Crazy Things Church Leaders Say & Do, John Piper, Troubling Tweets

John Piper’s Tweet During Devastating Twister Aftermath

Julie Anne

*     *     *

So, I’m minding my own business catching up on the latest Twitter news and it is filled with tweets about the devastating aftermath of the Twister in Oklahoma that as of this posting has 20 confirmed deaths and 145 people hospitalized.  People are still being pulled from the rubble.  These are the types of tweets I am reading:

*     *     *

Image

*     *     *

But then I see this:

*     *      *

Screen shot 2013-05-20 at 11.58.46 PM
Source

*     *     *

And I wonder is this love?   

*     *     *

Related links:

293 thoughts on “John Piper’s Tweet During Devastating Twister Aftermath”

  1. Chapmaned — “Hahahahaha! No, I disagree with your assessment of WHAT the Sovereignty of God actually is.” Actually, you just denied what Ephesians 1:11 says. There is no assessment there. It either says what it says, or it is “a false view of God and his sovereignty” which you maintain that it is.

    Again, I really do not believe that we can have any kind of meaningful dialogue if you deny what scripture says (there is no interpretation needed for what is said in Ephesians 1:11 re: working all things). Also, asking “what is his will?” is, in my opinion, a question which neither you nor I can answer.

    To quote Job: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.” (Job 42:2-3)

    And: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Ro 11:33)

    It seems to me that you pretend to know God’s will in a way the Bible says no one can. Then again, you clearly reject what the Bible says when it is convenient for you to do so. That is why I do not think we can make any forward progress.

    Like

  2. A Reader, I believe that Piper owes us the apology, not the other way around. Since he posted and deleted on Twitter, then Twitter is where is explanation belongs…not on a different blog site.

    Ed

    Like

  3. Ed, my comment regarding our different approaches to Scripture was more a case in point to Seek Theos underscoring from my perspective the impossibility of dialoguing with you.

    Curious—in the doing of your homework did you come across any scholarship that supports your view that these were two separate incidents?

    Like

  4. Piper does not owe anyone an apology. Given the full context of his tweets, all he did was point people to a part of Job which encourages believers to mourn and praise God in the midst of trial. I’m thankful he did not apologize for that. As Julie Anne said above, “If I would have seen those verses around that tweet, I would not have published this post.” This whole demand for an apology centers around a poor representation of the facts. The person who has been wronged and maligned here is Piper.

    Like

  5. Seek Theos,

    If you can’t figure out what God’s will is, then how is it that you can quote scripture using it in a sentence, somehow trying to equate it to a whirlwind in Oklahoma?

    You said that Job said:
    I know that you can do all things

    Well, let me ask you, Can God lie? I guess he can’t do all things, then, can he?

    We need to be careful about what God can, and cannot do. He cannot disobey his own laws, his own rules…in other words, he cannot do evil.

    Are you really saying that God can do all things? Or are there exceptions?

    I believe that God’s Sovereignty is that he gave man the ability to have free will to worship him, or not to worship him, and by that, he will not interfere at all. God does not force anyone to worship him, nor did he foreordain people to worship him, or not to worship him. It’s man’s choice.

    Ed

    Like

  6. chapmaned — it seems you specialize in making assertions and never backing them up. “Many Calvinists refuse to use the KJV, or they use a preferred Bible for their whole denomination.” Really? Please show that to be the case. Seeing as Calvinists used the KJV for a few hundred years, I find that quite a claim.

    Also, as far as translations go, if you’re at all familiar with the Biblical languages, textual criticism, and the developments in linguistics since the early 1600s, you’d know that there are much better translations than the KJV. Do you “default to the KJV when doing word studies” when it comes to Granville Sharp constructions (e.g. Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1)? Do you “default to the KJV when doing word studies” on the pericope adulterae or the comma Johanneum or the long ending of Mark?

    Like

  7. Monax,

    Scholarship? Are you kidding? I dissected it. I know what the scholars say. They are wrong. How do I know?

    Again, I know based on the three punishments that were available in each incident.

    They are different.

    I don’t need a scholar to figure that out. We don’t need no stinking scholars (Humphry Bogart). We need Bereans.

    Ed

    Like

  8. Ed, I’m a language scholar and often do my (or check) the OT translations directly from the Hebrew.

    Fyi: the NIV and KJV are both based upon the same Masoretic Text.

    Like

  9. Seek Theos,

    I disagree whole heartedly about your assumption of the KJV. I know that the Calvinists have a preferred Bible that is not the KJV. It is denomination wide. Also, the English Language was more pure in the 1600’s than it is today. Can you imagine the hip hop Bible version of today? Today’s English is so corrupt it’s pitiful. I revert back to the KJV and I learn to understand the 1600 English, but I have a Strong’s Concordance.

    Ed

    Like

  10. Well, Monax, if you state that both the NIV and the KJV are both from the same text, then do the research of what I asked and look at BOTH the NIV and the KJV of EACH incident in regards to the THREE listed punishment choices.

    You will see that the choices are different for each in the KJV, but are the same in the NIV, which you say are from the same Masoretic Text.

    There is a major discrepancy between the KJV and the NIV here.

    And since the NIV was written long after the KJV, I trust the KJV over the NIV.

