"Piper is Down. Repeat, We Have a Piper Down"

[kvanlaan]

I thought the quote was from "So I Married an Axe Murderer" and there would then be NO gravity/improper levity (remember? Wedding party, father is drunk, man playing bag pipes, piper is playing a Rod Stewart song and passes out...) It was funny. So I laughed when I saw the title. I don't think Piper (if he read this thread) would be crying about it. If he is, he needs to loosen up a bit, though I am happy to give him a hug if he needs one.

Also, I don't think Rev. Lewis is challenging Piper to a throw-down here, I think he fulfilled the task appointed to him. Yes, there may be more pertinent things to write on, but it was an assignment by the Presbytery. As for biased language, let's remember that it is a different denomination from Piper's and that any and all of us do this both intentionally and unintentionally all the time. Find me a paedo/credo baptism thread that doesn't come with biased language or thinking.

I have not read Desiring God but do think that the quote about 17th century theologians was stepping over a line. We all make mistakes (if indeed it was a mistake, I cannot speak for the man) but he does not address it as such that I know of.

As for Piper's alleged neglect being compared to that of James, one is the codification of the irrefutable word of God and the other is a Baptist preacher. No comparison. None.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Heard at a conference:

Mark Dever @ a table with Lig Duncan, Piper, J.I. Packer and others.....

"Would the Westminster divines have a problem with how John Piper has reworded the WLC Q1 ? J. I., since you were there, can you tell us ?"

entire table laughs.

Packer essentially says no, from his reading and study and says that the conclusion that Piper comes to is essentially the same as they imply in their statement, just with different language.

I'll take Dever and Packer's word at it.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Jerrold,

As for your P.S, well, I'll let it speak for itself...

It was a simple question, and I hope you choose to answer the question. The reason I asked it is two-fold...

(1) I have written opinions about books that I have not read cover-to-cover. I read major portions that I thought were the pertinent sections, and went from there. It is possible you did the same.

(2) Some of the representations in your paper give the impression that you may have not read his book entirely in that he deals with some of the objections you raised. Again, I do not think you have fairly represented Piper.

One thing I really appreciated about Greg Bahnsen was that he demonstrated by example the ideal of trying to read people in the best possible light - whether this was an atheist like Michael Martin, or a fellow Christian like Schaffer. In fact, Bahnsen's example spoke more to me than anything else I learned from him regarding apologetics.

In short, I was not casting dispursions on your character, although I can see how you might take it that way. (Maybe you did not take it that way?) Nevertheless, it was not intended, and please forgive me for the misunderstanding.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[BlackCalvinist]

I think ^^ is a good place to lock this thread on.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think ^^ is a good place to lock this thread on.

Agreed and at the behest of one of the Mods...closed.