Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
Guess who my profile picture is. So, Mr. Evangelical this is supposed to be a forum on the LC, not my fellow Calvinists. If you wish to discuss with this and not divert to the reformed faith in order to defend theosis, go to reformed forums. I know your statics here as well as the DCP apologists. You're quite clever. And there's no theosis in Reformed orthodoxy. It's more of an Eastern Orthodox Church doctrine.
|
Need I remind you that you first diverted to Roman Catholicism to insinuate against the LC, but also that we have been considering Piper's views on this thread as well.
Even though Piper quotes them and values certain early church fathers, Piper makes his views clear in an article called "Don’t Equate Historically Early with Theologically Accurate".
It says:
Neither the experiences nor the teachers of the first 300 years of the church are as reliable as the finished New Testament.
The New Testament rescued the early church from instability and error.
We are in a better position today to know Jesus Christ than anyone who lived from AD 100 to 300. They had only parts of the New Testament rather than the collected whole.
Many of these statements go against commonsense, not to mention the second law of thermodynamics. It was the early church who gave us the New Testament. We don't need the whole completed NT to know Jesus, and the stories about Jesus themselves, the very content of the NT, were records of experiences and teaching. And how come later Catholicism and its degradation was not prevented by the existence of the completed New Testament?
So Piper must think he is more orthodox than anyone living in the first 300 years of Christianity, yet I think if we ignore what they have to say, then we are in more danger. Theosis is not a view held by one or two of the early church fathers (and some of them had really crazy ideas), but by a whole lot of significant people involved in defense of orthodoxy. If it was so heretical they would not have touched it.