Is John Piper Really Reformed?

[JM]

I don't believe he is but Kevin DeYoung does.

Is John Piper Really Reformed? – Kevin DeYoung

If I reduce the Reformed faith to a few points I still do not see brothers like Piper as 'Reformed.' Reformed Christianity is confessional, Calvinistic, covenantal and believes in the regulative principle of worship. Piper denies the Reformed understanding of the Law, denies the covenant of grace, mixes dispensationalism with covenantalism, and believes in tongues which run contrary to the regulative principle.

Thoughts?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

John Piper is a Calvinist, a Puritan he is not, but then neither is MacArthur or his followers. So shall we dismiss all those non-Reformed Calvinists for their lack of Reformed-ness? Would be a shameful disgrace, and limit the roots of strict Reformed Calvinist history greatly.

John Piper is just a man, and he has loved the Church, and strived to make a difference in difficult times, and done so openly as a Calvinist. He has taken chances others would not, like showing support for Calvinists in Hip Hop music. He has done so much good, and good for Calvinism, only time will show us the full harvest of it. I have personally not listened to many preachers with the passion and zeal of John Piper. Listening to him preach is refreshment to the soul, water in the desert, a shovel working on stony ground.

John Piper may have some inconsistencies, but then I've not met a person without inconsistency, if not on paper, in speech, if not in speech, thought, if not in thought, in heart.

Is it not the charge against all dispensationalists, that they deny the Reformed understanding of the Law, misconstrue the covenants, because dispensationalism is a kind of hermenutic which taints every aspect of theology? What does this say about Reformed Baptists who stay within the Baptist faith? Evidently, it's not THAT big of a deal, but those curious so-called spiritual gifts, better stay far far away, run!!

Sorry got a little carried away, these in house struggles get to me sometimes.

 

[JM]

Are you suggesting good theology should be set aside, historic meanings of words disregarded so we can be more inclusive?

No one is suggesting Piper is not a Christian or that we should dismiss him as a heretic that is a woeful misreading of my post. I have stated many times that I prefer the term Confessional or Particular Baptist out of respect for my Reformed brothers and sisters. The question is really simple; should we ignore the historic meaning of Reformed and reduce it to include every Calvinist, broadening the definition beyond its historic use?

 

[JM]

Carl Trueman wrote this a while ago. He mentions how the Gospel Coalition uses te term Reformed:

"Bottom line: the term as used in Gospel Coalition/T4G circles is really used in a somewhat equivocal way, a manner disconnected from covenant baptism and Reformed polity. This is of no real significance except when those using the term do not realise that it can be used in varying ways. If one were to assume that the word can only be used univocally then one might be tempted to relativise, say, the differences between Mars Hill in Seattle and your typical OPC or PCA congregation, seeing them as of minimal significance or simply matters of taste."

I'm currently reading The Creedal Imperative by Trueman and find him to be a straight shooter. Very acurate. It seems the Coalition uses the term Reformed to mean Calvinist and nothing more.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Are you suggesting good theology should be set aside, historic meanings of words disregarded so we can be more inclusive?

No, not really, unfortunately I am suggesting that Particular Baptists do (in a way) what you describe when it comes to the basics of Calvinism (like the Doctrines of Grace) to be inclusive with Arminian Baptist brother and sisters (SBC). I suppose in principal (assuming they are affiliated with SBC), this includes Piper, MacArthur, and White since they are Baptists. In practice, Particular Baptists are Particular Baptists because good theology should not be set aside, however...

No one is suggesting Piper is not a Christian or that we should dismiss him as a heretic that is a woeful misreading of my post.

Perhaps you misunderstood, I didn't mean to suggest that you were suggesting Piper is not a Christian or a heretic, that's not even on the table as far as I am concerned, and I know you didn't mean that. However, surely you know the controversial title (which I realize the source is not you) and phrases like "denies the covenant of grace" will likely get some attention.

I have stated many times that I prefer the term Confessional or Particular Baptist out of respect for my Reformed brothers and sisters. The question is really simple; should we ignore the historic meaning of Reformed and reduce it to include every Calvinist, broadening the definition beyond its historic use?

I mostly agree with DeYoung:

"But on the other hand, it doesn’t bother me when John Piper is called Reformed. Besides the fact that he could likely affirm 95% of what is in the Three Forms and in the Westminster Standards—and I’m not suggesting the other 5% is inconsequential, I’m just making a point that the differences are not as great as one might think—I can readily acknowledge that the word “Reformed” is used in different ways. “Reformed” can refer to a confessional system or an ecclesiastical body. But “Reformed” or “Calvinist” can also be used more broadly as an adjective to describe a theology that owes much of its vigor and substance to Reformed theologians and classic Reformed theology.

