John Mark Reynolds to the Rescue!
Dr. John Mark Reynolds, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Biola University, has chimed in on the swirling controversy surrounding J.P. Moreland’s ETS paper “How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about It.” Dr. Reynolds, an Eastern Orthodox, has taken the same “high-brow” approach as Moreland by saying, “Academic discussion of Moreland’s paper is not appropriate to this medium [his blog], but it is appropriate to discuss more fringe responses informally since they have mostly been found in the new media.” This elitist mentality is prideful and arrogant.
John Mark Reynolds is an enemy of the gospel. According to the personal testimonies of certain Protestant Evangelicals [that I have spoken to], Reynolds promotes Eastern Orthodoxy to Biola students. I have personally been grieved to hear from Biola students that an Eastern Orthodox professor that teaches philosophy at an Evangelical University has been responsible for numerous conversions to the Eastern Orthodox position. Although Reynolds denies that he proselytizes students at Biola, the reports from former students that affirm that he does, adds doubt to his integrity as one who tells the truth.
Other reports, such as the GodBlogCon ‘05 report by Jason Janz, of Providence Ministries in Denver, Colorado, and site publisher of the Sharper Iron forum, John Mark Reynolds’ own words have raised questions to which odd answers have come.
“One of the keynote speakers was John Mark Reynolds, the founder and director of the Torrey Honors Institute and Associate Professor of Philosophy at Biola. In his address on the blogging medium, he made a side remark about his “faith tradition” and that his faith tradition believed in “theosis.” At another time, he referred to himself as a guest faculty member. As you can imagine, it raised a question in my mind and so the next day at lunch, I asked him about this. He explained to me that he was not an evangelical, but a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, he understood that Biola was an evangelical school, and he agreed to honor the distinctives of the school for the privilege of teaching philosophy. He would not proselytize students to his faith.”
If Janz is telling the truth, then this should be very disturbing. According to Janz, John Mark Reynolds has stated that while he is not an Evangelical, he agreed to honor the distinctives of Biola for the privilege of teaching philosophy, and that he would not proselytize Biola students to his faith. This is in stark contrast to what Reynolds said in his December 17, 2007 post, “As an evangelical member of the Orthodox Church, my views on some issues are not mainstream at my own University though I fully agree with the doctrinal statement.” On one hand he fully agrees with Biola’s doctrinal statement, and on the other, he agrees to honor the distinctives in exchange for the privilege of teaching philosophy at Biola. Which is it? We don’t need Evangelical distinctives honored in our universities; we need them to be believed with conviction! It would be better to have no philosophy professors and maintain authentic biblical doctrine and obedience, than many philosophy professors and a slow and steady apostasy from the faith once delivered to the saints!
According to Janz, John Mark Reynolds was planning on inviting Jews and Muslims to the following year’s GodBlogCon, a Christian bloggers conference. Janz wrote: “To my dismay, Reynolds led a discussion around a table outside of the library on whether or not Jews and Muslims should be invited next year.” This is what happens when the wrong people are given positions of authority among God’s people. The ecumenism has raged like an out-of-control forest fire. But thanks be to God for providing us with the water-dropping airplane of Scripture. At the moment, the blaze is 40% contained! By His grace, our Faith Defenders Wednesday Night Apologetics Class beginning in January will be used by God to put out more of that ecumenical wildfire. More information on this later in the week. (subscribe to email – top right)
The latest song and dance from John Mark Reynolds has done nothing but made matters for Moreland worse. The last thing Moreland could have used is an apostate like Reynolds on his coat-tails. Every single one of Moreland’s arguments is in the process of being responded to, and when the task is complete, it will be posted here for free! So, John Mark Reynolds’ complaint about respondents’ inability to read past Moreland’s provocative title is false. John Mark Reynolds, William Lane Craig et al., will all be examined under Scripture’s microscope in due time. Right now J.P. Moreland is in the spotlight because of his ETS paper that bit Beegle’s definition of bibliolatry hook, line, and sinker, then charged Evangelicals of it. Morey’s book “Is Eastern Orthodox Christian?” will be released in one week! When it does, Reynolds will get his. With help from the fascinating Paul Helm, William Lane Craig’s latest efforts concerning God, Time, Eternity etc., will also be given the biblical test. From the preliminary data, things don’t look too good for those boys! And the middle-knowledge Molinism stuff, Oh, God help ‘em! All of this will be done to the glory of God alone, and let Him be true and every man, including “Christian Philosophers,” be a liar!
