J.P. Moreland, The Kingdom Triangle, and Damage Control
There is a personal note to J.P. Moreland at the end of this post that is only intended for him to read. Please skip it when you see *%*.
When I first heard about J.P. Moreland’s ETS paper, I must admit, I wasn’t surprised. If anything, I was excited. I was excited because I knew that a paper like that would make so many Christians angry. Awesome things have happened throughout the history of God’s people whenever they have gotten angry. It is my prayer that the Holy Spirit comes upon us with great power as we hear these words and that we become very angry! I also pray that the dread of the Lord falls upon us and that we all come out as one, like the Israelites did in 1 Samuel 11!
Then Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh-gilead, and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, “Make a treaty with us, and we will serve you.” 2 But Nahash the Ammonite said to them, “On this condition I will make a treaty with you, that I gouge out all your right eyes, and thus bring disgrace on all Israel.” 3 The elders of Jabesh said to him, “Give us seven days’ respite that we may send messengers through all the territory of Israel. Then, if there is no one to save us, we will give ourselves up to you.” 4 When the messengers came to Gibeah of Saul, they reported the matter in the ears of the people, and all the people wept aloud.
5 Now, behold, Saul was coming from the field behind the oxen. And Saul said, “What is wrong with the people, that they are weeping?” So they told him the news of the men of Jabesh. 6 And the Spirit of God rushed upon Saul when he heard these words, and his anger was greatly kindled. 7 He took a yoke of oxen and cut them in pieces and sent them throughout all the territory of Israel by the hand of messengers, saying, “Whoever does not come out after Saul and Samuel, so shall it be done to his oxen!” Then the dread of the Lord fell upon the people, and they came out as one man. 8 When he mustered them at Bezek, the people of Israel were three hundred thousand, and the men of Judah thirty thousand. 9 And they said to the messengers who had come, “Thus shall you say to the men of Jabesh-gilead: ‘Tomorrow, by the time the sun is hot, you shall have deliverance.’” When the messengers came and told the men of Jabesh, they were glad. 10 Therefore the men of Jabesh said, “Tomorrow we will give ourselves up to you, and you may do to us whatever seems good to you.” 11 And the next day Saul put the people in three companies. And they came into the midst of the camp in the morning watch and struck down the Ammonites until the heat of the day. And those who survived were scattered, so that no two of them were left together. - 1 Samuel 11:1-11 ESV
The text tells us that the Spirit of God fell upon Saul and once it did, he burned with anger. The NIV translates this verse: “When Saul heard their words, the Spirit of God came upon him in power, and he burned with anger.” This is a good translation because the Hebrew words “charah meod aph” (became very angry), are emphatic in describing his emotional response. To try to interpret this verse any other way is impossible. (note: if anyone knows how to display Greek and Hebrew fonts, please paste links in the comments section!)
charah: to burn or be kindled with anger
meod: muchness, force, abundance
aph: a nostril, nose, face, anger
First, Saul noticed that the people were weeping. Think of the facial expression one would have if they noticed that many people were weeping. Picture the look of concern and sympathy. The Hebrew tells us that when Saul heard why the people were weeping, that his nostrils flared in burning anger! You must envision the shift in his facial expression that projected his shift in his emotions from being concerned to all-of-a-sudden filled with the Spirit of God which manifested as nostril-flaring-fury. I am reminded of when Jesus cleansed the temple at the beginning of his earthly ministry. I can see Jesus consumed with Zeal for his Father’s house as he braids the cords into a thick weapon he can swing, with his nostrils flaring in anger, ready to physically beat people. What we must pay attention to is that Saul’s reaction was due to the Spirit of God rushing on him, possessing him (Heb. tsalach).
Too many times we have been passé rather than angry! What if Jesus, when he saw those money changers in the temple, acted passively instead of what John tells us he did? What if he nudged one of the other observers with his elbow and said “wow, check out those dudes, no respect for the temple man,” and went about his day shaking his head in disappointment. He didn’t! He saw it, grabbed some cords and braided a whip. Then he stormed in there with whip swinging, turning over heavy granite tables and kicking people out. His actions provoked the question: “What sign do you show for doing these things?” He answered: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” You all know the story (John 2:14-22).
When a notable philosophy professor at a Christian University speaks to a crowd of conservative Christian leaders and says that Evangelicals are “over-committed to Scripture,” it should make you angry. It should not be simply waved off for what it is: irrational and absurd. It should make us angry to the point that we do something about it. That’s what we will be doing here for at least the next year or ??? If nobody challenges an ideology, it is bound to grow into something bigger. What Moreland has done is create a straw-man (bibliolatry), drawn absurdities from the straw-man, and swooped in with a solution to the very problem he has created with his own hands. What must be challenged is his negative portrayal of the role of Scripture for those who hold a very high view of Scripture. This can be done by demonstrating that the Bible opposes what he teaches and that it can be reasonably believed as the motive for why he has created the fictive bibliolaters in his imagination. Such unbiblical ideas like freewill, natural theology, natural law, man’s Reason, contemplative meditation, pagan philosophy etc., are ideas that are foundational to Moreland’s worldview. Reduce the role of Scripture in theology and practice and these ideas will fly like the eagle! Maintain that the Bible is the final authority and these ideas die!
In his response to his paper’s critics, he mentioned that his intention was to deliver the paper to academics, not laypersons. But as Frank Pastore said, Moreland is a master wordsmith that chooses his words very carefully and knew exactly how he was going to say what he wanted to say. Never did he ever give any examples of who the infamous bibliolaters are. I have waited, searched, waited some more, and he never gave the example of any church, theologian, denomination, movement, etc., that claims that nothing can exist outside of the Bible. Are there even real people out there that believe this? Are there any Christians that really believe cars don’t exist because they’re not in the Bible (except for the accord)?
J.P. Moreland has over-stepped his bounds and appears to be on the way out of the camp. We pray that the Lord preserves him, but like the caller on yesterday’s Frank Pastore Show said, a caller that attends the same Calvary Chapel as Pastore, it is a sign of the end-times great falling away. The caller said he was given that idea by his and Frank’s pastor, David Rosales. So, even Calvary Chapel is taking a stand. Praise God!
