In his March 10 chapel talk, Thomas White discussed the concept of headship based on 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. “We operate with the presupposition of inerrancy. So what I tell you today is not something that I wrote, I made up, or I started,” he said. “I’m just going to preach to you what the text says.”
Cedarville, which recently weathered a turbulent year of disagreements and resignations, has also restricted classes in the women’s ministry program—functionally, every Bible class in the fall schedule taught by a woman—to only female students, according to alumni and a university representative.
I do not feel like I need to go into how badly Thomas White gets 1 Co. 11.2-16 wrong.
I can tell you, however, this is one of the reason I’m happy to stay in the UMC, and why I knew I would never be a baptist when I started to search for a new home. This news is shocking, but not too unexpected. After all, they got rid of the philosophy department, put in a gun range, and took a hyper-conservative track in staff.
I must admit, I didn’t watch much, but followed it on Twitter and Facebook. I’ve read several takes on it, as well as some transcripts. In the end, Nye comes off looking like a scientist who respects his field and allows for others to hold religious/spiritual beliefs. Nye did not provide any ammunition to the New Atheists crowd who often times trumpet the belief science and religion are irreconcilable. Oddly enough, Ham comes off looking more like a New Atheists and a toddler than Nye did.
Essentially, those of us who said Ham could refer to nothing but “the bible” were proved correct. He has no evidence, no theories, but can only appeal either to himself or those (even scientists) who support him. The very few scientists who maintain a poor theological reading of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3. Ham’s argument puts the ph in logical fallacy.
There are plenty of differentreactions and play-by-playsas well. Even Albert Mohler, a YECer himself, has weighed in. I suspect his response was mostly written pre-game since it doesn’t really fit the facts. In the end, it comes down to this: your guy won. No seriously, that guy you know was going to win won because that other guy was clearly not speaking the truth and denied facts, the very same facts you already knew to be true. You won last night and the other side looks pitiful.
In my opinion, I thought Nye held up well, much better than expected. Ham showed why presuppositionalapologetics is so minding-blowing stupid that only a complete and utter faithless soul could believe it and be forced to rely upon it. Unfortunately, Nye is not a theologian (neither is Ham) and missed several chances to correct Ham on his First Church of the Faith House of Cards. Nye could have presented a better understanding of the Gospel had he known just a bit about theology. Of course, when you come to discuss science, you believe you are going to discuss actual science and not Ham’s intellectual poverty.
The next debate should be between Ham and John Walton. Of course, Ham would look just as silly but hey, his supporters would still think he won.
“For instance, the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that the pope has the power to dispense merits, to forgive sin, to extend indulgences,” he said. “When you consider that you realize just how unbiblical this office is. The Roman Catholic Church, by its symbolism and by its formal teaching, says that the pope, whom they claim to be the successor of Peter, actually holds the keys of the kingdom to which Jesus refers in Matthew Chapter 16. We understand that the keys of the kingdom do indeed exist, that they belong to Christ and that they are handed to the church as a stewardship, not to Saint Peter.”
I have to wonder why he felt the need to attack ‘“some liberal Protestants and careless evangelicals” seeking theological consensus and common ground on social issues like marriage and the sanctity of human life.’ Maybe he feels threatened? Seems to me he doesn’t alike anyone challenging his own cardinal crown.
Our contention with you rests firmly in your statement, “The moment you say, we have to abandon this theology in order to have the respect of the world, you end up with neither biblical orthodoxy, nor the respect of the world.”
In the midst of all of this you have forgotten the love of God. Your contention is with biblical orthodoxy and respect of the world, neither of which Jesus ever commanded.
Statements like this – all the gospel will be lost if – has been uttered and repeated time and time again when those entrenched against new information cannot handle it and create fear scenarios . Dr. Mohler writes,
Thus, the denial of a historical Adam means that we would have to tell the Bible’s story in a very different way than the church has told it for centuries as the Bible has been read, taught, preached, and believed. If there is no historical Adam, then the Bible’s metanarrative is not Creation-Fall-Redemption-New Creation, but something very different.
If we do not know how the story of the Gospel begins, then we do not know what that story means. Make no mistake: a false start to the story produces a false grasp of the Gospel.
The issue is, is one of of intellectual dishonesty. This is not a slight against Dr. Mohler. This happens all the time and is natural – see the theory of motivated reasoning. What happens is you start with a position, A, and you reject anything that changes it, or outright dismisses it. You don’t challenge or otherwise defend against the evidence – in fact, all that is happening is that one has set up a position as unchangeable and defends that position by not allowing any contrary facts to exist.
