Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Doctrines

  • Updating the Grudem Interview and Discussion

    Since I previously posted on the interview that Adrian Warnock is conducting with Wayne Grudem, I thought it would be a good idea to update. There are two more entries of interest:

    • Part Four – Ethical Trajectories, Feminism, and Homosexuality
      I’m afraid the argument here that stands out is that feminism, and the arguments used by evangelical feminists to support it will lead to an acceptance of homosexuality. I guess that settles it!
    • Wayne Grudem replies to Suzanne McCarthy
      This deals with some trivia in the issue of Junia in Romans 16:7. The reason I refer to these issues as trivia is that the broad evidence on Romans 16:7 is so strongly in favor of taking the name as feminine that a search of this type can only, in my view, be the result of an absolute determination to read the name as masculine. [Update: Hmm. That was not well said, but I’ll leave it as is and correct it since it was posted here for a couple of hours. Two points — 1) my comment implies that the arguments in question had to do with reading the name Junia as masculine, which is incorrect. These specific points have to do with whether Junia should be known as one of the apostles or whether the apostles (not including her) knew her. 2) Dan Wallace, as always summarizes his evidence well. I believe in this case he is grasping at straws, and is not following his own usual preference for more probable readings. His justification for taking an improbable reading is, in my view, inadequte.] Of course, you can tell that I accept Suzanne’s view on the passage in general.
    • [Update 12/10/06-I don’t want to add another post on this topic right now.] On the Better Bibles Blog Suzanne has summarized her response, and I think her response and summary of her position is excellent. It also ties in well with my response to Grudem’s criticism of Gordon Fee. There seems to be an odd tendency here to make snide remarks about others, and then to be horrified at snide or snarky comments about one’s own work. Personally I prefer a fairly forceful style. In the view of the presence of certain comments on qualifications in this discussion, I’d note that my earlier comments on Fee’s expertise in textual issues are extremely relevant. I don’t expect one to accept Fee’s argument based on his expertise. In fact, I decry such behavior. But if one is going to have a battle of expertise, Fee has the edge here on textual matters.

    I may link to further entries in this interview, but I must confess I find it hard to give much credit to the “slippery slope” form of argument.

  • The Most Annoying Theologian I’ve Never Read

    . . . is Wayne Grudem. Well, not quite true. The most annoying theologian is Peter Ruckman of the Pensacola Bible Institute, and I have read some of his stuff. I’ve also read articles by Grudem, and I wouldn’t come close to excluding him from Christianity, so I guess I have read him and he’s not the most annoying. So how about I wanted a provocative title?

    When there’s someone I really don’t want to take the time to study seriously, it’s nice to have someone else, whose reading ability I’ve come to trust in the blogosphere, take a look. And that is what Dave Warnock has been doing. The first item was Responding to provocation, and the second Starting to understand connections. I am substantially in agreement with Dave on these things. It might also be a good idea, of course, to read the original interview, starting here.

    Like Dave, I believe the connections can be broken at any point. I discuss inerrancy here and I have some thoughts on gender language and translation here.

    Later today I will be posting on salvation and particularly on the question of who will be saved and whether we can know. I’m also going to respond to one point in the third part of Adrian’s interview with Wayne Grudem, [update] which I have now posted here. Three recent posts of mine are also relevant, The Danger of Unchanging Truth, And I’m not . . . , and Truth, Pluralism, and Absolutism. None of these respond directly to Adrian Warnock (not to be confused with Dave) and Wayne Grudem, but they do relate.

  • And I’m not . . .

    . . . an evangelical, that is.

    Jason Woolever posted an interesting entry several days ago about what it means to be an evangelical and I’m finally getting around to commenting. It’s not that I have a problem with Jason’s post. It’s more that I have had some problem finding a good, current definition of what it means to be evangelical. I think Jason’s points would generally be accepted by most people who call themselves evangelicals in my experience. (I know, not a scientific sample, but since I’m only concerned with how I use the label, that works.)

    I’ve been having trouble with the evangelical label for some time, most recently when I read some evangelical commentaries on Daniel and found that their critical views were more liberal than mine. I’ve even been called an evangelical by a few people myself. So I think Jason’s list is a rather convenient opportunity to examine some key points.

    So let me look at these points one by one:

    (more…)

  • The Danger of Unchanging Truth

    Recently, I’ve written a bit about the difference between science and theology. One of the key differences is that science expects to change, whereas if theology is not assuming it is founded on bedrock, it is usually looking for some bedrock. Religious people often criticize science on the basis that it changes too often. Its history is one of repeatedly overturned theories.