    Ed

    Like

  11. Chapmaned — “Are you really saying that God can do all things? Or are there exceptions?” You must be confused. Notice how I cited the Bible. You should re-evaluate what you said in light of that.

    The above claims are shockingly similar to what I’ve heard Jehovah’s Witnesses say to justify their butchering of Colossians 1:16. Ta panta couldn’t really mean all things, or else God would have made Himself! If that’s the kind of logic you want to use then feel free. I think we all realize God can’t make a rock too heavy for him to lift or any such nonsense. Saying Job is incorrect because God can’t make a square circle is patently absurd, Ed.

    “I believe that God’s Sovereignty is that he gave man the ability to have free will to worship him, or not to worship him, and by that, he will not interfere at all.” Notice how you didn’t cite any scripture to support your assertions? He will not interfere at all? Really? I’d be happy to refute that if you can actually say you’ll read the scriptures (instead of maintaining that the scriptures are simply wrong).

    “God does not force anyone to worship him, nor did he foreordain people to worship him, or not to worship him. It’s man’s choice.” Again, notice how you didn’t cite any scripture? I can cite plenty of scripture showing that God does indeed choose those who will worship Him. And no, you can’t wish them away with corporate election-type rebuttals.

    Like

  12. Chapmaned —

    “I know that the Calvinists have a preferred Bible that is not the KJV.” So then Spurgeon wasn’t using the KJV? That’s news to literally everyone.

    “It is denomination wide.” There is no denomination called “Calvinism.”

    “Also, the English Language was more pure in the 1600′s than it is today. Can you imagine the hip hop Bible version of today? Today’s English is so corrupt it’s pitiful. I revert back to the KJV and I learn to understand the 1600 English, but I have a Strong’s Concordance.” You successfully avoided everything I said re: Granville Sharp constructions (e.g. Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1), the pericope adulterae, the comma Johanneum and the long ending of Mark.

    I’m sorry but if this is how you operate then I think we have even less to discuss than I previously thought.

    Like

  15. Seek Theos,
    Did the Bereans concern themselves with those things? Yes, or no?

    1. If yes, then maybe you can be my spiritual adviser.
    2. If no, then I could care less.

    And yes, I stand corrected. Calvinism is not a denomination. It is a religion, like Catholicism. It’s an ism. A belief that I, and many others who call themselves Christians, do not subscribe to.

    Ed

    Like

  18. Seek Theos, if you wish to have a theological debate, I am more than prepared. I am not a novice at debate. Julie Anne can give you my email address, and we will take it off site. However, I am about finished for the day.

    Ed

    Like

  20. Chapmaned — “Did the Bereans concern themselves with those things? Yes, or no?” Did they concern themselves with what was written in the scriptures? Yes. Did they concern themselves with things that weren’t even written yet? No, because unless they were time travelers, they couldn’t be concerned with later additions to texts that had yet to be written.

    You also managed to still avoid every single thing I’ve said. If that is what you call “debate” then honestly I’d rather not waste my time. I usually like to dialogue with people who actually address what I say. That’s usually how conversations work.

    Also, well at least you’re up front in claiming Calvinists aren’t Christian. Thanks for being honest, Ed. I just hope next time you try to talk with someone you actually address what they say.

    Like

  22. Monax,

    Using the KJV

    2 Samuel 24 Punishment choices:

    1. 7 years of famine
    2. Flee your enemies for 3 months
    3. Three days pestilence

    Punishment given: Three days pestilence

    Where was the angel?
    By the threshing place of Araunah the Jebusite

    1 Chronicles 21 Punishment choices:

    1. 3 years of famine (NOT 7 YEARS AS NOTED IN 2 SAMUEL 24)
    2. Flee your enemies for 3 months (NO CHANGE)
    3. Three days of pestilence (NO CHANGE)

    Punishment given: Three days of pestilence

    The final difference is punishment #1

    Where was the angel?
    By the threshing floor of ORNAN, the Jebusite (different than 2 Sam 24)

    Ed

    Like

  23. Seek Theos,

    Come on, Ed never said Calvinists aren’t Christians. Please stop trying to play your more clever than thou games.

    Like

  24. ja, utterly ineffable!

    Ed, there are good answers to your questions. However, I hope you’ll understand if I bow out of providing them to you. Shalom, my friend.

    Like

  25. Seek Theos
    Time travelers, huh? The Bereans taught us to search the scriptures daily to see if what you tell us is true, or false. There was no indication in any of the scriptures that we are to adhere to some sort of advanced college method of searching the scriptures.

    That kind of thinking states that only Rome can interpret scriptures, if you are a Catholic, or that only New York can interpret scriptures, if you are a JW, or that Salt Lake City, UT can interpret scriptures, if you are a Mormon, etc.

    Scripture is easy to understand without college education. It’s not that hard.

    Ed

    Like

  27. Monax,

    Bow out? I provided you with solid words from scripture, and you bow out? Wait one doggone minute here. You had previously (without directly saying it) called me a liar. Now, all of a sudden you have an explanation when there was a denial? How did you get the explanation so fast, when you denied it before?

    I think you owe me your so called response. You can email me privately. Don’t you dare bow out.

