Addendum: Just to be clear, I think Piper’s soteriology is just fine and always has been. I think the accusations against him were false. I simply don’t think it is plausible to leave such issues out when describing one’s involvement in the doctrine of justification. So for example, Ligon Dunan, recommends a book by Piper (which contains embarrassing claims and heaped-up hype from every Reformed notable one can think of):
Counted Righteous in Christ by John Piper (Crossway), 2003. Piper, a pastor and first-rate New Testament scholar shows that if you lose imputation (a doctrine for which Wright explicitly denies there is any canonical grounding) you lose justification by faith. Piper is moving more and more to a classical covenant theology in his soteriology.
So now back to the original post:
Odd. John Piper begins this talk with what he says are a list of his reasons to be discussing the doctrine of justification. What he states simply does not provide a complete picture of the reasons why he is now involved in justification polemics. I don’t believe he is really giving us the most important reason. Piper used to be regularly attacked as a compromiser on that doctrine because of his association with Daniel Fuller. Fuller was lambasted beginning at the same time that Norman Shepherd was driven from WTS. His reputation has been smeared and only lately have many been assured about him.
I was going to ask if “All this is now down the memory hole?”–but I searched his website and it is obviously not. In fact, I’m downloading Daniel Fuller audio right now. Still, I think this is highly relevant to issues Dr. Piper is addressing and his own credibility. I wish he would acknowledge this relevance.
Oh well. Naturally I don’t agree with everything Fuller writes (women’s ordination) for example, but here are some great essays:
- Believing in Jesus — what it means
- Only disciples are saved (Matt. 28:19-20)
- Discipleship and full assurance of eternal life
- The tragic shift in Luther’s thinking (too harsh in the judgment on Luther IMO, but still worth reading)
You make the general accusation that Piper’s talk at ETS “is simply not an honest presentation.” You are not primarily disagreeing with specific points of reasoning, but rather questioning the honesty of the person making them. That is more an attack on a specific person’s character rather than a disagreement with their viewpoint.
Therefore I would expect some specific reasons backing your viewpoint. Those reasons are what I am trying to understand. The most explicit I can find is your statement, “Piper used to be regularly attacked as a compromiser on that doctrine because of his association with Daniel Fuller.” I don’t see this as much evidence unless you believe in simple guilt by association, or guilt by accused association.
Trying to follow your line of reasoning, working backwards, let me paraphrase what I think you mean:
1. Piper’s presentation was dishonest.
2. The reason it was dishonest is because Piper really doesn’t believe some of the points he is saying, or he is misrepresenting them.
3. There is something about Piper’s past and perhaps current connections with Daniel Fuller that is clear evidence for point 2.
4. At least certain points of Daniel Fuller’s theology are incorrect and in opposition to the views Piper espoused during his presentation.
First off, if my paraphrase of your logic is inaccurate, please clarify it for me. I have a lot of familiarity with John Piper’s views, less so with Daniel Fuller’s. Point 4 is less an issue to me than point 3 leading into point 2. I don’t see that one person having questionable theology automatically taints a second person associated with the first as having bad theology.
What needs to be clarified to my mind is specifically what evidence is there that John Piper holds points of theology that Daniel Fuller holds, or evidence that Piper has misrepresented his own past views?
My tone is not one of harshness. I just really want you (or anyone else) to give clear, accurate reasons when accusing someone of dishonesty. Thank you.
David
David,
I decided some stuff was too strong and cut it before publishing, The line you quote should have been included and I simply overlooked it. I added some details that will hopefully further clarify my opinion.
Piper’s theology is not in question at all, as far as I’m concerned. That was never the issue to me.
It does need to be said that Piper has backed away from his agreement with Dan Fuller. I asked about this some time ago because of a line in “Future Grace”. There, Piper stood in full agreement with the ‘futuristic faith in God’s promises’ necessary for a justifying faith. I asked if he was ever going to write anything indicating his disagreement, and I think the answer was ‘no’ because of Fuller’s health and age.
BTW, that was on page 206.