...

Which is why my first reaction to the proliferation of even some of Reformed theology is profound gratitude. Do I think TULIP is the essence of Calvinism? No. Do I wish many who think of themselves as “Reformed” would go a lot farther back and dig a lot deeper down? Yes. But does it bother me that people think of Piper, Mohler, and Dever as Reformed? Not at all. They are celebrating and promoting Calvin and Hodge and Warfield and Bavinck and Berkhof—not to mention almost all of the rich Scriptural theology they expound—in ways that should make even the most truly Reformed truly happy."


Should we? I do not necessarily see immorality in the changing or broadening definition of words, language is always changing. Can or does it create confusion for some people? Yes it can and does, but then if people would define certain terms, we probably wouldn't have these discussions.

On another note, how does Piper get by calling himself a Baptist, when he is a continuatlist? I must admit, he is the first and only Baptist I have ever known to believe all of the gifts of the Spirit continue to operate even today and tomorrow.

 

[RINO 72]

I remember hearing James White say on his show once that if he were in Geneva at the time of the reformation they would probably lynch him or something to that effect. I think the whole Arminianism/Calvinism debate has basically reduced reformed theology down to being about soteriology. In fact, I imagine (especially down here in the Bible Belt) there are more than a few in my congregation who roll their eyes at infant baptism and probably do not agree with the Heidelberg catechism on the Lord's Supper.

 

[JM]

lol, my question was: The question is really simple; should we ignore the historic meaning of Reformed and reduce it to include every Calvinist, broadening the definition beyond its historic use?

AW, your answer is....yes? We should ignore the historic definition to be more inclusive?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

lol, my question was: The question is really simple; should we ignore the historic meaning of Reformed and reduce it to include every Calvinist, broadening the definition beyond its historic use?

AW, your answer is....yes? We should ignore the historic definition to be more inclusive?

Ok, so I have been giving your questions some serious thought, maybe too much thought, I don't know. Before I answer, let's consider some other words, and their historic use. The word "Protestant" in the historical sense, was actually meant as an insult to dissenters of the Catholic faith. To be a protester in that period of time, was not flattering. However, the same word is used today, not as an insult (in the historic sense), but as a matter of making a distinction within Christendom. The word "Puritan" in the historical sense, was likewise meant as an insult to those we call Puritans today without insult. The historical definitions have not passed away, they remain the same, but the words are commonly used differently today, which have no foundation in their historical sense. Should the historical sense of those words be thrown away? No, of course not, but it should also be recognized that they have multiple meaning today, the same goes for the word "Reformed" today. We should not ignore the historic use of the word "Reformed", however, we also should not ignore the modern use of the word. I mean the word "gay" historically used to mean "happy", but try using the word historically today.

Btw, just like to put this out there to be clear, I have never ever attached the word "Reformed" to Baptists as an insult, never. In fact, quite the contrary when I used to (interactions with you have made me more mindful to use the word Calvinistic or Particular instead), I used to mean the shared common ground of the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism, which gives me great joy. I am sorry if you or any Baptist were ever offended, as I never intended such. At the same time now, I am a little saddened if the word "Reformed" attached to "Baptist" is considered repulsive or taints Particular Baptists with padeobaptism. I sincerely hope not many Particular Baptists feel that way, based on what I have read, I do not think John Piper feels that way.

 

[JM]

AW, even if the name Puritan, Anabaptist, etc. was given as an insult the point remains, those names reference historical Christian groups with distinctive beliefs. I think you prove my point with such examples.

R. Scott Clark points out:

The first question is whether affirming the five heads of doctrine of the Synod of Dort (1619) is sufficient to be Reformed? Obviously not. A good number of people who could not be reasonably defined as Reformed have affirmed those points long before the Reformation. There was a vigorous predestinarian theology at different points in the middle ages. Gottschalk of Orbais in the 9th century taught the substance of the five points but we would not allow him into a Reformed pulpit. Thomas Aquinas taught predestination and arguably limited atonement in the 13th century. There were several late medieval proponents of a high Augustinian soteriology from whom the Reformation learned but who would not be Reformed. So it is with Piper. Intersection is not identity. A necessary condition is not a sufficient condition. A race car must have an engine. That’s a necessary condition but an engine is not a sufficient condition because not every engine is a racing engine. There are other components (e.g., suspension, frame, the cockpit) to a race car that distinguish it from other cars. End quote

Would Gottschalk be considered "Reformed?" By the way you are defining the term it seems so.