J.P. Moreland may be trying to help, but he isn’t. I can sympathize with his failed book campaign and the widespread criticism the book is receiving. He put everything on the line saying that it is his life’s most important work, his legacy to the church, his magnum opus. But it’s a terrible book with unbiblical arguments based on a worldview that is at best, slightly influenced by Scripture. The book may have somewhat of an impact in other circles that welcome Eastern meditation, mysticism, and contemplative prayer (spiritual formation), but mainline Evangelicals love Scripture because it is the Word of God, the final authority for what to believe and how to live. This isn’t the place to review the book. A review will be ready soon. But the three sides to the triangle (his book is titled The Kingdom Triangle), are ridiculous. They are: 1) recover the Christian mind, 2) renovate the soul, and 3) restore the Spirit’s power. Seriously, did he think the mainstream church would buy that? Well, according to pg. 14 of KT, Moreland claims that while he is at bottom an advocate for mere Christianity, and thus has much in common with the Catholics and the Orthodox, he is convinced that Protestant Evangelicalism of a supernatural kind is the best expression of Christianity available. He then says: “Besides, no one listens to me outside that community!” He is inferring that the community of Protestant Evangelicalism does listen to him. What he fails to recognize is that one of the major differences between Protestant Evangelicalism and other “available forms” of Christianity is the role of Scripture as the final authority for what to believe and how to live.
Where is Scripture in all this? First of all, rediscovering the biblical view of the Christian mind would have been a lot better than recovering “it.” Rededication of the soul would have had way more impact than the proposition of renovating it. And realizing the Spirit’s power would have been at least biblical. How can we restore the Spirit’s power? And I would add a recommitment to Scripture. So, what we’ve got is more of a Kingdom Square than a Kingdom tripod. Give me enough time and I could come up with the Kingdom Polygon. The book is nonsense for the most part. Zondervan rolled the dice and crapped out. Now J.P. Moreland is in damage-control mode. Our prayer is that he repents.
Part of the promotion for the book was the website kingdomtriangle.com and its associated forum, a blog that allows for comments and discussion. I have interacted in the Kingdom Triangle (KT) forum many times, only to have my comments deleted. Moreland and his cronies are playing pope with the comments, even deceiving readers by deleting some (comments are in chronological order), and leaving others, to spin a distorted perception of the actual conversations. Sometime next week I will post all the deleted comments (including Ed Enoch’s) to demonstrate the immature and dishonest tactics of J.P. Moreland and his boys. I am allowing time for a response to my last email to him.
In a previous email from KT, I was told that my comments were deleted because they were off topic. I responded and expressed my disagreement, but nothing changed. My “off-topic” comments were deleted while others such as “geezzzz. that I am surprised to read another pissed off reformed guy–who can know why.” were left for the world to read. This underhanded manipulation of the data is really childish. In my correspondence with KT, as an aside to the friendly disagreement, I asked Moreland about a guy that we both know, about where he’s working etc., and I received the cold shoulder. Since all eyes are on him right now, and many people are visiting his site to read his response to the CT blog, they want to control the visitors inquisitive minds by allowing only what comments they see fit. They’ve been caught red handed and according to Scripture, you know, that thing I’m over-committed to, deeds like Moreland’s and KT are to be exposed (Eph. 5:11,13). This must take place lest we start hearing about our over-commitment to Christ! Think it’s funny? Diminish Scripture and you’ll see Ancient Ephesus reborn right here in America.
Keep checking back, or register for the free email at the top right of this page to receive the alert. I will compile the deleted comments and email exchange so that it will be known by all who care to look, exactly what is really going on. I apologize if this post was off-topic. Please don’t delete me. *%* J.P., none of your comments will be deleted should you choose to leave any. You are bringing shame to Christ’s church, and in love, I call you unto repentance. My father told me that when he attended Talbot with John MacArthur and Josh McDowell, the Bible was held high as the origin of truth. He said that the Bible was loved and studied, for in it was the revealed wisdom of God. Then you get hired and bring in your pagan philosophy, telling young men that they must have the courage to stick with their philosophy when it is confronted by Scripture. Repent! Read Matthew 4 and ask yourself how you will answer to Christ for what you said at ETS. Was Jesus also guilty of an “over-commitment to Scripture?” When the devil was tempting him in Matthew 4, ALL HE DID WAS QUOTE SCRIPTURE! He didn’t interview the devil to find out how his mind worked. He didn’t break out the kalam on him. He said what He said: “For it is written!” We love you J.P., and we’re concerned for you and those whom you have, and will influence. It is our duty as Reformers to tear down falsehood and rebuild with God’s truth as found in Scripture! Please understand that you have stepped into the path of a mighty Reformation. We also wish that you weren’t so cold toward us, seeing that we’re neighbors and all…
My little buddy Glenn Hendrickson has really been grinding this whole thing out, and doing a great job at it if I may say (good job Glenn!) If you have the time, check him out here.
Kingdom Triangle has posted their latest effort in damage -control here. Comments not allowed there anymore. Here it is welcome!
43 Comments, Comment or Ping
Perry Robinson
I am no great fan of Moreland, but Ed Enochs? Do you know this person? You can’t be serious, right? If you take Ed seriously, you need a major reality check.
Dec 8th, 2007
Drew Kerr
Sounds like Perry and Ed need to schedule a debate!
Dec 8th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Perry, all I said was that when I post all of the comments that were originally there prior to the grand deletion, that Ed Enoch’s comment would be included. No I don’t know him, but yes, I was serious. How you were able to get anything out of it other than what I said is beyond me.
I mentioned him because his comment was the one that “pissed-off reformed guy” was attributed to, even though it appears to readers that it was referencing mine.
BTW, what level of homage do you personally pay to the Eastern Orthodox saint, the Buddah? Out of curiosity, I would like to know.
Dec 8th, 2007
Jim Moroney
I am disturbed by Dr. Moreland’s paper. I have heard him speak at our church and I have read some of his books so I had to read his paper for myself. He only gives one example of such overcommitment to scripture with a quote from a Catholic making a broad comment about four deceased Evangelical scholars. This type of “evidence” does not meet my requirements. If Dr. Moreland wants to keep selling books to the Evangelical public, he has to do better than this. I recommend that anyone who can communicate with the doctor to press him to name names and cough up some qoutes from well known evangelical teachers within the last decade that support his assertions. If he can’t do it, then we should write him off as another Evangelical gone soft. Too bad!
Dec 9th, 2007
darrin
I have started and stopped many times on leaving a comment on this one. There is just so much to say. Having been involved with Dr. Moreland for a short time, my interaction with him was nothing short of kindness, patience and godliness. There were many things i have learned from him and will carry them with me forever. I am eternally grateful to him for that.
I do not fear that Dr. Moreland will himself abandon the faith. I know he obtained a strong foundation for christian principles in his early years with Campus Crusade. I do not believe he will abandon those principles. This will be his anchor in the kingdom that sustains him.
My great fear comes in regards to his students, readers, and fellows in the university setting that do not have that reliable anchor. These are the ones that will pay and have paid the price with apostacy.
Dr. Morelands “fellows” lovingly (I am not being facetious)refered to him as the “godfather.” Truly, this was a term of endearment and respect. I reflected on this group of fellows that I sat under for a short time a while ago and thought about where they are now….
one was confronted for academic fraud (he has been academically restored since), one was removed for immorality (to this day saddens me greatly), one has become an apostate to the Eastern Orthodox Church, another to the Roman Catholic Church…. I am just having a hard time coming to grips with over commitment to the scriptures as being a or the problem.
