I don't think a charge that we are hand-waving away John Piper's arguments is warranted. I thought the discussion had been remarkably restrained given the emotional nature of the subject matter, and several logical issues with John Piper's line of thinking were brought.
In the OP, Jacob went through the article and listed issues he had with it. Others have as well, including two public articles/blog posts that were shared (haven't read them in detail yet, personally).
Matt, you mention that you subscribe to the
Westminster Confession of Faith. How do you interpret WLC Q135 and Q136? There are a few phrases that I'd like to understand how you find yourself duty bound to them (or not, perhaps having taken exception to them):
WLC Q135 ("Duties Required"), includes "by just defence thereof against violence" (Ps. 82:4, Prov. 24:11–12, 1 Sam. 14:45)
WLC Q136 ("Sins Forbidden"), includes this phrase, "The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, (Acts 16:28) or of others, (Gen. 9:6)
except in case of public justice, (Numb. 35:31,33) lawful war, (Jer. 48:10, Deut. 20:1)
or necessary defence; (Exod. 22:2–3)"
The Exodus 22:2-3 passage is the interesting one, because one might try to make the connection with many of the other passages to the magistrate, or extraordinary circumstances (the people rescuing Jonathan from Saul).
Exodus 22:2-3 is listed as a Scripture proof:
2 If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. 3 If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
Here is a warrant in the Law of God for lawful defense. Exodus 22:2-3 also is interesting in that this is not an unrestrained "kill on demand". If the sun is up, and you shoot him and there was no harm being perpetrated towards persons, then you should not kill the man. If for instance, the thief appears to be a common crook, not intending to harm a person, then you shouldn't kill the man. This is important balance in this debate. We should never be quick to hurt someone if mere property is threatened, and they are not threatening the life of others. Here's how Matthew Henry and Poole see this passage:
Concerning Exodus 22:3, Matthew Henry states:
Yet, if it was in the day-time that the thief was killed, he that killed him must be accountable for it (v. 3), unless it was in the necessary defence of his own life
Matthew Poole:
There shall be blood shed for him; he that kills him shall be put to death, because he punished him more than his crime deserved, and might have been otherwise either secured or righted; and in that case, it is probable, the thief designed not murder, but theft only. But if it were evident that the housebreaker designed murder, he might doubtless kill him in his own defence.
Yes, it is good to point out - that no matter what, taking the life of someone who is made in God's Image is a sober thing, and should never be done lightly.
But you'll have to forgive us if it appears as if John Piper covers no new ground here. We have a pretty solid and firm foundation to stand upon, from our standards, from the general equity of the Old Testament Case Law, and from many great exegetes in the past. Exegetes such as Henry and Poole knew nothing of the modern "gun-control" debate, and it would be unfair to claim that they were influenced by such, in either direction.
See, we cannot argue on this basis with John Piper. He doesn't hold the same presuppositions we do on God's Law, and his system of theology is quite different from ours. But on the PuritanBoard we have the advantage of making short-handed arguments because of our commitment to the system of doctrine taught in the confessions. So our discussion with our brethren here is of a slightly different nature, and so a full diving into Piper's presuppositions isn't particularly needed (hence the comments on the divide between OT and NT).
