"While recognizing much that is commendable in the ministry of John Piper, including his emphasis on a passionately God-centered life and his identity as a theological conservative, the FBFI has some genuine concerns about his doctrine and practice. John Piper teaches in his local ministry that miraculous sign gifts are continuing. Piper has also failed to separate from the Baptist General Conference which has deliberately chosen to tolerate the heresy known as open theism in its membership. He also enthusiastically endorses Daniel Fuller, who has championed the attack on the inerrancy of scripture in our generation. The great popularity of Piper’s writings, especially among younger fundamentalists, requires that FBFI warn its members concerning Piper’s non-separatist position and, for those who read his works, to do so with careful discernment."

Source.

A few comments are in order.

• Although I do disagree with Piper on his non-cessationist stance and think that the miraculous gifts are unnecessary for today (See my response to him on this regard here), I think it will be too naive a notion to dismiss him because of this. This is a rather debateable aspect of Christian theology, so I would say we must be more loose in this regard. Also, keep in mind that Piper, in this regard, isn't in the same line of extreme Charismaticism as Hinn etc.
• Not seperating with one group because of false doctrine does not equal accepting/tolerating it. John Piper is very, very clear on his view on Open Theism. See here which helpfully elaborates Piper's views.
• In regards to Fuller it is the same thing with above; Piper is very clear on this regard too.
  

I think FBFI's main issue with Piper is his non-seperatist stance. I will not go deep into discussion in regards to the doctrine of seperation (As the Fundamental Baptists understand it), but suffice to say I believe that one ought to seperate when a that person or group goes beyond the bounds of absolutely orthodox theology. FBFI's resolution can be found here which goes into more detail in regards to Piper's ministry. Most of it centers on "Christian Hedonism". Since I do not particularly subscribe to this aspect of Piper's teaching in detail, I will not comment on it (Though I think that at least some aspects of it I endorse and heartily agree with it). FBFI's statement ends with a big duh- asking for discernment. Well, everything should be read discerningly, though there is, of course, a difference between the discernment when one reads the writings of not particularly commendable teachers and the kind of common discernment when one reads the works of say, Spurgeon.

I would like to comment a little deeper in regards to Piper's non-cessationist stance. I do not think that there is anything wrong with non-cessationism per se, as I believe that the default stance in the miraculous gifts debate is the "Open But Cautious" one until one comes to their own position (Though as a cessationist I'm waving my hand right now saying "Come on over!") . I do find it disturbing a fact that Piper holds to Grudem's fallible prophecy hypothesis (I personally feel that acceptance of this doctrine is, at worst, would be devastating to a Church), though as I remarked earlier he is not in line with the Pentecostals/Charismatics but clearly is more close to the Third-Wavers. I would like to close with the observation that although the FBFI is following its cessationist stance, to case doubt on a person's ministry because of his very debateable stance is bad judgement. I personally have been enormously impacted by Piper's ministry.

I hope my little contribution to the defense of John Piper would be helpful, and I pray that God will continue to bless this man of God!

This entry was posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 at 5:50 PM. |