I admit I have not read the book but do intend to do so. Therefore no critique of the book will happen here.
I have thought of my own triangle unto revival:
Repentance before the Holy God who can only be known by the Scriptures which he necessarily revealed.
Requesting Him to send His Holy Spirit upon us that we may be empowered by Him to preach, teach, evangelized and disciple. Only through Him can our souls truly be renovated and our minds be renewed.
Through the first two may we then come to a sincere, honest, honoring, exalting view of the Holy God who has been gracious enough to give us His word that we might take it seriously, studying it as men and women not ashamed of it, but taking the time, pain, blood, sweat, tears, and love to then rightly divide this given Word, whereby men and women may become saved and made disciples of.
More to say later.
Dec 11th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Darrin, there is alot of pain for alot of people because of all this. I received a call from a friend that goes to seminary in another state, a Biola graduate, and he was telling me about the general climate of disappointment in Moreland’s book on campus. He mentioned how many people were blessed by Love God/Mind, Scaling/City (personally I found Scaling/City 80% useless), but now, everyone is like…uh, what? The general opinion out there is that he’s just caught up in all the Vineyard stuff and soon will be on TBN.
Folks are looking elsewhere for apologetics. They want Biblical apologetics. Many have seen the damage and apostacy caused by the homoerotics (Plato/Socrates) and fear that they may be next if they walk too close to the line. They see the common traits in Craig, Moreland Plantinga, etc., Molinism, Philosophy, FreeWill. Someone just told me today that they have J.P. Moreland recorded saying “I hate Calvinists!” and then ranting on about them.
No one meets everyone’s standards, that is for sure. So we will meet Moreland at his arguments. My next post on this will be a demonstration of many “slight-of-hand” tricks by Moreland such as using Beegle’s bibliolatry to accuse every Evangelical community in North America guilty of “over-commitment to Scripture.” There is no such thing as this. It is committed or not, and like Jesus in 1 Pet. 2:23, the different levels of commitment are not under/over, rather Christ modeled a fully-committed continual entrusting of Himself to him who judges justly, rather than avenging Himself…
Dec 11th, 2007
Tim
Stephen said,
“What he fails to recognize is that one of the major differences between Protestant Evangelicalism and other “available forms” of Christianity is the role of Scripture as the final authority for what to believe and how to live.”
Uh…Isn’t that what he said in his paper?
“Right reason, experience, Creeds, tradition have all been recognized as subordinate sources of knowledge and authority within the Christian point of view subject to the supreme and final authority of Scripture.”
Dec 12th, 2007
Qian.
I am on Biola’s campus daily, and while I have heard no small number of positive things from people there about his book, his paper, and the related themes, I cannot think of a single instance of hearing about disappointment over either, to say nothing of a general *climate* of disappointment. While I can’t say I know “the general opinion out there” or what “everyone is like” about the book (other than the blurbs on the book jacket from Wallace, Zacarias, Colson, etc.), you may wish to recheck some of your sources. If you’re wanting to gauge the “feel” of the campus, I’d pick someone to ask who lives in-state.
Dec 12th, 2007
Qian.
I apologize for being curt in that last line. It’s just that it’s hard to read some things that I know from personal experience (my daily experience on the Biola campus) are not merely false, but are just so inaccurate they seem almost desperate. It doesn’t excuse the curtness. It’s just early…and I haven’t had any coffee yet.
Dec 12th, 2007
Curt
Qlan,
Are you sure the campus that Stephen’s friend was referring to is Biola? This Biola grad is attending seminary in another state. Could this not be the campus in question? Let’s give each other the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, even when we disagree.
Dec 12th, 2007
Qian.
Curt, Yes, I see now that he meant that. I am sorry Stephen. I will be the first to say that we should give others the benefit of the doubt, and I make this my goal when disagreeing with others.
But so that we’re clear, Curt, I wasn’t failing to give Mr. Macasil the benefit of the doubt. I misread of him. There is a difference. One involves seeing multiple possible reads of someone but choosing the less flattering option, while the other is simply unintentional and a mistake. At any rate, I had no malicious intent.
Dec 12th, 2007
Samuel Garcia
I tried really hard not to respond to this but I just feel like people are doing a great disservice to Moreland by confusing their categories and misunderstanding the nature of his paper (and his main message!).
Why is it that people are so angry about the title of his paper when he explicitly says in his paper that in a sense, there is no such thing as an overcommitment to Scripture. Obviously his treatment is nuanced, and it all can’t be said in a short paper intended for a 25 minute presentation at ETS. I was there, and the questions people asked there helped clarify much of what he was saying.
Also, people are confusing his message about natural theology and the vineyard movement. Obviously his views about miracles and such do have a bearing on the former, but his main point was the reliance on the Spirit in these matters. How can people miss this? I think it’s healthy to disagree with others but to the point of selectively taking concepts out of context is out of place (if indeed that’s the case, I can also be wrong).
Tim is right in that Moreland strongly affirmed the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura. What he was attacking was the perversion of that doctrine today to somehow comprehensively include modified Van Tillian categories. Whether you agree with him or not is not my point, just try to be fair to a brother in Christ.
Dec 12th, 2007
darrin
Just for clarification on Moreland’s paper. He is defining Over-Commitment to Scripture as follows:
“…that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items….the Bible is taken to be the sole source of authority for faith and practice.” When applying it to inerrancy “…the notion is that the Bible is the sole source of such knowledge and authority.”
Why would Dr. Moreland characterize this as “false, irrational, and harmful to the cause of Christ?” I do not know many Christians that would not find the above descriptions to be true, sane, and the very basis for the cause of Christ itself.
Then moving on to Sola Scriputura, he says it does not entail these claims. Let us take in the words of Luther, the very spark of Sola Scriptura (don’t skip the footnote)…
We may trust unconditionally only in the Word of God and not in the teaching of the fathers; for the teachers of the Church can err and have erred. Scripture never errs. Therefore it alone has unconditional authority. The authority of the theologians of the Church is relative and conditional. Without the authority of the words of Scripture, no one can establish hard and fast statements in the Church. (Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), pp. 6-7. Althaus cites Luther: “But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they [the fathers] have erred as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they prove their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred” (WA 7,315; LW 32, 11). Also: “Hold to Scripture and the Word of God. There you will find truth and security - assurance and a faith that is complete, pure, sufficient, and enduring” (WA 7, 455; LW 32, 98).)
Are we seriously revisiting the Council of Trent here?
P.S. - Thanks Steve for trying to make me feel better. I appreciate the effort. Sorry, I was a bit emotional all over the place. Thanks again for the shoulder.