Ironically, Moreland has very little, if any, truly-Evangelical support. Most of his outspoken supporters are either Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. The support that he has received from within the Evangelical camp is from those who subscribe to natural theology, natural law, philosophy, etc., and are already toe-dipping in the Tiber. Sola Scriptura may be mouthed by these “Evangelicals,” but when the light of Scripture shines on their theology, all sorts of philosophic corruption is exposed like scattering cockroaches on the kitchen floor when the switch is flipped to “on!” Ironic it is, seeing that Moreland tirelessly defends his conviction as an Evangelical. Sooner or later, people will begin to ask what an Evangelical is. Don’t be surprised when these guys adopt some form of historic revisionism; we have the books that can show what the historic position was, and is.
Then when the book on Natural Theology is done, well, we’ll wait to announce that…
28 Comments, Comment or Ping
OverCommiTad 2theWord
Thanks, Stephen, for the report.
I find it unbelievable that schools like Biola bring in professors of Humanism in the cloak of Christianity. Biola – “Welcome Mr. Wolf, help yourself to as many sheep as you wish. What’s that you lied to come to work here? Never mind love covers a multitude of sins.”
Dec 18th, 2007
Mario
It is high time by God’s grace these “philosophers” be dealt with according to Scripture! The heat is turning up for the New Reformation!
Dec 18th, 2007
Rich One
My mother play’s better dominos than your motheeeer! Gregorian Chant.
Dec 18th, 2007
Reformed Mama
We’ll be interested Dr. Apostate umm…I mean Reynolds… to hear how you will wriggle out of Dr. Morey’s chapter on deification in the forthcoming “Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian?” Having read the test copy we’ve discovered some,until now,well kept secrets on what the “fathers” actually taught regarding theosis.
Let’s just say…”the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked;who can know it?” Jer.17:9
Dec 18th, 2007
Jimmy Li
Wow,
I’ve always wondered about Dr. John Mark Reynolds…
You have to wonder about evangelicals who would hire Orthodox or Catholic trained apologists, when those of the orthodox faith would probably hire protestant evangelicals for their facualty
Dec 18th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
My father attended Talbot in the early sixties. He learned from men like Feinberg and such. To this day, my father still remembers the heroes before he got there (Bob Torrey, Barnhouse, etc.), so when he heard about all this for the first time (years ago), he thought I was making it up as a joke! He couldn’t believe it! Immediately, like a good dispensationalist should, he thought of the end-times! He believes more in God’s sovereignty now at age 76 than ever before.
Dec 18th, 2007
darrin
John Mark Reynold’s(JMR)comments are priceless. He seems to be under the impression that he was throwing water on the proverbial “wild fire,” but truly it has acted as gasoline.
Lets address one of them:
JMR- “Moreland’s thesis is amazingly modest: all…theological knowledge, is not in the Holy Bible.”
If this statement is a form of modesty, somebody warn me when an arrogant statement is coming, that I might take cover lest i be caught up in a repeat of the Korah incident. We have never contended that all knowlege is found in Scripture, this is actually a red herring to what follows. All correct and authoritative theological knowledge is found in Holy Scripture. While your particular religious incident/expirience/claim may not be written in those pages, we are commanded to examine said incident/expirience/claim in light of that same Holy Scripture(1Jn 5:9,Gal1:8-9,2Thess2:2, Acts 17:11).
JMR-”He(Moreland)clarifies that Biblical revelation is precious and unique in its importance.”
