Jump to content

Talk:John Piper (theologian)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Piper is not a theologican

[edit]

Please remove the qualification of theologican when referring to Piper. He's merely a fervent religious preacher. A theologican is a scientist who studies religion. Theologicans are not necessarily religious themselves. My guess is that someone deliberately confused 'practicing religion' with 'studying religion', presumably aiming to deceivingly endow Piper with the intellectual authority the qualification 'theologican' airs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavernsenses (talk • contribs) 11:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of "Reformed"

[edit]

It's difficult to decide how to classify Calvinists like Piper (and Spurgeon and other Baptists) -- as Category:Reformed theologians and/or Category:Calvinists -- because the term "Reformed" has varied meaning. In one strict sense, "Reformed" can refer to a Calvinist soteriology plus an adherence to Covenant theology. (Piper has the former but, as a Baptist, a different view of the latter.) On the other hand, some folks call themselves "Reformed Baptists" by which they mean they have a Calvinist soteriology but reject traditional Covenant theology. Perhaps we should break the Calvinist category into "Reformed Credo-baptists" and "Reformed Paedo-baptists" (or "Reformed Baptists" and "Reformed Covenanters"). As they stand now, though, I put Piper in the "Calvinists" category but not the "Reformed theologians" category. Thoughts? --Flex 18:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you removed Reformed. John Piper has said on his own website he is farthest away from dispensationalism and closest to covenant theology. 24.124.61.165 04:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Piper is reformed in that he does line up closest to covenant theology, taking exception to the covenant view that baptism is the new covenant sign replacing the old covenant sign of circumcision. Rosem12514 04:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which is part and parcel of being Reformed, so he is not Reformed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bio is copyrighted

[edit]

The biography section of this entry is copied almost verbatim from DesiringGod.org [1], which is copyrighted. A rewrite is in order. rae 21:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not so sure this is a copyright vio. I quote from your linked site: "Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Desiring God." Anyone have any ideas on this? Is it or is it not a copyright vio.?--ViolinGirl♪ 14:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a copyright violation. Those permission terms are not compatible with the GFDL -- the GFDL permits both modification and redistribution for a fee, neither of which is permitted by the original license of the text. 128.101.33.134 (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
URL update: the DG biography copy is now here[2]. DG copy is more extended, but the article still borrows wording extensively. Previous edit was me also, forgot to log in. Elehack (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it needs to be stripped and rewritten. Be bold! --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it may be taken from his book bio, but I believe that his correct degree from Fuller Theological Seminary was an MDiv (Masters of Divinity) rather than Bachelors. It is a 3 yr program and qualifies a person to apply to PhD programs. see http://www.fuller.edu/admissions/academic-programs.aspx Sheepdogn (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)sheepdogn[reply]

Letter

[edit]

It is misinforming to quote that portion of his letter about his cancer without the context. The "good news" he is referring to is that the recovery will be short, not that he has cancer. --216.171.65.132

I read the letter to evaluate your claim, but I think you misunderstand. The quoted portion itself identifies what news he is talking about: "The news of cancer". --Flex 13:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"John Piper is Bad" MP3

[edit]

I just reposted a link to this MP3 file which is gaining rapid popluarity and circulation in Christian (and even reformed) circles. The existence and spread of this "mash" is a testament to Piper's rising celebrity in the mainstream world. Yes, it is humorous--but it is also a perfect example of the intersection between pop-culture, Christianity, Calvinism, and John Piper as a cultural icon. Since it is a quote from Piper himself, it is not derogatory or demeaning in any way, but affirms a basic tenet of reformed theology: the fallen nature of man. As such, it deserves a place, if not as an entire section, at least as a link. I would be happy to place it in the "external links" category, but it just seemed to fit better in the multimedia section. Thoughts and discussion are welcomed. -Neal

It is not appropriate unless you can find references to it in reliable sources. See also Wikipedia's policy on external links (especially WP:EL#Rich_media). --Flex 14:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned in a podcast for the Passion Conferences and Piper commented on it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.145.124 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still not a reliable source indicating importance. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piper's mission statement is missing

[edit]

Piper's mission statement needs to be worked into his biography even more so than his quote on Christian Hedonism.

