John Piper on Doug Wilson

[HisFatherlyHand]

Hey koabarra, I grew up in the PCA and love it, but generally the PCA has tended to take the wrong approach, IMO, in this debate. In this video, Piper and Wilson aren't really on different sides; Piper is basically defending Wilson against many accusations leveraged against him by other Presbyterians, some of them being in the PCA.

[HisFatherlyHand]

The PCA is actually closer to Wilson theologically (than Piper), but there has been a lot of controversy in conservative Presbyterian circles over some particulars of Wilson's theology. If you would like to research the issue, Wilson's position is referred ot as "Federal Vision" within Presbyterian circles. The PCA produced a study report on the Federal Vision in 2007, which is available at pcahistory(dot)org/pca/07-fvre­port.html

God bless!

[HisFatherlyHand]

I would also recommend listening to Wilson's defense from the examination mentioned by Piper in this video, which is available at christkirk(dot)com/DougWilsonC­REC.asp

[NotTooObvious]

nutjobs

[TheFlanker35]

Anyone who thinks these people actually believe in God should just listen to Piper right here and read Doug Wilson. Wilson has basically written that Christianity exists to give himself a power trip and own slaves for his pleasure. What a piece of scum.

[numberonesurvivor75]

N.T. Wright, Douglas Wilson, and John Piper all preach a heretical gospel that is founded on Baal worship and the sanctity of slavery, which is a denial of the Ten Commandments(thou shalt not steal). Also, they deny the Biblical rights of protection of property and free speech. This is the heart of the Federal Vision abomination. Objectivist, as in Ayn Rand, fits his gospel very well. Piper, RECANT your false teachings on Federal Vision.

[TheFlanker35]

numberonesurvivor75 and co,

leave Christianity. Your lives will improve because of it.

[satori137]

How is thou shalt not steal a prohibition on slavery? And where in the Bible is free speech protected? I'll give you property though... the authors of the Old Testament at least, were very preocupied with their property.

[numberonesurvivor75]

@satori137,

Slavery implies theft. One is enslaved if he is stolen. To sanction slavery is to sanction theft.

[satori137]

Stolen from whom?

By the way: Leviticus 25:44-46, look it up.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Stolen from himself satori.

[satori137]

Where do you find biblical support for the notion that human beings belong to themselves?

Did you look up that passage yet?

Leviticus 25:44-46

[MontevideoSmoker]

wers da guy from weeds

[edw2776]

I know nothing of Wilson or Wright. IF their teaching is questionable, why take a chance? Keep a weak fence and within a generation folks will be talking about Piper's church, and Driscoll's like we talk about the mainline churches now. Mainline churches made small concessions then and now their totally perverted.

[HisFatherlyHand]

Because others have labelled Wilson and Wright heretics, and that also does damage to the gospel, to draw the line closer than it really is (1 John 3:14-16).

[edw2776]

I follow what your saying. Im saying that Piper even in this video is not coming across glowingly. He admits that he's unsure of some of Wilson's position's. Seems he should be clear before giving his stamp of approval to anyone. Giving the benefit of doubt can be dangerous. He must be 100% clear for the sake of His flock.

[HisFatherlyHand]

Yeah, I hear what you're saying. If you're talking about more recent things, I'm sure Piper's looked into Wilson more since this taping was made.

[AVoiceCrying33]

Also if They were truly holy and having slaves they would of freed the slave families every 50 years in the jubilee year but they didn't .

also 9We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

[ConnectionABQ]

First of all, Piper's comment that Wilson surrounds himself with "dumb" people is absolutely inappropriate. I wonder what the Bible has to say about calling someone "dumb" or an "idiot?" Secondly, the immature way in which Driscoll agrees (the fist bump) with Piper shows that these gentlemen have a way to go in understanding the love of the Brethren, even when we disagree. For my part, I would read Wilson over and over, as I have. I suppose I am dumb for doing so.

[HisFatherlyHand]

Scripture calls people fools all the time.

[hoggdawn]

Piper has a lot of courage for inviting Doug Wilson. Disagree or agree with him, Wilson does have things to say that should be aired. Can't stand the guy myself, but I applaud Piper for having the guts to listen.

[annied318]

*or "know christ"

[annied318]

Covenant theology doesnt say that all baptized kids will recieve salvation for "know christ" as you put it. It does believe that children of believers are clearly in the covenant. There is a big difference in those statements.

[AVoiceCrying33]

He is a slavery apologist. Does John Piper support those views. If he does I have severe qualms about listening to his sermons and I really enjoy John Piper's sermons but Christianity has a mixed record on race. The northern churches opposed slavery and segregation the southern churches did and if Doug Wilson still thinks it was good when History shown that Slavery was a cruel plight on humanity's record than I don't know.

[foucachon]

No he isn't - read Black and Tan to get his view. He's not pro-slavery at all, he just adds some perspective to the cultural situation going on in the south at the time of the civil war.

