John Piper

[pneu-engine]

What the heck is PE talking about?

(sorry couldn't resist)

OUCH!!!

DW, along time ago we had major discussions on threads that explain why a euphemism of a Biblical term used in a vain fashion is equivalent to the same Bible Term used vainly.

((((At least I thought we did. ))))

[kevinmiller]

We may very well have. But I don't think calling someone's motives into question because they use that kind of word is at all appropriate.

[pneu-engine]

We may very well have. But I don't think calling someone's motives into question because they use that kind of word is at all appropriate.

That's fine. It's a free country--- you can think as you will.

When you get old and ancient like I am (maybe) you'll see the patterns of how things go together. You'll see and learn how various types of behaviors accompany each other in groups. Just like fire and smoke; where one is the other is also.

Then again, maybe you won't. :roll

[kevinmiller]

One thing that I have learned is that stereotypes are never accurate, nor do they help in a discussion. I believe your last statement was probably the true one, I probably won't. I hope I won't. In some cases, stereotypes can be true, it's called positive correlation. However, one who has studied statistics will understand that a positive correlation does not necessarily indicate a positive cause-and-effect relationship between the two variables. Stereotypes should never be used, especially when they are not representative, nor relevant, to the issue at hand and because they are extremely subjective.

All that to say, because someone uses a word that you do not approve of, does not mean that their motives are called into question. I know a lot of friends who use words that I don't, "heck" being one of them. Every time they use it in a sentence, it would be absolutely absurd of me to call into question the motive of that sentence because of the inclusion of that word.

[pneu-engine]

I have more important things to do than dialog over such foolishness, so I'm finished with this. :roll :roll :roll :roll

[hayesy]

To you I say, sir::::

When an individual claims to be a believer but cannot refrain from euphemisms of Biblical terms and using them in a vain fashion, immediately I must think that he is pushing his own agenda. :roll

Oh boy am I lost? What euphemisms did I use?

All I see here is that God's way of saving someone is through the work of the Holy Spirit and the belief of the truth - the verse DOES NOT SAY that God forced anyone to belief or saved them apart from any choice of their own.

Nor, I hope, have I argued that. I don't think predestination necessitates any 'spontaneous salvation', especially not apart from any choice of their own. I think we do make choices, and somehow are fully responsible for them, but that those choices are in accordance with God's predestination of them.

I think I'll start another thread? A 2 Thessalonians 2:13 thread.

[kevinmiller]

Heck is a euphemism for "hell."
But don't worry, I'm not basing your arguments on your using a word that many people don't know the origins of. :roll

[hayesy]

Ah, je comprend! Sorry.
Its just aussie slang... i thought... :loco

[kevinmiller]

Nah, it's quite common in America too. :wink

[tired]

I read some stuff by Piper that I had never read before. That he believes in new revalation. He thinks that God gives a prophet direct prophesy but the man's nature doesn't get it right. This is something that I have read from him. This to me is a deal breaker. I have since repented of thinking this man is a great preacher. I guess I can deal with calvinism but can't deal with charismatic mumbo jumbo.

[hayesy]

I guess I can deal with calvinism but can't deal with charismatic mumbo jumbo.

to understand his belief in the continuation of miraculous sign gifts' date=' I reccommend you listen to the series he preached on them - it was the first (and, so far only) series I've heard him preach, and it was largely that series that convinced me of his complete devotion to being true to the Bible. He agonised over which way to go on the issue, and freely admitted he might be wrong, but went with the direction he thought the Bible went.)[/quote']
Before you write off his charismatic mumbo jumbo, I reccommend you listed to, or read, this sermon:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr ... for_Today/
It is in that sermon that he explains how he came to this belief, and well worth a listen. You'll notice the heading of his first point is Heart-Wrenching Uncertainty. He is by no means a blind follower of 'mumbo jumbo'.

He explains his belief in prophecy most fully in this sermon: [A must-hear IMO]
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr ... ecy_Cease/

[DaveW]

Why don't you give us a "reader's Digest" version of it - I rarely if ever go to links from forums. :wink

[John81]

Why don't you give us a "reader's Digest" version of it - I rarely if ever go to links from forums.

Yes, I agree a review of the links would be helpful. I have dial-up and it can take a long time to try and listen to something sometimes.

[heartstrings]

I was listening to Way of the Master yesterday, and Todd said something very insightful: we are so bad, so sinful, such enemies of God not only by our words but also by our actions, so abhorrent, so rebellious to God that it actually does glorify him to crush us.
He explained it far better than I could, so listen to him if you want, but ultimately He is so holy and we are so foul that it would actually bring Him glory to crush us.

I don't think you will like that truth heartstrings, your view of the world seems far too humanistic to accept that God might be holy enough to be pleased to crush us, but I suggest to you, as I have all along, that the Universe is not about man but God......

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?