Our contention all this time is not in the preciousness or uniqueness, but Authority in its proper place, at the top and alone. I just find it strange that the word authority is missing in his(JMR) statement. I attribute that to underlying issues.
JMR- “The bizarre reaction to Moreland’s almost self-evident claim shows that it needs to be made.”
Let us ponder “self-evident.” The big “R” in Reason rears it humanist head once again. JMR, I find it bizarre that you find it bizarre that those in the Christian community react strongly against a phrase like “over-commitment to scripture” and the placement of the label “egregious” upon men of God who have stood firm and unabashidly for the Authority of Scripture, above (far above) General Revelation(i.e. Schaeffer and Carl F. Henry). What did you expect?
By the way, one man’s “self evident” is another man’s “sad,theological confusion.”
General Revelation is not the Holy Bible Vol. 2. The conclusions you think you are drawing directly from leaves, rocks, stars, and DNA are simply ideas and catagories stolen from previously learned philosopy, Scripture and your culture that you are then imposing on inanimate objects. It is not deduction ex nihilo.
General Revelation acts simply as an affirmation of what is already revealed and made clear in Scripture.
Dec 18th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Darrin, I find it bizarre that you found it bizarre that JMR found it bizarre that those in the Christian community react strongly against a phrase like “over-commitment to scripture” and the placement of the label “egregious” without mentioning “ubiquitous!” How bizarre, how bizarre!
Just kidding, you know how I love you! It is bizarre though.
Dec 18th, 2007
darrin
I just thought is was self-evident seeing that it would rationally stand up to the bar of reason, naturally. You see when we look at the tree it stands alone, therefore God exists. Would you like to recieve the Christ of the Bible now??
Dec 18th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
I find it compelling that all of the evidence tends to point in a general direction; it is inescapable. It’s the Trinity! …what leap? There is a very, very high probability that God exists.
Dec 18th, 2007
darrin
By the way if anyone can help me find JMR’s supposed “Book of Nature” please let me know. Apparently, it contains all the secrets of life and Reason. I checked Amazon and they discontinued it. Apparently, at check out everyone canceled their orders for the book and chose “You, me and Apostacy!: The memoirs of a Torrey Honors Program Graduate” instead. Nice choice.
Dec 19th, 2007
Samuel Garcia
Stephen,
I don’t understand how you can say that most of those supporting Moreland are either Catholics or Orthodox and then rule out those Christians who believe in “natural theology, natural law, philosophy [sure hope you don't think that's bad!], etc.” as non-evangelicals. Do not most Evangelical Protestants hold to these? I hope you are not under the impression that most Christians are Presuppositionalists or that Evangelicalism should be defined that way.
Also, I find it difficult to believe that the main point of his response was missed, namely, the call to respond gracefully to another’s ideas. Why does the tone of his response compared to yours differ drastically? I believe the difference is in the use of inflammatory language and “us/them” mentality so readily displayed here.
Even if you don’t think Reynolds is your brother in Christ (I don’t either), should we be employing this separationist rhetoric? It will only serve to unite his enemies; you are only preaching to the choir. I see no desire here to genuinely reach out and compassionately win him over to Christ.
But the main question I want to ask here is this: would you use the same words in the exact tone you used here in Reynold’s presence? I really doubt it, and if you would, I believe what is lacking is plain common courtesy. Often what happens through this electronic medium is that we forget that the people we are criticizing are PEOPLE. Indeed, this was exactly Reynold’s point. Or ignore that, this even happens in real life! The problem is the use of an impersonal medium to criticize somebody, which in turn lends much more easily for the rhetoric displayed here. This seems to be to be neither Christ-like nor missions-minded.
