John Piper in Relation to Historic Baptist Theology

[kenrapoza]

Greetings Baptist brethren!

I was curious about how Baptists view John Piper's theology in relation to historic Baptist theology. There is a short article here about his views in relation to Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology. Basically, it says that he doesn't fit neatly into any of the camps but is farthest from Dispensationalism, which would be expected given the material he's produced over the years.

So - given that he is Calvinistic regarding his soteriology, and doesn't really hold to Reformed theology as a whole, how does he compare with the historic Particular Baptists whose soteriological views share significant affinity with High Calvinism? It seems as though he is ecumenically much more open than the Strict and Particular Baptists, probably further away from the Gospel Standard Baptists, but certainly not a General Baptist.

Is he basically an evangelical, somewhat pietistic, quasi-Calvinistic Baptist like many American contemporaries without any relation to a particular historic Baptist tradition - or would some Baptists recognize him as standing in the line of some of the historic Baptist groups of the past?

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Everyone's got their own ideas.

But John Piper is a reformed baptist and there is a strong tradition of reformed baptist, the most notable of whom, in min mind, is Charles Spurgeon.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Greetings Baptist brethren!

I was curious about how Baptists view John Piper's theology in relation to historic Baptist theology. There is a short article here about his views in relation to Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology. Basically, it says that he doesn't fit neatly into any of the camps but is farthest from Dispensationalism, which would be expected given the material he's produced over the years.

So - given that he is Calvinistic regarding his soteriology, and doesn't really hold to Reformed theology as a whole, how does he compare with the historic Particular Baptists whose soteriological views share significant affinity with High Calvinism? It seems as though he is ecumenically much more open than the Strict and Particular Baptists, probably further away from the Gospel Standard Baptists, but certainly not a General Baptist.

Is he basically an evangelical, somewhat pietistic, quasi-Calvinistic Baptist like many American contemporaries without any relation to a particular historic Baptist tradition - or would some Baptists recognize him as standing in the line of some of the historic Baptist groups of the past?

There have been a lot of Baptists like that. I don't think there have been any as famous as John Piper though. My grandpa was a lot like that. He was calvinistic and Amillenial in the SBC. He held to neither covenant theology nor dispensationalism.

John Piper and those like him really couldn't be called a reformed baptist. Reformed baptists are always confessional.

 

[kenrapoza]

Is John Piper confessional? I didn't think that he was. Additionally, he's premillennial instead of Amillennial, but I imagine it's more of a historic premillennialism.

Edit: Sorry Osage I misread your post. I thought you said that he was a Reformed Baptist because he's confessional when you said the opposite. Sorry! BTW - I agree with you, I don't believe that Piper holds to any particular Baptist confession.

 

[the particular baptist]

Spurgeon wasnt reformed baptist, he was particular baptist.

Piper is a Fullerite, he follows the theology of Andrew Fuller.

 

[kenrapoza]

Interesting - from what I understand, Fullerism is quite prominant in certain areas of Baptist history. Is there a significant soteriological difference between Fullerism and the Canons of Dordt?

 

[Hammster]

Last I checked, Piper preaches the Gospel. Good enough.

 

[the particular baptist]

Last I checked, Piper preaches the Gospel. Good enough.

Your opinion. If the gospel of general universal atonement is the gospel according to the scriptures then Piper preaches the gospel. Piper preaches the same gospel Rick Warren does, he admitted as much himself.

 

[the particular baptist]

Interesting - from what I understand, Fullerism is quite prominant in certain areas of Baptist history. Is there a significant soteriological difference between Fullerism and the Canons of Dordt?

I dont know about that, but there is a wide chasm between the New Divinity theology of Andrew Fuller and the Old Paths theology of the old school particular baptists.

 

[Hammster]

Your opinion. If the gospel of general universal atonement is the gospel according to the scriptures then Piper preaches the gospel. Piper preaches the same gospel Rick Warren does, he admitted as much himself.

He doesn't preach universal atonement. I've listened to his nine part series on TULIP.

 

[faceofbear]

He doesn't preach universal atonement. I've listened to his nine part series on TULIP.

He teaches Christ died for the world. MacArthur and Piper are relatively in the same camp. Christ died for all mankind, but His blood is only efficacious for the elect. So, if that's you're understanding (which I'm not criticizing -- I thought I'd make that clear as it sounds like I'm about to) of TULIP, then I agree with you. But that's not mine, nor does it appear to be Calvin's understanding of TULIP.

 

[Hammster]

He teaches Christ died for the world. MacArthur and Piper are relatively in the same camp. Christ died for all mankind, but His blood is only efficacious for the elect. So, if that's you're understanding (which I'm not criticizing -- I thought I'd make that clear as it sounds like I'm about to) of TULIP, then I agree with you. But that's not mine, nor does it appear to be Calvin's understanding of TULIP.

I just read something he wrote that's contrary to that. If I can find it, I'll post it.

 

[student ad x]

Bethlehem Baptist's statement on Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption: What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism Revised March, 1998 - Desiring God

 

[AndOne]

He teaches Christ died for the world. MacArthur and Piper are relatively in the same camp. Christ died for all mankind, but His blood is only efficacious for the elect. So, if that's you're understanding (which I'm not criticizing -- I thought I'd make that clear as it sounds like I'm about to) of TULIP, then I agree with you. But that's not mine, nor does it appear to be Calvin's understanding of TULIP.

