John Piper denies The Scripture alone

http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/do-christian-hedonists-idolize-joy




"Just because one claims sola scriptura does not mean they actually believe it. That should be the logical flow of thought with you Lordship guys." Why are you not consistent in your view of one's professing of having faith and in this matter of Piper saying he believes in Scripture alone? Is it not true that one who does not have WORKS or EMOTIONs in faith that he does not have faith? If that is the case then just because one professes Scripture alone does not actually mean that he believes it. Maybe because you cannot? Be consistent here please.
Regardless, perhaps maybe you think that desiring God is the ultimate thing? It is not. Perhaps, you think rather that an appeal to Scripture means that one is biblical it is not. Question: is man made up of emotions? I mean he is made up of Intellect and Will but is he made up of emotions as well? Perhaps maybe you think that an appeal to Intellect and Will and Emotions is not an issue. But this is an issue when you consider the fact that usually when emotions are added, it is the only real thing that is looked at. For example to say that there are three things that are involved in Man (Intellect and Will and Emotions) then means that a man may have both Intellect and Will, but if he does not have emotions then his intellect and will are really not real. Emotions are given a greater issue. He denies that Scripture alone is the basis of faith (Intellect and Assent) and says that one must also Desire God or be passionate about God. Regardless of whether a man may have emotions, Piper's view of the matter is that Emotions are the ultimate testing ground. One may have Intellect and Assent, but (as I said) unless he or she has a "real" desire for God he is not really a Christian. He also denies Scripture not just in the fact he claims Emotions, but also in the fact that as he said many of his views came from C.S. Lewis. Lewis was a big proponent not of doctrine or true doctrine, but of MERE CHRISTIANITY. Piper's views are anti-intellectualism. I apologies ahead of time you are fighting a losing battle here. Your famed Pastor is not a Scripturalist.
Or again when one says that Faith is not just Intellectual Assent to Biblical truths, but also something else need to be added (perhaps that something else is trust). It is the fact that that ultimately that something else diminishes the role of Intellect and Assent so that it is not enough to just believe the truths of Scripture but one must also actually trust it. Or as the famous analogy goes: It is not enough to merely believe in the Chair, one must also actually sit in the chair. This means that belief in the chair which stands for Christ Jesus is not enough one must also add works or trust to the occasion. Piper says essentially that Emotions are the real evidences of saving faith and not intellect or will. He moves beyond Scripture alone. If the Christian religion was emotions then there is no real Intellectual Assent to the Scriptures.
"We may note here that the complainants express themselves very carefully: 'the more recent theologians seem to agree in large measure.' But even so the complainants are in error. It is far nearer to the truth to state that Reformed theologians have generally speaking, been strongly opposed to the threefold distinction of intellect, will, and emotion, and have often expressed their fear of the danger of this distinction. The danger of this distinction, to which they usually pointed, is that the emotions in that case gradually assume a dominating and controlling position in the soul of man, and that according to this trichotomous psychology, such experiences as love and hatred, sorrow and joy . . . are relegated to the emotions or feelings. [Which] . . . would exactly be the deathblow to all true religion."
Remember one's ideas may come from Scripture, it does not mean that his ideas are actually scriptural. Satan indeed quoted Jesus many Scripture verses that said if he did this, then something else would happen.

Another Text from our Arminian friend

Although we could go on and on all day about the verses he uses for his critic of Calvinism. This one is particularly in warranted. Although, I do not know Greek and would need to learn more. Right now I would just like to Critic him on his logic.

He says,

"Given all of this, the common sense reading will assign the first subject with the first verb, and the second subject with the second verb. Therefore we would get this: “And as many who believed; the positioned in eternal life were.” Well, that doesn’t really make sense. However, with the verb ‘to be’ in the Greek, if the verb is being used to equate two things as the same, both words can be in the nominative form (i.e. the subject). Therefore it would read: “And as many who believed were those positioned in eternal life” or “And ones who believed were the ones that were set in eternal life”. This is really the best rendering."

So essential his view of Acts 13:48 is well pure Arminian theology, however, there is a logically problem even if I were to concede with his 'translation' the translation he gives still can be read in a Calvinistic understanding. And the ones who believed 'were' the ones that were set in eternal life. John 3:16 says this much. Nothing here really denies Reformed thought. John 3:16 says any believing one in him should not perish but have eternal life. The text is limited in nature already. Elsewhere in John we see why certain ones do not believe. Paul says this is because of Election in Romans 9 which comes before Romans 10.

Here is the Link to the guy: http://evangelicalarminians.org/why-i-am-an-arminianpart-v-unconvinced-by-prooftexts/

More from our estrange Arminian

In talking about Romans 9, the Arminian says, "Thus it is important to note that the text is not trying to describe unconditional election, but is in fact denying election by lineage. The Jews thought that they were elect by birth and justified by works. In other words, the entered the covenant by birth, and maintained it by works. Paul’s original thesis makes this clear. These examples are not examples of God choosing Isaac and Jacob, but examples of God not choosing Ishmael and Esau (as well as their descendants), even though they were sons of Abraham."