Dec 12th, 2007
darrin
Sorry props on the above quote and footnote to:
Sola Scriptura: Crucial To Evangelicalism
R.C. Sproul
an article found on Monergism.com
Dec 12th, 2007
Tim
darrin,
How closely did you read that quote from Luther? Moreland denied that sola scriptura means that the Bible is “the sole source of knowledge” or “sole source of authority”. He said that Scripture is the ultimate or final authority, but not the only authority. As I quoted above, “Right reason, experience, Creeds, tradition have all been recognized as subordinate sources of knowledge and authority within the Christian point of view subject to the supreme and final authority of Scripture.”
And the comment from Luther says the same thing. Luther doesn’t say that the church is the only authority; he says that it alone has “unconditional” authority. He affirms that Church theologian have “relative and conditional” authority. How is that substantively different from Moreland’s talking about “subordinate” authority?
(Don’t get me wrong, I have problems with some of the specifics of Moreland’s proposals, such as “impressions” as communication from God.)
Dec 12th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Qian, no worries. Thank you for your kindness.
Tim, let me ask you this. When Scripture refutes a “subordinate authority,” what authority does it [sa] then still have?
You ask (Tim): “How is that substantively different from Moreland’s talking about “subordinate” authority?”
One substantive difference can be seen by comparing the application of Sola Scriptura to the beliefs of each man (J.P. & Martin) as to the function of these “subordinate authorities” within the Christian point of view.
While Moreland elevates man’s Reason to the Origin of truth, Luther said: “Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom … Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.”
Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148
As the ultimate authority, Luther believed that Scripture left no room for co-authorities to exist if one negated the other. Since Reason and Revelation compete for ultimate authority, Luther discarded Reason, saying things like, “Reason should be destroyed in all Christians,” and “Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason,” and “Die verfluchte Huhre, Vernunft. (The damned whore, Reason).”
There is quite a substantive difference.
Dec 12th, 2007
darrin
tim-
Sorry maybe the copy and paste job i did made things a bit unclear let me try again:
Moreland defines Over Commitment to the Scriptures as such:
“…that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items….the Bible is taken to be the sole source of authority for faith and practice.” When applying it to inerrancy “…the notion is that the Bible is the sole source of such knowledge and authority.”
Moreland then goes on to characterize such a view toward the scriptures as:
“false, irrational, and harmful to the cause of Christ?”
At this point, I take profound but respectful disagreement with the Dr. Many would say (some even using their own reason) find the above descriptions to be true, sane, and the very basis for the cause of Christ itself.
Moreland on Sola Scriptura:
“The Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura does not entail this claim (refering to the claim on the Bible above).” He goes on to say, “Clearly, the idea that from within the Christian point of view, Scripture is the ultimate authority, the ultimate source of relevant knowledge, does not entail that it is the sole authority or source.”
Why Moreland brings up Sola Scriptura and does not go to the sources of the 5 Solas but instead goes to the Westminster Confession and Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy kind of baffles me, but I guess that is what I am here for. Ok, please compare the above quotes of Moreland to this one of Luther (I am going to pull the phrases out of the footnote just to help avoid further confusion):
We may trust unconditionally only in the Word of God and not in the teaching of the fathers; for the teachers of the Church can err and have erred. Scripture never errs. Therefore it alone has unconditional authority. The authority of the theologians of the Church is relative and conditional. Without the authority of the words of Scripture, no one can establish hard and fast statements in the Church.
“But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they [the fathers] have erred as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they prove their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred”
“Hold to Scripture and the Word of God. There you will find truth and security - assurance and a faith that is complete, pure, sufficient, and enduring”
The Christian faith does not have an oligarchy of authorities like Dr. Moreland alludes to. Right reason (what is this anyways), experience, Creeds, tradition, and archaeology. While these things may act as “guides at best” they are not to be seen as equals or replacements. Make no mistake about it, Moreland is not just trying to classify these as just sources of knowledge he is trying to establish them as authorities, along side scripture. Later in section 1 he refers to the idea of Scripture being the sole authority as “an egregious problem.”
Tim I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.
No matter how many little authorities we may try to line up, one of them must supercede them all.
As I look through Scripture on issues such as giving understanding, obedience of faith, righteousness, hope, guidance, our basis for mercy, i find no where that the source of knowledge or authority is any thing other than the Scriptures themselves. I will keep looking for “right reason, expirience, Creeds, tradition and archaeology.” Until then, you know where to go…..
Dec 13th, 2007
Tim
darrin,
Sure, your second post clarifies the first. But I was not unclear on the meaning of the first. What you have not does is demonstrate any contradiction between Luther’s words and Morelands’s.
Let me repeat: In the very words of Luther that you are quoting, describes church theologians as “authorities”. They are not ultimate authorities, or unconditional authorities; Luther says that they are “relative and conditional” authorities.
Luther does not say (in those citations, at least) that Scripture is the “sole authority”. It is the ultimate authority, the authority that subjects or trumps all others. If any source of knowledge–reason, scientific experiment, etc.–contradicts Scripture, then Scripture wins.
You are absolutely correct that “No matter how many little authorities we may try to line up, one of them must supercede them all.” Where you are mistaken in your impression that Moreland is putting any auhorities “along side Scripture”. No, he is putting other authorities in our toolkit, as it were, but underneath Scripture.
Where do I get this idea? From his explicit and repeated affirmations. He quoted these words: “We deny that Church, creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to Scripture.”
He described one of his subordinate authorities as “not revelation on authoritative par with SCripture.”
Elsewhere, “‘Doctrine’ rightly carries an authority in our community only reserved for the explicit or rationally inferred teachings of Scripture.”
And, “Again, the Bible is the ultimate and not the sole source of knowledge or justified beliefs in this area.”
Of archeology, “There would be no such obligation to reject further information about the site that did not contravene Old Testament assertions.” (i.e. we can get new information from archeology)
He said, “we Evangelicals rightly confess the ultimate authority of God’s inerrant word.”
I understand–and agree with–what you say about the authority of Scripture. It subjects all other authorities. Where they conflict, it wins.
But you are mistakenly interpreting what “Scripture is not the sole authority” means. Scripture is ultimate, above all others. Those others do exist, so it’s not the “sole” authority. It is above them, so it is “ultimate”.
Moreland agreed with Luther and you on the ultimacy of Scripture–explicitly and repeatedly.
Dec 13th, 2007
Tim
Stephen,
You asked, “Tim, let me ask you this. When Scripture refutes a “subordinate authority,” what authority does it [sa] then still have?”
None. Those “subordinate” authorities lose when they conflict with Scripture.
In what followed, you have not cited anything in Moreland’s paper that claims otherwise. He said that reason is useful; where did he say that man’s reasonings can trump or successfully contradict Scripture? Where did he say that anything is above or on the same level with Scripture?