Regarding the climate surrounding Moreland’s paper I would like to quote Paul in Eph. 4:2-5: “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism…”
In love,
-Sam
Dec 19th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Sam, I truly appreciate what you have decided to contribute to this thread. I have selected a few sections from your comment to respond to. If I overlooked something that you feel is of importance, please bring it up and we’ll discuss it. You will notice that my “tone” with you will be severely conditioned by biblical commands to keep the bond of peace. That is because I am assuming at this point that you are a brother in Christ, and that you’re not trying to trample the faith underfoot. The examples of the prophets, Jesus, and the Apostles, in Scripture, are those of hostility and shrewdness toward in-camp rebels, as well as enemies of the faith. By mocking, using humor, ridicule, insults and so on, they reveal that the modern day politically correct “sweetness” toward all people in all places of all time is a man-made concept that is taken from the modern cultural western context and read back into the verses that most of the time refer to peace within the community of believers, such as Eph. 4, which you have quoted above.
You wrote: “I hope you are not under the impression that most Christians are Presuppositionalists or that Evangelicalism should be defined that way.”
No, I am not under that impression. I am also not a Presuppositionalist.
You wrote: “Also, I find it difficult to believe that the main point of his response was missed, namely, the call to respond gracefully to another’s ideas.”
I don’t see why that would be difficult to believe, Sam. Reynolds’ counsel should not be received (Ps. 1:1-2). Scripture does not reveal to us the doctrine of tolerance and fairness that teaches all views are to be received graciously and given a “fair” stage to preach from. 2 Cor. 11:13-15 is a good example of the opposite of PC tolerance in action.
You wrote: “I believe the difference is in the use of inflammatory language and “us/them” mentality so readily displayed here.”
Sam, the entire Bible is in us/them categories. 1 John 2:19 evaporates once the us/them mentality goes away. There’s more, that’s just a quick example.
You wrote: “It will only serve to unite his enemies; you are only preaching to the choir.”
If blood-bought saints are his enemies, then I don’t see how uniting the saints is a bad thing. As for the choir comment, this is a case where preaching to the choir is necessary. Would you tell Paul that he was only preaching to the choir in his epistles? I hope not. Reynolds is preaching to our choir, and that necessitates a counter. Unless I missed your point, I have to disagree here brother.
You wrote: “But the main question I want to ask here is this: would you use the same words in the exact tone you used here in Reynold’s presence?”
No. The words would be stronger and the tone would be more harsh. Read this, “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.”
That’s Jesus in Matthew 23. He also called the blind guides, blind fools, etc. He also said: “For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”
The “plain common courtesy” that you mention does not, cannot, apply to all situations in the Christian life. Otherwise, Jesus has set a bad example, and I know you don’t think that Sam.
If you’re in So. California, come to our Wednesday night apologetics class in Brea. We will invite Moreland, Craig, Reynolds, et al, and if they show up, they will have to deal with Scripture, not us. We don’t fear man’s frown, we FEAR God! Regarding you comments on the medium issues, Paul wrote about that in 2 Cor. 10.
You wrote: “Regarding the climate surrounding Moreland’s paper I would like to quote Paul in Eph. 4:2-5″
Sam, that passage is for a different context. You cannot universalize texts that apply to a particular context. Imagine there was a guy in the Ephesian church that made a comment on Paul’s letter where he said “When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” (Eph. 3:4-5)
Imagine if that guy challenged Paul by saying, “Plato and Aristotle can teach us moral and spiritual wisdom too!” If this knucklehead kept making his case and wouldn’t be corrected by Scripture, and wouldn’t shut up, according to your interpretation of the verses that follow (4:2-5), Paul would have been un-Christ-like. You can bet your bottom dollar that he would have come down pretty hard on the dude, like he did to those poor, sweet, super-apostles in 2 Cor. 11:12-15 “And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.”
Paul wasn’t completely gentle in this passage. That is because there was danger lurking, and he loved God and His people sooooo much that he TOLD THEM THE TRUTH! And I say to you now, Sam, that you have bought a devil’s lie. The lie of political-correctness which is a scheme of Satan designed to oppress god’s truth and His kingdom that presses on violently, and men take it by force! (Matt. 11:12) Lovingly, brother, I suggest that you reconsider your position on some things, and join the Reformation. There are some great guys of the Reformation: Jeremiah, Isaiah, John, Paul, Peter, Jude, James, …Sam?
