source. I am now thoroughly disgusted, and I don’t follow any of these people and refused to become a member of the Presby church. I interact with some well known people in NCT and the WTS affiliated. I interviewed Jon Zens on a radio program this year, and I’m on a board of special consultants with him. And you’re telling me that you’re not disturbed in the least that you may have assented or consented or been influenced by the work of aberrant Anglicans and a Seventh Day Adventist? I am very disturbed.
Change the name at least. Is that our fault?
LikeLike
I have actually thought about changing the name but can’t come up with anything better. Any suggestions? When I coined the term, I thought it pretty well summed up what we were trying to say. I honestly had no idea Zens had used the term earlier. I am not even sure he intended it in the same way as we did. In my view, they are the ones who need to change the name since some of them have departed from our original meaning. I spent many years as a Reformed Baptist but was never satisfied by their Covenant system. In my view, it is contrary to Baptist principles for one thing. I don’t think I was influenced by anyone other than classic commentators who had no affinity for what is now being called New Calvinism.
I have yet to be convinced that Piper, and some of these other guys even embrace NCT as we intended. If the WTS guys embrace it, then they have ceased to be Presbyterian and I can’t imagine WTS allowing them to continue in such a case. You are probably better informed about this than I. Perhaps you can inform me.
Randy
LikeLike
Cindy,
Did you see the post above about the gospel and what I actually said? And do you now understand?
LikeLike
BTW Cindy,
I have never read Present Truth Mag. and I don’t know what aberrant Anglicans you are referring to. Perhaps you could be less cryptic. If anything, I was influenced by a Dispensationalist who had rejected the majority of the Dispensationalist system. In the final analysis, who knows where all our influences have come from?
Randy
LikeLike
Randy,
About WTS — wake up and smell the coffee.
WTS has been rife with problems for 40 years. Paul Elliott claims that they taught Gadamer’s hermeneutics there (think emergent church theology), Norm Shepherd’s controversial teachings on faith and works, Dick Gaffin teaches that Jesus had to be justified after his incarnation because he became a man… And they definitely appealed to the Austrialian Forum/COG doctrine to a certain extent. Some goes back to the controversies that played out or were playing out at Princeton when people left to found WTS.
LikeLike
Cindy,
No doubt, WTS is a joke and has been nothing but a breeding ground for “new” ideas and theologies for years.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Randy,
I asked that someone define the term “gospel” in the statement that I quoted which appeared as a single sentence in a single post. It made little sense to me, so I asked for someone to more clearly define the statement.
I asserted that the word gospel has many meanings now, but what one is the best and the most true?
You explained that the gospel was all about God’s sovereignty, and I enumerated your points of explanation which defined it as being more about God’s sovereignty than anything else.
If Scripture is the only authoritative interpreter of Scripture, then what is the “Gospel”? Is it not the good news about the Kingdom of God? If it’s not, then I want to discern that from Scripture.
If that is a wrong approach to understanding “What is meant by ‘the Gospel,'” and we do not share the same method of figuring out what that means, then that is fine. So you proved my assertion that the gospel means many different things, and we have to be vigilant to discern those meanings because you used the term “gospel” in a way that differs from how it is used in the Books we call “The Gospels.” Are we talking about the Gospel or some other gospel. My point was to demonstrate that when we use terms other than how they are defined clearly in Scripture and what they reference in Scripture, then our hermeneutics are flawed.
Part of the problem with the Centrality of the Objective Gospel is a redefinition of terms and foundational principles concerning justification and sanctification through weak hermeneutics, so discerning those things are very important.
I guess it all depends on your standard. I’m sorry if I made any of that unclear.
LikeLike
Randy,
I am not being cryptic at all. If you go up to the header and click on it from here, you will go to the homepage. There is a block on the right with green text. It declares “Paul’s Passing Thoughts” as the “Gospel Sanctification Information Network.” The germane purpose for this blog is to tell people about the nature of the New Calvinism. The thesis here is that NCT and the New Calvinism was a product of the Australian Forum who published a journal in the ’70s called “Present Truth.” It was widely read among orthodox Presbyterians at the time, and it was very popular at WTS.
The journal was published by Robert Brinsmead, a Seventh Day Adventist who started to rethink his beliefs and latched on to Martin Luther. He was joined by two Anglicans, and the three of them formed the “Australian Forum.” But what seems to have gotten by the faculty at WTS was that “Present Truth” was a doctrine of the SDAs and was preached by both James and Ellen White. Shortly after they settled in MIchigan in the late 1800s, they started a publication called “Present Truth”!!!! And Zens extensively quotes Brinsmead in all of his foundational NCT arguments because the SDAs rejected the OT law and the Ten Commandments (but replaced them with legalism that they felt was necessary to earn salvation). Brinsmead’s work corresponds with the standard SDA doctrine in many cases.
That’s why Paul, the host here, keeps saying to you “Respect your elders.” His mission here is to help people realize the nature of the influence that this group has had on Evangelical Christians.
LikeLike
https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/gospel-sanctification-and-sonship%E2%80%99s-gospel-driven-genealogy-part-3-new-calvinism%E2%80%99s-bad-seed/
LikeLike
I know all that crap. I am talking about the Anglican comment. Zens and Brinsmead had nothing to do with the branch of NCT I have been associated with.
LikeLike
Cindy,
You wrote:
I asserted that the word gospel has many meanings now, but what one is the best and the most true?
You explained that the gospel was all about God’s sovereignty, and I enumerated your points of explanation which defined it as being more about God’s sovereignty than anything else.
What have you been smokin’? I wrote nothing of the kind! I dare you to find such a post.
LikeLike