    Ed

    Like

  28. A Reader, I haven’t seen any defamation. I kinda know what that means after successfully winning a defamation lawsuit brought on by my former pastor.

    And lets not forget. Many people are responding so strongly based on his history of saying foolish things. Have you clicked on links commenters have added in this discussion?

    Like

  29. A Reader, again, we owe NO Apology to him at all. He is the one who posted, deleted, etc. It was his twitter account. This began with HIM, not us.

    Like

  30. Yes, I have. But even if I hadn’t, it would not affect the point I am making which is related to the specific issue surrounding his tweets the other day. Any time I bring up the misrepresentation of Piper (not just here, but anywhere) people always want to move to some other peripheral issue. You winning a defamation lawsuit brought on by your former pastor has nothing to do with the point I have made about Piper being misrepresented in this instance.

    Piper was implicitly defamed as people, such as yourself, began blogging and throwing stones based on false information. You ask at the end of your initial post, “And I wonder is this love?” And I ask, is it love to admit that you would not have written this post had you seen all of the initial evidence and then refuse to issue a response now that more information has come to the surface? Would you find it loving if someone began critiquing you based on half of a thought? Both tweets were necessary if one wishes to engage with Piper on his use of Job. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Piper’s theology, the man is owed an apology for the way he has been misrepresented in this specific instance.

    Like

  31. Julie Anne,

    I didn’t read through all the responses, not sure what Piper was trying to accomplish in sharing that passage.

    I have heard a particular hard core preacher suggest people that lost their lives or everything they have in a storm was “they got what they deserved”.

    Maybe Piper wasn’t going that far, who knows whats inside his heart.

    By the way whats his Doctrine?

    Like

  32. Ed, I owe you nothing but my love.

    You can email me privately, However, I’ve learned through our past email exchanges that we have two irreconcilably different approaches to Scriptures.

    Any debate we might undertake is not likely to get anywhere when we’re not in agreement concerning our foundational documents.

    Like

  33. A Reader,

    Let me repeat somewhat from my comment of 2:24 pm. I just do not think adding Job 1:20 to 1:19 resolves anything. Good grief, are people who have lost loved ones, homes, cars, etc. being admonished to tear their clothes, shave their heads, fall on the ground and worship? I’m sorry, but I find this even more shocking than if Dr. Piper had in fact posted only the Job 1:19 verse.

    Like

  34. chapmaned24, in decide to blog about something without having all of the information, many people do owe him an apology. Piper is well within his rights to link a passage of Scripture which has historically been used to comfort God’s people to the specific situation in Oklahoma. Christians are not within their rights to mischaracterize his intent and only present half of the story. The apology is owed to Piper. In this specific instance he owes no one an apology. I do believe he owed people an explanation, and thankfully he has provided that both on Twitter and in a full length post which is on Desiring God.

    Like

  35. Gary W, the story in Job has often been used to comfort Christians who have faced unbelievable tragedy. The fact that you personally don’t find it comforting doesn’t negate the fact that many other Christians have found Job’s plight incredibly comforting. I know of many people who I have discipled and spoken with who have found great comfort in Job’s trial. The point of the passage Piper quoted is that we should mourn and praise God in response to trial.

    Like

  36. Seek Theos,

    You had said:
    “well at least you’re up front in claiming Calvinists aren’t Christian.”

    I never said that. But it shows that since I equated the suffix “ism” with Catholicism, that you don’t believe that Catholics are Christian. I never said that any “ism” is not Christian. I believe that there are Christians in ALL Church’s, including Catholicism, and Calvinism. The simple get it, the theologians don’t.

    Ed

    Like

  37. Chapmaned — Okay, I’m sorry I misunderstood you. I’m still waiting on you to respond to what I said. This doesn’t take a college degree (I have no formal training in theology) nor does it take a theologian (since I’m not one). It takes a bit of research and some common sense. No more.

    Like

  38. A Reader,

    Yes, I can see what you are saying about finding comfort in Job’s trial, and even in praising God, but Dr. Piper’s timing was just awful. There is a time for everything, and there is a way of speaking truth with love.

    I submit that it is highly unfair to argue that Dr. Piper is owed an apology for criticisms based on only half the facts. It was Dr. Piper himself who took down the full record. He should not now be heard to complain at the overlooking of that which he is responsible for having removed.

    Like

  39. Seek Theos,

    I answered your questions. We did this routine once before, where you accused me of not answering, so I had to reference where I did answer. Please tell me specifically what I did not answer that I really did answer.

    Ed

    Like

  40. A Reader,

    In Job 1:19 it has been interpreted, that storms and sin and God’s wrath go hand and hand.

    Job later suggested to his friends that if his sufferings was a result of his sin then why aren’t they suffering.

    In Job 42: 7-17 God actually rebukes Job’s friends.

    I have witnessed a preacher suggest Katrina victims got what they deserved. I’m just not so sure what Piper is getting at, with his tweet.

    For some reason you seem to be reaking of an abusive form of a Calvinistic Doctrine.

    Like

  41. Gary W, you admit something very important. When Dr. Piper took the tweets down he took down the FULL record. But when the record was brought back up, half of it was missing. It was extremely easy to throw stones at Piper when you look at Job 1:19 without Job 1:20. Even Julie Anne admitted above that she would not have posted this had she seen the surrounding context. I believe Piper is owed an apology because stones were thrown at him when they didn’t need to be thrown.