Here’s a link to a short post written by my fellow Reformer, Mario:
http://biblicalthought.com/blog/the-kingdom-of-heaven-presses-forward-forcefully-and-forceful-people-snatch-it/
Dec 20th, 2007
Samuel Garcia
Stephen,
To reply to every point would make more subcategories until our responses would reach essay format, so I will respond generally and (hopefully!) quickly to some of your points.
What I would expect Paul to do is humble himself and admit that he is still influenced by sin as a Christian. By bowing to the Holy Spirit, he would realize that the method he should employ when speaking to others (or talking about them) is not primarily modeled on his past behavior before Christ or (necessarily) on how other Christians act towards others, even Jesus. It is guided by the Spirit.
Now every word I have said is important so don’t take anything out of context. Anyway, you say that Ephesians 4 was quoted out of context here. I think, however, that you are maybe thinking of this from another view, the exegetical view. I value that highly (I am a Bible major) but what I was mainly referring to was the bridging the chasm between “what it meant” and “what it means.” Are you really asserting that this text has nothing to do with the climate surrounding Moreland’s paper? I don’t know what to say except that we must not excuse ourselves from the ethical teachings of Scripture. I surely hope that there is some conviction.
But you believe that we should not even listen to “them,” quoting Psalm 1:1-2. And now shifting the strategy from application to exegesis, I want to ask, do you really believe that Psalm 1:1-2 is teaching what you just said? I would never use this text to somehow buttress an argument that seems so self-evidently false. I’ve spoken to many non-Christians and there is always something to learn, if at least, indirectly. I once sat back and listened to a Muslim talk about his religious life, without interrupting him, and I was very convicted. His devotion was so much more intense than mine! Of course, I’m serving the true God and he’s not but he was more devoted to a lie than I was to the Light! To say that there is nothing to learn from non-Christians, or OTHER CHRISTIANS, is the epitomy of xenophobia. Even the category of “them” comes to include our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
The Bible is full of “us/them” mentality you’re right, from a certain point of view. But you seem to be confusing your definition of that term with Scripture’s (which is not at all uniform). If I were to stand on the pulpit and went on and on about “those natural theologians, they don’t love Scripture, they want to compromise so they can be loved by the world, maybe caused by many besetting sins”, is it not easy to forget that many of them are my brothers for whom Jesus died? These are very serious charges that I would maybe only reserve in person and to the worst of them. Is there no difference in reaction between those who compromise the gospel on the essentials (shouldn’t even have to add those last three words) and those who disagree on the non-essentials? Will you really treat someone who believes in Molinism the same as someone who is an open theist?
Plain common courtesy is exactly that, common. I am not talking about Jesus’ time, I am not referring to Paul or Jeremiah or Moses. I am talking about us, our culture within our world. By the renewing of our minds, we should be able to discern what is to serve as a stumbling block to the non-Christian or another Christian brother. Should you choose to make it both the cross and a superflous array of polemical words, that’s your judgment to make.
I can’t possibly respond to every thing, but let’s consider Paul in 2 Cor. 11 and Jesus in Matt 21-23. Quickly, I do not believe that you would deny that Paul and Jesus did not always speak this way to their enemies. They only reserved them for the worst of people, and even then only selectively. I am not denying that these things have their place, but that it MUST be guided by the Spirit for it to be effective, which should be defined as the restoration of relationship to God. Most of the time we are excuse our anger and jealousy instead of submitting our emotions to God’s will. Let me throw you a text: Acts 17. Paul is very angry at Athens, as we all should be in the face of idolatry and immorality. Our jealousy for God’s glory demands such intense emotion. How did Paul speak to the Athenians though? It is arguable what he was saying about Natural Theology, but that’s not my point. My point is, did he sound like Jesus with the Pharisees? Why or why not? Maybe this is not guided by how we see fit but by the Spirit.
