John Piper

[heartstrings]

[hayesy]

Pah!
I wrote a long post... and the computer ate it! I'll re-write part of it.

In anticipation of this:

The question I have' date=' is...who is Piper's God? Is He the same God I know? The Bible says "Not every man that saith to me Lord, Lord..."[/quote']
I wrote:

[jet001]

Wow. I'm not sure how my blog got linked on here earlier in the post, but it did.

First of all, I would encourage all of you to use language that is more edifying towards one another. Let everything said here be done with love and with a passion for God's glory and His truth. I see a lot of vindictiveness that does not seem to coincide with the Spirit of Christ. As brethren, we may disagree, but we do so out of respect, love, and humility, recognizing that when we do so, we imitate Christ.

Secondly, I don't think John Piper is necessarily as evil as many have portrayed him here. Rather, he is quite the passionate preacher. He loves Jesus and wants to see the nations come to Christ. He yearns to see His people hunger for the Word of God and to hunger to know God in all of His glory. While you may disagree with some of the tenets of Calvinism and with Reformed theology, what cannot be denied is that John Piper is a man who walks with God, and despite his great mind, is still a humble servant.

Thirdly, I would encourage you to back up your statements with Scripture. I have seen many comments on here with no biblical application or exegesis. I think we can better dialog in a God-glorifying manner if we continue to use Scripture as our ultimate source of authority.

I will comment more when I have read all of the posts here more thoroughly.

Justin Taylor
http://justintaylor.wordpress.com

[hayesy]

First of all' date=' I would encourage all of you to use language that is more edifying towards one another. Let everything said here be done with love and with a passion for God's glory and His truth. [/quote']
Good point. I'm sorry guys, I tend to get a bit passionate... and forget that we are to contend for the truth in love. I repent of my attitude.
I have felt welcme here, though (I'm new too).

Justin, welcome. I look forward to your input. By the way, do you only share names with this Justin Taylor, or are you he?

I actually came back because I remembered something I wrote in the post that the computer ate.
Heartstrings mentioned "A god who would create people for the sole purpose of sending them to Hell to burn forever for his "glory"..."
Isn't this a 'problem' whichever viewpoint you take? For if God knows our choices before he creates us, isn't he effectively creating us for hell?
I suppose you would say that this is not their sole purpse. I'm not sure that Calvinism would either. (But, I'm not sure). What is their purpose?
That is one problem I have with a theology which doesn't place God's glory as the ultimate end. What is the purpose of man? To be blessed? To be happy? That seems to me to be up-side-down. Does everything exist for man, or God?

Maybe you would say God wants to "progressively sanctify His children to make them more like Christ". That doesn't help with the unsaved, but perhaps it is a purpose for the saved. We are to be sanctified, then. But again, to what end? To become better people? I would say that the ultimate aim of that sanctification is still God's glory as saviour and sanctifier.

"should we be experiencing an ever-growing desire for self-glorification as we go along?" - no more than we should be calling ourselves God. We are to be conformed to the Christ's example, not His person.
Although, according to John 17:1-5, even Christ's example is seeking to give glory to God.

The trinity seems to be focussed on glorifying the other persons of God.

They were just some thoughts I had.
Your Brother in Christ,
Hayesy

[kevinmiller]

I disagree that God destined them to make a choice. That doesn't jive with the verse that states that God would have all men come to repentance. However, I don't think, no matter how much you disagree with Calvinism, that it justifies an attack on Piper's character, Heartstrings. We all disagree, that doesn't mean that we serve different gods.

[tired]

I don't believe that Piper, Macauther, Camp and many others are serving a different God. I read their books and listen to their sermons and I find only a few things that we disagree on. Calvinism and a few other things. Listen to some of Ian Paisley's sermons and wow he has the power of God on him. The calvinism issue is very dividing to some but I would rather line up with these guys than line up with all the new evangelical emergent seeker sensitive crowd. I can look past the calvinism and fellowship with them as my brothers.

[zealyouthguy]

I don't believe that Piper' date=' Macauther, Camp and many others are serving a different God. I read their books and listen to their sermons and I find only a few things that we disagree on. Calvinism and a few other things. Listen to some of Ian Paisley's sermons and wow he has the power of God on him. The calvinism issue is very dividing to some but I would rather line up with these guys than line up with all the new evangelical emergent seeker sensitive crowd. I can look past the calvinism and fellowship with them as my brothers.[/quote']


Please take a number, someone will be with you shortly to issue your "heretic badge".


[please note, this is sarcasm]<-- (and so was that)

[heartstrings]

The God of the Bible, knows the end from the beginning but He still gave every man a will and the ability to accept or reject. He can do that because He is God. The God of the Bible sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ to die for every man who has ever lived and ever will live. 1 Timothy 2:6, John 3:16, Hebrews 2:9, 1 john 2:2, 2 Peter 3:9. I contend that all of the "tulip" is false doctrine. I have provided scripture in earlier posts.

