Featured John Piper

Returning to topic, John Piper is not a person to trust. He distorts scripture, presents a deceptive gospel, and does not believe Christ died for all men. Not a well to drink from, more of a wandering star.

 

This is getting more asinine. Clearly you haven't read the books, so you can't speak intelligently on the subject.

Not everything has to be done "through the lens of Calvinism." The subjects were about something bigger... greater than our salvation. And that is the point you can't understand since you are so hung up on it.

You can't get past calvinism and assume calvies can't talk about anything else. If your axe is pride, then check your feet... i think you are hacking at yourself. Clearly your pride is getting in the way b/c you haven't read the books yet you pontificate as if you have some knowledge about the content of the books. Keep your ex cathedra rhetoric to yourself. It is not helpful.

 

Oh wise one, what is the purpose of book reviews?

Funny you say that considering this from a POSITIVE review of the book:

You are a riot. Just about every one of your posts is littered with pride, (including the very screen name you use here) hence my statement. Knowing Piper and his theology, and having read a number of reviews of this book, I believe my assessment to be spot on...heck, even someone that loved the book agrees with it!

 

Notice how unhelpful Greektim really is, constantly berating others and never addressing to topic of drinking from the well of John Piper.

I provided three quotes from John Piper, demonstrating he misrepresents scripture, presents a deceptive gospel, a bait and switch gospel, and does not believe Christ died for all men.

 

Here he makes a big deal of limited atonement, presenting many as being the elect only, and not mentioning ransom for all and God desiring all men to be saved, or Christ becoming the propitiation for the whole world, and many being used to contrast with one. Thus in reality scripture teaches many equals everybody else outside of Jesus. But the Calvinist distortion, many refers only to elect, is presented in code.

 

and I suppose, YOU, are to be trusted ?

 

To review the book... something you seem incapable of doing since you haven't read them nor do you care about their content. You seem more concerned w/ the author's theological hangup.

If you have read any of my book reviews, you would see that I am fair and even handed w/ all books and authors. I recently gave one of my favorite authors, G. K. Beale, a bad review. And he is a big time Calvie. So the only funny thing is that I can be objective while you are clearly blinded by your presuppositional bias.

And as for the review you posted.... I my memory serves, he was speaking more of books that Piper has done like Future Grace. He mentions it in GitG in passing. Those are the examples I believe he is referring. Not anything to do w/ Calvinism mind you.

Maybe my post have pride. I am willing to admit I have faults.

My screen name has nothing to do w/ pride and everything to do w/ the fact that my normal moniker was already taken and this is just what my normal moniker is... the greek version of my name (Τιμοθεος). However, I will not apologize for knowing greek.

I think you have to be the biggest fool if you think you can read book reviews and know that these books support Calvinism and especially LA. That tells me you are reading the same trash by people who think and act just like you. How is that fair and even handed???? Until you read the books for yourself, you will stay abysmally ignorant to the value those books provide. FACT! And it takes pride to even think that you know what the book is about w/out having to read it. First pontification, now special revelation??? What's next for you?

 

I have you on ignore... but I want to respond to this.

I'm only "berating" you and Webdog b/c you don't care about the OP. The OP is focused on 2 specific books by Piper. You detract from them into your anti calvie rants. And you also play the childish, "not uh... you are unhelpful... no you're unhelpful!!!" This is why I have you on ignore. I am sick of playing your childish games. Webdog is close, btw.

But here is the silly part... you have the gaul to accuse me of detracting from "the topic of drinking from the well" when you NOT THE OP mentioned that. So yes... I am ignoring you b/c this thread is not about JP's theology. It is about 2 books he has written that don't deal w/ calvinism.

 

Yeah...OK.

Kind of contradicts what you said above, no? Why would you do a book review? I thought we were only supposed to read the book

Obviously you didn't read the review in the link as it gave you which books.

I'll have to book mark this.

Yeah...OK part 2.