[AVoiceCrying33]

I'll have to read that, what I read about his was second hand it quoted him saying that slavery in the south was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence.

I wasn't there but splitting up families, whipping, beatings, treating people like property.

He also said in Christianity today "the South was right on all the essential constitutional and cultural issues surrounding the war" Maybe they were right on constitutional grounds but not on the moral grounds.

[Mustafo16]

Even if there was no beating or mistreating, slaves were still only considered 3/5's of a person by government and were held to be property.

That's far more than enough for me to condemn slavery biblicaly

[HisFatherlyHand]

I suggest you check out Piper's sermons on "Racial Harmony Sunday" at desiringgod,org: (/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByOc­casion/16/).

Also, it's generally a good idea to ignore anything said about Doug Wilson unless you're reading his own words in their whole context. For some reason people really like to twist his words into the opposite of what he said.

[AVoiceCrying33]

Will do although I think It will be hard to find "the South was right on all the essential constitutional and cultural issues surrounding the war" in a just context but I will read his Black and Tan book. I mean History says that Slavery as it was practiced in the south was a crime and not biblical.

Truth is not relative. Slavery was either a crime against humanity or it wasn't.

So he was saying that slavery was wrong and that the south was wrong to perpetuate it?

Anyway I will read it

[HisFatherlyHand]

Frankly, I wouldn't waste time reading Black and Tan. I don't even know what it's about (other than the vague idea I gather from your comment), but I don't see why it matters (unless you just really care that much what Doug Wilson thinks about everything). Instead I would recommend listening to Mark Dever's sermon from the 2008 Together for the Gospel conference. And also to read Piper's articles on Racial Harmony and that should clear up where he stands on the issue.

[TheFlanker35]

There is no twisting of his words. He shows just how degenerate, immoral, and ungodly so called "religion" really is. He is simply obsessed with setting up a power structure based on a faith and works Gospel like the rest of the Federal Vision heretics. Your religion will destroy civilization.

[kf6dqu]

It's what made Civilization.

[TheFlanker35]

Nope. Your religion is touted by uncivilized savages like Dabney and friends. They bitterly oppose technology, seek to destroy human rights, and worship a monstrous, demonic god that is made in their image.

[youratm]

I am not sure about piper's boys bumping fist over calling fellow believes dumb.

[schmoel2]

uh, they were bumping fists because anyone sitting around John Piper could probably consider themselves dumb. They were agreeing in their "dumbness"

[foucachon]

They were being funny :)

[DaveODrisc]

That's better!Top marks!!

Give yourself a congratulatory slap on the back from me!

Yes I had read what you have said and it blatantly implies that you believe in God without any evidence by way of faith(the vice that you were just so clear about)

Don't get annoyed with me,I'm not the one who sold you a fairytale,if anything you should thank me for pointing out a few basic truths!

I think you need to re-examine what it is you think you believe as you seem to be confused!

[DaveODrisc]

Hmm,Christians(yet again)arguing amongst themselves as to which version of their fairytale is the"Truth".

The religious when referring to their respective myths all too often cite faith(belief without evidence)as a virtue and seldom question the validity of the fundamental hypothesis.

It seems clear that the only way to genuinely believe in something that is so obviousley false(like the God hypothesis)is to distort or ignore fact.

It boils down to a simple choice between truth or fantasy!

[HisFatherlyHand]

Perhaps you should read Romans, James, or The God Who is There by Francis Schaeffer for a better definition of faith.

[DaveODrisc]

I would require actual evidence!

None of the above falls into that catagory.

I stand by my previous comment and referring me to non proof is pointless!

To put it simply,there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity,so why believe in one?

Citing non proof tends to reflect a weak stance.

Ignoring proven fact(evolution for example)displays an unwillingness to accept reality and is nothing more than wilful ignorance.

How would you define faith?

[DaveODrisc]

Oh and finally(just to prevent any confusion)when I stated I would require actual evidence I mean proof that faith in the context implied is a virtue.

I see faith as means to promote falsehoods and as such a very bad thing!

Debating which falsehood is the most accurate(as they do in this video)is frankly ridiculous and needs to be exposed as the blatant stupidity it is!

(Sorry for going on a bit but I just wanted to make my point clear.)

[HisFatherlyHand]

Sorry, Dave, accidentally removed your comment when trying to reply (this is a common mistake of mine).

You gave a dictionary definition of faith. My reply was just going to be to point out that surely you know straight dictionary definitions are usually useless in conversation. In The God Who Is There, Schaeffer explains how the thinking of faith being a "leap of faith" was brought into common usage by Kirkegaard. But that's not the kind of faith spoken about in scripture.

[DaveODrisc]

That's ok,easy mistake to make.

Here is the definition again!

Faith -. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof.

As I stated before this is what I meant by faith.(as in a leap of faith.)

I don't agree that straight dictionary definitions are useless(far from it!)

It seems like you are trying to avoid the fact that belief in God does require exactly this definition of faith.

