John Piper’s son Abraham Piper skewers evangelicals as his star rises on TikTok

Rachel20 said:

I understand your point. But the New Testament may have been part of all that, in which case you're really just objecting to his methods.

Click to expand...

If the New Testament had been all wrapped up in, say, 150 years? Sure that could’ve been plausible but it took 400 years to close the canon of scripture.

Speedwell said:

It depends on what you mean by "support the gay lifestyle." There is really no reason that gays should experience any discrimination or legal disadvantage in a secular state, whether we think homosexuality is a sin or not.

Click to expand...

I didn't use the term "support".

EDIT:

Ok, I see, "defend".

My comment actually had nothing to do with support of the legal tense, but the moral. Most Atheists support them, and some Christians.

It's like the gays say they don't like fundamentalists because they belive in what's fundumental for Christianity. Or maybe it's more like, the fundamentalists won't let them forget that a lifestyle of Homosexuality ends badly as far as God is concerned.

They really just need to attack God instead of gunning down the messengers.

renniks said:

Penal atonement is, as I understand it, God pouring out his wrath on Jesus. It's the standard calvinist view, but not necessarily the most popular view in Christianity overall.

Click to expand...

Actually, it simply means death was the penalty for sin.

Clare73 said:

Actually, it simply means death was the penalty for sin.

Click to expand...

I think there is more to it than that. There's multiple theories of the atonement. And a lot of overlap.

Kenny'sID said:

I didn't use the term "support".

EDIT:

Ok, I see, "defend".

My comment actually had nothing to do with support of the legal tense, but the moral. Most Atheists support them, and some Christians.

It's like the gays say they don't like fundamentalists because they belive in what's fundumental for Christianity. Or maybe it's more like, the fundamentalists won't let them forget that a lifestyle of Homosexuality ends badly as far as God is concerned.

They really just need to attack God instead of gunning down the messengers.

Click to expand...

Right. You said "defend" not "support." My Bad. But even though as Christian I recognize that homosexual activity is a sin, I am not ashamed to defend homosexuals from being refused service in a non-religious business establishment or being fired from a non-religious company for being gay and I see no reason for fundamentalist owners of non-religious establishments to get a special dispensation from pubic accommodation and labor law to be able to do so.

renniks said:

I think there is more to it than that. There's multiple theories of the atonement. And a lot of overlap.

Click to expand...

That works.

Clare73 said:

That works.

Click to expand...

But what of "The Fundamentals?" A lot of Fundamentalists take them very seriously and act out a lot of hostility toward those who believe something different--which goes a long way to explaining the negative reaction they whine about.

Speedwell said:

Right. You said "defend" not "support." My Bad. But even though as Christian I recognize that homosexual activity is a sin, I am not ashamed to defend homosexuals from being refused service in a non-religious business establishment or being fired from a non-religious company for being gay and I see no reason for fundamentalist owners of non-religious establishments to get a special dispensation from pubic accommodation and labor law to be able to do so.

Click to expand...

As mantioned, the law wasn't my concern, but though I'm likely not going to defend them in the area you mention, I won't try to make a case that they should not have certian legal rights.

I don't think they should be allowed to adopt kids, and their may be some other legal rights I disagree with, just not sure what all are on the books.

Speaking of stars on the rise, this poem by Anne Sexton about Icarus seems strangely apropos re the Pipers, father and rising son...

To A Friend Whose Work Has Come To Triumph

Consider Icarus, pasting those sticky wings on,
testing that strange little tug at his shoulder blade,
and think of that first flawless moment over the lawn
of the labyrinth. Think of the difference it made!
There below are the trees, as awkward as camels;
and here are the shocked starlings pumping past
and think of innocent Icarus who is doing quite well:
larger than a sail, over the fog and the blast
of the plushy ocean, he goes. Admire his wings!
Feel the fire at his neck and see how casually
he glances up and is caught, wondrously tunneling
into that hot eye. Who cares that he fell back to the sea?
See him acclaiming the sun and come plunging down
while his sensible daddy goes straight into town.

sfs said:

That strikes me as not historically an accurate understanding of the roots of American fundamentalism. For one thing, the opponents of the fundamentalists, the modernists, were also overwhelmingly white, male, and Protestant, and the hegemony of white, male Protestants was not under serious threat at the time.

