Roger s Posts

the past two decades. I haven t been able to find a complete volume dedicated completely to the subject written in the past 20 years, only scattered references here and there.
As I ve been reading the dated material (Jack Rogers, Clark non-inerrantists s shoes.

So I d like to ask for some help, particularly if you don t agree with the doctrine of inerrancy.
publications/scholars have persuaded you toward your position?

--[endif]-->
arguments do find compelling against inerrancy?
do you see as the difference between infallibility and inerrancy?

At this time, the first question is really the most pressing However, I m personally interested in responses to the latter two as well so I can better understand the position. I m not looking for a debate right now.

If get everyone upset. My intention, however, is to offer two helpful critiques in an effort to make certain discussions better for everyone. I think blogging too often degenerates into sniping, and I ve tried not to do that lately, but to by Emergent brothers, I ll critique my Reformed brothers first.

This year was the second year I ve attended the . As usual, it was a blast. Not just in buying 50 books (though such fun and getting opportunities to interact with them.

Unfortunately, I must qualify diverse.
known primarily for defending Reformed theology) were not present this year, and frankly, this bugs me. I m referring to people such as Michael Horton (though present briefly last year, was not there this year), W.

Robert Godfrey, Robert Strimple, D.G. Hart, and K.

Scott Oliphint (to name a few). Maybe because I ve only gone to ETS for two years, I ve missed some rationale for why scholarship.
sectarianism in Reformed scholarship today.

I respect, study, and agree with most of what these men teach, especially when it comes to critiquing contemporary evangelicalism. The problem is that much of the time they seem more interested in pointing out errors than working toward correcting them. At best, they just have a bad strategy.

Each year, ETS is full of professors and discussions. Some of them will be pastors; most of them will influence important church ministers. And yet the only two men I saw consistently each year from this group were Peter Jones and Vern Poythress.

Maybe I missed some, but the point is that if the Reformed academics truly want to make a difference in evangelicalism, they their critics. I say this because I think they ll be successful if they way possible. So with all due respect, Reformed academics, please stop acting next year, I see no good reason why most of the faculty EDIT: My language in this criticism was harsh (eg- "sectarian fundamentalists"), and I apologize to any who may have been offended.

Subsequent discussion has shown my analysis of these Reformed scholars to be largely uninformed- I refer the reader to Dr. R. Scott Clark's comment below and his link to Dr.

Sean Lucas's comments. Emergent circle. At ETS, Brett Kunkle of Stand Reason presented an excellent distinctions, quoting people in context, and conversing with the men he cited in order to provide a fair and accurate analysis.

As with R. Scott Smith s misunderstood. Instead of dealing with any of the points raised by Scott or Brett, the points are typically written off as being straw men, without any explanation or evidence as to how the arguments are straw men.

This is Tony the criticisms. Scott s book and Brett s paper have for the most part been met with silence. D.

A. Carson s book caused quite a stir, but it was mostly a stir in the vein of the first response. Scott and Brett went beyond what should be necessary to be gracious in order avoid that first type of response.

And for the most part they did avoid that response, but instead they are generally responded to conversation, most of those on the Emergent side of things (especially with people who believe exactly as they do. At best, they are just as sectarian as the fundamentalists they often criticize, and the Reformed academics I criticized above. Of course, I side with Carson, Scott, and Brett, and so I d certain changes.

However, most of us critics are open to being wrong about engage us instead of dismiss us.
him doing that.
UPDATE: Tony Jones has to Brett Kunkle's paper.

I truly appreciate that he did this as it provides readers with a good opportunity to compare the thoughts of each author and the character with which they're offered. I find Dr. Spiegel to be one of the most intriguing philosophers of our time.

He s one of the few presenters that I ll probably highlight every year from ETS.
The contemporary understanding of the relationship between behavior and beliefs is that our actions flow from our cognitions. However, several Old Testament texts seem to suggest otherwise (Psalm 19:7, 25:9, Proverbs 1:4).

Dr. Spiegel aims to explore how behavior impacts our beliefs.
His case is built on the epistemology of Alvin Plantinga.

For Plantinga, a belief has warrant if 1) belief-forming mechanisms function properly, 2) operation is done in a favorable environment, 3) the cognitive system is successfully aimed at truth, and 4) there exists a sensus divinitatis. This is defined by Plantinga as a kind of facult or cognitive mechanism which in a wide variety of circumstances produces in us beliefs about God. (Warranted Christian Belief, 154)
Sin has corrupted our cognitions and affections, such that the sensus divinitatis has been baldy damaged.

This skews our ability to love and hate the right things accurately. Linda Zagzebski has criticized Plantinga s model for being deficient of virtue consideration. We should consider some virtue amendments that are important for our intellectual life, as well as our formation into good persons.

One such virtue is that of phronesis, or practical wisdom. This is the sort of insight that may be described as a truth conducting intellectual quality necessary for moral conduct. Aristotle believed that without this virtue, we couldn t be morally virtuous.

We should also seek sophia, or speculative wisdom. In contrast to phronesis, sophia has nothing to do with conduct, it is solely an intellectual virtue. These two virtues are both intellectual virtues of insight, but one is in practical matters and the latter is in theoretical.