Call me humanistic if you want. But this one thing I know without a shadow of doubt....
I know the God of the Bible. The Lord Jesus Christ, the Mighty Prince of Peace. He came into my heart one day and I have never been the same since. I have felt His presence and His love when He fills me with His Holy Spirit. He is all powerful, but His sovereignty is never unjust. Everyone has a will and choice.
As I have told you before. He has many attributes; He is holy. But that is not what He is. He is just but He is not justice. The Bible says that He is a consuming fire and the Bible says He is Love. Have you ever felt His presence and His love so much that you asked Him to take you to be with Him? The wild man of Gadara did, and I have. Have you experienced his living water welling up in your soul? The Samaritan woman did, and I have. Have you ever "panted after God" as the psalmist did? God is love my friend. That is the God I met. He's the only one I know.

God's desire is not "glory at any cost".
What is the purpose of man? We were made for God
What is God's purpose? He is for us, the Bible says.
It's all about love, my friend. Please listen to me. God never intended for any of us to be in Hell. We go there because we choose.

1 Timothy 2
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; All means all, my friend.

2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; God wants us to pray for everyone. Why??

4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. Because God wants all men to be saved.

5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Jesus gave himself for all. He died for every sin ever committed and every sinner. His love and His grace are unlimited

[hayesy]

Thanks HS, for that clear explanation of the wonderful truth we both hold so dear!

Why don't you give us a "reader's Digest" version of it - I rarely if ever go to links from forums.

We all know that being concise is not one of my talents.... I'll do my best:
I'm sorry, I tried but it turns out to be nigh on impossible to condense his exposition without losing the keys.

I'll sum up each sermon in a few sentances, but this misses the bulk of everything
Are Signs and Wonders for Today? - "I sit at my desk with my head in my hands and plead with the Lord, on the one hand, "Oh, Lord, if there is a wind of true, biblical, spiritual power blowing in our day with signs and wonders and healing and prophecy, forbid that I should stand in the way!" ... But then, on the other hand I pray, "Oh, Lord, forbid that we should lose our biblical bearings; forbid that we become trendy or faddish and begin to substitute the sand of experience for the rock of revealed truth. Show us the fullness of the power of the gospel, Lord, and keep us from preoccupation with secondary things, no matter how spectacular." He ends with similar uncertainty after having presented support for both positions, but says:
On the one hand, we ought to honor the uniqueness of Jesus and the apostles and of that revelatory moment in history that gave us the foundational doctrines of faith and life in the New Testament.
On the other hand we ought to be open to the real possibility that this too might be a unique moment in history, and in this moment it may well be God's purpose to pour out his Spirit in unprecedented revival?revival of love to Christ and zeal for worship and compassion for lost people and a missionary thrust with signs and wonders.
Gifts of Healings and Workings of Miracles - The position that sign gifts are only for the apostles, to validate their words, doesn't stand because miracle working power of the apostles was only PART of what authenticated their authority, and because Paul in in 1 Corinthians 9:1?2 doesn't even mention miracles to defend his apostleship, and because false prophets also perform counterfeit miracles.
In that sermon he states "We have their final revelation in the New Testament and that remains now and always will remain our measuring rod for all doctrine and experience." - so he does not believe in new revelation, as Tired suggested, but closed and complete revelation: the Bible.

When Will Prophecy Cease? - 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 - This sermon is the most convincing exposition of any passage I have ever heard! (So forgive me for getting a bit excited with the copy+paste keys)
What time is referred to when Paul says, "Prophecies . . . will pass away"? When the perfect comes. When is this? He outlines a few possibilities: When Scripture is complete, When Christ Returns. He then tests the two:
Let's go to the next verse. Verse 12: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood." Now this is really helpful in making our decision! Here in verse 12 Paul is describing what verse 10 refers to, namely, "when the perfect comes."...Let's take the two halves of the verse one at a time. First it says, "Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face." Is it more likely that Paul is saying, "Now before the New Testament is written, we see in a mirror dimly; but then when the New Testament is written, we shall see face to face"? Or is it more likely that he is saying, "Now in this age we see in a mirror dimly; but then when the Lord returns, we shall see face to face"? ... My conclusion is that the contrast between seeing fuzzily in an old mirror made out of metal and seeing face to face is not a contrast between first century spiritual knowledge and the knowledge we have from the New Testament today, but rather it's a contrast between the imperfect knowledge we have today in this age and the awesome personal knowledge of God we will have when the Lord returns.
The second half of verse 12 points in the same direction. It says, "Now I know in part [the very same words used at the beginning of verse 9]; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood." Now is this a contrast between before and after the New Testament or before and after the second coming? It's hard for me to imagine Paul or any of us saying that after the New Testament was written, we now in this age understand fully, even as we have been fully understood....So my conclusion on this question is this: Paul is saying that prophecies will pass away not when the New Testament is completed but when this age is completed at the second coming of the Lord from heaven

The sermon following that one is an exploration of what prophesy actually is, and it is from there that I will quote my concluding comments:
Let me begin by affirming the finality and sufficiency of Scripture, the 66 books of the Bible. Nothing I say about today's prophecies means that they have authority over our lives like Scripture does. Whatever prophecies are given today do not add to Scripture. They are tested by Scripture. Scripture is closed and final; it is a foundation, not a building in process - John Piper (in contrast to Tired's well intended "That he believes in new revalation")

Hope that has helped. Sorry I'm so terrible at this haha
God bless,
Hayesy