Comments on: John Piper’s False God (3)

By: TPL

TPL — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:03:25 +0000

Really important topic. Piper espouses a system of theology that comes crashing down if you remove one simple card. It’s not a biblical system. The God of the Bible isn’t captured by our systems. Piper isn’t willing to acknowledge what is obvious to any fifth grader…God is sovereign (read: capable) but has limited the EXERCISE of his absolute sovereignty. The biblical answer to the little boy is that God doesn’t ordain evil acts, He weeps over them. The God of the Bible weeps over the loss of the boy’s Daddy but not as one who is powerless. Although the God of the Bible allows evil to exist and doesn’t always stop cause and effect, even when the effects are harmful…He is able and willing to take every bad, evil thing and redeem it so that we are eternally thankful to Him. Take it from someone who lost his Daddy!

By: Thom Stark

Thom Stark — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:42:12 +0000

Whatever.

By: Bobby Grow

Bobby Grow — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:58:42 +0000

Well let me rephrase what Brad A. said here: I’m not at all comfortable with relativizing the expectations one brings to the OT in the way that Thom does. We have a canon for a reason, and it’s not apparently for the reasons that Thom thinks.

I just took what Brad said to be consonant with the above sentiment. But he can ably speak for himself; I’m just sayin’ . . .

By: Thom Stark

Thom Stark — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:46:30 +0000

This is the straw man: “Agreed, Bobby. I’m not at all comfortable with relativizing the OT this way, or with dismissing large sections of it. We have a canon for a reason.”

I’m not relativizing the OT, or dismissing large sections of it, or calling for it to be displaced from the canon. Straw man.

By: Bobby Grow

Bobby Grow — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:32:33 +0000

Marcion is only incidental to my broader concerns as well, forget him.

We simply disagree, and I’ve grown tired of trying to discuss this issue in the ‘sphere’ . . . it’s really never turned out to be that fruitful.

take care

By: Brad A.

Brad A. — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:04:34 +0000

Thom, I have no interest in pursuing a critique of Marcion, if that’s what you’re referring to. I simply don’t buy into your reading of the OT. After checking out your blog, you simply make some moves I can’t subscribe to, as much as I respect why you make them.

By: Thom Stark

Thom Stark — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:28:22 +0000

Have fun beating on your straw man, you two. :)

By: Bobby Grow

Bobby Grow — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:13:18 +0000

Thanks, Brad. The canon is certainly a gift, and who it bears witness to is even greater than even this gift :-).

By: Brad A.

Brad A. — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:02:24 +0000

Agreed, Bobby. I’m not at all comfortable with relativizing the OT this way, or with dismissing large sections of it. We have a canon for a reason.

By: Bobby Grow

Bobby Grow — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:46:05 +0000

Wenham has a great book on Jesus and the Bible, you should read it!

Jesus fulfilled Scripture, the Muslims subvert/abrogate their scriptures.

Scripture entails both descriptive and prescriptive, the narrative in the OT is by and large “descriptive.” Actually the NT says that the period of conquest (and monarchy/divided monarchy, exilic period [salvation history] served as the time of a school master which pointed to Christ.

Whether or not Jesus says anything directly about Joshua is moot; this is an argument from silence.

Yes the Mishnah reflects what you’re saying about rival traditions; but Jesus never went that way, He “spoke as One with authority.” His whole ministry presupposed the validity (to one jot or tittle) of the whole of scripture.

I’ll let you defend Marcion all you want :-).

Thom, were just at different places, theologically; that’s all.

Peace.

By: Thom Stark

Thom Stark — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:33:12 +0000

In defense of Marcion, he was the ONLY one in his period that was reading the conquest narratives literally. Everybody else was allegorizing or spiritualizing them, so they didn’t really have to deal with the problem Marcion recognized. Marcion wasn’t defeated by anyone defending the idea that God commanded genocide. He was defeated by allegory.

By: Thom Stark

Thom Stark — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:11:16 +0000

Jesus contradicts the whole modus operandi of the conquest. Moreover, the book of Joshua is never referenced anywhere in the NT, and the only thing the NT ever says about the conquest is that it didn’t fulfill God’s promise to Abraham.

First century Jews’ view of their Bible was more flexible than ours. Jesus subverted scripture, and spoke against very scriptural ideas, all the time. All rabbis did–they just didn’t go around couching it so overtly. Stricter views of inspiration didn’t develop until later. In Jesus’ day, I think it was clear they recognized that there were rival traditions inscribed in their own scriptures.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:33:28 +0000

I’ve seen some extreme Calvinists go further and claim that Calvinism is just what you get from “reading your bible” and that Calvin just “taught the bible.” If you think your doctrine is that self-evident then I guess the condescension comes easily.

By: roger flyer

roger flyer — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:00:04 +0000

Why theology matters.

By: Bobby Grow

Bobby Grow — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:42:32 +0000

Yeah,
Kim mentioned Marcion on a related thread, I think.

I wasn’t really refering to Marcion’s rather gnostic understanding of God; but his text critical approach (if we can call it that). Albeit your informing conceptual apparatus may or may not be the same; it seems your function is similar.

I wonder which god, the “conquest writers” (as you say), knew? It seems Jesus was unaware of their ignorance.

I realize, I think, the kind of higher critical thinking that is informing your assertions, Tom; so I don’t want to get to deep into that . . . instead I really just wanted to recognize your comment, with a “counter-assertion.”

Peace.