Once the fundamentalists had been defeated in most denominations and elite institutions, fundamentalism acquired more cultural associations as a movement opposed to elites and the dominant culture. It was, however, still a movement that largely eschewed political involvement. It's only been in the last, say, 40 years that fundamentalism has become an important political force and a factor in culture wars.

Click to expand...

That's the usual historical narrative, however, that detachment from politics only resulted because fundamentalists lost their established places in power. But they were not chastened by that lesson, they merely sought alternatives avenues towards power after regrouping in the 1950's.

FireDragon76 said:

That's the usual historical narrative

Click to expand...

Well, yes, it's the narrative put together by historians who study the subject. You haven't yet identified anything inaccurate in it.

FireDragon76 said:

that detachment from politics only resulted because fundamentalists lost their established places in power.

Click to expand...

Which fundamentalists lost what established places in power when? Please be specific.

FireDragon76 said:

But they were not chastened by that lesson, they merely sought alternatives avenues towards power after regrouping in the 1950's.

Click to expand...

Again, who are you talking about? How did fundamentalists regroup in the 1950s?

Here is an interesting short treatment from a relatively reputable source.

Fundamentalism turns 100, a landmark for the Christian Right

public hermit said:

Abraham Piper: “Is one of my themes attacking Christianity? No. I don’t attack Christianity. I berate evangelicalism. Fundamentalism. It’s a destructive narrow-minded worldview. And one of the most destructive, narrow-minded aspects of it is that its adherents feel as if they are the entirety of Christianity rather than the tiny sliver of it that they actually are,” he argued.

Click to expand...

RestoreTheJoy said:

AbrahamPiper @abrahampiper Once you recognize that resurrection is a metaphor, you’re free to ask, “OK, but are there any *better* metaphors?” And the answer is yes. Bowling. It has all the same allegorical potency, is truer to life, generally comes w/ beer, and has no holiday you’re obliged to celebrate.

Click to expand...

The premise behind this entire thread is wrong. Abraham does not only attack Evangelicals, he attacks Christianity as a whole.

Clare73 said:

And he mocks the physical resurrection of Jesus?

Something is missing there.

Click to expand...

The FATHER is the evangelical. Sorry for the lack of clarity, as they have the same name. The son denies the Resurrection so I guess we can say he has fallen away at the moment.

Andrewn said:

The premise behind this entire thread is wrong. Abraham does not only attack Evangelicals, he attacks Christianity as a whole.

Click to expand...

I agree. But he comes at it from an evangelical background, so that is what he speaks to most, from what I see.

Speedwell said:

But what of "The Fundamentals?" A lot of Fundamentalists take them very seriously and act out a lot of hostility toward those who believe something different--which goes a long way to explaining the negative reaction they whine about.

Click to expand...

Well, you would have to give some of the atonement interpretations before we could determine which are and are not in agreement with the fundamentals.

Clare73 said:

Well, you would have to give some of the atonement interpretations before we could determine which are and are not in agreement with the fundamentals.

Click to expand...

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D. Morrison

Speedwell said:

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D. Morrison

Click to expand...

The Moral Influence and the Christus Victory definitely do not agree with the Fundamentals.

Clare73 said:

The Moral Influence and the Christus Victory definitely do not agree with the Fundamentals.

Click to expand...

Christus Victory is the only one with a real claim to Apostolic antiquity, but I guess all those people who believed it went to Hell, along with the Traditional Christians who teach the Atonement as an unfathomable mystery rather than subscribing to any one theory. Too bad.

sfs said:

Well, yes, it's the narrative put together by historians who study the subject. You haven't yet identified anything inaccurate in it.

Which fundamentalists lost what established places in power when? Please be specific.

Click to expand...

Fundamentalism as a movement lost power and was no longer in charge of institutions such as Princeton. They had to set up alternative Bible colleges and universities to compete with socially respectable institutions of higher learning.

Again, who are you talking about? How did fundamentalists regroup in the 1950s?

Click to expand...

Neo-Evangelicalism was merely a regrouping of fundamentalism. Billy Graham, Harold Ockenga, etc.