I used to go to the the Apologetics classes btw. I don’t think that I know you personally, nor my bro Isa, but you may have started attending up after I had left. I actually showed up one of these nights to support my best friend Mig who rocked the pulpit.
But I do not intend to go regularly, the reasons are my own. Thanks for the invite though.
In love,
-Sam
Dec 20th, 2007
Becky
Yay for Faith Defenders Wednesday Night Apologetics Class!
So…i gave up on reading all the comments. They now average a few essays each time. Nice!
Dec 20th, 2007
Becky
Um, ignore the fact i’m mostly posting again because i typed the URL wrong.
I think a lot of the problem is that everyone has different focuses on what is most important in apologetics. Some people focus on the masses, some people focus on individuals. Some people focus on getting the Truth out there in skim mode while some take the time to build strong doctrine wherever the Christian message seems weak. I think it’s great though; it’s what makes the world go ’round.
Dec 20th, 2007
Reformed Mama
Sam,
With respect, Moreland’s “How Evangelicals Became Overcommited to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It” is not a “non-essential”!
Dec 21st, 2007
Dr. Morery
Sam,
What did you mean when you wrote:
“what I was mainly referring to was the bridging the chasm between “what it meant” and “what it means”?
Dr. Morey
Dec 21st, 2007
Samuel Garcia
Hello all,
Reformed Mama, would you have me believe that my view of natural theology determines whether or not I’m saved?
Hi Dr. Bob, I guess I should have elaborated on that. I meant that many times it is very hard for us to apply God’s commandments to that culture into ours. Sometimes the implications are culturally different but the Spirit of the commandment is the same; i.e. we usually don’t kiss each other (but in our hispanic churches we do!) but shake hands, the general limits of a person’s patience in that culture is different from ours (and hence, the limits we would generally take them in presenting the gospel), etc.
-Sam
Dec 24th, 2007
HobNob
“John Mark Reynolds has stated that while he is not an Evangelical, he agreed to honor the distinctives of Biola for the privilege of teaching philosophy.”
“As an evangelical member of the Orthodox Church, [Reynolds's] views on some issues are not mainstream at [Biola] though [he] fully agree[s] with the doctrinal statement.”
In suggesting there’s a conflict here, you’ve misconstrued his claims. He agrees with the Biola doctrinal statement, which is a relatively thoroughgoing statement of standard, evangelical (lower-case e) doctrine. On the other hand, he has agreed to honor the specific distinctives of Biola that are consistent with evangelical doctrine, but not required for being counted as an evangelical (e.g. dispensationalism, premillennialism, etc.)
He explicitly calls himself an evangelical member of his church. Perhaps he’s hair-splitting (and you’re joining him in such hair-splitting) in a way that I frankly find silly. But he is willing to affirm evangelical doctrine, including (and probably not limited to) what is included in the Biola statement of faith. The question to press, rather than the one you’ve raised, is this: suppose some conflict between evangelical doctrine (assuming there is a thoroughgoing body that we can call such) and Orthodox doctrine arises. What should Reynolds, as a committed, evangelical Orthodox member believe? And suppose that Biola adopts that bit of doctrine in their statement. What then?
Unfortunately, I think you’re right about the activism amongst THI students, though.
May 9th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Hobnob,
Your comment reveals that you:
a) don’t understand Eastern Orthodox theology;
b) don’t understand Scripture and biblical theology;
c) both a and b.
Whichever it is (I guess “c”), I suggest that you first learn the basics about them so that you can at least comment intelligently. If you want to discuss this offline, use the contact form and we’ll go from there. Thanks for your comment. I found it thoughtful – just ignorant.