Piper says he exists to "spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ." Infinite Joy 03:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added it under the heading "Ministry". Cheers, --ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds chat 01:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Christian Hedonism

[edit]

I propose that we merge Christian Hedonism into this article because, while many support Christian Hedonism, AFAIK Piper is the only one who has written about it in any significant detail. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Christian Hedonism is very much identified with Piper in the reformed consciousness. TheologyJohn 17:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Driscol has a megachurch and has written about it as well. Many other authors have written for and against it, and it is no longer a topic solely from piper 206.155.48.254 18:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The Christian Hedonism article has been improved and expanded. I also agree with the last comment that others use it now as well. Wyatt 19:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Desiring God

[edit]

I suggest we merge Desiring God into this article. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think Desiring God should be expanded to talk about the whole desiringgod.org ministry rather than just the book. the book is very famous in reformed circles and controversial and should be expanded. Wyatt 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Desiring God Ministries notable as an organization? Would the other material you are suggesting fit with Christian Hedonism? No need to duplicate the same material in several places. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Desiring God

[edit]

Please merge relevant content, if any, from Desiring God per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desiring God. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-24 10:17Z

Done. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Is Piper a Reformed Baptist?

[edit]

User:Davidcmathis has several times deleted "Reformed Baptist" from the intro to this article. He said on his talk page:

I don't think Reformed Baptist is the most helpful way to label John Piper. Yes, he is Reformed in his soteriology. And yes, he is a Baptist. But that does not mean that Reformed Baptist is the best category. I take Reformed Baptist, as I believe many others do, to have strong connections with ARBCA and the Founders Movement within the Southern Baptist Convention. John Piper is associated with neither of these groups. His church is officially connected to the Baptist General Conference--far from Reformed Baptist! Baptist is accurate; so is Reformed. Although neither of these--or the two together--do I find to be the best headline adjective for John Piper.

I contend that the SBC strains of Reformed Baptists may be the most popular in America, but they are not the only versions. Moreover Baptist polity is essentially congregationalist with some loose connectionalism, so the official affiliation of his church isn't decisive. Rather, because of his beliefs he qualifies as a Reformed Baptist. Instead of continuing to revert back and forth, let's work it out here. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to "label" him. But to say he is "Reformed Baptist" is not to say he is part of a denomination, which there is none by that name. He is also categorized as "Calvinist", but there is no denomination as such. If the terms are accurate separately, I believe that they are accurate together, despite some connotations to particular groups. He's not a Presbyterian, just because he subscribes to Calvin, either! Food for thought.Brian0324 (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not associate the term "Reformed Baptist" solely with the ARBCA or SBC. Indeed, when I hear the term, John Piper is one of the foremost leaders that come to mind. I vote to keep the term in the article. Snow1215 (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Flex, Brian, and Snow here. Piper is the most well-known (and beloved) Reformed Baptist in the world today. "Reformed Baptist" is a description of a particular Christian theological leaning, not a denomination per se. RB is the modern equivalent to Puritan Baptist, or Particular Baptist, or Calvinistic Baptist (and I would include Sovereign Grace Baptist here). If the Metropolitan Tabernacle were not part of the London association of particular baptists, would you say that Spurgeon wasn't a particular baptist (read Reformed Baptist)? --    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 06:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know brethren that are ministering in Presbyterian churches and denominations who are Reformed Baptists. I would still call them Baptists (or more precisely RB). There are PCA churches in Mississippi that if you pressed their membership to answer the question, half the congregation could be considered Reformed Baptist.  :-/    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 06:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Brian and others, it may be shortsighted to say that if the terms are accurate separately then they are also accurate together. For example, try this with "butter" and "fly." Sometimes two words together point to something different than they do separately. I find this to be the case with RB in the States. It sounds like all you guys are on the other side of the pond. I think RB has a different connotation here in the US. The Brits may think of JP as the headlining RB, but that's not how American evangelicals perceive him, from my perception. Among young American evangelicals, JP is not mainly known as a Baptist, or even as Reformed, especially not as RB. He's known more as prolific author-theologian and passionate preacher especially from his connection with the Passion movement and 268generation. Is there a way that we can make this entry friendly to all English speakers? I don't think the American perception should carry the day, but does anyone have an idea for how we can at least factor that in? -Davidcmathis Davidcmathis (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, but I'm sure he's like Spurgeon - he doesn't preach a denomination, but what he is - is revealed in his preaching. Again, I don't hear people call him that here in Minnesota, but then I don't hear him called a leader of the Passion movement, either. Not even sure what 268generation is but I've heard of Desiring God. Wish I knew more. Sorry for the anecdotal evidence.Brian0324 (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David, I am an American Evangelical, and I have definite RB connotations for Piper. I understand what you're saying that that's not what he's especially known for, but I don't think that makes it inaccurate or inappropriate any more than it would be to say that Dinesh D'Souza is Catholic rather than just a Christian, though he publicly defends "generic" Christianity. Moreover, plenty of others consider Piper a Reformed Baptist (e.g., to take two examples from near the top of my Google search [3], [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1761071/posts]). --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calvinistic Baptist redirects to Reformed Baptist, and Reformed redirects to Calvinism. So Wikipedia considers them to be the same. — Confession0791 talk 01:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make them the same. Besides that, the source in question does not use the word "reformed" so we should not either. ReformedArsenal (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Hedonism Asserting things?

