Language and words are of significant concern to Pastor Piper (like father like son). It is fairly common to hear him say in a sermon something like, “I think it would be helpful to begin with a definition”.
Apparently, he believes that a good way to avoid being misunderstood is to make sure that others understand what you mean when you use key words.
So I thought it might be helpful to compile a list of some of his definitions. This list follows – but first, a few notes:
(1) In some cases, he explicitly gives credit to others for being a source for the definition,
(2) In some cases, these are definitions derived from specific biblical passages.
(3) I hope to add to this list. This is not a complete list by any means.
(4) I have edited some of these a bit.
Piper Definitions (Part 1):
Lust: Sexual desire that dishonors its object and disregards God.
Glory of God: The infinite beauty and greatness of his manifold perfections.
MATURE MASCULINITY: A SENSE OF BENEVOLENT RESPONSIBILITY TO LEAD, PROVIDE FOR AND PROTECT WOMEN IN WAYS APPROPRIATE TO A MAN’S DIFFERING RELATIONSHIPS.
MATURE FEMININITY: A FREEING DISPOSITION TO AFFIRM, RECEIVE AND NURTURE STRENGTH AND LEADERSHIP FROM WORTHY MEN IN WAYS APPROPRIATE TO A WOMAN’S DIFFERING RELATIONSHIPS.
Shame (dictionary definition): The painful emotion caused by a consciousness of guilt or shortcoming or impropriety.
The Love of God: His doing whatever needs to be done, at whatever cost, so that we will see and be satisfied with the glory of God in Jesus Christ.
The Church: It took a whole sermon
The Occult: Anything that involves dealings with the world of spirits or of supra-normal forces which (dealings) are not oriented on Jesus as he is revealed in the Bible.
Racism(As defined by the Bethlehem Staff and Borrowed from the PCA): Racism is an explicit or implicit belief or practice that qualitatively distinguishes or values one race over other races.
Covetousness: Desiring something so much that you lose your contentment in God.
Headship: The divine calling of a husband to take primary responsibility for Christ-like servant leadership, protection, and provision in the home.
Submission: The divine calling of a wife to honor and affirm her husband’s leadership and help carry it through according to her gifts.
The Wrath of God: God’s settled anger toward sin expressed in the repayment of suitable vengeance on the guilty sinner.
Sin: Lawlessness. In other words sin is man’s refusal to submit to God’s law, that is, God’s Word. It is insubordination.
Hope (Three senses): 1. a desire for something good in the future, 2. the thing in the future that we desire, and 3. the basis reason for thinking that our desire may indeed be fulfilled.
Faith: You can see this in Hebrews 11:1. This is the closest thing we have to definition of faith in all the New Testament, I think – Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Christian Leadership: Broadly speaking, a person is more or less a Christian leader as that person exerts more or less Christian influence in Christian ways. Or to put it another way, to the degree that you shape others toward the image of Christ you are a Christian leader.
Relativism: Belief in one of these four things- 1) There is no objective, external standard for measuring the truth or falsehood of a factual statement (like “John MacArthur is tall.)” Or 2) there may be an external standard, but we can’t know if there is. Or 3) there may be one, but no one can figure out what it means, so it can’t function as a standard. Or 4) there may be an external, objective standard, but I don’t care what it is; I’m not going to base my convictions on it.
Anxiety: The loss of confident security in God owing to feelings of uneasiness or foreboding that something harmful is going to happen.
Envy: A mingling of a desire for something with the resentment that another is enjoying it and you are not.
Wisdom (1): The ability of the soul to perceive God-glorifying, Christ-exalting, gospel-fashioned, people-helping ways to live, with the knowledge God gives us – not only the ability to memorize specific biblical rules of behavior.
Wisdom (2): Knowing what the greatest goal is in any situation, and what the best way is to achieve it.
The Flesh: The closest thing to a Biblical definition of the flesh is Romans 8:7-8, “The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
Legalism: (1) Treating biblical standards of conduct as regulations to be kept by our own power in order to earn God’s favor. . . .(2): The erecting of specific requirements of conduct beyond the teaching of Scripture and making adherence to them the means by which a person is qualified for full participation in the local family of God, the church; This is where unbiblical exclusivism arises.
The Responsible Puppet 
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 17, 2008 at 1:41 pm
jamsco
Yes, I know, I could have taken out the CAPS on the Masc/Fem stuff, but I thought: If it’s good enough for the source document – it’s good enough for me.
September 18, 2008 at 10:16 am
Chris
Regarding legalism, I’ll put my questions and comments in all capitals just so you can tell them apart since I don’t know how else to make them different from the words in the definition.
