Cole
Sorry, friend, but the lexical definitions and the book of John most definitely do *not *“make it clear that John Piper is right”.
Of course, he *may *be right. *You *believe he is. *I *- and others - believe otherwise. But if Piper’s published track record of exegesis is anything to go by, he is certainly not above ‘interpreting’ scripture to support his Calvinist theology, in a way which non-Calvinists such as myself might view as ‘twisting’ scripture. There is a narrow semantic line between the two.
If you want proof of this, take a look at Piper’s debate with Thomas Talbott on predestination and election, as published in the Reformed Journal, and available online. Not only does Piper persistently and conspicuously fail to refute Talbott’s arguments, despite some desperate and elliptical hermenutical gymnastics, he basically just gives up and admits defeat, in effect saying “I can’t win this game, so I’m not going to play any more”.
I think we should all hold firmly in our minds the unequivocal fact that we *all * - you, me, John Piper, Tom Talbott et al - view scripture through our personal hermeneutical lens; that we all bring our ‘controlling beliefs’ to bear on our exegesis. Hence I think we should all be very careful about accusing others of wish-fulfilment in our theology - because it is a charge that can, in so many cases, simply be reversed. After all, might it not be the case that as a Calvinist, you “want” what Piper says to be true, as it backs up your a priori beliefs?
Shalom
Johnny
PS I have been using the salutation ‘Cole’ as I seem to remember it being said on a previous thread that it was your middle name, and the one you preferred to be called by. Please do correct me if I’m wrong, mate! 