Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
News Feeder

John Piper Publicly Repents Of Fist Pump During Vikings Game

Recommended Posts

MINNEAPOLIS, MN—In a video posted to his social media accounts, long time Minneapolis pastor John Piper has publicly confessed and repented of undue excitement over the Vikings’ playoff win Sunday evening. The preacher and author said he was “deeply sorry” for eking the slightest pleasure out of watching the worldly sport. Piper told confidants that […]

 

. . . finish reading John Piper Publicly Repents Of Fist Pump During Vikings Game.

 

 

 

More...

Share this post


Link to post

John Piper: The preacher and author said he was “deeply sorry” for eking the slightest pleasure out of watching the worldly sport.

 

This sounds ridiculous to me to a degree where I question the validity of the story. Maybe the statement is out of context.

... or maybe I am too ignorant or depraved to have any idea why Piper would feel contrite for this action. It would suck to have Piper as a father watching my little league game or at my graduation or my wedding. :RpS_confused:

 

The second half was amazing ... I only watched it because my son is a Vikings fan. Did I just sin, I think not! LOL

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Ff, when you read an article here that seems ridiculous (like this one clearly does), be sure to check out which board you are on. In this case it's the "Christian Satire" board :RpS_smile:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Hi Ff, when you read an article here that seems ridiculous (like this one clearly does), be sure to check out which board you are on. In this case it's the "Christian Satire" board :RpS_smile:

Ah, I see. Thank you. I usually am accused of being gullible but not stupid; this time I was stupid but not gullible. :)

Share this post


Link to post

commented

01-16-2018, 02:12 PM

Ah, I see. Thank you. I usually am accused of being gullible but not stupid; this time I was stupid but not gullible. :)

 

These Babylonian Bee articles always ring true to one degree or another, so I don't believe you were stupid or gullible in this case. Here are two of my favorites from them, one, from the time of the Houston disaster last year, is already considered a classic http://babylonbee.com/news/joel-oste...best-life-now/ and the other followed the signing and publishing of The Nashville Statement http://babylonbee.com/news/bee-expla...lle-statement/ (the latter being much heavier than usual on both truth and cynicism, well, compared to most of their articles anyway).

 

Enjoy :RpS_smile:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Evangelicals Should Support Trump but Publicly Criticize His Sins, Michael Brown Says in New Book

      To support or not to support Donald Trump? That is the question many evangelicals have struggled with since the thrice-married reality TV billionaire announced his candidacy in 2015. In "Donald Trump Is Not My Savior: An Evangelical Leaders Speaks His Mind About the Man He Supports as President," theologian Michael Brown traces his up-and-down views on the president that has bemused many. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Pastors John Piper and Robert Morris on Whether Christians Should Raise Their Hands in Worship

      Pastor John Piper was recently asked on his podcast, Ask Pastor John, about whether or not all people should lift their hands during worship. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Pope Francis Replaced By John Piper

      VATICAN CITY—As scandals continued to erupt around Pope Francis, Catholic faith in the Supreme Pontiff quickly plummeted, prompting the College of Cardinals to elect a new pope to replace him. Knowing the Church needed a major shift in theology and practice, the Cardinals turned to an unlikely candidate to replace Francis: pastor and author John […] The post Pope Francis Replaced By John Piper appeared first on The Babylon Bee. View the original full article

