Comments

Moreland is right … and wrong at the same time. He is right in the sense that non-charismatic evangelicals have generally overreacted to excesses in the Charismatic/Pentecostal movements (mostly in the West due to modernism). As a result many evangelicals accept the supernatural (miracles, visions, dreams, prophetic words…) in theory but mostly deny it in practice. He has a point when he argues that well meaning evangelicals have put God in a box. However, t theological knowledge is not acquired in the same fashion as archeological knowledge. Discovering new facts about Jerusalem is not the same as discovering new facts about the world of demons. The problem is validation. In the field of archeology, validation is possible by empirical means and one can attain a certain degree of certainty concerning new findings based on the amount and quality of evidence. The same cannot be said of the spiritual realm which deals with a different kind of epistemology and method of validation. What I know for sure about demons comes from the Bible and the testimony of the Spirit working together with the latter being verified by the former which is the final judge of what is true and what is not. Yes the spiritual world exist apart of what is written in the Bible, but how do we know in a normative fashion what is true and what is false? I could use the Bible to validate elements that intersect with the biblical data, but what do I do with issues where the Bible is totally or mostly silent?, what kind of epistemological system do I use to grasp the truth and reject error if I cannot appeal to scripture as the final arbiter and only have what I claim is the testimony of the Spirit (which cannot be validated)? In practice, what Moreland proposes is not workable without truth becoming relative.

Moreland has really hit the nail on the head. We evangelicals long ago gave knowledge of the real world away to secular thinkers, retreating instead to the one place where, to be sure, we had a unique and true body of knowledge about reality--the Bible. In doing this, we rightly rooted ourselves in Scripture, but we also ended up buying into the dangerous and false idea that there is no trustworthy extra-Biblical source of knowledge on Scriptural topics (and especially of the unseen spiritual realms). With that cultural concession, we ended up making strange bedfellows with naturalism, whose preferred theory of knowledge was empiricism (i.e. "Don't believe it [or, at least be very skeptical of it] if you can't see/smell/taste/touch/hear it..."). Many of us Christians bought into this, simply adding, "...OR unless it's in the Bible." Empiricism is an ugly horse and it's not much prettier even when you tack the Bible onto it. Thus, in our wholly proper focus on inerrancy, we forgot to take up the equally important cause of adopting a robust Christ-honoring theory of knowledge.

Moreland's proposal, in recognizing that there are additional trustworthy sources of truth--such as perceptual awareness of spirits--far from requiring truth to be relative, would be recapturing (and frankly, recapturing from the devil) vast tracts of knowledge that Jesus himself had. With respect to brother Maashe's comment above, Moreland's proposal doesn't mire us in a de facto relativism; we simply need to learn how to "validate" something that isn't empirically detectable, that's all (and we do this kind of thing all the time). So, for example, we do not (or at least should not) use one kind of epistemology in archaeological inquiry, but another in researching the spirit world. The difference in the disciplines is not one of epistemology, but mainly one of the object of inquiry: in archaeology the research subject is physical while the object of research in, say, demonology, etc. is non-physical. To say the archaeology/spiritual-research analogy is faulty on the basis of one being empirically validatable and the other not, is to cede perceptual knowledge to our empirical science-driven culture. I wholly appreciate Mr Maashe's concern to defend truth and eschew relativism, but I urge being careful not to think a commitment to truth entails a skepticism toward knowledge that's been based in non-empirical facts, or in personal--or even mystical--experience.

Moreland has some interesting insights, but he is overstating his case. The issue for most is not whether data comes exclusively from Scripture, but what authoritative weight we give such data and what authoritative standard we use to validate them. Does any source of knowledge other than Scripture have the same authority? If not, should we not hold extra-biblical conclusions more loosely than we do explicitly biblical ones?

Archeological consensus once told us that the Hittite civilization was fictitious, contrary to the testimony of Scripture. Science has now come to verify the biblical witness. If current scientific consensus points us to a contrary conclusion from Scripture, it must be rejected. If science makes a claim that Scripture does not specifically address, it can be followed, but we must remember the relatively tenuous authority of human scientific endeavor.