    I would also submit that the timing was not off. Job mourned and praised God immediately after hearing the news of the tragedy. If I ever face the loss of a child or my wife I pray that some dear friend will remind me to mourn and also remind me to praise our unchanging, faithful, loving God. Those truths have carried many broken ships over rocky waters and I see no reason why it was bad timing for Piper to bring them up in this instance. All that to say, I have no problem disagreeing over Piper’s application of Job to the Oklahoma tornado. I do have a problem with the misrepresentation.

    Like

  42. Monax, you called me a liar, and I proved my case, and it is very unfortunate that you somehow believe that you owe me nothing. You do owe me.

    Ed

    Like

  43. A Reader,

    I’m more than willing to apologize for any misrepresentations I’ve made of Piper and his tweets. I’m also willing to move on by accepting his explanation. One thing, however, still bothers me. When Moses confronts Aaron about the golden calf, Aaron says something like “I just threw the gold in the fire and out came this calf.” In other words, Aaron didn’t take any responsibility for his actions. I hear Piper saying (and forgive me if I’m not being fair) “I just threw these tweets out there and there was this huge negative response.” If nothing else, it seems to me that Piper can learn, from people like Julie Anne, why his words were hurtful even though that wasn’t his intent.

    Like

  44. Craig, thought I can’t speak for Piper I would imagine that this instance will cause him to think twice again before tweeting. I think it specifically brings to light the danger in trying to make one point across multiple tweets. Piper is quoted in the recent Desiring God article explaining his perspective, “The reason I pulled my tweets from Job is that it became clear that what I feel as comfort was not affecting others the same.” I believe Piper began realizing how the tweets were being taken very quickly and removed them so as to not be a stumbling block to others. A more complete response was posted the next day from Desiring God. But in that short span of time rocks were already being thrown.

    Like

  45. sorry, said i would not post again, i saw a tweet from John Piper today about the deleted tweets. I thought it only fair to share this if it was missed by anyone here.

    http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/those-deleted-tweets

    OBTW JoeJoe – If I was waiting to get a clarification on John Piper posts.. this is of course NOT conjecture.
    CONJECTURE IS when a person in the case of this post fills in the blanks BEYOND the information provided in the original John Piper tweet. This conjecture could be PRO PIPER or CON PIPER but a neutral view of his tweet is NOT conjecture

    I did not form an opinion as I did not believe his original post was worthy of CONJECTURE

    BUT those who heaped hate on John Piper over this tweet PILED ON HOT COALS OF HATE without knowing (BUT ASSUMING) his intentions. This is the definition of CONJECTURE.

    It is one thing to not like John Piper, or his beliefs BUT the recent TWEET STONING was wrong.

    I am hopefully again leaving this thread for good. I just felt compelled to clear this up and also clarify for JoeJoe what CONJECTURE is.

    🙂

    Like

  46. Chapmaned — You successfully avoided everything I said re: Granville Sharp constructions (e.g. Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1), the pericope adulterae, the comma Johanneum and the long ending of Mark.

    Also, how do you think the Bereans searched scriptures that weren’t written yet? You wrote, “Time travelers, huh? The Bereans taught us to search the scriptures daily to see if what you tell us is true, or false. There was no indication in any of the scriptures that we are to adhere to some sort of advanced college method of searching the scriptures.” You realize we’re talking about things they couldn’t have searched yet because they weren’t written, right?

    Or are you saying the KJV is the scripture spoken of there? That makes even less sense.

    Like

  48. Seek Theos, Again, I did not avoid your questions. I answered them. Did you not see it?

    I answered the question with a question, and even answered my own question. That answer to that is my answer to you.

    In plain English, I believe I said, “I could care less”, or something to that effect.

    The Law and the Prophets and the Writings (TNK, or TaNaK) is the scriptures that they, the Bereans searched. Why would they be doing that? Because Paul was preaching something to them, and what he preached to them is no different than what He preached to YOU and ME and every person that he went to.

    YES, the things that they searched out WERE INDEED ALREADY WRITTEN. It is called Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc., to Malachi. That is what Paul preached that they searched out.

    Ed

    Like

  49. chapmaned — precisely. Interestingly, you seem to be answering your own question, “Did the Bereans concern themselves with those things? Yes, or no?” No, they didn’t because what I’m talking about concerns texts that weren’t even written. You basically proved your question to be completely irrelevant to the issue.

    You couldn’t care less about reading the original scripture? You couldn’t care less about knowing what the Bible actually says? Interesting. Again, I don’t think we have much to dialogue on based on your views expressed here.

    Like

  50. Seek Theos,

    The Bereans went to the synagogue of the Jews (Where the scriptures would be). They, the Jews had Genesis, Exodus, etc. Many people believed because of this research of those already written books. Believed what? The Gospel that Paul was preaching.

    Acts 17
    10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

    11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

    12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

    Like

  51. Julie Anne,

    A Reader may be Piper-type Calvinist and will defend his actions.

    I find it happening more often than not, that Calvinist are defending the Methodology or making acceptions to their behavior because they embrace the same Doctrine.