What do you do with Moreland’s explicit and repeated affirmations that Scripture is ultimate, above any other authority?
Dec 13th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Tim asked: “Where did he say that anything is above or on the same level with Scripture?”
“The moral and spiritual wisdom of Plato, Aristotle, Moses, Solomon and Jesus was replaced with the football and school spirit.”
Tim asked: “What do you do with Moreland’s explicit and repeated affirmations that Scripture is ultimate, above any other authority?”
I look for the application of any man’s correct doctrine, including Moreland, in order to make a distinction between what a man says and what he believes. If he is sincerely and consistently applying Scripture as the ultimate authority in matters of doctrine and morals, the following declaration should not have been made:
“By way of application, we must teach our people two things: (1) It is appropriate, proper, and obligatory to reason for God’s existence from general revelation and to use the natural moral law in moral debate. (2) How to engage in such reasoning regarding the important issues of our day. In my experience, laypersons typically have never been exposed to a course on ethics and moral reasoning. This must be remedied.”
This statement is merely one of very many concrete examples of how Moreland or any other Rationalist in the church, while claiming to subscribe to “Scripture as the ultimate authority,” in fact dance to a different tune in praxis.
Dec 13th, 2007
Danny Pelichowski
It makes be quiver just reading Plato and Aristotle’s name put on the same line as Moses, Solomon and Jesus. I think that is the godly anger that Stephen was talking about.
I could envision a modern reenactment of the temple cleansing at Biola University’s philosophy department, only Jesus would be tearing down all of the works of the pagan philosophers that have been elevated to compete with scripture. Although Moreland hopefully would never actually say that Plato and scripture were on the same level he most definitely would say that scripture is agreeable with the philosopher’s worldview and teachings. If not why would he put Plato and Aristotle’s name on the same line as Moses, Solomon, and Jesus!
I am a graduate from Biola and am very grateful for the Biblical education I received from the Bible professors, however, when I have discussions with philosophy majors whose love for Plato exceeds their love for Christ and His word I must speak up. I get angry when a professing believer tells me that there is no difference between Plato and scripture for they do not contradict. I am angry but not surprised to see the bad fruit that is produced by the teachings of men who put Plato’s name alongside Christ our Lord.
Moreland’s idea of loving God with our mind is not countless hours of sound exegesis of scripture as we can see by Stephen’s description of his magnum opus The Kingdom Triangle. And its not defending and proclaiming God from the revealed theology found in scripture. It seems to me, and correct me if I’m wrong, Moreland’s idea of how Christians should love God with all their mind is that they should lighten up on their allegiance to scripture and try to focus on arguing for and proclaiming God without using the Bible. And that Christians should be more educated in Greek philosophy, (not to expose its errors) but to borrow from Plato and Aristotle and learn to love their elite reasoning skills and try to be more like them.
Stephen,
My allegiance is to Christ and His word and I have not been able thus far in my reading to extensively read and examine the heroes of many so called Christian philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. I along with many other discerning Christians realize the absurdity of putting Plato and Jesus on the same line however it would be helpful if Dr. Morey, yourself or any other Christians who care enough about this to show where the philosophers “fine reasoning” about truth justice morals and beauty fails to coincide with the revealed word of God.
Dec 13th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Danny, it would require three lifetimes to demonstrate how “the philosophers “fine reasoning” about truth justice morals and beauty fails to coincide with the revealed word of God.”
As it is written,
“And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once [refutes mass] to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” Heb. 9:27-28
So, I only have one life to live, and that, to the glory of God! One of the many taboo’s that are kept hush, hush, is the homoeroticism of Socrates and Plato. If moral and spiritual wisdom are drawn from old-dudes that defile young naked boys as rewards to their great teaching, and these philosophers view their actions as moral and wise, then rotten-pillars obviously support these philosophic systems and should be discarded. However, I understand that is not the case. Aristotle objected to man-on-man sexuality, but not on moral grounds that coincide with the revealed mind of God, rather, grounds that men are unable to reproduce with each other, not because God declared it an abomination (Lev. 18:22)!
Keep your allegiance to Christ Danny. “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” - Col. 2:8 And test the exegesis of “Christian Philosophers” that say this text refers to “hollow deception,” which is Moreland’s take in “Philosophic Foundations for a Christian Worldview.” Keep reading your Bible so that you may by grace obtain a “Christian Foundation as a Philosophic Worldview.” Like the hymn says, “on Christ the solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand; all other ground is sinking sand!”
Dec 13th, 2007
Tim
Stephen,
So, obviously we’re disagreeing. The disagreement mainly seems to come down to interpreting Moreland’s words. You’re seeing things that would rightly cause concern, if that’s what he was saying. When I compare your reports or interpretations to his words, the urge rises up within me to chew you out for eisegesis.
I don’t want to just go back and forth stating our differing understandings. If we were disagreeing over how to interpret Scripture, we would go carefully to the text, seeking to practice all the tools of good exegesis. We would not cite proof texts; we would be careful to show that we are treating verses contextually, and not going beyond their meaning or reading anything into it. I take that to be a good model for all interpretation, of any source. (Interpretting other sources correctly is not even in the same league of importance. But the methods of interpretation are the same, and we should use them if we care about dealing honestly with sources, and not bearing false witness.)
So, I’ll argue why I think you’re reading things into Moreland’s words that are not there.
I asked:
“Where did he say that anything is above or on the same level with Scripture?”
You answered:
“The moral and spiritual wisdom of Plato, Aristotle, Moses, Solomon and Jesus was replaced with the football and school spirit.”
I’m at a loss, that you think that’s an example of what I asked for. He didn’t state anything about their comparative authority; he states that there is value (wisdom) in all five. There is nothing there placing them on the same level; your interpretation is eisegetical. (I wonder, would you accuse him of putting Moses and Solomon on the same level as Jesus? Do you infer that Moreland thinks Moses and Solomon never erred in their lives, and that they possessed all the same wisdom as Jesus?) Perhaps he was implying nothing about how the five compare. Or perhaps he was placing them in ascending order–isn’t Solomon wiser than Moses, and Jesus wiser than Solomon? And all three wiser than Plato and Aristotle?
You also say, “If he is sincerely and consistently applying Scripture as the ultimate authority in matters of doctrine and morals, the following declaration should not have been made:”
I’m sorry, but there is a world of difference between quoting Moreland and demonstrating a conflict. You say that for consistency, his declaration “should not have been made”. Then you quote him, and don’t make no attempt to argue how his declaration puts anything on the same level of authority as Scripture.
I imagine you think the quotation spoke for itself–that it needed no further words from you to make your point. I heartily disagree. Why?
