Re: Evangelicals and Divorce

I just (sort of) read over the debate between Piper and Instone-Brewer. I agree with Andrew and think that Instone-Brewer had the upper hand. Two observations:

1] Piper is correct to point out that every marriage could potentially qualify for divorce with Instone-Brewer’s logic. Something smells funny here. Instone-Brewer has to qualify his position methinks.

2] Piper has been starting to say some alarming things about the nature of exegesis. This is all the more alarming considering he has a Ph.D in New Testament and taught intro New Testament at Bethel Seminary before he began pastoring Bethlehem Baptist.

Instone-Brewer’s interpretation is an example (common, it seems, in New Testament studies today) of taking extra-biblical observations and using them to silence the fairly plain meaning of biblical texts.

It seems that Piper’s been drinking some fundamentalist draught. Seriously, this is the same line of reasoning I hear from “indepedent KJV 1611 only bible believing fundamental baptists.” The New Testament was not written in a cultural background. “Extra-biblical” observations are essential to determining what the text means.

I got a little upset awhile back when Dan Oudshorn berated Piper for essentially being an idiot.

I’m not willing to go that far, but something’s seriously wrong. He’s picking all the wrong fights these days.