(1) Treating biblical standards of conduct as regulations to be kept by our own power in order to earn God’s favor. . . . WHAT IF YOU DON’T THINK THAT KEEPING THE BIBLICAL STANDARDS IS A WAY TO EARN GOD’S FAVOR? WHAT IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THE BIBLE AND SEE INSTRUCTIONS THERE AND BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD FOLLOW THOSE INSTRUCTIONS BECAUSE GOD’S WORD INDICATES THAT? WE AREN’T GOING TO SEE EVERYTHING IN VISIONS IN DREAMS. IT SEEMS LIKE GOD WANTS US TO READ THE BIBLE AND HEAR WHAT HE’S SAYING AND THEN FOLLOW THROUGH. NOW PEOPLE MIGHT LOOK AT SCRIPTURES DIFFERENTLY. IF ONE PERSON SEES SCRIPTURES THAT LEAD HER TO BELIEVE SOMETHING IS WRONG AND ANOTHER PERSON ASKS HER WHY SHE ISN’T DOING THAT, SHE WILL PROBABLY EXPLAIN THAT BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS ___________________, THAT’S WHAT SHE DOESN’T DO IT. THE OTHER PERSON MAY SAY, WELL, I DON’T SEE THAT IN THE BIBLE. THE FIRST PERSON SAYS, YOU HAVE NOT CONVINCED ME, AND KEEPS LIVING THE WAY SHE SEES IT IN THE BIBLE. IF PEOPLE ASK HER ABOUT IT, SHE AGAIN TELLS THEM WHY. IS SHE BEING A LEGALIST? IS SHE A LEGALIST IF PEOPLE ASK AND SHE TELLS THEM WHY, EVEN IF THEY DON’T AGREE WITH HER? IF A PERSON SAYS PUBLICLY, I THINK THIS IS WRONG AND THIS IS WHY, DOES THAT MAKE HER A LEGALIST? SHOULD SHE HAVE TO LIE AND PRETEND SHE IS OKAY WITH SOMETHING THAT SHE HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF? DOES SHE HAVE TO PRETEND EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE? I HEARD JOHN PIPER SAY AT ONE TIME THAT THE WORLD DOES NOT HAVE TO SEE CHRISTIANS AGREEING ABOUT EVERYTHING, IT NEEDS TO SEE CHRISTIANS LOVING EACH OTHER EVEN IN THEIR DISAGREEMENTS AND NOT CALLING PEOPLE LEGALISTS AND OTHERWISE LABELING THEM IN A NEGATIVE WAY BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE. (2): The erecting of specific requirements of conduct beyond the teaching of Scripture and making adherence to them the means by which a person is qualified for full participation in the local family of God, the church; This is where unbiblical exclusivism arises.
September 19, 2008 at 7:48 am
fundyreformed
Jamsco,
Great post, what a neat idea. Piper does have a way with definitions, as he obviously thinks very carefully about them.
Chris,
Let me try to address some of your questions. Let me also encourage you not to use all caps if possible, it makes you seem like you’re SCREAMING. You can use “quotation marks”. You can separate into paragraphs or say Jamsco said: then hit return, and say My question is:
Anyway, you bring up some valid points. But look at Piper’s definition a little more closely: “Treating biblical standards of conduct as regulations to be kept by our own power in order to earn God’s favor.” Piper has many personal rules of conduct that he keeps out of a desire to please God. He does so from love for God, not a sense of rigorous duty. What’s important I think is “by our own power”. For years I was in a system that taught us to “just do it”. If we were really serious about God we would keep these rules and regulations, most of which went way beyond what was spelled out in Scripture. It was hard to toe the line, and we were encouraged to have character and resolve. Yes we were told to depend on the spirit, but the emphasis was on personal effort.
In keeping those rules we felt that we were truly obeying God. And when we saw others who didn’t keep those same rules, part of us, deep inside, thought we were better than them. We felt we were in a sense earning status with God. Our group was more serious about God then other groups. Why? Because we did this, and that. The emphasis was on us. And we didn’t truly have a perspective of God’s grace and a genuine love for all the brothers and sisters we have in Christ.
This is what Piper is arguing against. And while I often bristled against the term “legalism” too. After I came out of the system and thought more objectively, I realized that legalism really did fit. The focus was externals. Not that those aren’t important, but the very nature of the environment we were in promoted the idea of making sure we look good to others by keeping the community’s rules. Since we judged each other on externals so much, and since externals were harped on in the pulpit so often, it became natural to think this way. We were all, to one degree or another, earning favor and status with God. Yes the Gospel was preached but it was presented as a thing to accept mentally and assent to once, and after that you pay God back, in a sense, by keeping His rules. It was not really presented as something you can live by.