Yes, there have been many Christians who have resisted the overtly supernatural. However, it is precisely a renewed emphasis on the biblical teaching on such subjects as spiritual gifts that has led to a growing consensus. Cessationists and Pentecostals have gone back to the Word and many have arrived at surprisingly similar conclusions. One group of Christians is more open to what God may bring; the other group is more focused on being biblical in its practices. This is not due to an extra-biblical authority of faith and practice, but to a profoundly biblical one.

I think Alain Maashe's concerns are warranted. If the Bible is not our "sole authority for faith and practice," what authorities do we add? Experience? Tradition? Visions? Prophetic utterances? In exactly what way are these sources authoritative? And how does their authority relate to the authority of Scripture? Many of the teachings regarding demonology that Moreland references are not opposed simply because they are drawn from extra-biblical sources, but because they are contrary to Scriptural teachings. We simply cannot give the same authoritative weight as Scripture to knowledge drawn from extra-biblical sources. This doesn't mean that we ignore such insights, but we need to be very clear what are our authoritative standards are and why.

One last question: How can an extreme commitment to the Bible that teaches us to live loving, humble, gentle, sacrificial lives of commitment to God and each other lead to a "mean-spiritedness . . . that is a grotesque and ignorant distortion of discipleship unto the Lord Jesus"? Such attitudes do occur among us, but it is not the level of commitment that causes them but a misdirected commitment that misuses the biblical texts. One could very well argue that such attitudes come from a lack of true commitment to the Word of God. The Pharisees misused Scripture in this way, but Jesus often pointed them right back to Scripture to counter their mean-spiritedness and ignorance. Non-Christians could use Moreland's reasoning to question an over-commitment to Christ Himself.

I have appreciated much of J.P. Moreland's thinking, but there are serious fallacies in this particular argument.

Tim has a point when he says that empiricism should not be the prevalent theory of knowledge of a believer. I would contend that empiricism is unable to grasp spiritual realities since they are beyond the natural senses of sight, touch, hearing, taste, smell. I do not believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God because of empirical examination. This is something that I receive by faith in the One who inspired the Bible. There is no process of validation when it comes to biblical data (I do not see to test and validate creation, the flood, the exodus, the virgin birth, or the resurrection, I merely believe it regardless of the presence or absence of empirical proofs for it); it is merely a process of getting the right interpretation. Similar occurrences outside Scripture are validated against Scripture. As such my theory of spiritual knowledge is that it must be found in the Bible or validated by the Bible. This is where many evangelicals, especially in academia fail miserably, because they seek to apply various criteria of reliability to the Bible as if scripture needs validation or can be validated as a whole by empirical means (this might earn one the respect of liberal scholars but is a false representation of biblical epistemology). I do not claim that the Bible contains every ounce of knowledge, but just everything that must be known in the sphere of theological and spiritual knowledge as far as normative knowledge is concerned. Do I believe that God can communicate through experience, visions, dreams, prophetic words, impressions and so forth? Absolutely and one would be hard pressed to find Biblical evidence that He can’t or doesn’t. My contention is that whatever God communicates apart from Scripture cannot be normative because it is found outside of the Canon of normative truths. As such, whatever, is communicated to the believer, will only have a local and temporary application as opposed to normative, universal and timeless., And this is where I disagree with Moreland and Tim. The Bible itself gives evidence that the normative content of the Faith is restricted to what is written and has been handed down to us (Jude 3; 1 Corinthians 4:6). I would like to see Moreland or Tim give us a methodology on how to validate that which can be known apart from the Bible and cannot be validated by it in the context of a community of believers or in the context of the universal Church. How does one do it in practice without it being a matter of personal opinion (hence relativism)? I also wonder how Tim could argue that one should use the same kind of epistemological method for archeology and spiritual realities, especially since one uses physical senses for perception, and the other is beyond the reach of natural senses. But even if somehow Tim is right and it is not a matter of different epistemological methods, the fact remains as Curt pointed out that neither findings would be normative unless validated by scripture (that is, they would derive their normative character from Scripture). Some ideas are very attractive on paper but are impossible to put in practice.