Again, I feel Trueman sums it up. I was hoping we could agree on precise theological language to describe different beliefs but it doesn't seem we agree on the important of such precision.

Yours in the Lord,

JM the Seventh Day Baptist (Well, I agree with 95% of what Seventh Day Baptists believe, so I'll just borrow their name. )

 

[AmericanSamurai]

He chose to go soft on Rick Warren and play buddy buddy with him. So yeah, I dunno.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

He chose to go soft on Rick Warren and play buddy buddy with him. So yeah, I dunno.

Classic guilt by association fallacy. Here's another example: Jesus was friends with sinners, therefore Jesus was a sinner. Super Christians always say and do exactly what is expected of them. I bet you condemn all your friends who do not believe exactly like you...no? I can't tell you how many times I've heard so and so Christian proudly say "I have Atheist friends". So yeah, maybe we shouldn't jump to conclusions and expect even leaders to be superman in every situation, I thought we were about sovereign grace anyway...sheesh.

 

[AmericanSamurai]

I just didn't care for the way he played nice with Warren sheesh. So now you're being accusatory and judging me?

I didn't say anything about anyone being "Super Christians".

 

[AmericanSamurai]

I mean come on guy, you're not livin up to your name of Apologetic "Warrior" if you play nice with guys like Warren.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I just didn't care for the way he played nice with Warren sheesh. So now you're being accusatory and judging me?

Nah, just using sarcasm to try and make a point.

I didn't say anything about anyone being "Super Christians".

I know, sorry to offend you. I did happen to catch your text before the edit, and I know that too, and you wouldn't be the only one, and it's ok.

Recently I found out about Lecrae's involvement with Billy Graham and his "Last Crusade". I am a bit disappointed by that discovery, but at the same time, I understand his desire to reach a broader audience. I watched a short clip of a conference where Lecrae answered questions pertaining to his involvement with BGEA, and he laid it out there that he's prone to make mistakes. Am I gonna stop listening to Lecrae? No, and even if he dropped Christian music today, it wouldn't diminish what he has done. As far as I am concerned, Lecrae is one of the best things that ever happened to Christian music. I'm not gonna put him down for his weaknesses.

 

[AmericanSamurai]

AW, no sweat brah. I appreciate it. I was a little hasty in posting, sorry. Thanks for understanding that sometimes it gets passionate in here sometimes.

Last thing I want is friendly fire among my own brethren.

 

[AmericanSamurai]

I get your point though, and I know that the people we respect and admire will not match up with what we believe on a hundred percent of every jot and tittle.

 

[gord44]

Classic guilt by association fallacy. Here's another example: Jesus was friends with sinners, therefore Jesus was a sinner. Super Christians always say and do exactly what is expected of them. I bet you condemn all your friends who do not believe exactly like you...no? I can't tell you how many times I've heard so and so Christian proudly say "I have Atheist friends". So yeah, maybe we shouldn't jump to conclusions and expect even leaders to be superman in every situation, I thought we were about sovereign grace anyway...sheesh.

good post.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Anyone who came from a Pentecostal/Charismatic background can probably relate to trying to live up to someone else's expectations and falling short. Even growing up with humble Charismatics, the expectations, the expectations...just gets to be too much...sets people up for failure, at least sometimes. One of the experiential aspects that led me to be a Calvinist, is that I could never measure up, often felt like a complete failure in so many ways.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

good post.

Foolishness really, I went over the top. It is difficult to express sarcasm in a healthy way, and if the mood hits me, I can be the most insensitive sarcastic jackrabbit on the planet (notice the arrogance too). I have to hold back and refrain often, the grace of God prevails more and more. My sense of humor isn't much better, it's mostly dirty. It perplexes me, how God uses foolish things. Mercy!

 

[gord44]

Foolishness really, I went over the top. It is difficult to express sarcasm in a healthy way, and if the mood hits me, I can be the most insensitive sarcastic jackrabbit on the planet (notice the arrogance too). I have to hold back and refrain often, the grace of God prevails more and more. My sense of humor isn't much better, it's mostly dirty. It perplexes me, how God uses foolish things. Mercy!

Sarcasm is the highest form of wit in my opinion! But yes it is hard to express it properly on a forum and it sometimes comes out sounding 'harsher' then anticipated. Still a good post I found on your points. God uses you perhaps to get the point across to people.