I am not sure what his logic is. If he is denying salvation by lineage then what else could Paul be talking about? The fact that Romans 9:1-13 is directly dealing with the Jewish line of lineage gives credence for Unconditional Election. I mean by this that in verse 7 only Isaac is mentioned in context. Before this Paul says it is not as though the Word of God has failed. The reason why is because not all are really Israel who are from Israel. Then he speaks of Isaac. We want to supply the Antithesis of Isaac as being Ishmael. Elsewhere Paul does compare the two, but here Paul's argument is only about the Jews. The question is why do not the Jews believe - For they had all things pertaining to Salvation. The answer is found in verse 11in order that God's purpose of election might continue. Again it is not the Children of the flesh who are heirs but the Children of promise.

Geerhardus Vos once said in his Biblical Theology that election "in regards to indidivuals, the divine saving grace is always a differentiating principle. There is a people of God, a chosen people, a people of election, as truly today as in the time of the patriarchs. Of this likewise Paul was intensely conscious. . . . On the one hand, as between Jew and Gentile, he upholds the principle of universalism, and proves it from the patriarchal history [Gal. 4.22]; on the other hand, as between Jew and Jew he insists upon discrimination; not all who are descended from Abraham are children of God and of the promise [Rom. 9.6]."

Does an Arminian Exegete exist?

I read a post on another blog that gave some Bible verses that are most often times quoted by Reformed folks. One such Bible passage is Ephesians 1:1-13.

I will only attack his points one by one.

He says,

First, the context is not doctrinal but liturgical. Paul isn’t trying to lay down a foundation on the doctrines of predestination and election. Instead, he is using the concepts of predestination and election to praise God for the inclusion (or predestining) of the Gentiles in election.

One, I am not sure what the difference is? Whether it is doctrinal or liturgical. Our liturgy should be based on Doctrine. But, it is interesting what he says here that he praises God for the doctrine of predestination for the inclusion of the Gentiles. I am not sure what he means by predestining in the brackets. Maybe he means that God predestined before hand that the Gentiles would be saved? Calvinist would say that and more. Some people amongst both the Jews and Gentiles have been included.

Next he says,

Second, this text does not apply directly to all Christians (though indirectly it does). The text above is directly talking about the election of the Jews. God predestined the Jews to be the sons of God on this earth, and to establish them to be who the are. This is evident in verse 13 where Paul directly contrasts the “we” in the above verses with the Ephesians themselves. The text only applies to us in the sense that we are now given something that we didn’t have before: inclusion in the promises of the Jews.

This one may seem hard to tackle. It seems very viable. We, you, and they... Must be talking about Jews and Gentiles distinction! Kid in the candy store... Anyways, the point is simple he says that the text is talking about the election of the Jews... I wonder if he thought about what he just said. For one thing he said earlier that Paul was praising God for the inclusion or predestining of the Gentiles, but, here he says that Paul is talking about the election of the Jews. Also I am wondering just what he thinks about Predestination. The text says before the foundation of the world and not after... Unless Biblical words have no meaning?
Next he says that God predestined the Jews to be the Sons of God on this earth... Sure. He did. As a Calvinist I will gladly say he did such. But I won't stop there though. I will say furthermore that God had a plan or purpose to which he Created the world and that Purpose is In Christ.
Lets just say for a moment that he is right.... on this one little part about the Gentiles now being included in the promises of the Jews what does that take away? Nothing at all. Paul says in Romans 11 that the Jews were harden so that the Gentiles might be engrafted. The promises are all in Christ and not inherent to the Jews alone. As Paul did say in Romans 9 that not all are Children of Israel because they are from Israel.

He next says,

Third, the central themes here are also not election and predestination. Instead, they are revelation, redemption, and the dominion of Christ. When you begin to try and make this text to be a proof-text for Calvinism, you lose sight of Paul’s heart. 

This one I am doubly confused. The central themes are Election and Predestination. It is why Paul is blessing God because he has predestined us to be In Christ. I am not certain what he means by losing sight of Paul's heart here. When I see election and predestination being revealed in Scripture I am doubly amazed about how God would save me a sinner by His grace alone. But the words here are also complex. He says that only revelation, redemption, and the dominion of Christ are the themes but not predestination? Why? It is talked about all throughout the text.

Finally he says,

Finally, to believe in unconditional election undermines Paul’s whole point in the book of Ephesians. Paul makes his point most clearly in 3:5-6: In former generation this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: that is the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
He says that the major point of Ephesians is to show the amazement of the inclusion of the Gentiles and Jews. And although this is true as Ephesians does talk about the Mystery. But to disregard the Purpose or Plan of God is to throw out the Baby along with the Bath Water. For one thing he points out that We and You are distinct. It is true. But if he follows his case down to its conclusion then he will end up saying that the Jews were the only ones atoned for, predestined, and the Gentiles are not. His points really do not make much since. (Plus this view is not new - Barth probably had it). If anything these passages show that it has been God's primary intention to save a people amongst the Jews and Gentiles which is now being revealed. One should read Gordon H. Clark.