May 9th, 2008
HobNob
Dear Stephen,
It is not at all clear to me how you could infer (a), (b), or (c) from anything that I wrote. I simply pointed out a mistake in your response to Reynolds’ comments, viz., that he should believe and defend evangelical distinctives, not just honor or promote them; and tried to draw the relevant distinctions that his comments implied. Reynolds never said he did *not* believe *evangelical* distinctives; he only said he merely honored *Biola’s* special distinctives, such as, again, elements like dispensationalism. Unless you think that, say, dispensationalism, is required to be considered an evangelical (which would entail that most genuinely Reformed folks cannot be evangelicals), then how exactly can you defend your claim, and how can you derive (a), (b), and (c) from what I wrote?
Notice that your argument that I’m faulting is very different from an argument that claims that Reynolds *cannot* reasonably consider himself an evangelical, given his Orthodox commitments, since there is a fundamental conflict between the two. You think there is a fundamental conflict, and that one cannot both affirm evangelical and Orthodox doctrine; Reynolds obviously disagrees. But that’s not the point, because that’s not the argument you made, and it’s not the argument on which I was pressing you.
Of course, I did explicitly state that the root concern ought to be a consideration of how Reynolds would address any conflicts between Orthodox doctrine and Biola’s statement of faith/evangelical doctrine, whatever those might be. (The last clause isn’t a statement of ignorance; I’m simply trying to make the claim perfectly general. The same goes for the use of a conditional in my original post.) Reynolds seems to think there are no conflicts, at least insofar as the Biola statement goes. Since you disagree, that would be the right place to focus your argument.
I’m no fan of Orthodoxy, or of how Reynolds (consciously or unconsciously) influences his students. But you should at least interpret his words fairly and as he intended. The same goes for how you interpret the words of posters here. Distorting the words of others doesn’t further anyone’s arguments.
You should also avoid insulting others, suggesting that their comments are unintelligent and ignorant, especially when you don’t know anything about them. For what it’s worth, none of (a), (b), or (c) are true of me. Since I wasn’t making positive theological claims, you couldn’t have known that. Again, unless you think some or all of the *Biola* distinctives (e.g., dispensationalism) are required to be an evangelical – which seems to me patently false – then you could not reasonably have inferred (a), (b), or (c). Just as you misconstrued the claims of Reynolds, you seem to have misconstrued mine.
May 11th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Hobnob,
I am sorry to once again criticize your comment as ignorant. I am not saying that you are an ignorant person, so please do not take offense. Your comments, however, continue to reveal that you are really mistaken and confused. I don’t think you understand the OP either.
a) It was written shortly after J.P. Moreland’s ETS address where he argued that “Evangelicals” are “over-committed” to Scripture.
b) I wrote a couple pieces that immediately addressed it.
c) Reynolds’ response was after the fact and sided with Moreland, hence the title of the OP: Reynolds to the Rescue [of Moreland].
d) I informed readers that Reynolds is an enemy of the gospel.
e) I gave the reasons why (pgph.2)
f) I cited Janz’s eyewitness report and provided a link to it where he said: “He [Reynolds] explained to me that he was not an evangelical, but a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.”
g) I disclosed that pgph. 5 and following was predicated on the truthfulness of Janz’s report.
h) I quoted Reynolds saying “As an evangelical member of the Orthodox Church, my views on some issues are not mainstream at my own University though I fully agree with the doctrinal statement.”
You must not have read the Task Force report (I provided a link to the document) that opens with a list of EO “doctrines [that are] contrary to EXPLICIT STATEMENTS in Biola’s doctrinal statement.” (BDS) Since Biola’s own (Saucy, Coe, and Gomes) believe that EO is not compatible with Biola’s DS (which is [protestant] evangelical), and I do not believe that EO and BDS are compatible, then it must be that you are ignorant of both EO and BDS.
Your first post on 5/9 reveals that you did not take into account that the tension observed was regarding two statements that Reynolds made, one reported by Janz, and the other directly pulled from Reynolds’ own writing. So for you to boil the distinctions down to dispensationalism or premillennialism to support your argument that I have misconstrued Reynolds, you must be (c). But giving you the benefit of the doubt I offered the possibility of (a) & (b).