I agree that some of Moreland's concerns merit examination and appropriate adjustment in my practice as a follower of Jesus Christ. However, I find that as a pastor of evangelical churches for more than 24 years, the problem practically is NOT one of "biblioltry." Rather, I find the problem is a failure to apply and practice what we do know of the Bible. The vast majority of the people with whom I converse about a relationship with Jesus Christ, whether in or out of a local church, are more concerned about the substance that will impact their lives. They too often see demonstrated religion that is empty and unfulfilling rather than a relationship with God who loves them right where they are and invites them to relationship with Him.

What evidence are we evangelicals demonstrating that we love Jesus? How does our present culture--or any other culture for that matter--know that we are disciples of Jesus Christ?

Perhaps while we make certain to uphold the tenants of evangelicalism, especially the two doctrinal requirements of ETS, we should make equally certain that we are fulfilling the good works our Father created us to do by being salt and light!

Whatever happened to simply following Jesus (cf. Luke 9:23)?

Sola Scriptura is an important Reformation doctrine, and we should not lose it. But we should understand what it means. It doesn't mean that all truth can be found in the Bible, not even that all theological truth is found in the Bible. What it means is that Scripture contains all the WORDS OF GOD that we need for theology or anything else. I think this gives us a balance between Scripture and general revelation. The way to knowledge is to learn from general revelation, but to interpret it in the light of Scripture, recognizing that Scripture alone gives us ultimate, inerrant truth.

If anyone thinks this position represents an over-commitment to Scripture, I cannot agree. This is the position of evangelicalism and of Scripture itself.

So, according to Dr. Moreland, demons and angels exist in the real world but are only described in the Bible. How can he prove demons or angels exist? Further, if we need revelations, dreams, visions, etc., is not the claim of the sufficiency of Scripture turned on hits head? Dr. Moreland hits on an issue of particular importance to Southern Baptists (my denominational affiliation). In our recent experience, sufficiency of Scripture has loomed large. I, for one, am frightened of dreams, revelations, visions, etc., whether they are a part of Charismatic/Pentecostal excess or not. To appeal to those things as sources of authority for faith and practice is to attact the fundamental importance of the Bible itself.

Mr. Curt might want to consider that Moreland's concern is not about the authority of Scripture as much as it is about the scope of Scripture. As fas as biblical authority goes, the Bible is the sole and sufficient authority concerning what God wants humanity to know about His special plan and purpose for humanity that is not already manifest in His creation. As a consequence anything the Bible asserts on God's behalf as part of that revelation must be taken as true on the basis of testimony. The Bible does not need to be an exhaustive encyclopedia of knowledge in order to realize that purpose nor does it have to be explicit and precise, just sufficiently clear for the most part about the main points as far as practical consideration is concerned.

What Moreland is fighting is the tendency of some evangelicals to draw non-sequitors from the notion of divine authority of Scripture. It does not follow that the only truths we can know are the truths of Scripture, that the only degree of certainty we should have about any truth is absolute certainty, or that the only things we can reasonable believe based on Scripture must be explicitly stated in Scripture. Rather than resisting a worldly outlook, these mistakes tend to lead some evangelicals into adopting a kind of verification principle about knowledge; if it isn't explicitly in Scripture, it is not known. Such a principle is self-refuting and not one we could take seriously.

Moreland is challenging SOLO Scriptura, not SOLA Scriptura.

In some ways I find these comments by Moreland encouraging. But how, then, does he handle conflicts between science and scripture?

For example, Moreland is staunchly anti-evolution. What is the motive for opposing evolution? Only the extent to which it may conflict with scripture concerning origins, particularly human origins. Whatever the holes might be in evolutionary theory, let's be honest -- most of us wouldn't care if it didn't seem to conflict with scripture. The reason theistic evolution proposals such as Francis Collins' are controversial is that the lead to allegorizing of scripture contrary to ETS' and evangelicalism's presuppositions about inspiration and hermeneutics.