Here are a couple more to consider;

Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

So God created, intended, "elected" some for Hell for His pleasure or "for his glory"? But He takes no pleasure in it? :puzzled:

As far as John Piper presenting a false god, (in my post immediately preceding this one) I posed that as a question and one that I am greatly concerned about. That is still my question.

[heartstrings]

Here's an excellent message from James W. Crumpton on the "Lily of the Valley and the Tulip".
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20 ... m/lily.htm

[hayesy]

Woah! Lots of issues flying around. Hope you stick around Justin, cos I'm in way over my head here! (I can't wait to go to Bible College!!)

As far as John Piper presenting a false god' date=' ([b']in my post immediately preceding this one) I posed that as a question and one that I am greatly concerned about. That is still my question.

This remains my answer, until someone can show a flaw in it: "he worships Jesus, and Jesus said "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him." (John 14:7) - see also Matthew 11:27"

Just curious, do you consider your own theology to be perfect? Your conception of God as close as our small minds can get?
I wonder... if we don't all serve a God of our creation in some way, and only by the grace of God will any of us be able to hide behind Jesus as He stands before Him. I half expect, when I die, to see Jesus smile and say "Actually, you were wrong about this and this and this. But you had the right guy; all is forgiven. Come in"
(I realise I probably made more theological errors in that image than there were words in the sentence. But you get the point.)

I mean no offense by this, but Heartstrings, Piper's conception of a glorious God seems to fit more with the God of the Psalms and of Isaiah and of Exodus and of Romans than yours does. IMHO.
EDIT:

Thirdly' date=' I would encourage you to back up your statements with Scripture. I have seen many comments on here with no biblical application or exegesis. I think we can better dialog in a God-glorifying manner if we continue to use Scripture as our ultimate source of authority. [/quote']
Oh, right. Sorry :frog
Hows this:

[hayesy]

An interesting question just occurred to me:
Do 'Free-willer's believe God could (has the power to) predestine people?

[jet001]

I find this whole notion of God choosing individuals in His foreknowledge based upon what choice they will make a bit precocious. Rather than rewrite something I have already addressed, I welcome you to read a recent blog article I wrote entitled On the Doctrine of Election. The link to such is:

http://justintaylor.wordpress.com/2007/ ... tion-pt-i/

You are welcome to comment there and/or here to further this discussion.

And, no, I am not Justin Taylor who studied under John Piper and written numerous works along with him. I merely enjoy the same name.

[heartstrings]

Ephesians 1:
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

"Foreknowledge" simply means that God knows everything which will happen in the future. He's God. I'm glad He knows. But it does not mean he is some big puppeteer and we are all puppets. He created us all with a will. God is love, my friend. Do you get that? God never created anyone for Hell without giving them a chance. Jesus died "once for all". That word all means "All". Try to imagine your little daughter, or your mother, your father or your wife, screaming and begging hysterically, grinding their teeth in agony in the flames of Hell. How could you love and trust a god who would create and chose them for that so he could get some kind of sick "glory" out of it?. You say, "I love my..........". Yeah but your "god" never did. That is a false representation of the true and living God my friend.

"Predestination" doesn't even referr to salvation. God, by His own power, has predestined us to be conformed to the image of Christ....and He alone will get the glory for it.
And as to the "P" in the "tulip"; The word, "Perseverance" is only found once in the Bible and it is referring to "praying for the saints". It has nothing to do with "holding on and holding out". Our works do not and cannot save us or keep us saved.
"Election", referrs to service, not salvation.
Salvation has always been to "whosoever will".

I mean no offense by this, but Heartstrings, Piper's conception of a glorious God seems to fit more with the God of the Psalms and of Isaiah and of Exodus and of Romans than yours does. IMHO.

The God of the Bible is so wonderful that....
....his children pant for him.....Psalm 42
....the mere rapture ( I believe) of seeing Him would kill us....our body couldn't handle it. Exodus 33:20-23
....He is the fountain of living waters to every one who thirsts Isaiah 55
....He loved us when we were unloveable Romans 5:6-8
....He works everything to our good, He perfects and conforms us, and He is for us Romans 8:28-31
....He died for every man, woman and child who ever lived John 3:16

[hayesy]

Justin, you want us to use Biblical references? Brace yourself. :Green

I want to respond to this:

"Predestination" doesn't even referr to salvation. God' date=' by His own power, has predestined us to be conformed to the image of Christ....and He alone will get the glory for it...."Election", referrs to service, not salvation.[/quote']
Firstly, I think the distinction between salvation and sanctification is an odd one. Of course God predestined the saved to be sanctified, the two are entwined.
I can see your point, and it allows you to create a certain type of predestination, but I find it strange that you need to separate salvation and sanctification to do it (especially since, as we will see, they are so closely connected in the Bible.)

Secondly, if predestination doesn?t refer to salvation, then what do you make of this:

Chosen from the beginning TO SALVATION, through sanctification. But He chose us to salvation. That seems to me incredibly clear. Even without any of the verses below, this one is enough for me to refute you.

