<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> Not touchy whatsoever!
Sorry, it was hard to understand why you made that comment.
So, tell me why some don't consider Piper "Reformed" if it isn't because he's a Credo Baptist. Surely, it can't be because he allows paedobaptists into membership? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />
Inquiring minds wanna know.
I don't know all the reasons why some Reformed Baptists don't consider Piper Reformed. But I do know a few reasons, such as I have been told (though I don't know for sure) that he doesn't hold to CT.
They also do not like the fact that he isn't a total Cessationist (though I definitely wouldn't call him a Charismatic either). But the reason I seem to hear the most is because of the reason I told you before; he allows paedo-Baptists into membership. This is something he holds in common with John Bunyan.
Though I don't like to get into the topic very much with my fellow Reformed Baptist brothers and sisters (been there, done that), I found out that most Reformed Baptists believe that the issue of paedo vs. credo is important enough to separate over. This doesn't mean that they do not believe paedo's are genuine Christians, it is just they don't believe paedo's have Reformed enough. Please don't get me started on that, this is for your information only.
I have stated on these forums a number of times that I don't believe this issue is as cut and dried as some make it out to be. Therefore I don't believe it is an issue to separate over.
That is all I really want to say about that particular issue.
Just so you know, though I am some what of a fan of John Piper. There are areas where I disagree with him, but I can say the same thing about men such as RC Sproul and others that hold to the doctrines of grace.
Piper has his strengths and he has his weaknesses.