In the midst of a paper where he repeatedly states that Scripture is the ultimate authority above any other, you cry fowl when he dares to place any value in using subordinate authorities. He argued that it is “appropriate, proper, and obligatory” to use sources outside Scripture when we argue. Somehow, in your mind that becomes “those other sources are as authoritative.” The leaps of reasoning–which you don’t even see the need to support–puzzle me. (I’ll grant that calling it “obligatory” is questionable. But to get from there, to “he’s putting it on the same level” is a long distance that you didn’t even attempt to travel. One can say that something is “obligatory,” without meaning that it is at the same level of importance as using Scripture. Practice good exegesis; how did he argue that it is “obligatory”? What did he mean by that? Did he mean, “because all men owe supreme fealty to natural theology, it must be used,” as you seem to think? Or perhaps did he mean, “It is legitimate to use such subordinate arguments, and it’s so helpful that there’s no excuse not to”?)
Danny,
You said, “when I have discussions with philosophy majors whose love for Plato exceeds their love for Christ and His word I must speak up.”
I don’t doubt that you have spoken to such people. I’ve known some who tend that way. (Your reading of their attitudes–their hearts and minds–might be mistaken, but I don’t doubt it’s true in some cases.) There *is* a problem with people becoming too enamoured of philosophy, and putting too much weight on it. And it’s good to speak up. Moreland may err in that way; if so, it’s good to warn against such mistakes.
That does not mean that his paper made such a mistake.
Dec 13th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
“I’m at a loss, that you think that’s an example of what I asked for. He didn’t state anything about their comparative authority; he states that there is value (wisdom) in all five.”
This contradicts what Scripture reveals as truth. There is no moral or spiritual wisdom to add light to Christianity from Plato or Aristotle. None. Scripture states that God looked down from heaven on the sons of man to see if there were any who understand and seek after God. They were all corrupt, none who does good, not even one the Psalmist says, and none were with knowledge. This included Plato and Aristotle. To attribute moral and spiritual wisdom to either Plato or Aristotle, flies in the face of Ps. 14. Scripture in many places refers to the Gentiles as being in pitch-black darkness, to which special revelation is Light. There is no side-stepping this point for the serious God-fearing exegete! Are you asserting that Plato and Aristotle were teachers of moral and spiritual wisdom?
“There is nothing there placing them on the same level; your interpretation is eisegetical. (I wonder, would you accuse him of putting Moses and Solomon on the same level as Jesus?”
The words of Moses and Solomon, and the words of Jesus recorded in Scripture, are equally authoritative as Scripture, as stated in the Evangelical doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration. All Scripture is theopneustos. But, Tim, there is something that places Plato and Aristotle on the same level. By saying that they contribute wisdom, it challenges Col. 2:3 which states that in Christ, all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden. On an exegetical basis, the Greek text (NA27) pas has the article indicating no degree, meaning that “all” cannot mean “every kind of all,” it must be interpreted “all as in the entire whole.” Is this not what the text says?
“Or perhaps he was placing them in ascending order–isn’t Solomon wiser than Moses, and Jesus wiser than Solomon? And all three wiser than Plato and Aristotle?”
This may be a possibility. The context highly suggests otherwise though. Unless one is omniscient, or asks him, one cannot know whether he used ascending or any other kind of order. Either way, Plato and Aristotle cannot be in the same category as special revelation. They had no wisdom, only foolishness.
“I imagine you think the quotation spoke for itself–that it needed no further words from you to make your point. I heartily disagree. Why?”
I did, actually. Perhaps I should have not been so quick to have assumed that everyone would have seen what I saw as blatant. Here goes: If Scripture is the final authority, and if Scripture reveals “certain aspects” of God, man, and reality that we would have never known otherwise, such as the necessity of the Holy Spirit to regenerate the heart in order for one to understand, then why would the two things that must be taught to our people not be those “certain aspects?” The demand is for a course in ethics and moral reasoning. Who’s ethics, and who’s reasoning? Man’s or God’s? I agree with Moreland on some of the problems, but I disagree with him on most of the solutions. By considering the problems that we face in our day as “solvable” via “extra-Biblical” knowledge, open are the doors for heinous remedies to creep in like the certain men in Jude 3. Scripture must be active every step of the way in examining all matters of morals and doctrine. This isn’t about archaeology anymore, he’s saying we MUST teach our people morals and doctrine his way via the pursuit of extra-Biblical knowledge.
“In the midst of a paper where he repeatedly states that Scripture is the ultimate authority above any other, you cry fowl when he dares to place any value in using subordinate authorities.”
Well, the cut is deeper than you may think. This is not purely an issue with his paper or your understanding of his position on subordinate authorities. Read his books, you will see that the Bible is a subordinate authority to Aristotle and Aquinas. There is virtually nothing new or unique in his paper (major). If a man states something with his mouth, or writes it with his hand, but in praxis applies methods to the contrary, crying foul is a noble thing to do…according to Scripture.
“ He argued that it is “appropriate, proper, and obligatory” to use sources outside Scripture when we argue.”
No he didn’t, Tim. It isn’t as basic as that. What he is commanding is that apologetics and evangelism be done a certain way, a way that when taken to it’s logical end, is unbiblical. At best, the general revelation serves as a rash for atheists. It proves nothing. The same arguments can be equally and logically valid forms of argumentation to prove Allah, Shiva, or the god behind door #3. The leap that is needed to go from the unmoved mover to the Infinite Christian God of the Bible is impossible and it’s unreasonable. That is why atheists love debating this kind of method, they win! The preaching of the Gospel is the means that God chose to accomplish His will. The Gospel grips a sinner and he is converted. If you can argue someone into the kingdom, you can just as easily argue him out, depending on the argument. The apostle Paul taught me that (1 Cor. 2:5)!
Somehow, in your mind that becomes “those other sources are as authoritative.” The leaps of reasoning–which you don’t even see the need to support–puzzle me.
Please forgive me, I have a full-time job and I’m not always free to write the best responses. I only threw about 5 or 6 minutes into the response. Please, if you respond, keep the points short, in bullet for maybe. It’s easier to read, and easier to respond. Plus, less gets lost. There are probably points you’ve made that I have overlooked.
Dec 13th, 2007
Samuel Garcia
Why does it seem like people are assuming that our interpretations are always as authoritative a Scripture? It seems like such an obvious distinction to make but usually not ex[licitly stated. Yes, Scripture is the ultimate authority, but our interpretations of Scripture may fall short. In this respect, they are subject to revision like general revelation.
Dec 14th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Samuel, because Scripture must be interpreted in order for it to be authoritative. God chose written language as the means to form the point of contact between the infinite mind of God and the finite mind of man.
That God has spoken in such a way that the meanings of the text can be clear to the ordinary reader, is what we call “perspecuity of Scripture,” or sometimes the “clarity of Scripture.”