It appears that Calvin does teach this:

We now perceive, that though universal calling may not bring forth fruit, yet the faithfulness of God does not fail, inasmuch as he always preserves a Church, as long as there are elect remaining; for though God invites all people indiscriminately to himself, yet he does not inwardly draw any but those whom he knows to be his people, and whom he has given to his Son, and of whom also he will be the faithful keeper to the end. - Calvin's Commentary on Romans (11:2)

This is what Driscoll calls unlimited limited atonement. Personally I don't see how this is any different than LA in TULIP.

 

[student ad x]

Greetings Baptist brethren!

I was curious about how Baptists view John Piper's theology in relation to historic Baptist theology. There is a short article here about his views in relation to Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology. Basically, it says that he doesn't fit neatly into any of the camps but is farthest from Dispensationalism, which would be expected given the material he's produced over the years.

So - given that he is Calvinistic regarding his soteriology, and doesn't really hold to Reformed theology as a whole, how does he compare with the historic Particular Baptists whose soteriological views share significant affinity with High Calvinism? It seems as though he is ecumenically much more open than the Strict and Particular Baptists, probably further away from the Gospel Standard Baptists, but certainly not a General Baptist.

Is he basically an evangelical, somewhat pietistic, quasi-Calvinistic Baptist like many American contemporaries without any relation to a particular historic Baptist tradition - or would some Baptists recognize him as standing in the line of some of the historic Baptist groups of the past?

Hey Ken

Yes, I'd say Pastor John is evangelical, moderately calvinistic and Baptist. I've never heard or read anything from him where he describes/classifies himself as a Reformed Baptist (Bethlehem is a part of the General Baptist Convention/Independent if I'm remembring right). I think Bethlehem Baptist also goes against the traditional Baptist grain on the membership issue: leaving re-baptism for those baptized as infants to conscience.

 

[OzSpen]

Hammster,

He doesn't preach universal atonement. I've listened to his nine part series on TULIP.

The full statement of John Piper’s understanding of limited atonement is on the Desiring God website, “What we believe about the five points of Calvinism “. Part of what he wrote is:

we do not limit the power and effectiveness of the atonement. We simply say that in the cross God had in view the actual redemption of his children. And we affirm that when Christ died for these, he did not just create the opportunity for them to save themselves, but really purchased for them all that was necessary to get them saved, including the grace of regeneration and the gift of faith.

We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers—from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16)—is made possible because of the cross.

This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God's righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God's mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.

Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.

But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died "especially."

There are many Scriptures which say that the death of Christ was designed for the salvation of God's people, not for every individual.
​

Sincerely, Oz

 

[Hammster]

Hammster,

The full statement of John Piper's understanding of limited atonement is on the Desiring God website, "What we believe about the five points of Calvinism ". Part of what he wrote is:
Sincerely, Oz

And?

 

[OzSpen]

Hey Ken

Yes, I'd say Pastor John is evangelical, moderately calvinistic and Baptist. I've never heard or read anything from him where he describes/classifies himself as a Reformed Baptist (Bethlehem is a part of the General Baptist Convention/Independent if I'm remembring right). I think Bethlehem Baptist also goes against the traditional Baptist grain on the membership issue: leaving re-baptism for those baptized as infants to conscience.

In Piper's sermon, "Infant baptism and the new covenant community", he does support believer's baptism over paedo-baptism. I consider that his position is well supported by Scripture - that baptism is for believers.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

And?

There are some challenges in interpretation:

• God so loved the world (John 3:16);
• Christ is the Saviour of all people (1 Tim 4:1);
• Chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4);
• Elect according to the foreknowledge of God (1 Peter 1:1-2);
• Faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ (Rom 10:17).

My basic understanding is that God foreknows those who will respond in faith to the word of Christ. These are chosen before the foundation of the world. Christ died making salvation available to the whole of the world. Only those who believe are in the elect and they become Christian by responding in faith to the word of Christ.

I know that you and others may disagree with this perspective, but this is my best understanding of these difficult passages.

Oz

 

[faceofbear]

It appears that Calvin does teach this:

We now perceive, that though universal calling may not bring forth fruit, yet the faithfulness of God does not fail, inasmuch as he always preserves a Church, as long as there are elect remaining; for though God invites all people indiscriminately to himself, yet he does not inwardly draw any but those whom he knows to be his people, and whom he has given to his Son, and of whom also he will be the faithful keeper to the end. - Calvin's Commentary on Romans (11:2)

This is what Driscoll calls unlimited limited atonement. Personally I don't see how this is any different than LA in TULIP.

An invitation for all does not mean that Christ died for all. Similarly, if I invite all people at my work for a dinner at my house, it does not mean that I purchased all the food required for everyone at work because I know not all will show up. Only those who Christ bought will ever be drawn, and Christ did not buy all. And if Christ did not buy all, He did not die for all, lest you believe He chose to waste His blood for people who wouldn't take it, and that it is not His blood that saves, but man's faith.