    Now that isn’t always the case, but I don’t see Calvinist being critical of each other very often, other than a slight difference of opinion.

    Like

  52. Seek Theos,

    No, I don’t care what the original states, because it was translated to all languages of the world. Believe it or not, the KJV ENGLISH is more closer to ALL OTHER LANGUAGES than the multitude of other English translations. I don’t speak Greek or Hebrew, nor am I required to. God brought his word into my language. The Muslims believe in an original (And they claim to have it safeguarded) and that all Muslims must learn the language of the religion in order to understand it. Christians are not obligated to do any such thing.

    Ed

    Like

  53. O Chapman, this is precisely why i was reluctant from the outset to engage you. .

    i did not call you a liar. . nor did you prove your case. . find someone that agrees with you—that the narrative accounts of 2 Sam 24 and 1 Chron 21 are each separate events in the life of David and then i will be happy to take the time to go through whatever logic brought you to that conclusion and demonstrate the errors in your reasoning. .

    the reason I brought up the question Who moved David to number Israel? is to point you to something of the mystery surrounding the Sovereignty of God in the affairs of men and angels. But I was unable even to initiate that discussion with you for your being unable to see that these are indeed two different Scriptural accounts of the same event in the life of David. . this was our starting point for discussion, a point that has no basis in your approach to reading these texts. . what am i to do?

    again, find someone else that holds your position and then i’ll be willing to proceed. ultimately, Ed, our dialogue tends to come undone over the logic applied to our reasonings. .

    Like

  54. Julie Anne and Mark, both of you are avoiding the key issue in all of my posts. Julie Anne, I’m disappointed that you haven’t gone back to edit your original post so that the context is more clear. I also am curious as to why you won’t engage with the core of what I’m saying? You keep picking up on peripheral issues while avoiding the heart of my posts.

    Like

  56. You know, some of us found Pipers’ tweets insensitive and offensive. None of the explanations of what he *really* meant has changed my opinion of that.

    If I’m ever caught in a natural disaster crisis, I’m going to contact Julie Anne, and ask her to give my phone number to Mandy. I hope Mandy will call me up and cry with me. Those of you who would find more solace from Pipers’ tweets can have them. Really. I wouldn’t dream of denying you that. It’s a personal preference. To each his own.

    Like

  57. Julie Anne, I laid down the criteria above—find someone that agrees with you—that the narrative accounts of 2 Sam 24 and 1 Chron 21 are each separate events in the life of David and I’ll engage. Simple as that.

    Like

  58. A Reader,

    Dr. Piper not only took down the FULL record, but he took down the means by which anybody could be expected to even know that there was more than the one tweet that had made its way into the public record. It really is unjust to expect an apology from somebody for failing to use information Dr. Piper himself had at the time made undiscoverable. I don’t expect we will agree on what I am saying here, but I do hope you will at least be able to see my point. Thank you for your courteous manner in discussing these matters.

    Like

  59. A Reader:

    What exactly would you like me to edit? Oh, I definitely can add the Piper explanation to the “related links” at the bottom. I will do that as soon as I hit “reply.” So thanks for that reminder, but what else are you suggesting that I edit?

    This article shows what I saw on Twitter late Monday night. History can change in minutes. People reading the comments can see the further developments.

    Like

  61. A Reader,

    I’m under the impression that preference of “Methodology” and “Biblical Interpretations” is the core bases of why bloggers like yourself rally around John Piper and maybe others like Mark Driscoll. David Platt and Albert Mohler.

    Job 1:19 has been interpretted by some, that Sin, Storms and God’s Wrath is connected and to some the Katrina devastation has been blantantly describe as “they got what they deserved”.

    It is staggering the amount of Spiritual Abuse that is occuring, by Pastors that embrace a harsher form (Geneva Style) of preaching.

    I have to witness in a Preacher, 1 Corinthians 13:13, another words if his actions and words (when it comes to Love) isn’t believable, then “by appearence” he embraces a reckless interpretation of scriptures.

    If you could simplify the key point you are trying to make that would be great. there are over 250 postings here and I would rather not go through everyone.

    Like

  62. Gary W

    That is a good point. He did remove evidence. I’ve been asking around about about that screenshot, btw. People have told me that some people have their tweets sent as text messages and that could be why it looks like that.

    Like

  63. Julie Anne, earlier you said, “Are they expecting all 485K of his Twitter followers to visit the Desiring God website to look for an explanation?” And to you I would say, are you expecting all of your blog readers to look through these 200 comments to “see further developments”? You should be strive to be consistent with your own standards.

    I believe you should add something to the original post clarifying the context of Piper’s initial tweet so that you remove the impression that Piper quote Job 1:19 in isolation. As it stands, your initial blog (which is all some might read) gives the impression that the lone tweet is all Piper had to say on the matter. That, is misleading.

    Like

  64. Julie Anne, yes that screenshot was from tweets being sent to Reinke’s phone. It is not straight from the Twitter app but would still accurately reflect Piper’s tweets.

