Heidelcast 2: A Follow-Up to the DGM Conference

Heidelcast episode #2: A Gentle Rebuke to Brother John (pt 1)

12 comments

  1. A good reminder of the tell-tale tactics of heterodox teachers: arrogance/hubris, claims of being misunderstood, and a stubborn refusal to repent.

  2. Just listened to the tape.

    In re “Reformed”: Isn’t Piper a charismatic Baptist? Doesn’t that push him even further outside the norms of Reformed theology?

    I need a tornado to figure this out.

    • I need a tornado to figure this out.

      By “tornado,” you mean a compelling and uncanny event, right? But even if the earth didn’t swallow up Piper on his way out of the DGM conference, I for one think it’s safe to say that charismatic credo-baptism is more or less a double whammy.

    • Actually, by “tornado” I meant a funnel cloud of no remarkable significant proportions descending from above and falling upon an ancient Christian landmark, such as a Lutheran steeple or the roof of the Minneapolis Convention Center, and causing enough property damage to said structure and/or structures that it provokes the unwarranted speculation of a minister of the gospel to invoke “official church pronouncements” to condemn the sin of homosexuality even though he also publicly repudiates “official church pronouncements” after inviting a false teacher who corrupts the doctrine of justification by faith alone to share the stage with him at his national conference, all the while claiming to hold “Reformed,” Baptist, and charismatic theology.

      Zrim, you may be on to something. Maybe a tornado isn’t big enough.

    • We finally agree, as long as your redemptive history includes knee-shaking acts of providence, such as God suspending the laws of nature so that the earth could open its maw to devour usurpers or other similar events.

  3. When I read Piper’s Future Grace when it first came out, I was disturbed by it’s handling of justification and our standing with Christ. In fact, when I first heard F-V teaching, I thought it was what Piper believed. I was glad to see his book on justification as I thought he had become more orthodox. Maybe my thoughts were premature.

    • I think John’s doctrine of justification is more orthodox than it once was, for which development I’m truly thankful. His critique of the NPP and other errors has been helpful and his defense of imputation is also most helpful. The problem is that he genuinely misunderstands Reformed, covenant theology and thus seems to think that the FV is nothing more than the mess into which Reformed/Presbyterians get themselves by their covenant theology and defense of infant baptism. Of course that’s only true if one ignores fundamental distinctions in Reformed theology. Further, I don’t think John understand the ill effects the FV has had in Reformed congregations and denominations nor does he understand the nature of the CREC and Wilson’s theology and practice.

Comments are closed.