Give John Piper the benefit of the doubt

I just wanted to say this briefly, as a man who confesses the 1689 LBCF and Keache's Catechism and the Cambridge Declaration and believes that Calvin's threefold use of the law makes good biblical sense, that I am dismayed by John Piper's recent comments about and invitation to Doug Wilson of Federal Vision heresy fame. I believe (and hope) that in this case that John Piper is reading Wilson wrong and believes that Wilson has been misunderstood.

The problem is, as far as I know, that those who have seen a different gospel in Wilson's beliefs have not been rebuked by Wilson for mis-reading him but have been told that they are misreading Scripture, much in the same way Tom Wright has poo-pooed anyone who labels his heretical departure from the gospel for what it is. Of course, Wright goes farther and humbly explains that his detractors' main problem is that they have not read enough Wright and went to the wrong schools.

But I digress; as I have also read some of Dr. Piper's works and listened to many sermons by him, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt concerning his actions involving Wilson, because I have never heard another Pastor preach the gospel of justification by grace through faith with more clarity and conviction, and his Christ centeredness and commitment to the absolute sovereignty of God is compelling and commendable.

That being said, I do not consider John Piper to be a Reformed Baptist because he does not adhere to the theology of one of the historic Baptist confessions of faith or its modern equivalent, most likely because of his views of the law and gospel, which I believe lean toward New Covenant theology which is basically antinomian. He admits as much (not the antinomian part). I have that against him.

What dismays me more is some of the assaults I have read recently on John Piper from the Reformed Baptist blogosphere, which, ironically, accuse Piper of legalism and assault his character and ministry. Now there are many thoughtful and Christlike posts out there expressing concerns about Piper's comments and selection of Doug Wilson, such as the post by Pastor Keith Throop, but there are many that seem to harbor some hateful grudge against Piper that is definitely not compelling nor Christlike, that make a concerted effort to disparage Piper with half-truths and misinformation, quoting Piper out of context, etc. This is worthless drivel, and I would that these posters would repent or may hap lose interest in opining on the internet altogether.

I think John Piper is a man of God who has done much to advance the kingdom of God and glorify Christ and God, and deserves better than to be slandered with straw-man attacks against his character and ministry. He may forsake the gospel and make me eat my words, but I say he deserves the benefit of the doubt concerning this.

I have purposefully left out links to the posts that have irritated me concerning this, and would hope that readers would read and listen to Piper's sermons and books and judge him based on his own work and ministry. All of his sermons and books are available for free from the website Desiring God.

Reformed Baptist? Me Too!

Pastor Keith Throop is one of my long time favorites of the "Christian Blogosphere" and internet who, like myself, takes exception to those who would claim exclusive use of the descriptor "Reformed". At least excluding Baptists.

Unlike myself he writes his prose with charitable even-handedness and level-headedness which is too often lacking in the many "poison pens" on the Internet.

His most recent post on why he calls himself a Reformed Baptist in response to former Reformed Baptist R. Scott Clark's repeated assertions that such phrase is a misnomer is no exception, in which Pastor Throop lists three reasons why he believes that Baptists can have a legitimate and historically accurate use of the term.

Here is an excerpt from his post:

Second, Clark's comments seem to assume the idea that there is a monolithic historical understanding of the meaning the English word reformed. But this is simply not true. There are broader and more narrow senses in which the word may be used, and not all of these require the specific understanding to which he apparently wishes to restrict usage of the term. In addition, I see know [sic]reason why a modifier cannot be attached to the word that in effect alters and qualifies its meaning so as to rule out the kind of misunderstanding that Clark is apparently concerned about. One such modifier – as I have already noted – is the term baptist, which immediately communicates a distinctive use of the word reformed.

Read the whole post here: Why I Call Myself a Reformed Baptist

It may be a coinkidink, but the two voices that I hear loudest (Dr.s R. Scott Clark and Matthew McMahon) in objecting to Baptists using the term "Reformed" as a descriptor are themselves former Baptists. I suppose this is usually the case, with former Dispensationalists being the most belligerent towards that system, Roman Catholics the most critical of that movement, etc.

I myself am a former Independent Fundamental Pauline Dispensational Scofield Reading Pre-Trib Rapturing Semi Pelagian'in King James Only Baptist (IFBSRPTRSPKJVOB) and frankly find my shortened self identifier much easier to say and abbreviate; Reformed Baptist, (RB). Nice ring to it too.

Dr.s Clark and McMahon are both very edifying brothers in most respects, by the way, and I with good conscience endorse them both to all y'all Reformed Baptists.