Or how about this: (I have included several verses for context, but the bold is the focus)

Paul talks about ?foolish things? and ?weak things?. How do we know Paul is talking about people? In v28 he talks directly to the ?base things of the world?, and calls them ?yea?. He is clearly not writing to inanimate objects.
So we have: ?God hath chosen [foolish people]? chosen [weak people]? and chosen [you, base people]?.
What are they chosen for? To confound the wise and strong. That?s weird? until we see in verse 30 how those things are confounded: the foolish and weak and base are chosen to have made unto them wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.
The wise and the strong are confounded in their pride, they are not chosen. But the weak are chosen, and what are they chosen for? Yes for sanctification, but also for salvation. Note the word ?and?.
God chose the weak, the foolish, and the base; and made unto them wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
Being made righteousness and being given redemption sounds an awful lot like salvation to me.
Once again we see the closeness of sanctification and redemption. There is no distinction here drawn between God choosing sanctification on the one hand and letting us decide our own redemption. God chose them for all, for wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

Want more? What about:

How do they know they are elected? The GOSPEL came with power.
(It is incorrect to say that verse 3 is the reason Paul knows. It is part of the same list.)
You might say that election does not refer to salvation; but I would suggest that since their election is known by their response to the gospel, it must. For what does the gospel pertain to? Salvation!
The gospel came in power, they chose, and thus Paul concludes they must be elected.
It is because they chose that Paul says he knows their election!!! This is a great example of what I have been saying all along: Whosoever will believe may be saved, yes, we have a choice, but our choices reveal God?s predestination of that choice.
(By the way, John 3:16 is not an argument for free-will, since Calvinists, too, believe that whosoever believes will be saved. They just think that the people who do choose were predestined to do so.)

More Bible:

You could argue that being chosen to be holy and blameless refers to sanctification. Except I that I know of no person who has ever been made holy and blameless by sanctification. To stand before God holy and blameless takes Jesus? blood.
Thus, verse 4 refers to God choosing people to be justified, not sanctified.

But it?s even more obvious in verse 5. Predestined for adoption? what adoption? Into the family as sons. Does that refer to sanctification? Not at all! Does it refer to service? Doubtful.
Salvation? Being welcomed into the kingdom as sons and co-heirs? Absolutely, wonderfully, gloriously, yes! (Don?t believe me? Click here)
And, though it doesn?t need to be said, by whose will? Ours, or His?

Along a similar line is:

What is our inheritance? According to you, if we have been predestined for it, it must be sanctification.
But it is clearly not. Our inheritance is Christ, and we are His.

What's that I hear you say? :ears: More? Ok:

Two observations:
1. What do we know of that is by grace and not through works? (Hint: ?For by grace are ye saved through faith? not of works?)
What does Israel seek for by works but we have obtained by grace? Salvation!
So there is an elect
2. Why haven?t the rest obtained it? They haven?t chosen it? No, ?God hath given them the spirit of slumber? ? He has blinded them.
So we have one elect group chosen for salvation and another who have been blinded.

The above references should have been enough to convince you that predestination refers to more than sanctification. If you wanted to refute them, refute the ones above. The ones below are just added for support, in case you didn't think there were enough:


I know you have said this pertains not to salvation but to service, but I?m not convinced. The evidence is far too strong for me (see my post earlier in the thread), especially in light of the verses I?ve discussed above:

Or Jesus himself:
If election refers only to service, not salvation, why then will the Son of man gather the elect?
See also Matthew 24:22, 24:24

Did Jesus? disciples choose him?
One would assume that if Jesus chose you, it would be to salvation!

Finally,

Lots has been written on these verses, so I?ll just say a few things.
Firstly, it is not the only reference on the topic. If it was, there would be some ambiguity. Thankfully, it is not, and the verses I?ve quoted above are more than ample to support predestination.
Secondly, the interpretation of this has to fit with the ones above (and vice versa).

Now, verse 29 supports what you have said. And I never disagreed with you, we are predestined to be sanctified, once we have been saved. The question is: are we predestined to be conformed because we are saved, or are we conformed because we are predestined to be saved?
(The latter is not in conflict with the former, it just extends it.)
Verse 30 answers: Those who were predestined were called, justified, and glorified. The predestination is not limited to the sanctification, but extends to the whole lot.

There are more verses (2 Timothy 2:10 and 1 Peter 2:9 and 2 Peter 1:10 for example) but I don?t have time to go into any more.

To return to the original topic:

[matie-k]

I've heard a preacher say an illustration that goes something like this: There are dichotomies in doctrine and in knowing God, and it's like trying to stuff it all in suitcase. You get all of one side stuffed in and all tidy and zipped up only to realize that it's bursting out the other side, so you work on that side and realize that the other side is again coming undone because it's just too much. When you do finally get it all zipped up shut, you look around and realize that something has been left out.

I feel that both of these sides have valid arguments, and I think it's one of these cases where you just can't get it all figured out, and we'll probably spend a long time even in Heaven still trying to learn the mystery of God's salvation. If you're dogmatic on one side or the other, then you're leaving something out.