Here’s a Theopedia article to get you started: http://www.theopedia.com/Perspicuity_of_Scripture
Dec 14th, 2007
Tim
“Please forgive me, I have a full-time job and I’m not always free to write the best responses. I only threw about 5 or 6 minutes into the response. Please, if you respond, keep the points short, in bullet for maybe. It’s easier to read, and easier to respond. Plus, less gets lost. There are probably points you’ve made that I have overlooked.”
Fair enough; I think I’ve just about run out of time to devote to this discussion, myself. I’d just like to clarify one thing about my last comment:
I said,
“There is nothing there placing them on the same level; your interpretation is eisegetical. (I wonder, would you accuse him of putting Moses and Solomon on the same level as Jesus?”
You said,
“The words of Moses and Solomon, and the words of Jesus recorded in Scripture, are equally authoritative as Scripture, as stated in the Evangelical doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration. All Scripture is theopneustos.”
First, my next sentence was important to the meaning of the two you cited. “Do you infer that Moreland thinks Moses and Solomon never erred in their lives, and that they possessed all the same wisdom as Jesus?”
All Scripture is theopneustos; your first sentence certainly does not follow from this.
The plenary inspiration of Scripture does not state that Moses and Solomon are as authoritative as Jesus. It state that when they were writing Scripture, that was as authoritative, because the Spirit of God inspired all Scripture. This does not mean that every word Moses and Solomon ever spoke was as authoritative, or that they possessed all wisdom (that’s what I said.) Nor does it mean that all their words recorded in Scripture were inspired (as you said), any more than all the words of Peter recorded in Scripture were inspired. (Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes are inspired; every word of Solomon in 1 Kings is not.)
Dec 14th, 2007
Dr. Morey
I just did a radio program last Wed. during which the host stated that I was on his program five or six years ago and warned the listners about J. P. Moreland being a rationalist.
He did not believe me at that time but now in the light of JP’s comments at ETS, he was having me back on his national radio network to vindicate everything I said six years ago.
Like Elijah I can see the storm clouds coming when they are only little. The “Jesuit” connection that I wrote about several years ago has come true. Beckwith and other Natural theologians have already converted to whore of Babylon. Others convert to the serpent of Orthodoxy.
My book on Orthodoxy will be out in two weeks! PTL. It is titled, Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian?
Dec 14th, 2007
Samuel Garcia
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that the Reformation doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture related mainly to the message of salvation in Scripture. To apply this to our doctrine of natural theology, Calvinism, or anything that is not an essential to be a Christian should not be put in this category.
So the question still stands: why do people seem to speak of our interpretations of Scripture on the same level as the authoritative words of Scripture? On the whole I’d like to say we’re right in doing this, but when people completely ignore this issue, I feel like they’re pitting God’s general and special revelations where they should coincide.
Dec 16th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Samuel, perhaps you could restate your question. Who are the people? What is an example of them speaking of interpretation on the same level as authoritative words? How is it ignored? How do general rev and special rev coincide? It would help in understanding what you are asking?
Dec 16th, 2007
Samuel Garcia
Well I would not want to point any specific people out, but the portrayal of the position I think will suffice.
I’ve heard it said many times that the Bible must be pitted against, to use the terms of this blog, “foolosophy.” Self-evident truths, so called, are denied whenever they are contrary to Scripture. The alleged “book of nature” is also shunned since God has sufficiently revealed hiimself in Scripture, as some have said.
But the word “Scripture” here seems to contain a monolithic meaning with no shade of meaning. When we say Scripture, we really mean our interpretations of Scripture (though they most assuredly are correct at least on the essentials). But if God has really revealed himself through both general and special revelation, how can they contradict each other?
Of course, like Schaeffer, we will agree that there is no FINAL conflict. But I would disagree with the methodology that casts aside extra-Scriptural data because it frustrates our interpretations of the Bible. Has it not ever happened in your life that your experiences in life have served to modify, at least a little, what you had previously thought Scripture said? That’s happened to me many times within the past two years and has dramatically changed my relationship with God.
It is easy for us to say that we must look to both “revelations” carefully and let them inform each other because they are mutually useless without the other. However, I do not see many people allowing this to seep down into daily practice with various issues. In other words, do we allow our experiences and the Spirit to mold our interpretations of Scripture when it is justified?
-Sam
Dec 19th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Sam, I think you may be confusing general revelation and natural theology. Please correct me if I have wrongly assumed this.
To clarify something else I see from your comment, we don’t pit things like philosophy, reasoning, logic, science, etc., against the Bible. We submit those things as servants to Revelation. We use reasoning, logic, etc., but not to the extent that they are abstracted and absolutized as the measure in which we judge Revelation. They are slaves to Revelation. Thanks for the comments though. Very insightful!
Dec 20th, 2007
Samuel Garcia
What’s the difference between GR and NT? I have a view on this, but I’m curious as to your view.
Philosophy and the rest are slaves to Revelation? What Revelation? Special Revelation? Whatever happened to General Revelation, should that be ignored? Is there nothing left of God’s image?
-Sam
Dec 20th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Sam, you wrote: “What’s the difference between GR and NT? I have a view on this, but I’m curious as to your view.”
GR is God’s revelation of his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, which have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So men are without excuse (Rom.1:20, Ps. 19:1).
NT is man’s attempt to begin with himself, apart from Special Revelation, and apart from any outside influence, and come to a genuine knowledge of God, or in most cases, god or gods. Some have traced NT back to Plato in his “Laws” where he claimed to establish the existence of the gods by rational arguments alone. In the “Metaphysics” by Aristotle, he argues for the rational existence of an “unmoved mover,” the beginning of his “cause and effect” theory. His “unmoved mover” was not the God of creation, rather, “thought thinking itself.” This argument of Aristotle was adopted and used by Mu’tazilah theologians and philosophers to prove the existence of Allah the god of Islam. This was called “llm-al-Kalam,” still used today by J.P. Moreland, William Lane craig, et al. They got it from the Muslims who got it from Aristotle. Interesting side note, in Moreland’s book “Scaling the Secular City,” he does not let his readers know that it is a Muslim argument used to the glory of Allah. Instead, he says on pg. 18 that it was a popular argument “among Arabic philosophers in the late Middle Ages.” He is inconsistent the way he categorizes philosophers. Throughout his work, he never categorizes philosophers by the language they speak, he categorizes them by their religion. He uses “Christian philosophers” whether they spoke French, Latin, English. etc. But here, on pg. 18, he labels them by language. If he were consistent, he would have said, “This argument that I’m teaching you is a Muslim argument used by Islamic philosophers and theologians to bring glory to their god Allah.” Of corse that would be real difficult to sell to Christians. Perhaps that’s why he switched categories. Who knows? But this is not just “my view.” It is an indisputable fact of history. What is the “view” you said you have on this?
You wrote: “What Revelation? Special Revelation? Whatever happened to General Revelation, should that be ignored? Is there nothing left of God’s image?”