What is missing is that in our own strength we are sure to fall. The rules are hard. And when that was acknowledged we were encouraged to vow to do better, to clench our teeth and determine not to give up, to go forward and recommit ourselves to God during the public invitation. To seek accountability and force ourselves to do it. Often manipulative, human-oriented schemes were used to try to belittle those who didn’t persevere. It was a method to try to encourage them to keep on keeping on. In all of this a focus on Christ was lost. The Gospel is all about the fact we can’t keep God’s rules. We need help. And we have a glorious Savior. From the love He’s given me, and in light of the glorious grace of God giving me what I do not deserve, I can have a Spirit-wrought desire to please Him. With that motivation, the rules of what I do or don’t do, are not burdensome. They don’t even really matter. What matters is my love for Jesus and desire to please Him. If I fall, I know I have an advocate, and I am saddened since I displease Him. And I’m again amazed that He picks me up and helps me keep going.
I hope you can see how this “legalism” can be harmful. It can take our focus off of Christ and onto ourselves. And the 2nd kind of legalism points us to our neighbors. We assess whether they are qualified for me to even consider them part of our church. This is doubly harmful because the standards we’re measuring them by are not even entirely Biblical. They are more often a particular application of a Biblical principle.
I hope this helps explain where we are coming from. Terms like this are inflammatory I know. There’s not much we can do about that. But if you see where our objection is to this kind of thing, maybe it helps you understand why we label it “legalism” and why we are against it.
I’d encourage you to check out C.J. Mahaney’s book The Cross-Centered Life, it has an excellent chapter on legalism.
Blessings,
Bob Hayton
September 19, 2008 at 8:27 am
Chris
Okay, I will try to pick up Mahaney’s book.
I know what you mean about capitals. Some of us always used them in e-mail to set off our responses. I was appalled to hear that it designated screaming. Now there is color and italics and bold print to use, but I can’t figure out how to make those work with blogs. That’s why I prefaced my comments by saying that I wasn’t intending to be screaming.
Actually, I was going to comment separately on a few parts of both definitions originally–that’s why I wanted to set the words off, but then it didn’t turn out that way. My brain was too worn out by that time from all the thinking about work and blogs and school, so I let the other comments go. Then it seemed like it would take too long to go back and retype it in regular letters since I was already late for something. I really could have just typed it without the definition as a reference if I had known I was going to shorten my comments.
I will try to read through your comments again because I know I will pick up more after reading it a few times, but I just have a couple initial comments. Just like we should avoid profanity because of it’s connotations, we should avoid the term legalism because of its actual definition and its connotations.
I have seen too many people with legitimate concerns about certain types of behavior jeered at as legalists. It’s not about measuring people, but about determining the influence of various types of behavior on our spiritual life.
Jesus cared about behavior. He said, If you love me, you will keep my commandments–not because we are so strong, but because his love transforms us. And he himself told us to listen to his Word and then follow through with actions. So many epistles tell us to put on this, or stop doing that. We shouldn’t bash people, but there is nothing wrong with saying that we think something is wrong and why–especially if there is significant support for that position in the Bible.
Thanks for your encouragement for us to always speak the truth in love and keep the focus on Christ.
September 19, 2008 at 9:02 am
Why Do We Say “Legalism” « Fundamentally Reformed
[…] 19, 2008 A friend of mine just posted an interesting list of definitions by John Piper on a variety of topics. He linked to the online sermon or article from which the definition was […]
September 19, 2008 at 9:04 am
fundyreformed
Thanks Chris.
Sorry to talk about the bold, but it really makes you seem like you’re screaming, and if you’re not, I don’t want you to be taken wrongly! Here’s a free little HTML lesson (I had to learn all this stuff the hard way, hope this helps!)
Most blogs will let you bold thins or italicize them. Just take and put them around b or i . Then follow up after the phrase you’re bolding, or italicizing, with . In the following example I will use brackets instead of because otherwise the browser would not show what I’m typing at all.
I want to make this [b]bold[/b] but I want this phrase to be [i]italicized[/i].
Just substitute for [ and ] and you should be in business.
Now about legalism. I appreciate your response. The book really is good. Here is my review of it: The Cross Centered Life. {by the way to insert a link you just use code like this: [a href=”link url here”]words to explain your link[/a] (again substitute for [ and ].}
I understand your concern. But I think the more you study legalism, you’ll see it has a broader meaning than just earning salvation. It is basically a focus on legality. A focus on rules. Rules for rules sake is wrong.