    Like

  65. Monax,

    You said the following:

    “Before we can even have a discussion about the question—Was it the LORD or Satan (or both) who moved David to number Israel? we have to be in agreement that these are both inspired accounts of the same events. I don’t know of any christian scholar who would assert that these two chapters depict separate events as you’ve suggested. ”

    Well, we are NOT in agreement, and below is why.

    Again, I must must must quote your last sentence again:
    “I don’t know of any christian scholar who would assert that these two chapters depict separate events as you’ve suggested.”

    Why do you not know of any Christian who would assert that these two chapters depict separate events?

    Well, you now know one. Me.

    I did lay out my case, and proved my case. Here it is AGAIN.

    Using the KJV

    2 Samuel 24 Punishment choices:

    1. 7 years of famine
    2. Flee your enemies for 3 months
    3. Three days pestilence

    Punishment given: Three days pestilence

    Where was the angel?
    By the threshing place of Araunah the Jebusite

    1 Chronicles 21 Punishment choices:

    1. 3 years of famine (NOT 7 YEARS AS NOTED IN 2 SAMUEL 24)
    2. Flee your enemies for 3 months (NO CHANGE)
    3. Three days of pestilence (NO CHANGE)

    Punishment given: Three days of pestilence

    Where was the angel?
    By the threshing floor of ORNAN, the Jebusite (NOT THE SAME AS 2 Sam 24)

    The final difference is punishment #1 AND AND AND the location of the Angel.

    7 vs. 3, and Araunah vs. Ornan.

    Both of those indicate two separate events, not the same. You claim that both the NIV and the KJV are from the same texts, but both are out of sync with each other.

    So, tell me that I didn’t prove my point. I did my homework.

    Ed

    Like

  66. Gary W, yes he did take down the full record. However, someone took a screenshot of the Job 1:19 tweet and made the decision to not include the other tweet which would have been up at the same time (both were removed together). I believe this situation could have been avoided if the first response was charity, rather than hostility.

    Particularly in this instance, anyone who blogged about Piper’s tweet (even just the one) should have mentioned the context of Job and not implied that Piper’s tweet was unloving. Even Job 1:19, in context, tells the story of God allowing the righteous to suffer. It’s not about judgment. The whole story of Job is a comfort to God’s people when they suffer great calamity. Piper shouldn’t be blamed for a complete lack of biblical literacy, especially when he offered the needed context through the second tweet.

    Piper did offer a clarification on the matter, but not before people began throwing stones at him. Case in point, the internet causes things to move way too quickly. People should have taken some time to let the dust settle before throwing out accusations.

    Like

  67. BeenThereDoneThat, I agree with everything you stated. I think we all know now who to call when we need a shoulder to cry on and who to call when we wish to enter into a theological debate – hopefully not at the same time. 🙂 Thank you for your kind words.

    Can we all agree to let Gary W’s comment end this debate? I feel like we are playing the adult version of the kid’s song “The Song That Never Ends”. At the end of the day we still have people in Oklahoma who are suffering from the effects of this tornado. Let’s turn our focus towards them and how we can offer comfort and assistance.

    Like

  68. Monax, In addition,

    1 Chron 21
    David purchased threshing floor for SIX HUNDRED SHEKLES OF GOLD FROM ORNAN

    2 Samuel 24
    David purchased threshing floor for AND OXEN FOR FIFTY SHEKLES OF SILVER FROM ARAUNAH.

    Like

  69. A Reader,

    Are you really comparing 485K with 200? LOL

    To be bluntly honest, I’ve had readers tell me the screen shot looks suspect.

    I’ve also been told by a number of people that when they saw the tweet, they went directly to his complete Twitter feed to try to find the context (as did I). No one remembers any other corresponding verse and that was why the outrage. Why are so many people saying the same thing?

    I would like to see better proof (ie, legitimate Twitter feed screen shot, not something that looks like texts) than a screen shot that looks like texts before I revise my article.

    If anybody is misleading, it’s Piper. He’s the one who posted and then removed the tweet.

    Like

  70. Ed, find another scholar (other than yourself), someone who agrees with your position and only then will i begin to explicate such things as how Araunah the Jebusite is the same man as Ornan the Jebusite. Just as the Sea of Galilee is known by different names (e.g., Lake Tiberias; Lake Genneserate) so too was the Jebusite known by different names.

    But take up my challenge to find someone else who is reading it your way, and then i’ll be glad to further answer your (plural) reasonings.

    Good Night from Pittsburgh,

    David

    Like

  71. Monax, my position is backed up in writing. There was a purpose for the threshing floor. The end result of the threshing floor ceased God’s punishment for David. Two different threshing floors, two different amounts paid, two different people, and two different choices of punishment. Your Sea of Galilee example is irrelevant in regards to spelling and pronouncements.

    Ed

    Like

  74. I think we’re too quick sometimes to instantly assume that God has never once allowed a single bad thing to happen. I think it breeds a horribly weak view of God to think that He doesn’t get mad or allow judgement to come to our land. Just because it sounds like something we don’t like doesn’t mean that there isn’t a possibility that it is true. God will judge the world one day. Maybe this is just a way to prepare us and encourage us to share the Gospel with everyone we meet- we never know when this is going to happen again.