Philosophy, reasoning, logic, experience, etc., are servants to Revelation, period. This statement does not make the distinctions necessary to answer your question. Best way (simplest way) to put it should have been all Revelation.
Because GR is insufficient in leading one to a saving knowledge of God, whereas Special revelation is sufficient, certain distinctions do become necessary for certain apologetic and evangelistic applications. These distinctions however,do not apply to subordinating any absolutized aspect of man, for the whole man must submit to God’s self-discosure to man. Man is the “receiver” of Revelation.
“Is there nothing left of God’s image?” - Seriously Sam, I have no idea what you’re trying to ask here. Man was created in God’s image, and are still image bearers of God to this day. There is intrinsic significance in all men, including Hitler, as God’s image bearers. That is the “creation” aspect of man, first in order towards a biblical anthropology which views man in terms of creation, fall, and redemption.
Dec 20th, 2007
Perry Robinson
Stephan,
As for Orthodoxy, as an Orthodox Christian, I don’t take Buddha to be a Christian, let alone a saint and not recognized as such by the Orthodox Church. I am familiar with the Latin medieval confusion though. And even if it were so, the calendar is hardly deemed infallible. But thanks for the bait.
Here’s one for you. Perhaps you could give a passage from Scripture that teaches the Filioque?
Dec 21st, 2007
Samuel Garcia
Stephen,
You seemed to think that my mention of the image of God was a side issue; that’s probably my fault because I made it sound like that. But really, that is the essence of my question.
I believe that to the extent that we allow victory sin over eliminating God’s image, will affect our view of natural theology. You speak of NT being “man in himself” reasoning to God. So by this def., Moreland is not practicing NT?
Even still, let’s return to “man in himself.” Now men and women were created in the image of God and I think we both would agree that a very important aspect of that image is reasoning and sense experience. If sin had not entered the world, we could follow our intuitions and reasoning all the time because they would take us back to God all the time.
But sin did come, so we cannot affirm this. But did sin obliterate this reasoning capability? Nope, I would deny that it did. If one affirmed that proposition, they would have to also affirm that sin and humanity have overpowered God’s revelation and rendered it useless.
Anyway, I’ll shorten this very much: my point? Since the image of God still remains, there is a sense in which men and women can rightly begin with themselves and know some things alright; especially in a culture so imbued with Biblical ethics and teachings. This would even more true for Christians whose minds are being renewed.
Therefore, even John Frame says that though the Kalam Cosmological Argument arose out of Muslim thought (which maybe Moreland did not mention for political sensitivity? i dunno), it can still be appreciated for producing a sound argument. This is possible because the image of God has not been destroyed, even in the worst Mustlim terrorist. The problem is that, according to Van Til, unbelievers use “borrowed capital.”
-Sam
Dec 24th, 2007
Robert
Not all Calvary Chapels are taking a stand, yet. Next week J.P. is a visiting speaker at Calvary of Olympia(Wa). Although I was not completely familiar with his work a red light went off when I heard the name. After much online research I am angry and would like advise on how to proceed. Unfortunately most of the church will ingest all J.P. has to say without ever batting an eye. If Pastor Chuck says he is o.k. then it’s a done deal. I appreciate any advise or help you could provide. Thanks for the site and God bless.
Jan 19th, 2008
Joel
Mr. Macasil, what are you so afraid of? I can never understand the stance of people like MacArthur and you apparently. Are you so threatened that possibly God is larger than the box you have created for Him? Luckily Martin Luther was not so worried as you.
Feb 11th, 2008
Joel
Oh, and it really is quite clear in your writings how much you “love” your brother, J.P. and wish for his repentance. Very obvious. You just gush love… Have you even read his paper or are you just working off of Pastore’s horribly inaccurate and incomplete synopsis?
Feb 11th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Joel wrote: Mr. Macasil, what are you so afraid of?
Response: Is this a general question, or is there a particular context?
Joel wrote: I can never understand the stance of people like MacArthur and you apparently.
Response: If “this” stance in not understood by you, then how are you able to rightly judge John and I as sharing “this” stance? What is “this” stance?
Joel wrote: Are you so threatened that possibly God is larger than the box you have created for Him?
Response: Please explain your question rationally (less irrationally).
Joel wrote: Luckily Martin Luther was not so worried as you.
Response: Please define, document, and defend the pagan concept of “luck.” FYI Joel, you have contacted a Christian ministry. This means that you are communicating with members of Revealed Religion. In our religion, the concept of luck does not exist. Scripture, the written means that our God chose to reveal Himself to us by, informs the reader that God is sovereign over all things-even down to the roll of the dice. Thus luck does not exist and is nothing more than a consequence of rejecting Biblical Theism, i.e. Revealed Religion.
Joel wrote: Oh, and it really is quite clear in your writings how much you “love” your brother, J.P. and wish for his repentance. Very obvious. You just gush love…
Response: Either this statement is childishly sarcastic or you have recently read Galatians 2:11-14 in our Bible. If the former – grow up. If the latter, keep reading.
Joel wrote: Have you even read his paper or are you just working off of Pastore’s horribly inaccurate and incomplete synopsis?
Response: What you must do is compare the date that I wrote this with the date that Frank wrote his. You will get your answer as well as learn a valuable lesson. If you do not immediately realize the lesson I am talking about, I will assist you. Let me know.
Feb 11th, 2008
Joel
Luck was a bad choice of words I will grant you.
And my tone was sarcastic and attacking, so I apologize for that. I think we do a grave disservice to the cause of Christ when we search for the negative in a person or their theology rather than trying to give benefits to doubts. I have no doubt that you love the Lord and desire to further His cause.
But for the same reason that I apologize, I urge you to consider your tone and how it could be received by someone who doesn’t know the Lord. While we within the church spend so much time in arguments about the parsing of Greek verbs and the like, Satan revels in the disunity he has sewn and the image of Christianity that results. Moreland is a good guy who loves Jesus. He is also far from perfect. But should our goal as members of one Body be to focus on the imperfections, or the God-given strengths?
Just a few thoughts…
Feb 25th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Joel, I’d love to discuss these things with you. First, would you please complete one small assignment for me as a prerequisite for our discussion? If you’ve answered “yes,” here it is:
In your own words, please provide a summary of the outcome of a short study of the term “Jesuit,” and post it here to this comment thread. What I’ll be looking for is your understanding of why they were commissioned, by whom they were commissioned, what there mission was and is, as well as the institutions and doctrines that support this movement. If it takes a few days to prepare your summary, feel free to take the time - I just don’t want to see you rush it. We’ll be able to have God-glorifying discussions surrounding your above posted concerns. Till then, good providence!
P.S. Thanks for striking the “luck” thing…
Feb 25th, 2008
Reply to “J.P. Moreland, The Kingdom Triangle, and Damage Control”