RSS

Two Things- 4

18 Feb

There is a wealth of information out there with too many articles containing too much data to effectively deal with in the Much To Talk About series. So I willpick a pair of articles for each post for the next few days.

#1. Patterns of Peter Ennshttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2015/02/patterns-of-evidence-and-patterns-of-culture-war-rhetoric-2/

I got both the author of the text and the movie in the title. Peter Enns continues his attack on the movie, Patterns of Evidence and I will quote his words here while you can go to the link for the context.

The assumption made is that “walking away from the church” is rooted in a failure of the church to defend robustly the Bible’s historical veracity, and that a better apologetic is needed to defend the Bible and stop the bleeding.

The real problem, however, is expecting college-aged young adults to “hold on” to views that are simply untenable outside of their evangelical bubble.

Young people leave the faith not because they haven’t been immunized well enough to the academic world, but because they have not been taught well how to engage it, without fear that they are losing their faith if they older ways of thinking to lack explanatory force.

I will agree in part with paragraphs 1 and 3 but 2 is just wrong.  Biblical views are tenable and holdable outside of the ‘evangelical bubble’ because they are the truth. The truth is the truth no matter where one resides or attends. It does not change because some college professor rejects the Bible ‘s contents. The Christian student needs to learn that their professors do not know more than God and do not have the truth.

They should not be blindly accepting what their professors say simply because those men and women are the students’ professors or employed by a university.

Paragraph 3 is correct in that I do not think that churches or parents, for the most part, really prepare their students for the real world. part of that training comes from teaching the students the passages about false teachers, false teaching, people who are deceived and how to apply those biblical passages to their studies correctly.

The reason viewpoints inside the church match those outside is that once young people leave the church, they see alternate views that make more sense than the views they were raised to hold. And they don’t want to make believe otherwise.

The reason that some views in the church match those outside is not because those arguments outside of the church deceive unwary people and lead them astray. It is not because they make more sense.

If the concern is losing young people, the church would do well to create a welcoming environment where ideas can be discussed openly, honestly, and without fear of retribution. When that does not happen, people sense inauthenticity and leave to seek alternate spiritual communities–which can include atheism.

Though I agree that the church should discuss opposing views to the Bible in the church, such discussion should be done with the caveat that those alternative  or opposing views are wrong and present real biblical reasons why they are wrong. The church should be a place where people can discuss different ideas and those who oppose biblical truth need to realize that their alternative beliefs have no room in the church and must be prepared to leave it if they refuse to repent once they have been shown that they are wrong.

The church is not inclusive when it comes to false teaching or sin.

Also, just what “church” are we talking about, anyway? The presumption is that the conservative evangelical iteration of “church” is the norm. It isn’t. I am also surprised it only took 4 sentences to raise the slippery slope argument, that doubting the exodus and moral decline are part of the same package.

There is only 1 church and it is the one which has and follows the truth. It is not one that allows for disobedience to God to permeate the congregation. It is one that follows God’s rules and does not change them because some groups, whether large or small, demand alterations so their perversions can be members.

The perceptionof the Bible is not the source of the problem. The source of the problem is biblicistic literalism, which requires untenable ideas about the Bible to be held to with a tight fist. That is what people are being “persuaded” to leave behind.

In other words, Enns is saying do not follow the Bible but follow false teachers and false ideas. he is also saying ignore God and his rules and do as he wants.

If it is a”vast majority of the world’s most prominent archaeologists,” then there are likely some very good reasons for it. And it’s also been much longer than 50 years. Suggesting “50″ makes this seem like a recent trend, a blip that can and should be put to rest. Serious archaeological work in Jericho–i.e., concerning the conquest of Canaan–is now 100 years old.

The truth doesn’t depend upon the majority rule principle. Enns forgets to consider the source when making his remarks and ignores biblical teaching to make this point. The concept of ‘expert’ is not the criteria God uses to get the truth to his people. He wants people who will obey and follow the HS to the truth then pass that truth on to his people so that they will not fall away from their faith.

Again, correct. Series, seasoned scholars who are in the vast majority have drawn conclusions on the basis of public presentation of evidence and the interpretation of that evidence. They are not keeping evidence from anyone. And to call them not “skeptical” of the Bible is another scare word; it suggests simply an unfounded philosophical bias.

Again Enns ignores biblical teaching about secular people being deceived and going about deceiving others. This is why Enns should not have any Christian credibility as he does not invoke spiritual rules when looking at these situations. The vast majority of archaeologists and scholars that I am aware of are NOT believers which makes them blind, not people who have an inside track to the truth. The ‘evidence’ they use in making their conclusions is incomplete and very vulnerable to subjective thinking. They do not follow God or the HS to the truth.

Well it is true that they are not keeping evidence from anyone, they will oppose those who wish to put the evidence in their correct context.

A slippery slope scare tactic: if you can’t trust the Bible here, how can we trust it anywhere?

Enns ignores John 5:44-7

The diagnosis and proposed approach presented here indicate a rather clear agenda that is not driven by fair-minded scholarship, but evangelical culture wars.

Here we see Enns’ real position. if you do not agree with him then you are not being fair-minded or doing scholarship but have some religious agenda. Well in respect to the agenda, yes, people like me do have an agenda–we want the world to hear the truth not be saturated with the lies of unbelieving scholars, archaeologists or people like Enns.

The question Enns needs to answer is what biblical figure or verse has given him permission to state which passage is true and which isn’t.

#2. BioLogos Newsletter— My mailbox

I get many different newsletters just to try to keep up on what is going on in the academic world and I signed up for the BioLogos one when I was doing a series on their point of view. Here is a quote or two from their latest mailing:

Recently, I accepted the gracious invitation for me to join the BioLogos Board of Directors. As former president of Fuller Seminary, I’ve seen first-hand the pressing needs for safe spaces where committed Christians can wrestle with the hard questions of science and faith. I believe the work that BioLogos is doing to create these safe spaces is absolutely crucial.

This idea of a safe place depends upon what result you want the wrestlers to achieve.  If this safe place is to be in the church, then those wrestling with how make science and their faith work need to be guided to the simple truth that secular science is lying and that God is the one telling the truth. They need to be taught how science is not the final authority nor even an authority along with the ramifications of saying God lied or did not tell us the truth.

The people of the church need to be shown why they cannot just take secular science’s word for it and so on. They also need to know that they have free choice and can follow whatever teaching they want as long as they vacate the church if they opt for alternatives to the biblical record. They need to understand that the church is not allowed to have false teaching within its doors.

By deciding to become a partner at BioLogos, you too can join our mission and contribute your own “piece” to the puzzle. Far too many people think the Word of God and the findings of modern science are at odds. With your help, we can change that.

If by modern science they mean ‘secular science’ then the Bible and modern science are at odds. The Bible tells the truth while secular science lies and says God is wrong. The Bible and secular science are not compatible but have different agendas and different sources for their information, even if the field of secular science has supposedly Christian people working with it.

It’s time for the church to get excited about God’s grand and gradual creation.

No, it is time to get the church re-energized for biblical creation, done in 7 24 hour days by God’s speaking.  Hebrews 11 tells us that is the good thing not denying God’s word and claiming creation was gradual.

Those people who claim to follow Jesus and God are not doing so when they opt for alternatives to the biblical record. They are following their own ideas or those of evil.

Advertisements
 
Comments Off on Two Things- 4

Posted by on February 18, 2015 in academics, archaeology, Bible, church, creation, faith, history, science

 

Comments are closed.

 
%d bloggers like this: