st.-paul

This popped up on Feedly recently, linking to this sermon by John Piper, a leading evangelical and neo-Calvinist.  As a convert, it kinda sums up my problem with Protestantism, or at least one of them.  (Protestants who don’t know what they’re protesting are another story.)

To read this blurb, Christianity seemingly begins in 1517.  Jesus is absent, and St. Paul is only invoked insofar as he was used by Reformers to support their arguments fifteen hundred years later.  Granted, Piper alleges that the Reformers “recovered” the true Gospel, linking them with Christ.  But this is an assertion rather than evidence.  What Piper means is: “There are various ways to interpret the New Testament.  Luther’s way hadn’t been used by virtually any of the Church Fathers in fifteen hundred years, but I believe it so by gum it must have been the true gospel.”

Ok, then.  I’m sure if I listen to the whole sermon that Piper reaches the conclusion above (which most Protestants have, in my previous experience) with a great deal of sophisticated hermeneutics.  But still.

Small disclaimer: I subscribe to the Desiring God RSS feed because the site frequently does feature good articles.  And whatever my quibbles with neo-Calvinism, I think it is good for evangelicalism, which is often captivated by theologically vapid and even heretical fads.