Zagzebksi adds that phronesis is a higher-order virtue that governs all others (moral and intellectual).
One way our behaviors affect our beliefs is derivatively. For example, I must decide what to expose myself to in regards to mass media.

My selection of which shows I watch, websites I visit, or radio stations I listen to will impact my attitudes and beliefs either negatively or positively.
Romans 1:18-28 presents us with a moral vicious cycle from suppression of truth to ignorance of God to epistemic corruption and further bad behavior. One way this occurs is through self-deception, such as the Christian minister who taught there s nothing wrong with porn because it doesn t involve touching.

William James suggested that beliefs are emotions. Accordingly, regardless of the method used to arrive at our conviction, the fundamental phenomenological feature of these convictions is emotional: our belief feels right. This, says James, is the sentiment of rationality.

For example, when we slander, the emotional pleasures we feel from it displaces our previous negative emotional associations with it. This makes the offense more likely to be repeated, thus presenting another vicious cycle.
These are corruption of the original design plan, disturbing the proper-function of our belief-forming mechanisms, creating environments hostile to correct belief formation, and further destruction of the sensus divinitatis.

Conversely, the practice of virtues (instead of vices) avoids these negative epistemic effects. Exposure to beauty of all kinds improves the moral imagination, which is important to moral action. Good conduct, then, maximizes our cognitive functions while minimizing corruption due to sin.

Virtuous actions result in the strengthening of our faith. Instead of a vicious cycle, here we have a virtuous cycle.
H.

Chris Ross Promoting Evangelical Faith Through New Media: Lessons from the English Reformation
As Bob Dylan sang, The time they are a-changin . Though he was describing the social changes of the 60 s, he could have said the same of sixteenth century Europe, or our situation today. The internet is often viewed as the Guttenberg press of our time, noting the similarities of the Reformation and current time periods.

Mr. Ross believes these similarities have practical applications for Christians today.
The development of devotional literature in England provides important historical lessons.

With the invention of the printing press, literacy levels rose and eventually the Bible and theological literature became more popular to larger groups of people. Much of the literature produced was works that used to be copied by hand.
In the latter sixteenth century, outlawed Catholic works started making their way into England.

This was mostly devotional literature that appealed to both Protestants and Catholics. Due to the doctrinal emphasis of the Reformation, Protestants had not produced new spiritual literature of their own. Instead, some people, such as Edmund Bunny, adapted popular Catholic books by taking out the conflicting Catholic parts and republishing them as Protestant literature (this was before any real copyright restrictions).

It wasn t until Richard Rogers published his Seven Treatises in 1602 that Protestants had a distinct devotional work that reflected the spiritual needs of the time. After this, more followed, but it took some time for Protestants to recognize the need and opportunity for such literature.
There are two lessons he believes we can draw from this bit of church history:
Brett Kunkle s paper on the Emerging Church has been one of the most popular papers this year.

It is . In his preliminary remarks, Brett claimed that he is qualified to speak about the emerging church because he s personally met with many of its leading voices, attended their conferences and lectures, read their books, and attends what many consider to be an emerging church. While he made some very powerful criticisms, he noted that he does not reject everything that is going on in emerging churches.

Brett raised three areas of concern in assessing the emerging church movement (a broad missional perspective of doing church) and Emergent Village (an organization promoting changes in mission and theology) specifically. In each area, he gave examples of questionable teachings of Emergent leaders (Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and Doug Pagitt), noting that they do not speak for the whole movement, but are influential voices.
The first concern is concerning the cross.

Brett cited quotes from McLaren s work that question substitutionary atonement and promote ignorance of why Christ had to die. The second concern has to do with the authority of the Bible. Brett cited quotes from Pagitt that claim the Bible s authority depends on the communities that use it.

This makes the community authoritative rather than the Bible. The final concern has to do with the nature of truth. He again looked at remarks about truth from Pagitt that seem confused as to what truth is.

In the second part of his paper, Brett raised his most serious concern- that the door is wide open to unorthodoxy. He does not believe, for example, that Tony Jones is currently unorthodox. However, by putting everything on the table for reconsideration, they could easily go that route.

He used Spencer Burke and his book, A Heretic s Guide to Eternity, as an example of how unorthodox those in the emerging movement can get.
This morning, Dr. Erik Thoennes read his paper Laughing Through Tears: The Redemptive Role of Humor in a Fallen World.

He noted that the ability to laugh helps deal with difficulties we face in life.
Dr. Thoennes offered four reasons for why Christians should study humor:
3) Maturity should lead to Godly sense of humor.

He cited some self-critical questions posed by A.W. Tozer, one of which was What do I laugh at?

Humor is commonly defined at words or actions intended to cause laughter. Most often, it involves recognition of incongruity.
While the Bible does not speak directly of God s humor, and it is primarily serious in nature, humor is a subtext of the Bible.

Dr. Thoennes went through several instances of humor throughout the Bible in categories such as irony, sarcasm, etc.
He suggests that there is a link between humor and hope.

The story of the incarnation is rampant with ironic humor, such as the Sustainer of the universe riding into Jerusalem on a donkey as His triumphal entry.

We must use discernment in laughter as with other aspects of life. Dr.

Thoennes suggested getting in the habit of pausing before responding to something with laughter to consider whether it is something we should really be laughing at. We should laugh for the good of others and to the glory of God.