I see...so I read both positive and negative reviews (maybe even one of yours) to get an idea what a book consists of...having already known the position of the author...and that makes me the 'fool'. What does that make those like yourself who write the reviews?

 

snark

I don't see how. I didn't say to read only. I just simply wish you would read the books you think you know so much about. Apparently, you can't even read my posts correctly. So maybe don't bother.

I scanned it. Which books did it give me out of curiosity?

Step up to the plate and admit it yourself. I won't even hold it against you like you seem to want to do to me.

more snarkiness? I wish I could read your thoughts, cause your words don't help much. What is it that throws you off? My normal moniker is Timotheos? Or that I know Greek? Scoffers scoffing if you ask me. That is typical when someone calls you out and you know you are outmatched for the battle. You resort to snark.

If you read my post, I am calling you a fool if you think you understand what the book is about simply by reading reviews. You are an even bigger fool if you think you can engage in a dialogue about said book w/out ever reading it. The issue is not about reading reviews. The issue is about only reading reviews.

I write my reviews to pique the interest of people who want to read books and give them advice about a book they may care to read. It is also practice for me. So it serves a 2 way street. But those people who rely on book reviews and tertiary sources to found their claims are indeed fools when it comes to discussing the issues. Right now, you appear to be engaging in a battle of whits when it comes to the 2 books mentioned in the OP, and you have come unarmed.

 

Wow,and you are now the appoited arbiter of evangelical truth. You have categorically proven from the above that you are spreading untruths galore.

What about the women? LOL!

Seriously,the world's greatest evangelists did not believe that Christ died for each and every person past present and future. George Whitefield and Charles Spurgeon are a just a few examples.

You are condemning Piper as a false teacher,those that Jude and Peter warned about? You need to back up,consider well before you say another word,and repent.

 

I provided quotes from Mr. Piper to support each and every fact I presented. None of the Calvinists have addressed any of those facts.

Rippon made a false charge, but I provided evidence of the truth of my position. Greektim made a false charge, but I provided evidence for my position.

Mr. Piper distorts scripture. Mr. Piper presents a bait and switch gospel.
Mr. Piper does not believe Christ died for all men.

So the response, personally attack Van with one false charge after another. That is all they have folks.

Finally I am charged with not addressing the two books of John Piper, Desiring God and God is the Gospel. In fact I quoted from one of the books.

Did I claim I was the "appointed arbitrator of evangelical truth." No, of course not, so just another false charge to change the subject away from the views of Mr. Piper as expressed in his books and articles.

 

jesus Himself did not believe/teach that he came to die for all men!

Instead, he eld that His death would proviode the father propiation for the sins of ALL those the father would give Him to save!

 

One of the practices of Calvinists is to take a word or phrase and define it according to their agenda, ignoring the intended message of the actual author. Thus when I say "wandering star" they say I mean a person headed for eternal darkness. But that is not how I use the phrase. So yet another false charge.

In the days of old, people navigated using stars that had a fixed position in the heavens. Thus teachers that provide sound insight into scripture are not wandering stars. But teachers that provide unsound insight, twisting and misrepresenting scripture, should not be followed, just as a wandering star should not be used for navigation.

 

Limited atonement has been shown to be a mistaken doctrine. Jesus became the propitiation for the whole world, not just those the Father would give Him. But only those the Father gives Him receive the reconciliation provided by the cross to all men.

 

Your failure to see the "big picture' clouds your venting towards how God saves!

Did God have jesus die for all sinners, yet only used it to save some?

 

What,did you show it?! It has not been shone, as you boast, to be a false doctrine.

Meaning people from all groupings;even from the Gentiles. The Lord laid down his life for His scatterted children throughout the planet.

Your confusion is evident. The Lord became the propitiation for all that His Father gave Him. He reconciles His elect only.

 

Pitchback

God's purpose and plan was to provide the opportunity for salvation to all mankind, but only those whose faith He credits as righteousness are place in Christ and receive the reconciliation provided by Christ's death.