Look: “he is willing to affirm evangelical doctrine, including (and probably not limited to) what is included in the Biola statement of faith.”
He cannot affirm the BDS and be committed to EO at the same time. The two are mutually exclusive. In the words of D.M. Lloyd-Jones “evangelical is a limiting term.” The BDS is limiting as well.
BDS distinctions that the Task Force report lists as contrary to EO are:
1. Justification by faith alone
2. New Birth through the instrumentality of the Word of God
3. Reception of Christ as Savior and Lord is sufficient foe Eternal Life
4. Sola Scriptura
5. And more – you need to read it
The report goes on to list EO doctrines that are absolutely incompatible with the BDS (denial of original sin, venerating icons, views of Mary, view of the Church, saint canonization, praying for the dead, etc.). Anyone who is aware of both EO theology and Scripture as interpreted by evangelicals, namely, BDS, would find tension in Reynolds’ claim to be an “Evangelical Eastern Orthodox.” It is not possible to agree with BDS and EO at the same time. If one claims that it can be done, that person is either ignorant or lying. The OP states the latter as something wolves do regularly.
“You should also avoid insulting others, suggesting that their comments are unintelligent and ignorant, especially when you don’t know anything about them.”
I apologize if you have felt insulted. I can only judge based on what you’ve written. You appear to be arguing for the possibility for one to be evangelical and Eastern Orthodox at the same time. Even if you give up penal-substitutionary atonement (which I will never do but many evangelicals have and will), you still have the two monumental obstacles that DIVIDE evangelicals and EO: justification by faith alone and sola scriptura. No EO would *ever* subscribe to either. John Mark Reynolds is a fraud and is ushering kids to hell.
May 11th, 2008
Edmund
“John Mark Reynolds is a fraud and is ushering kids to hell.”
I hesitate to post this, but I really have to say that this page (both article and comments) has been a very entertaining read. As a Biola/Torrey grad and EO convert, I can state explicitly that I was never proselytized at by any member of the Biola faculty. Rest assured, the Torrey faculty and the university at large remain staunchly Evangelical in the tradition of Lyman Stewart, Louis Talbot, and R.A. Torrey. My conversion to Orthodox Christianity was motivated by the Holy Spirit through my reading of the Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers. It was entirely independent of anyone on Biola’s payroll. None of my Biola friends who are now Orthodox would claim any different experience. You can say what you like about the Church (that sin is on your head), but to pretend that Dr. Reynolds and the Biola faculty are serving as the porters of Hell Gate is just factually inaccurate more than anything else.
Feb 1st, 2009
cindy
The orthodox would hire protestants facility. This may be true in the United States but both Greece and Russia have made it difficult for protestants to preach their religion in Greece and Russia. In fact, the orthodox church in Russia makes it more difficult for both protestants and catholics to get religious visas in their country in order to preach or set up religious institutions. In fact, John Warwick Montgremy represented the Romianian orthodox church in Moldiva when a Russian Orthodox church try to prevent them from having a church. The Russian Orthodox Church in Russia is not much better on freedom of religion than the Russian or Byzantine empires were.
Sep 26th, 2009
cindy
Personality I like John Mark Reynolds and Fredricia Green. Now both Eastern Orthodox and Conserative Protestants are critical of them for comprising. But both are better representives of the Orthodox faith to Protestants than the anti-western Orthodox that feel that since the 4th crusade that the west is the great evil. Instead of seeing that the Byzantine empire and the Russian empire had their flaws.
Sep 26th, 2009
Jnorm888
I am also a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, and I am also refuting Robert Morey’s book.
http://societyfororthodoxapologetics.blogspot.com/2009/12/yes-eastern-orthodoxy-is-christian.html
To be honest, Morey’s book is no different than the stuff that Dan Brown and Jack Chick writes.
ICXC NIKA
Dec 5th, 2009
Stephen Macasil
…a convert *from* what?
Dec 5th, 2009
Reply to “John Mark Reynolds to the Rescue!”