Hah -- glad you noted the birthday! But...Piper???? Actually, almost...I could imagine his take to be correct, but only with the most stretching of my imagination. He says: "It’s the Arminians that are the rationalists. Arminianism trumps biblical sentences with metaphysics: "God can’t control all things and hold us responsible. God can’t choose some and love all.” Why? Metaphysics. Out with mystery! It just can’t be!" Pipers Calvinsim trumps meaning with verses, flattening the Bible with a strange hermaneutic, or so I would say in my own version of overspeak. Me, argue with Piper? Of course not. But....... Mystery, rationalism, and metaphysics are emphatically not at odds with each other. You can rationally believe in mystery. It is a matter of degree on either side and once again I think Piper overstates. Everybody wants to use GKC. "Folly of sacramentalism" -- did I say overstate? -- come on.
Oh well -- you needed a bit of 'fight back' in the comment column, eh? Enough -- too much -- for now, but more later...maybe. Here's to the Arminians who know nothing of mystery and are stuck in the folly of assuming reality to be an expression of God, that same reality embracing mystery and expressed therein but not consumed thereby. Well, something like that. Randy
Good showing, Randy! I had a feeling those provocative (I admit) statements from JP would stir up some reaction. You should comment back at the DG site. 50/50 he writes you back.
Although as you probably would guess I side with Piper in the Calvinist vs. Arminian soteriology debate, I'm also quick to note that we Presbyterian/Reformed folk would take issue with our Baptist brother's too low view of the sacraments and we'd agree with Wesley that our infants shouldn't be excluded from baptism into the visible church.
Ah well, that's my attempt at being irenic. Thanks for taking the time to comment!
Hah -- glad you noted the birthday! But...Piper????
ReplyDeleteActually, almost...I could imagine his take to be correct, but only with the most stretching of my imagination. He says: "It’s the Arminians that are the rationalists. Arminianism trumps biblical sentences with metaphysics: "God can’t control all things and hold us responsible. God can’t choose some and love all.” Why? Metaphysics. Out with mystery! It just can’t be!"
Pipers Calvinsim trumps meaning with verses, flattening the Bible with a strange hermaneutic, or so I would say in my own version of overspeak.
Me, argue with Piper? Of course not. But.......
Mystery, rationalism, and metaphysics are emphatically not at odds with each other. You can rationally believe in mystery. It is a matter of degree on either side and once again I think Piper overstates.
Everybody wants to use GKC. "Folly of sacramentalism" -- did I say overstate? -- come on.
Oh well -- you needed a bit of 'fight back' in the comment column, eh?
Enough -- too much -- for now, but more later...maybe.
Here's to the Arminians who know nothing of mystery and are stuck in the folly of assuming reality to be an expression of God, that same reality embracing mystery and expressed therein but not consumed thereby.
Well, something like that.
Randy
Good showing, Randy! I had a feeling those provocative (I admit) statements from JP would stir up some reaction. You should comment back at the DG site. 50/50 he writes you back.
ReplyDeleteAlthough as you probably would guess I side with Piper in the Calvinist vs. Arminian soteriology debate, I'm also quick to note that we Presbyterian/Reformed folk would take issue with our Baptist brother's too low view of the sacraments and we'd agree with Wesley that our infants shouldn't be excluded from baptism into the visible church.
Ah well, that's my attempt at being irenic. Thanks for taking the time to comment!
Grace and peace.
Irenic?? I say bring out the big guns.
ReplyDeletej/k.
Thanks for the response.
Randy