    (more…)

  • Interpreting Away what is Clearly Taught

    In this week’s Christian Blog Carnival #CL, now posted at Brain Cramps for God, I found an excellent post from Amanda on Imago Dei titled The Limits to God’s Grace This goes back to an article by Bart Campolo on which I commented about a week ago in my post Conceptual Idolatry.

    Amanda has written a thoughtful post which is well worth reading. She has avoided some of the rhetorical heat and settled for a great deal more light than the average post on this topic does. But my interest here is not on the correct answer to the question of grace, heaven, and hell and the nature of God that Campolo presented (though in general that is a central, perhaps the central question), but rather on the issue of who in this debate is more Biblical, and how we can know such a thing.

    Accusations, and in Campolo’s case confessions, of picking and choosing, interpreting away, or just plain ignoring various scriptures or scriptural teachings are a dime a dozen, and they are rarely examined, especially by those who agree doctrinally with whoever is making the claim. In this case Campolo says outright that he will interpret away any text that disagrees with his basic conception of God. Quoting him as quoted by Amanda:

    (more…)

  • Bad Teaching and Abuse

    Al Johnson has posted a story about an abused wife on Recovery Poetry blog.

    Before I comment on this particular story, I want to note that a site like Johnson’s blog can be an important tool for people who are suffering abuse, no matter what the cause or the background. In working in ministry in various churches I’ve found that one of the most damaging problems, if not the most damaging, is a feeling of isolation.

    There are many causes for this feel.  One factor is the “faith face.”  We know we’re supposed to be doing well, because good Christians are happy people, so we paste a smile on our face and charge forward.  Another factor is gossip.  Churches are often small, closed (unforunately) communities, and gossip is a besetting sin.  As soon as someone’s personal story is repeated, trust is lost, and that person will become more isolated.  Judgment is also a factor, usually cloaked in a guise of simply protecting the reputation of the community.  But the more people any individual has heard condemned, the less likely that person is to share any problem they may have.

    (more…)

  • Conceptual Idolatry

    Paul tells us that we now “see dimly in a mrror” (1 Corinthians 13:12), but some of us are quite certain that we see clearly. While I believe we should make every effort to get closer to the truth, it’s important that we understand that God’s ways are not our ways, and thus we will never get precisely to a “God’s eye view” of any problem or issue. In a recent comment Oloryn noted that:

    . . . in reading scripture, we are in the position of listing to One who does not share our outlook. If we haven’t learned to do that with people, are we going to be able to do that with God?

    Now he was responding to some comments I made about listening to God in scripture, and those were some good points, but in making that point he has also noted that God does not share our outlook. And that’s an important point to remember.

    This post was triggered by a post by Joe Carter over on Evangelical Outpost. In that post he accuses Bart Campolo (son of Tony) of idolatry:

    Still, it is rather shocking to hear someone be unabashedly open about their idolatry as Bart Campolo, son of Tony Campolo, is in a recent article for The Journal of Student Ministries*:

    [Carter continues by quoting Campolo]

    Now my intention is not to respond in detail to Joe Carter on this. It’s simply that his post came at a time when I was thinking about this sort of thing and struck me as just plain wrong. There are some points on which I disagree with Campolo as well, though my primary intention is not to defend him either.

    (more…)

  • Avoiding Shoot-First Apologetics

    My Christianity Today Connection e-mail this morning contained a link to an excellent article, Shoot-First Apologetics. I don’t want to steal the thunder from the article itself–go read it in place, but I do want to quote from the e-mail:

    And while defending the core elements of our faith is imperative, we sometimes shoot too hastily at those we’ve misidentified as enemies.

    I would like to note that the folks involved in this discussion are conservative evangelicals. The issue of courtesy in what we say, and care in determining friend and foe is one that cuts across the lines of the various parties in Christianity. It’s very easy to identify “different” as “hostile.”

    Of course we do need to remember that even if we identify someone as hostile, Jesus commands that we love that person, and not in the cartoon sense–“love those meeses to pieces!”

  • Reformation with Warts

    27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and he chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong, 28and the world’s inferior and despised things God chose

  • Gender Roles as Essential

    Peter Kirk has written an excellent post about the essentials of the Christian faith. I’ll let you go to his blog for the many references he has used in his discussion, and the reason for this post at this moment.

    My reason for commenting on it is simply that Peter has highlighted a number of the reasons why I believe it is important for us to clearly identify what we hold as essentials of the faith and why. I think I made a fairly clear statement on the issue in my post, Unity, Diversity, and Confusion. In that post I suggested that when we have too few essentials we become confused and rudderless and when we have too many, we become rigid. I could also note that when those essentials are not well-defined and carefully chosen we can do unintended damage throughout the church.

    (more…)