[HisFatherlyHand]

Let me give you an example. If I said I had faith in my wife, what would you think that means. It means the same thing to say I have faith in God. Not a leap of faith; no it means I trust him.

[DaveODrisc]

Poor example!

[DaveODrisc]

The example of the wife thing,as you don't presumably require any faith to believe she exists!

[DaveODrisc]

Therefore it's an inaccurate(dare I say misleading|) analogy.

You are gonna have to do better than that I'm afraid!

[HisFatherlyHand]

What you're doing isn't conversation. It's just an attempt to pwn random theists who have little knowledge of their faith, but it shows your own lack of knowledge and an unwillingness to ever learn anything.

[DaveODrisc]

Isn't conversation?

Your not too good with definitions are you?

Now you're being a pathetic little sulk just because you cant defend the most fundamental of you're beliefs!

I would be ashamed to wright something so skin crawlingly idiotic down!

I have a good deal of knowledge where faith is concerned,I was raised Catholic(they believe in fairytales too.)

"Unwillingness to ever learn anything"

All I have done is ask simple & very fair questions(is this the behavior of who is not seeking to learn?

[HisFatherlyHand]

Here's an example of a fruitful conversation:

You: When you say Christianity isn't about taking a "leap of faith", do you mean to say God is knowable?

Me: As knowable as anything else.

You: Then how can I know that the Christian God lives?

Me: These comment boxes are very small, I'd suggest reading one of the many books written just for the purpose of answering your question -- some good, some horrible. I suggest starting with Tim Keller's "The Reason for God".

[DaveODrisc]

An example of a fruitful conversation(what one where you blatently evade the question that you cant answer?

"As knowable as anything else."

Seriously what kind of answer is that?

Look it seems to me you are determined to avoid giving anything other than a vague copp out of an answer to the question-

Is faith(belief without evidence)a virtue?If so,why?

It's a simple question!(you can use up a few boxes if necessary.)

No matter how evasive you are the answer is an emphatic NO!

[HisFatherlyHand]

I agree with you when you say belief for no reason is a vice and I haven't been evasive about it. Have you read nothing I've said? Let me state it more plainly: if Christ is not raised from the dead, I want nothing to do with him.

[Bhanna4d]

straw man anyone...

[HisFatherlyHand]

Hm. I'm not sure how any of this could be a straw man. Piper doesn't even say why he disagrees with Wilson or Wright. Basically all he did was say they don't preach a false gospel. There's not even an argument being put forward that could be a straw man.

[HisFatherlyHand]

Grr, I'm so bad at accidentally hitting "Remove" instead of "Reply" to reply to a comment on my own videos. Please forgive me, QuakeCityRockers, I didn't mean to remove your comment.

You said something about Doug Wilson denying the imputation of Christ's active obedience, and that's not true. Check the PDF of examination questions and answers given to Wilson by the CREC in which he says, "The ground of this

imputation is the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ, both active and passive..."

[M400fan]

Did you notice Matt raising his eyebrows at Piper's answer? And Driscoll tried to get him to clarify. I have to say that, on reflection, I think Piper doesn't explain himself too well. I'm also surprised he's not harder on Wright and Wilson - Piper has rightly said that penal substitution IS the gospel; Wright doesn't believe it. Piper also (rightly) says that justification is ALL about what Christ has done FOR us; Wright says it's what Christ does IN us that justifies us - RADICALLY different.

[HisFatherlyHand]

You might be misinterpreting Chandler and Driscoll's body language. I've heard Driscoll say he doesn't think Wilson's teaching is outside of orthodox Christian teaching as well. In fact, I think I've heard him refer to Wilson as a friend.

[HisFatherlyHand]

By "not outside orthodox Christian teaching" I mean not heretical. Driscoll and Wilson would of course disagree on many things.

[derocdero]

yeah, from what i know from Matt, he is critical about people who toss the heresy label around.

[Testallthings]

This video should be titled:

"John Piper exposes himself"

Piper proves even further that he is ignorant of the true gospel.

[M400fan]

In what way?

[ahern112]

Interesting. If Piper were as clear as he expects Wright to be, I might find it more compelling.

[M400fan]

In what way do you think he is unclear? Have you seen The Gospel in Six Minutes by him?

[ahern112]

No...I'll have to check it out. And I think he's usually very articulate and right on. He doesn't really use any concretes in this movie, though. I'm just not sure what he means when he says "Brilliant...wrong, the way you'd expect a presbyterian to be wrong." It's actually bold for him to take this positive a stance on DW, which I really appreciate.

[M400fan]

As a former Presbyterian and now someone who pretty much embraces Piper's modified new covenant theology, I'm guessing he means that Wilson relates his thinking back to covenant theology, which is fundamentally flawed in that it makes an unbiblical distinction between those who are IN the covenant (baptised kids) and those who are OF it. The NT (Heb 8) says that ALL in the new covenant will know Christ - so it's all about having a credible faith, not about having the sign of the covenant.