The fact is, is that John Walton has placed along side the so-called ‘plain reading’ of Scripture Scriptural facts and evidences that the aforementioned reading is wrong. Yet, because that changes a particular narrative, it is not considered, or not considered fairly. This is what is happening. It is not that the Gospel is at stake – it wasn’t at stake at Nicea; it wasn’t at stake at the Great Schism; it wasn’t at stake in the Reformation. It’s not at stake now. What is at stake is entrenched interpretations – as the above mentioned moments in Christian history – and those who needed them to believe the Gospel. The fact is, is that with Walton’s evidences, the Covenantal theme becomes that much more clearer in Scripture. Perhaps, then, that is what troubles so many. Perhaps a change in the narrative is what is troublesome.
Jason has linked to an article by Dr. Mohler which purports that their is a controversy about the existence of Adam and Eve. There is no controversy, expect when the liberals, i.e., ‘literalists’, deem it necessary to speak about the authority of Scripture and impose upon the ancient authors their own viewpoints.
Giberson then wrote: “The Bible is not a book. It is a library — dozens of very different books bound together. The assumption that identifying one part as fiction undermines the factual character of another part is ludicrous. It would be like going into an actual physical library and saying ‘Well, if all these books about Harry Potter are fictional, then how do I know these other books about Abraham Lincoln are factual? How can Lincoln be real if Potter is not?’ And then ‘Aha! I have got you! So much for your library.’”
That is an amazing and deeply troubling paragraph. Giberson uses the metaphor of the Bible as a library of books — a metaphor popularized by emergent church author Brian McLaren. But Giberson then goes where many others lack the courage and candor to go — he is ready to identify part of the Bible as “fiction.” In his words, “The assumption that identifying one part as fiction undermines the factual character of another part is ludicrous.”
What can his argument mean but that Adam is to be understood as like Harry Potter, a fictional character, while Jesus is like Abraham Lincoln, an historical figure who really existed?
It is a library and no one can expect to find all the books alike. It was written over a millenia or more, but lots of different authors, using different languages and sitting in different situations. Ruth contradicts Ezra. Eccl contradicts all of the Bible. Mohler is heating up an argument that doesn’t need to be. Further, Giberson has a moronic moment in using the word fiction, considering that that concept really don’t come into being until recently, relatively, and cannot be applied to any particular book, passage, or the such of the bible because even in the parables, it was not modern fiction. And as far as McLaren making the term popular, it is only because it would have gotten it from the Thompson-Chain Reference bibles which I grew up with, which included in the middle section notes on how the ‘Bible’ is a library.
Oddly enough, the Greek words which we have corrupted to mean ‘bible’ means ‘the books’ and refers to the plural books, i.e., IT IS NOT A SINGULAR BOOK, of the Scriptures. Paul, when he refers to the writings of the Jews always has it a plural. What do you call a set of books by different authors? Oh, a Library… that’s right… a library. We, who are inept in theology and history, have chosen to call it a ‘bible’, singular, when it doesn’t even refer to itself as that. Ironically, that’s why I try to call the holy writings by the plural form, usually Scriptures, because ‘bible’ is as foreign term to it. So, I reckon, if you are a liberal, you can continue to call it ‘Book.’
Jason is correct, however, in stating that there is a thematic element to the library. I would urge anyone to read The Great Code or N.T. Wright about narrative themes. And his link to his own posts about identifying the themes of the bible. Personally, I find great value in identifying those themes and they are indeed a blessing.
By the way, please don’t take this an attack on Dr. Mohler. Dr. Mohler is a man of God who deeply loves the Church, but I think he is wrong on this issue.
P.S…. there is no physical evidence that Adam and Eve existed, except in an extremely, authority-denying, reading of the Text.
Writer Jonathan Merritt, a Southern Baptist minister and well-known social critic, quoted Mohler as saying “We’ve lied about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced what can only be described as a form of homophobia,” and “We’ve used the choice language when it is clear that sexual orientation is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice.”
Mohler said at the convention “there is no way anyone in fair mindedness can be confused about what I believe about homosexuality,” because he has written more than 200 articles about it, but that “the reality is that we as Christian churches have not done well on this issue.”
“Evangelicals, thankfully, have failed to take the liberal trajectory of lying about homosexuality and its sinfulness,” Mohler said. “We know that the Bible clearly declares – not only in isolated verses but in the totality of its comprehensive presentation – the fact that homosexuality not only is not God’s best for us, as some try to say, but it is sin.”
“But we as evangelicals have a very sad history in dealing with this issue,” he continued. “We have told not the truth, but we have told about half the truth. We’ve told the biblical truth, and that’s important, but we haven’t applied it in the biblical way.”
“We have said to people that homosexuality is just a choice,” Mohler said. “It’s clear that it’s more than a choice. That doesn’t mean it’s any less sinful, but it does mean it’s not something people can just turn on and turn off. We are not a gospel people unless we understand that only the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ gives a homosexual person any hope of release from homosexuality.”