    Like

  75. Julie Anne, you do realize you are implying that 1) Tony Reinke fabricated a screenshot of his phone and 2) that Desiring God is trying to cover up what Piper posted? If that is what you believe, it’s clear that you are lacking basic Christian charity toward him and his ministry. If you believe either of the above, then there is nothing left to say. I hope others will follow our exchange and realize how you have disregarded clear evidence in exchange for what is basically your implicit conspiracy theory suggesting that Desiring God is trying to “cover up” something that wouldn’t need to be covered up in the first place.

    To other readers, I hope my posts have been charitable and have contributed to showing exactly what happened when Piper initially tweeted. I pray the Lord blesses your conversations and leads you into an accurate and healthy understanding of what has transpired over the last day or so in regards to this situation.

    Grace and peace.

    Like

  76. Monax,

    Did you also take note of EACH instance of the NUMBER of people that were counted?

    2 Samuel = 800,000 for Israel and 500,000 for Judah
    1 Chronicles = (Wording from the KJV) A thousand thousand and an hundred thousand for Israel, and Four hundred three score and ten thousand. Levi and Benjamin not counted.

    Even the count is different.

    How many is a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand? The NIVr indicates 1,100,000. That’s a far cry from 800,000.

    How many is Four hundred three score and ten thousand? The NIVr indicates 470,000. That’s a far cry from 500,000.

    How many more differences do you need to see before you admit defeat?

    Ed

    Like

  77. A Reader: That is what I am trying to find here: accuracy. Are you suggesting that I tell the people I’ve been in touch with that they are liars? I don’t know how to reconcile this to be honest with you. I would like to see a Twitter screenshot, not one that could be re-fabricated on any cell phone with text messages. That would help clear things up. People have said there is something funky going on with the verses on the screen shot as well as the date/time. Why is that?

    I do not know what is going on. I am a seeker of truth. The truth that I know is posted on my article. The truth that Piper knows is posted on his blog. One of us is right, one of us is wrong.

    Really, the bottom line shouldn’t be all of this craziness, but should be focused on how can one best support those in a crisis? Mandy has shown us based on her experience what she needed during her tornado tragedy. Does her experience not count? I’d rather focus on how to be like Christ in our response to tragedies.

    Like

  78. Monax,

    Come on buddy, you can’t bow out now…I got ya where I want ya…lol.

    See my previous for the NUMBER COUNT for EACH instance.

    Israel 800,000 vs. 1,100,000
    Judah 500,000 vs. 470,000

    How do you reconcile that one? Another Galilee lesson? Hmmmm.

    Ed

    Like

  79. Julie Anne, you can’t start a post which implies that John Piper is unloving and then switch it around 250 comments later and say, “We should just focus on the crisis.” You brought this blog up and now you have to finish it out.

    Here are a few reasons why you should trust Reinke’s screenshot:

    1) It’s charitable.

    2) there is a t.co link in one of the tweets (the one which says “all things are yours”) which can only be generated by Twitter. If you go to the domain http://t.co you will see that it is Twitter owned. Links generated through t.co go directly through Twitter. It differs from the link on the matching Twitter.com post, which is normal since it is an SMS update. Both links go to the same place:

    Link on Twitter.com – dsr.gd/17Vvrkx
    Link in Reinke’s screenshot – http://t.co/UDCe0rZ2pl

    In other words, there is no way that message could be forged. Reinke couldn’t have someone on another cell phone generate a t.co link for him. That only happens when it’s coming from an actual Tweet.

    3) Matching timestamps on the NAMB tweet.

    4) The format is exactly how it would look if Twitter had sent it. I get mobile updates on my iPhone and have confirmed that it looks exactly the same.

    5) No suggestion of tampering. I’ve done Photoshop work before and it would be fairly easy to spot a fake in a situation like this. Granted, I know you don’t have any reason to trust me on this but from my perspective the idea that the Reinke screenshot is fabricated is absolutely bogus.

    Based on your Twitter conversations, the main reason you aren’t trusting the screenshot is because a couple people are saying they didn’t see the Tweet of Job 1:20. They could have come by Piper’s feed after it was deleted or they could have been so upset by the 1:19 tweet that they looked over the other one. It easily could have been looked over. That’s much more plausible than some fabrication theory.

    I find it funny that you were quick to post Piper’s initial tweet before gathering all the information but are taking your time to gather evidence now that more information has surfaced which paints Piper in a better light. I’m not suggesting you tell the people you’ve been in touch with that they are liars. I am suggesting that they could have been mistaken. Your idea of a coverup over something like this is so outlandish that only those wanting a reason to dislike Piper could buy it, in my opinion.

    Like

  80. Also, that post will be my last. There is really nothing else to say and I’m convinced that engaging further will not be a wise use of my time or energy. If you’re not convinced by the above evidence then I pray God brings you the evidence you need so that you are not holding false thoughts toward John Piper on the specific issue of these tweets. Grace and peace to all.

    Like

  81. And when I say “that post” I mean the one that is still awaiting moderation. I’m not sure if it will be posted here or not but I’ve laid out the evidence which suggests that the Reinke screenshot is valid.

    Like

  82. Hang on, A Reader, I just got to the computer again. I’m going to release it now and respond. I’m not like some blogs where you are not allowed to disagree with blog owner. I can name a list of names for you of people who are like that, but I’ll try to show some restraint right now.