      in Christian Satire

    • Half Joking and Half Serious, Piper says he's a 7 point Calvinist

      Double Predestination is not a "Calvinistic truth" - it was defined with increasing clarity from Augustine in the 5thc. to Thomas Bradwardine in the 14thc. The Canons of Dort follow this late medieval trajectory to speak of reprobation utilizing the distinction between the "negative schema" or passing over (praeteritio) on the basis of God's will and the "positive schema" which is condemnation (damnatio) on the basis of human sin.   To see and read what Piper half jokingly and half seriously stated:   What Does Piper Mean When He Says Heâ��s a Seven-Point Calvinist? WWW.DESIRINGGOD.ORG Historically, there are only five points of Calvinism, so what are the extra two?   Predestination – A Calvinist Viewpoint   Election, or predestination, is the belief or doctrine that God has chosen some persons for the gift of salvation. It is not to be confused with providence, that is, God’s governance of all things, nor with Fate or philosophical determinism. An important teaching in Western Christianity, it has been especially emphasized in Reformed theology.   Predestination is rooted in the OT theme of God’s choice of Israel and is based on many NT passages, especially in Paul (e.g., Rom. 8:29–30; 9:6–33). It was developed doctrinally by Augustine against Pelagius, whom Augustine accused of teaching salvation by human effort. Augustine believed that out of the mass of sinful humanity God had chosen some to illustrate God’s grace, while passing by the remainder to illustrate God’s justice. For Augustine, this was compatible with the will’s freedom, understood not as choice but as free and willing assent to God’s will (voluntary necessity). Moreover, since God was in eternity, not time, there was for God neither past nor future, so predestination was outside time. Augustine’s teaching reappeared in such medieval anti–Pelagians as Thomas Bradwardine and John Wycliffe. Wycliffe used the doctrine to spiritualize the divine–human relationship and undermine priestly authority.   During the Reformation, Martin Luther asserted predestination against Erasmus, whom he accused of Pelagianism. But Lutheran theology eventually minimized it. Reformed church leaders, however, emphasized predestination to glorify God, instill humility and gratitude, insist against Roman Catholicism that salvation was by God’s grace alone and did not entail human merit, and to affirm that it was God’s purpose to elect and sanctify a people to fulfill God’s will in the world. Thus Huldrych Zwingli taught predestination as part of the sovereignty and providence of God. His Zurich successor, Heinrich Bullinger, described it as God’s gracious choice of the undeserving. Martin Bucer related predestination to the doctrine of salvation (it was “in Christ”) and stressed election to holiness of life.   John Calvin carried on Bucer’s approach and also followed Augustine. He did not make predestination the center of his theology, nor did he treat it abstractly as an aspect of the doctrine of God, but he considered it in relation to soteriology and the Christian life: believers humbly and thankfully look back to their election as solely a gift of saving grace. Especially in later controversy, however, Calvin affirmed double predestination, or the reprobation of those not elected, though this was only because of their own sins. Like Augustine, he thought predestination harmonized with the will’s freedom, since God never forced the will. The approach of Bucer and Calvin is reflected in the early Reformed confessions.   The growth of scholastic method in Reformed theology gave predestination more precise definition and more central theological placement than in Zwingli’s programmatic writings and Calvin’s exegetical ones. The Italian exile theologians Peter Martyr Vermigli and Girolamo Zanchi were significant in this process as they brought the logic of Aristotle and familiarity with medieval scholasticism to their versions of Reformed teaching. Zanchi followed medieval theologians in connecting predestination with the doctrine of God. Scholastic method is also apparent in Calvin’s Genevan successor, Theodore Beza, who put God’s decrees at the beginning of his system. Beza was also a supralapsarian, holding that God’s decrees of election and reprobation preceded God’s decree of creation and permission of the fall. The doctrine of the earlier Reformed theologians had generally been infralapsarian, with predestination subsequent to these things, but some later Reformed theologians further developed Beza’s approach. In spite of these scholastic refinements, there remained an experiential core to belief in predestination, especially apparent among Puritan theologians such as William Perkins, who emphasized its uses in giving hope and assurance to believers and stimulating good works: those who trust in Christ and strive to lead a holy life should consider themselves among the elect.   There was resistance to such a prominent, sharply defined, and sometimes supralapsarian doctrine of the double decree, often deriving from the Erasmian and humanist elements of the early Reformation. Among the early Reformed, Theodor Bibliander was cautious about predestination. The seventeenth century French theologian Moïse Amyraut taught hypothetical universalism which he said had been Calvin’s view: the death of Christ was on behalf of all, even if effective only for the elect. This view became widespread among French Calvinists and was adopted by some of the English Presbyterians, including Richard Baxter. More radically, Jacobus Arminius in the Netherlands maintained that God predestined on the basis of foreknowledge of who would believe. After bitter conflict, the Synod of Dort (1618–19) condemned Arminius’s opinion and affirmed unconditional election as necessary for the preservation of salvation by grace. The Westminster Confession (1646) reflected the scholastic and anti–Arminian form of the doctrine but stopped short of supralapsarianism. In the following decades, Reformed scholastics such as John Owen and Francis Turretin continued to refute Arminians.   The evangelical movements of the eighteenth century stressed God’s grace, giving the doctrine of predestination renewed life, as in its defense by Jonathan Edwards in New England. However, evangelicalism eventually led to a simplification of theology that eroded predestination, especially after its rejection by Wesleyan Methodism; the nineteenth century American evangelist Charles G. Finney denounced it as an impediment to revivals. Thereafter revivalism tended to be Arminian, and many Presbyterians and Congregationalists in the United States abandoned belief in predestination, a process also abetted by the growth of theological liberalism. The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. added to the Westminster Confession a section stating it was God’s desire that all be saved (1903). But scholastic predestinarian theology continued at Princeton Seminary with Charles Hodge.   Liberals among continental Reformed theologians emphasized predestination. Friedrich Schleiermacher, who said the essence of religion was the feeling of absolute dependence upon God, defended predestination as necessary for affirming that essence, though he rejected reprobation. Alexander Schweizer argued that Schleiermacher had revitalized Reformed theology by emphasizing predestination, which Schweizer thought was the primary motif of Reformed theology. But Schweizer felt that the doctrine could be replaced by its distilled essence: dependence upon God.   The neo–orthodoxy of the early twentieth century revived much in Reformation theology, reacting against liberalism. Emil Brunner, however, criticized Zwingli for determinism and Calvin for the double decree. He held that election assures believers that a personal God calls from eternity those who, in the world of time, believe; there is no before or after, only grace.   Karl Barth performed a more drastic recasting. For him, Jesus Christ is the object of predestination, and humanity is elected in him; thus the grace of God as the sole cause of salvation is preserved at the same time that the universality of this election removes the greatest obstacle to the doctrine: its invidious distinction of elect and non–elect.   Predestination is a difficult point for modern Christians. Yet it is an important guarantee of the gratuitousness of salvation, surely a central intention of Reformed theology. Also, when one considers that doctrinal formulations are human ways of understanding the mysteries of divine revelation, it may well be best to accept the intention of the doctrine: affirmation of God’s gracious favor bestowed upon the undeserving, and set aside its negative implications as unbiblical. Further, it should be remembered that predestination rules out human merit, not freedom; God’s will is exercised through secondary causes and does not compel the human will to any end to which it has not freely assented.
       

      in Calvinism

    • Experts Offer Insight on John Piper’s Additions to the Hymn 'Great is Thy Faithfulness'

      Methodist experts say John Piper’s additions to the hymn “Great Is Thy Faithfulness” are theologically sound. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.