Here are a few of the lowlights:
"My frustration with Piper [Armstrong writes] is that he represents the “low” ecclesiology of evangelicalism and then argues that we should go back in our reading to old writers." [As opposed to my exalted “high ecclesiology of evangelicalism," whatever that means]
"But he goes back only to the Puritans [egad!], never even suggesting that the Fathers, both East and West, were vastly more important for the health of the Church today." [What “Fathers? Moe, Larry and Curley? What???]
"He [Piper] also argued that knowing God, the Scriptures and the truth were central to everything." [This was so shocking, so appalling to me personally that I was compelled to type it entirely in bold face!]
"While I completely agree with his arguments here they were almost entirely rooted in a foundationalist epistemology and a heavily propositional approach." [As opposed to the sacred and revered “chastened epistemology:"]
"It seemed to me that John was arguing for a Bible that was quite clear to all who read it and that by reading it well we can all know the truth." [Oh, the horror! The horror!!]
"I would argue that Noll was much closer to the Christian position when he said we know Jesus Christ as truth through the revelation of the Holy Scriptures. Piper, however, is surely to be commended for his passion for mission and the gospel." [Golly, thanks, Father, er, I mean Pastor, er, I mean, Dr. John!]
No comments:
Post a Comment