tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post3812550236848599041..comments2024-03-27T03:32:53.817-05:00Comments on Euangelion: In Defence of John Piper and N.T. WrightMichael F. Birdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-6308910611426841502009-06-26T12:52:51.556-05:002009-06-26T12:52:51.556-05:00Marty, I'm guessing that the reason Clark want...Marty, I'm guessing that the reason Clark wants to pick on Piper is because Piper has just given Doug Wilson a fairly ringing endorsement by inviting him to speak at a Desiring God conference.<br /><br />Mike, thanks for the helpful post. I haven't heard of Particular Baptists much lately, either. Perhaps they've just realised that it sounds silly in this day and age? I agree that one of Clark's real problems is the inability to distinguish correctly between NPP and FV and the various tenets of each. Easier just to condemn it all in one fell swoop, I suppose.Roshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02669423378438380019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-4940353768479777862009-06-26T12:25:09.835-05:002009-06-26T12:25:09.835-05:00I'm far from qualified to comment on what'...I'm far from qualified to comment on what's Reformed or what's not, but I do have two thoughts. (1) I would think Piper might be heavily influenced by Reformed theology, but his take on baptism would set him apart from the flow of the capital R tradition. (2) Any good Baptist knows the Reformed element of their heritage. (I'm a former Southern Baptist.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09591329104228249981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-36478720573040067662009-06-26T10:32:32.997-05:002009-06-26T10:32:32.997-05:00Dr. Bird,
You make some good points. I have thre...Dr. Bird,<br /><br />You make some good points. I have three thoughts in response. <br /><br />One, I think that most people who learn the word "Reformed" from Piper, which he uses to identify himself, think that it basically means an Evangelical Calvinist (as in the five points). Although Piper has come closer to covenant theology in recent years (I have in mind the ETS meeting where he said that Christ accomplishes something Adam should have, that's as close as I've heard him come to the "covenant of works;" cf. his comments in Future Grace), he has never fully affirmed the whole covenant theology system. I think that he and many of those who follow his work thus define "Reformed" a little more broadly.<br /><br />Second, the title "Particular Baptist" may be a little infelicitous for Piper because the name of his denomination is the General Baptist Convention. <br /><br />Third, I find it highly ironic that out of Piper and Wright, it is Piper who mentioned the new creation in his definition of the gospel. Having been an apprentice of Piper's and being a big fan of Wright's, I have seen much more concurrence and complementarity between their work than they seem to see in one another. I don't think that either really understands the other on the function of works at the final judgment...but that's another topic for another day. <br /><br />Anyway, thanks for some good reflections. The number of scholars who accurately represent and engage both Piper and Wright is sadly few. It is refreshing to read the comments of someone who appreciates both, and will stand up for them when appropriate.<br /><br />Andrew CowanAndrew Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15988271380078306035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-39079037995187702402009-06-26T09:39:12.559-05:002009-06-26T09:39:12.559-05:00Thanks Mike! This debate that Scott Clark has intr...Thanks Mike! This debate that Scott Clark has introduced about not calling Baptists "reformed" is misguided for two reasons (amongst others!).<br /><br />[1] It seems to me to be the classic power-through-rhetoric ploy about who is truly "in" and who is truly "out". This goes on in all sorts of Christian (and non-Christian) sub-groupings: who is truly Anglican, who is truly evangelical, who is truly Baptist, I follow Paul, I follow Apollos, I follow ... It's a rhetorical set up in order to exclude people from the debate, that can often bypass the substantive issues to be discussed. 1 John gives us three tests: truth, moral, and love. We'd be much better off to use these, they are after all inspired.<br /><br />Secondly, Clark's definition of reformed actually conflicts with the doyen of reformed historical theology Richard Muller. He believes that all the reformed confessions of the 16th (Gallic, Scots, Belgic, 39 Articles, Heidelberg, 2nd Helvetic) and the 17th century defined who or what is reformed. Hence, there's a degree of latitude in the tradition. Clarks focus is unnecessarily narrow: the 3FU and Westminster Standards. And, I would point out, that in the 17th century the word "reformed" was used of particular baptists. The 1689, for example, is a confession of the 17th century that should be placed in the reformed tradition.<br /><br />Aren't there more important issues / people to attack than John Piper? He may have faults but he's done much good. Can't Clark pick on some issue that is *really* ripping the church apart (Matt. 23:23)?Martyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695572775519285459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-78672052319809666932009-06-26T07:49:59.565-05:002009-06-26T07:49:59.565-05:00Dr. Bird,
In your first point you make much of th...Dr. Bird,<br /><br />In your first point you make much of the fact that Piper should be called "Reformed." In support of this you use, as I saw it, two lines of reasoning. The first was to define the term "Reformed" in three ways. Then to show that Piper fits into the second definition, namely, "those who hold to a Calvinistic and Covenantal theology." The second line of reasoning you used to show that Piper should be called "Reformed" is to appeal to the World of Reformed Fellowship which includes Baptists who hold to the LBC of 1689. <br /><br />While I agree with you that is it proper to call someone who fits into these two categories a "Reformed Baptist," John Piper, best to my knowledge does not fit into either of the above categories. For sure Piper does not hold to the LBC 1689, in any formal sense, and he does not hold to a strict form of Covenant Theology, not Murry's or Kline's. This is coming for someone who has the greatest and utmost respect for Piper. I think it is best to refer to Piper as a "Calvinistic Baptist" or as you brought up "Particular Baptist."Josh Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640837095855180429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-39024129342230576052009-06-26T07:24:36.354-05:002009-06-26T07:24:36.354-05:00I love the striking title of the post; only on thi...I love the striking title of the post; only on this blog.CJWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10715644165768403835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-52242021093387853792009-06-26T07:22:10.752-05:002009-06-26T07:22:10.752-05:00Michael,
Regarding Wright on the gospel, check ou...Michael,<br /><br />Regarding Wright on the gospel, check out his position in Christianity Today. I originally summarized "the gospel" solely from Romans 1, and Wright asked me to add his cross and resurrection in order to incorporate 1 Cor. 15. So I believe he is now seeking to incorporate the work of Christ into his gospel definition more than he did in the past.Trevin Waxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08087649580755833411noreply@blogger.com