    Like

  83. blessings to you A Reader

    thank you for investing yourself with us here

    we’re mostly a bit divided and broken here, but it is my home, my family, my church, whom He loves

    please stay engaged, i really appreciated the perspective you gave us

    thank you, sincerely

    and drop by often

    i already miss you

    David

    Like

  84. I disagree with your first paragraph. The whole point of the post was this: was Piper’s tweet (as shown) an effective way of showing the love of Christ? The key word being “effective.”

    I like to be charitable. I believed the screen shot at first and actually dismissed my own first judgment of my memory. That was charitable of me. And then when I started seeing others (without my prompting) starting to ask around if anyone else had seen Piper’s full Twitter feed because they were questioning the other verse, I started to question things because I, too, had seen his Twitter feed and don’t remember both of those verses together.

    I do think there is a possibility it could fabricated. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that.

    There are probably 10 people who have discussed this with me, far more than what you see on Twitter. These are people who saw his Twitter feed, looking for context, and do not recall that verse. Now, I suppose it’s possible that we all looked at his Twitter at the exact same same time that particular verse was removed. What are the odds? Or all 10 of us could have had memory lapses, I suppose.

    Let’s be clear. I checked out his Twitter feed looking for context within his tweets. No tweets around that particular tweet provided more context to lessened the shock value. Now, it’s a possibility that when I checked his feed, he was in the process of removing them, but I don’t really think that is the case because at that time, there were only 4 negative responses. I don’t think he would removed a tweet with only 4 negative responses. (BTW, I do have a screen shot of that.)

    Like

  85. A Reader – The blog is much more than a Piper tweet. Sometimes things can get heated, understandably. This topic was a little extraordinary. Feel free to come back and see for yourself. There are wonderful people here.

    ~ja

    Like

  86. Ahh! This is one of those posts you leave for a day, come back, and it’s exploded.

    In case you’re still reading, Seek Theos, I’m just now seeing your questions. It appears that others have answered probably more articulately than I, and with more desire to debate.

    My main point is that I think Piper’s tweet was not an isolated insensitive comment, but was reflective of a consistent overemphasis of doctrine rather than love. I am basing this on several sermons and books by him that I have read and listened to, as well as his lack of boldness to call out evil in SGM, yet quickness to be bold to speak about something that was NOT caused by sin.

    I think what bothers a lot folks on here about Piper’s statement, or at least what bothers me, is the quickness to try to assure people that God has his purposes and to present Christianity in the public sphere as the religion with all the answers.

    I spent a lot of time in the book of Job in my healing process from the almost militant teaching on Calvinism I experienced in SG. I even wrote a song about it.
    What I have concluded thus far in my walk with the Lord is that there are so many things I simply do not know and cannot know.

    At this point, like you, I wouldn’t put myself in either the Arminian nor the Calvinist camp.

    In response to your question of how I view tragedies, both those caused by people and those not, whether God can use them for good, yes.

    Do I think God caused them? No. As someone earlier said, in the book of Job, God ALLOWS Satan to cause tragedies. God is in control but for some reason he allows darkness to reign temporarily. God also allows Job to express his anguish to such a degree that he cries out that he wishes he had never been born. And at the very end, he comes to the conclusion Piper would like us to rush to in Chapter One of our tragedies. I read Job as a long, heartfelt, anguish-filled, REAL dialogue with God. It doesn’t seem to me to be an apologetic for Calvinism.

    So while on a doctrinal level, I may see eye to eye with Piper on some things, namely that yes, God can make good come from everything, like Julie Anne’s latest post shows Rick Warren tweeting, there are times when people need to “show up and shut up.” I had a family member commit suicide a few years ago. His funeral was the most moving service I have ever attended. His parents have trusted in God and looked for the good in such a deep tragedy in ways that I can’t even imagine. I see them living their raw faith after losing their son in a beautiful and profound way, acknowledging that God is good, and that they don’t have all the answers. If they can still say that through all they’ve gone through, surely I can learn to too.

    I still believe (though it’s a fight of faith often) that God is in control and works all things together for good, but I don’t have that obsessive need to spew out Scripture and doctrine to those who are suffering like I learned to do so well while in SG, which drew much of their teaching from Desiring God, the Gospel Coalition, etc.

    Like

  89. I don’t know if you noticed, David, I’ve been adding links to the bottom of the post. I added that one earlier. Wade’s post is so good. That is his 2nd post on the topic.

    Like

  90. Not sure if this was pointed out already, but this tweet was not meant to be read in isolation. Right after it he posted another one showing that they were meant to be read together. Together it reads like this: “Your sons and daughters were eating and a great wind struck the house, and it fell upon them, and they are dead. Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped.” He explained in a blog post afterwards that he finds it comforting just to see that biblical characters go through the same kinds of suffering we do. After people got confused and mistakenly read the first tweet in isolation, he took down both tweets. In light of that, this blog post is mistaken in its interpretation of John Piper’s comments and attitude on this whole situation, and as such it amounts to a form of slander and should be taken down.

    Like

  91. Clayton –

    It’s not slander on anyone’s part when they respond to what Piper writes. The fault lies with Piper since he can’t seem to make his tweets understandable.

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)