Now I totally hear you that legalism gets used as an ugly word to smear people with. But I’m talking about my own past history and myself. I was a legalist. Another couple books that are good are Randy Alcorn’s The Grace and Truth Paradox and Extreme Righteousness: Seeing Ourselves in the Pharisees by Tom Hovestol.
Blessings, brother.
Bob Hayton
(By the way, I used my long-winded comment above as a post for my blog. Hope you don’t mind.)
September 19, 2008 at 9:53 am
Chris
Bob, I think that you are so right about how easy it is to get caught up in wanting to do certain things (or not do them) so that God will think or that God will know we are committed to him. How silly! He’s the one who brought us to that commitment, so he obviously knows if we are or not.
Also, the idea of trying to pay God back is another example.
These are a lot easier for me to see now that I have got a glimpse of reformed thinking.
After thinking about all this, if I find someone thinks I’m promoting or representing legalism, rather than bristle at the term, I’ll just clarify.
Thanks for your help.
September 19, 2008 at 10:30 am
jamsco
Hey Bob, thanks for the clarifications and the html help. I need to do that more. And thanks for the link
September 19, 2008 at 10:46 am
fundyreformed
Glad I could help, Chris. Blessings to you in your walk with the Lord.
No problem jamsco. I thought the post was great, but of course the legalism comment is right up my alley, given my journey out of extreme fundamentalism and all.
Have a blessed weekend.
September 20, 2008 at 5:37 am
Chris
I know it seems like we had pretty much tied up this discussion, but the topic has remained on my mind, and I have learned that the only way to deal with ideas swirling in my mind through the night is to write them down and share them. I hope it is okay to share them here. If it sounds like a column, I guess that’s because my last job was writing columns. I know it’s long, but it says more thoroughly what I have been trying to communicate.
Recently there has been a lot of discussion about how much concern a Christian should have about certain types of behavior. There are activities that were once considered unfitting for a Christian, which are now acceptable according to many Christians. Most people will defend these behaviors by saying that there is nothing in the Bible that specifically prohibits them. People who continue to express concern over the acceptance of these behaviors are often accused of promoting legalism—a system that supports salvation by works. At times they have even been described as Pharisees! Some merely think of them as weak in conscience.
The danger in using the word legalism is that it often shuts down communication about very important issues. The fact that certain churches use these behaviors as criteria for church membership, and the fact that people sometimes feel a false sense of security by ordering their spiritual life around behaviors, does not give us adequate reason to put people who raise questions about the behaviors in the category of legalist. Of course, those who argue for or against the helpfulness or harmfulness of anything should always do so respectfully.
The Gospels and epistles contain numerous warnings about certain behaviors and numerous encouragements about other behaviors. Jesus and the apostles knew full well that salvation is not by works, yet they spent considerable time describing specific behaviors that are helpful and harmful to our Christian walk and offered clear guidelines for dealing with any behaviors that were not specifically mentioned. As Christians we need to realize that just because certain behaviors don’t damn us in and of themselves doesn’t mean that those behaviors are harmless.
Drinking Alcohol. People often argue that it is not drinking a glass of wine or a can of beer that the Bible warns about, but drunkenness. This is true. Yet alcohol is a powerful, mind altering drug and should not be used casually. During teacher training I was required to take a course on drug and alcohol abuse prevention. In the class we learned that children who grow up with alcohol, cigarettes, and other drugs in the home are much more likely to abuse them. Just getting dad a can of beer from the refrigerator, cleaning the ashtrays in the home, and everyday behaviors like that increased their risk of becoming abusers. It is not out of fear that drinking a glass of wine will put a black mark on some kind of heavenly scorecard that causes many people to avoid alcohol and cigarettes. It is the realization that millions of people are suffering from alcoholism, lung disease, DUI accidents and other problems in which smoking, drugs and alcohol play a part.
Social Dancing. I recall a scene from a movie called Footloose in which the main character defended sensual dancing at a high school dance by telling everyone that in the Bible King David and the people of Israel danced before the Lord. Somehow I don’t think they were doing the bump or clinging tightly to men and women they weren’t married to. This reminds me of Holden Caulfield’s observations in the Cather in the Rye. He said that when you get a girl in the back seat of a car her brain melts. This happened to me. Fortunately I was with a guy who, when I said, in essence, my brain is melting; we’d better stop, stopped. Unfortunately millions of girls and guys don’t stop and suffer deeply. It is easy for the melting to start while swaying closely to a song with sexy lyrics.