[edit]

Maybe this isn't important, but it seems like the section on Christian hedonism goes from describing what John Piper teaches/believes to asserting what other writers and the bible say. Asserting that John Piper uses them as his source is different from asserting that they agree with him.

Specifically,

He was awakened to this notion in the writings of Jonathan Edwards, Blaise Pascal, and C. S. Lewis, among others, and then found it throughout the Bible, for example Ps 16:11; 37:4; Phil 3:1; 4:4 among others.

This could be worded better. I suggest it say something like:

He uses the work of Jonathan Edwards, Blaise Pascal, and C. S. Lewis, plus numerous Bible passages such as Ps 16:11; 37:4; Phil 3:1; 4:4 to support this teaching.

Thoughts?

--Mydogisbox (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Fine by me. Be bold. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Piper

[edit]

Does anyone else think that Noel Piper should get her own page? She has written 4 books and is very involved with Desiring God ministries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.137.25.45 (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does she meets the criteria in WP:N? --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

[edit]

I have proposed merging List of books by John Piper into this article--it already duplicates to a large part. Though notable, he is not of the very high notability that justifies a list for authors-- he is not, for example C.S. Lewis. (deliberating selecting a Christian apologist). I have listed it at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to get some other opinion. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the record, this merge proposal already failed to get support in this discussion. I am not as opposed to this one being merged as I am to the list of works by John MacArthur, primarily because the body of work is less extensive, and does not include multiple kinds of works, such as commentaries, study guides, etc. Other than the biographies and The Justification of God, they are essentially inspirational Christian writing. Still, I would lean toward not merging. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After two months, with no other editors weighing in to support a merge, I have removed this tag. HokieRNB 14:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado tweets

[edit]

I have removed a criticism section regarding Piper's tweets about the 2013 Tornadoes, and Rachel Held Evans' reaction. It has been picked up by a couple of news outlets (including the Huffington Post) but it doesn't seem to be particularly significant - just a flash in the pan of no lasting encyclopedic value. Besides, we shouldn't have criticism sections, per WP:CSECTION. But I wonder if we should have a section on Piper's twitter activity? He seems to be active there, and his tweets are often discussed - especially his "Farewell, Rob Bell". So perhaps this latest one could be included in that section, if we feel it will have lasting significance. Anyway, please discuss it here if you think it should be added back in, so we can achieve some sort of consensus. StAnselm (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

[edit]

I notice that a couple of controversies were removed with this edit. I certainly agree with the 2007 one being removed. The only opposition/controversy was sourced to a blog. The 2009 controversy was better sourced, however, so I have no particular objection to that being added back in. StAnselm (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Piper (theologian). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Piper (theologian). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Piper (theologian). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook is running ads pointing to this page

[edit]

I have seen on two occasions an ad on Facebook feeds that directly wikilink to this page. To me this is strong evidence (albeit circumstantial evidence) that this page was primarily written by someone with a connection to the subject. Otherwise why would someone pay to have Facebook link directly to this page? I have edited on Wikipedia for many years, but rarely on pages subject to the BLP policy, so I'm not sure what is the best course of action? Advice? Davemeistermoab (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it. Looks like some Charismatic Anglican seminary in Ghaha, I'm pretty sure they didn't write this page. He's a world-renowned preacher, and he would share very little in common theologically with this sect. —Confession0791 talk 22:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Piper_(theologian)&oldid=1207629699"