Posted by richard on April 24th, 2012
k.ham has a entry of his fb page today about this video:
” These professors will have to stand before God one day and give an account of how they led so many young people astray and how they were prepared to put fallible man in authority over the Word of God.”
but as always the comments are the real eyeopener
there are 27 comments
here are a few that deny the Haarsmas are Christians
“True Christians are the minority today”
” Why are they teaching at a “Christian” college then?!?!”
” I have never seen so much spiritual deadness.”
” this seems to be the one that Satan has chosen to directly affront the Word of God?”
“So many “Christian” Colleges are teaching this heresy.”
despite KH and AiG’s stand that the age of the earth is not a salvation issue, their followers seem not to have understood this subtle distinction and believe anyone understanding that the earth is very old is a heretic and under the dominion of Satan.
there is a world of difference between:
they are not our sort of Christians and God has given them up to Satan and heresy.
despite AiG’s stand it really is a salvation issue to most AiG YECists, just as abortion has become the preferred litmus test for the right, YEC is becoming the defining issue for the True Christian. it is just a matter of time before the churches in American begin to split over the issue as they did over slavery in the 1850′s. for no one in their right mind can sit in the same pew with someone who they consider a heretic.
another essay on biologos and p.enns @ http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7082:pete-enns-might-be-right&catid=79:commentary&Itemid=137
Wright affirms that the faith to which he subscribes is naturalistic, working within ordinary human processes and caring nothing for “doctrinal permits or passports to salvation.” It would also seem that Wright has come to the same conclusion as Enns—doctrines such as plenary inspiration and special creation are not inconsequential side issues, but are fundamentally incompatible with the God he follows.
We should work through these implications at least as carefully as Enns and Wright. What if our God acted immediately in special creation and speaks transcendently through inspired Scripture, whereas the god Biologos proclaims worked through uniform natural causation in theistic evolution and speaks through a culture-bound collection of fallible human writings?
are these “different Gods” or different ways of looking at the same God?
why didn’t God put handwashing before childbirth in Leviticus rather than useless chapters on leprosy? He could have saved millions of women and babies. why doesn’t Scripture introduce the germ theory of disease rather than continue the demon possessed one common to the cultures of the time? why didn’t God sneek in one little verse against slavery like the one Jesus spoke against divorce? it would have saved untold millions from a cruel fate and death. why didn’t Jesus talk about health measures like sanitation and clean water, things that people took 2000 years from his time to discover, can you imagine how many children would have lived so much longer and better lives?
afaik, there is nothing in the Bible that is not commonly found in the surrounding cultures, there are no easter eggs of extraordinary wisdom popping out when humanity reaches the stage it can understand them. there is a physics and a biology used in the Scriptures that is not an accurate description of how the world really is but is an accurate common sense naive observational way of looking at these things.
looks to me that p.enns is right.
“That God does not hesitate to participate in the human drama, to encounter humanity within the limits of the human experience. That means that biblical writers wrote about the God they encountered as they understood him within their cultural limitations.”
what is the relationship between God’s transcendence of his creation-the universe? Scripture as the Word of God and the experiences of it’s writers of God?
down in the comments is this jewel:
“Amongst other things, the Bible keeps pointing us back to the realities of our humanity as limitations (noetically, morally, etc.) but also as essential instruments whereby to encounter and know God aright (experientially, as we act and suffer within our historical situatedness). Thus we need not escape our limitations—as if we even could—for they are our very means of knowing anything at all. So both ANE conventions and the Human Genome project, in the context of our God-given, limited abilities, are just what we need to understand the Bible (and thereby God through the Bible) aright.”
he goes on—
“Instead, my money is on a more Ricoeurian formulation: rather than reading the world through the Bible or reading the Bible through the world, we must do both. So the philosophical precedes (and thus determines) one’s biblical perspective, because no one is born a Christian—s/he becomes one. But through its unique nature and the existential weight of an encounter with its God, the biblical has a refigurative power on the philosophical.
In other words, we come to the biblical text with pre-existing understandings that are both affirmed and critiqued through the explanatory power of the text’s unique world and the God we encounter, which lead to new understandings (of self, world, and God). We then live these new understandings out into the world and likewise receive feedback, both affirmation and critique (because the real world is a valid informer, different from but similar to the Bible). And so on.”
his blog as rss feed, very interesting. lots of thinking about false certainty.
the next couple of hours reading brought to you by:
- N.T. Wright on Scripture and the Authority of God, Part 6
- N.T. Wright on Scripture and the Authority of God, Part 5
- N.T. Wright on Scripture and the Authority of God, Part 4
- N.T. Wright on Scripture and the Authority of God, Part 3
- N.T. Wright on Scripture and the Authority of God, Part 2
- N.T. Wright on Scripture and the Authority of God, Part 1