Profanity. Many people will say, hey, how you can complain about profanity when you’ve read The Catcher in the Rye. It was required reading for Honors English and in the church I grew up in, it seemed like the only things that were sins were stealing, lying and murder—well, maybe adultery, too, but as a kid I wasn’t too concerned with that. The Bible tells us that our speech should always pure. Sure there are ways we can use concuss words with impure hearts, attitudes and intentions, but that doesn’t make the cuss words any less impure. Profanity poisons the atmosphere and poisons the mind. In our culture it’s almost impossible to avoid, but avoiding it as much as possible is a good thing, not a legalistic thing. A few years ago I worked with someone who was really giving me a hard time. In my mind I thought, “He’s such a ____________.” I had never, ever said the word, but I had heard it and it popped into my mind. Sure my attitude was already bad, but using a word with worse connotations just added another sin to the one in my heart. If the Bible says we are in danger of hell for being angry with someone, or calling someone an idiot (fool), how much equally displeased must he be when we use profanity?
If I bring any of these points up in a conversation, people will usually say I’m being legalistic and that decisions about these types of behaviors are between each individual person and God. I even read a blog where someone criticized her pastor for addressing issues like this in a sermon. “God looks at the heart!” people cry. Yet the Bible tells us that our outward behavior provides evidence about what is in our hearts. Sometimes we make wrong assumptions, and as Christians we should be really getting to know each other, not judging people by outward appearances. Still, as we get to know each other, we are bound to deal with these things.
I do not mean to say that we should be like, as John Piper once said, “drug sniffing dogs”, always picking at people for what they are doing. One of our friends had a dad who would never visit him because he did not keep any alcohol in the house. Finally Dave started keeping a six pack in the refrigerator and his dad began to stop by for a visit from time to time. I’m not going to tell him he’s doing the wrong thing. Our son told us that his public school friends were shocked because he had never heard of The Catcher in the Rye. I told him he could read it if he wanted to. I hadn’t included it in our curriculum because there were so many other books I felt were more important. I told him that in college he is probably going to run across a lot of books with profanity in them, as well as other things. Some of them have valuable messages for us; others may challenge, or even attack, his faith. I told him to be very careful about what he fills his mind with.
I have not met one person who does not do something that seems unbiblical, no matter how careful they seem to be in other matters, including myself. I wrestle with decisions about what I should say or do every day. Sanctification is a process. It will be wonderful at the second coming of Christ when he will bring us all to be on the same page. Until then, it will be important to be able to give serious thought to issues that can have a serious effect on our lives. It is important not to confuse this with legalism. It can make our friendships awkward in some cases. We are in a small group with people who have different views on these issues, but we are learning to listen to each other without crying “legalist” or “liberal.”
September 20, 2008 at 9:07 am
theWrightLife.com - » John Piper. Defined.
[…] author, Jamsco, did a good job of putting the definitions together, so I thank him. Check out Piper Definitions, it’s not a very long post, but it sure did spark some long comments. I know many of you […]
September 20, 2008 at 7:27 pm
fundyreformed
Chris,
I don’t think the things you mention are legalistic. From my background such things were a given and the legalistic items were even more stringent.
I think some Christians use “legalism” as a cop out. And many see “salvation by works” behind any attempt at purity and holiness. Salvation is not by works, but the faith that saves is never alone (it is always accompanied by works).
Legalism is in the heart ultimately and one can be a legalist about any rule or regulation. And the Bible does contain rules and does imply we can have some rules. There is a real danger in legalism however, and we should aim to be anchored in Scripture.
Science and surveys may tell us things, (about alcohol in the home leading to alcoholism, etc.) but the Bible is our only sure rule for faith and practice. I underwent a Biblical conversion to the moderate enjoyment of alcoholic drinks, but I respect those who don’t drink for many wise reasons.
Romans 14-15 should help us in all of this. People will come down on different sides of behavior questions in the church. Such decisions shouldn’t separate us and they shouldn’t make us think ill of others. We must remember each man lives or dies to the Lord and he doesn’t give an account to us. We are called to exhort one another to holy living, but we also are called to accept one another and love them.
Thanks for the discussion, Chris.
God bless you.
Bob
September 29, 2008 at 10:50 am
Completer Piper Definitions « The Responsible Puppet
[…] 29, 2008 in Uncategorized I have added several more definitions to those I had last time , cleaned them up and alphebetized them. Again, some disclaimers – (1) In some cases, he explicitly […]