Martyred for the Gospel
The burning of Tharchbishop of Cant. D. Tho. Cranmer in the town dich at Oxford, with his hand first thrust into the fyre, wherwith he subscribed before. [Click on the picture to see Cranmer's last words.]
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Charlie:
What's your take on Piper?
He's too EMO for me. Non-confessional, Baptistic, and non-liturgical. Ergo, from the git-go, little that interests me.
However, he's billed himself as a Calvinist in the 90's and later. Sort of a big splash.
What's your take on him?
Piper appears to be a Calvinist at first glance. He even wrote a book against N. T. Wright's doctrine of justification and the New Perspective on Paul. However, it is all a smoke screen. Piper has recently begun to show his true allegiances and colors.
The Trinity Foundation has several articles on Piper, one of which shows that Piper imbibed New Perspectives views while a student of Daniel Fuller, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary in California.
Piper's doctrine of future justification means that faith plus works justify us in the last judgment. Piper is a closet Arminian, which is why he can invite Doug Wilson and Rick Warren to speak at his Desiring God Conference.
Piper's ecumenical biases and concerns come from his non-cessationist views. The charismatic emphasis is inherently synergistic and not monergistic and actually emphasize man's sovereignty in the operation of the spiritual gifts over and above God's absolute sovereignty in distributing the gifts through signs, wonders and miracles.
I personally am beginning to think Piper is a false prophet. Wayne Grudem, although more orthodox than Piper on justification by faith alone and other Reformed doctrines, is off base on the non-cessationist view for the same reasons.
In Christ,
Charlie
You do realize Piper is an Occasionalist, do you not? That's as Calvinistic as you can get.
Piper gives a good smoke screen. But the bottom line is that his emphasis on transformation over and above imputation shows him to be a legalist. This influence comes from Daniel Fuller and the doctrine of final justification, meaning you can't know for sure if you are saved unless you are affirmed at the last judgment by your works and your transformation.
This is nothing short of confusing faith with works.
I have no idea what you mean by "occasionalist." If you mean that God makes our thoughts correspond to reality, what does that have to do with the fact that the charismatics teach what can only be called a synergistic view of the operation of the gifts and healings?
Also, in the future I would appreciate it if you identify yourself. Anonymous posts simply prove you're not willing to stand by your beliefs. I'm out here front and center. I'm not ashamed to tell everyone exactly what my views are in public.
Sincerely,
Charlie
A total misrepresentation of what Piper teaches..
http://messengerphilippines.herokuapp.com/
Since Piper got his degree from Fuller Seminary he was influenced by Daniel Fuller, a known advocate of the New Perspectives on Paul. It's also why Piper advocates the doctrine of "final vindication." He believes that good works are part of the final justification of the believer. That's the Roman Catholic view, not the Reformed view. Justification of the believer is by the means of faith and begins at the moment of conversion. Good works do not vindicate or justify anyone now or at the final judgment.
Since Piper got his degree from Fuller Seminary he was influenced by Daniel Fuller, a known advocate of the New Perspectives on Paul. It's also why Piper advocates the doctrine of "final vindication." He believes that good works are part of the final justification of the believer. That's the Roman Catholic view, not the Reformed view. Justification of the believer is by the means of faith and begins at the moment of conversion. Good works do not vindicate or justify anyone now or at the final judgment.
Post a Comment