John Piper on the Arminians being logic-driven

Although desiringgod.org has a great selection of John Piper's resources, Monergism fills the void by offering many additional audio resources you cannot find at Piper's own site, including his biographical sketches, Hebrews sermons, his series on fasting, and several other series.

I have been listening to his series on TULIP, and thought that this bit was good from his fourth lecture (part 1):

The accusation against me—and I have protested back and forth—is that Calvinists deduce their doctrine of the atonement by logic from the other four points of TULIP. . . . I heard that argument in seminary which is why I didn’t become one—that is, a “five pointer”—for a long time, because I’m not going to let ostensible logic drive against plain texts, and there are some texts which don’t look very limited when it comes to the atonement. . . . So I want not to be driven by logic.

I think the indictment of being logic-driven falls far heavier on Arminians than it does on Calvinists, because Arminians bring to the text the apparently logical assumption that in order to have accountability you have to have free will. Nowhere is that taught in the Bible. That is brought to the text. So if anybody is bringing presuppositions and logic and pressing texts into it, it’s those who believe that in order to be accountable you have to be self-determining. You cannot find that in the Bible. Zero. It is not there.

So it cuts both ways. Everybody needs logic, I’m putting one sentence after another, Paul uses logic, logic is God-given, and it is precious, but it is so easily manipulated, so easily twisted, distorted, spun, that if you put it against texts, you probably have bad logic, just as likely as you have bad exegesis.

Those remarks are good, no matter what one believes about limited (or definite) atonement. John Piper calls himself a "five-pointer," embracing even what he calls "definite atonement." He agrees that the saving benefits after faith were purchased by the death of Christ, and a bona-fide invitation to faith in Christ can be made to any person in saying that Christ died for sin. He even agrees that Christ's death is sufficient for the sins of the world. He says the difference between Arminians and Calvinists on atonement is that the death of Christ purchased the faith of the believer, as well as the benefits after faith. He believes Christ's death purchased more for the believer than the unbelieving world.

John Piper on the Arminians being logic-driven

Although desiringgod.org has a great selection of John Piper's resources, Monergism fills the void by offering many additional audio resources you cannot find at Piper's own site, including his biographical sketches, Hebrews sermons, his series on fasting, and several other series.

I have been listening to his series on TULIP, and thought that this bit was good from his fourth lecture (part 1):

The accusation against me—and I have protested back and forth—is that Calvinists deduce their doctrine of the atonement by logic from the other four points of TULIP. . . . I heard that argument in seminary which is why I didn’t become one—that is, a “five pointer”—for a long time, because I’m not going to let ostensible logic drive against plain texts, and there are some texts which don’t look very limited when it comes to the atonement. . . . So I want not to be driven by logic.

I think the indictment of being logic-driven falls far heavier on Arminians than it does on Calvinists, because Arminians bring to the text the apparently logical assumption that in order to have accountability you have to have free will. Nowhere is that taught in the Bible. That is brought to the text. So if anybody is bringing presuppositions and logic and pressing texts into it, it’s those who believe that in order to be accountable you have to be self-determining. You cannot find that in the Bible. Zero. It is not there.

So it cuts both ways. Everybody needs logic, I’m putting one sentence after another, Paul uses logic, logic is God-given, and it is precious, but it is so easily manipulated, so easily twisted, distorted, spun, that if you put it against texts, you probably have bad logic, just as likely as you have bad exegesis.

Those remarks are good, no matter what one believes about limited (or definite) atonement. John Piper calls himself a "five-pointer," embracing even what he calls "definite atonement." He agrees that the saving benefits after faith were purchased by the death of Christ, and a bona-fide invitation to faith in Christ can be made to any person in saying that Christ died for sin. He even agrees that Christ's death is sufficient for the sins of the world. He says the difference between Arminians and Calvinists on atonement is that the death of Christ purchased the faith of the believer, as well as the benefits after faith. He believes Christ's death purchased more for the believer than the unbelieving world.