Folks,
Piper's argument has NOTHING to do with being a baptist. There are a number of very good exegetical cases to be made for several of the divorce/remarriage views (e.g., betrothal, prohibition of incest, etc.). Inerrantists (and NOT just baptists) have argued for a number of views other than the Erasmian one.
James Boice, a Presbyterian, commented:
Quote:
It cannot refer to adultery because adultery was punishable by death, and in that case there would be no need for a divorce. If the word does not refer to adultery, which is sexual sin after marriage, the only thing it can refer to is sexual sin before marriage, which is what we mean by fornication. In other words, Jesus was reinforcing the Old Testament’s teaching by his interpretation of Moses’ specific “divorce” regulation.
Boice, J. M. (2001). The Gospel of Matthew (403). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
|
Even though I once wrote 450 pages on the subject of marriage and divorce in the NT back in the day, I have no dogs in this hunt. However, it doesn't seem fair to Piper to blame it on his denomination, nor to act as if the exegesis is crystal clear; it isn't.
__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)
Click to get:
Board Rules --
Signature Requirements --
Suggestions?