I'm not really sure, then, what Moreland is saying here, unless he is planning to reverse his views on evolution.

In an April 2007 John Piper wrote an article that is a perfect illustration of what Moreland is concerned about. Piper was responding to an earlier posting from an anonymous professor who had written of an experience of hearing God's voice telling him to give book royalties to a needy student. I was moved by what the professor had written, thrilled to hear of his experience of hearing God's voice to him in a specific circumstance, and challenged by his risky obedience. When Piper's response was posted several weeks later, I was completely taken aback. He was not moved or challenged by this posting, he said he was saddened because the article gave the impression that "extra-biblical communication with God is surpassingly wonderful and faith-deepening...while the Bible is everyday passed over in silence".

As one who has a high view of scripture and reads the Bible with all my heart and mind, I love it when I sense God's voice address me personally. But I have also experienced what I believe was the voice of God in an extra-biblical way and I can testify that it was deeply life impacting and faith building. The experience taught me to be attentive to the voice of God not only in scripture but also through the everyday experiences of life. I am also learning to be attentive to what is happening to me affectively. Whether in desolation or consolation, I am always asking "Lord, what do you want me to know about this situation". Since I have been more open and attentive to hearing God's voice even when I'm not meditating on scripture, my faith and devotion have deepened into a far more "first-love" passion. It isn't a case of "either/or", it is "both/and". I'm convinced that part of the deadness of the Church today is because we have not learned to really "hear" God speaking in every situation of life.

I wonder what the persecuted believers around the world who are in prison and who have no access to scripture would say about Dr. Piper's sadness. Is the Spirit of God unable to speak to their hearts because they don't have a Bible? Many testify to wonderful communications from God that encourage, guide and strengthen their faith. Is the eternal WORD silenced to them? I think not.

I pray that Moreland's words will be thoughtfully received.

Bev

I appreciate greatly Bev's comments. While I understand that I am founded in the faith by my beliefs about the Bible and its authority, the most profound moments of specific direction in my life have come from extra-biblical messages, impressions -- or whatever you want to call them -- that I know in my heart were from God. Because they are so profound, I wish I could receive them every day. But, alas, such is not the case -- and probably not the case for any follower of Christ, lest we become too familiar with them. And we know what familiarity leads to.

I think I know JP's heart, so I don't fear he's going off on an unsound tangent. In a sense, he's using the popular device of the emergents: making a point with a brash statement that draws attention to the issue. And it does appear that he got our attention!

this is like the 'theatre of the absurd'..high-minded theists with their god-talk are just as lost as any hell-raising pagan..the entire basis of Jesus life/ministry in its deadly clash with the religious authorities of that day were because he had the right and only true interpretation of scripture..apart from the bible we know nothing about god or his purposes..or about the kingdom or the church ..conversion is a miracle every time based on the Spirit's use of his word as gospel..the nature of scripture is as unique as the incarnation itself..people may be overcommitted as a form of behaviorism without ever becoming transformed by mind-renewal because they don't meditate in the actual word itself..our desire must be to know scriptures and the power of God..Jesus said those who continue in my word are my disciples..the spiritual man can appraise all things once he himself has been appraised..and the only language for this entire reality/discussion is in rightly handled scripture..not murder by philosophy and unity by line-item ethics..let's not forget the idolatries of the study-desk...

Moreland shoots the right arrow at the wrong target. Anyone who seriously accepts the infallibility and authority of the Bible could never deny the supernatural realm and the contemporary dynamic nature of the Spirit. The Word and the Spirit are both vital for a relevant and authentic Christian faith. It took me a long time as a Christian to discover that the 'missing puzzle piece' I needed to convert 'head knowledge' of the Word to 'heart knowledge' was of course the Holy Spirit. The Word also clearly shows the immutable Trinitarian nature of God and therefore cessationists haven't got leg to stand on. That said, the church must be careful not to blindly follow the contemporary revelation of every self-proclaimed prophet who has a ministry that has the words 'Glory', 'Fire' or 'Rain' in its name !! Let's remain open but cautious.

It is encouraging to see someone of the influence of Moreland speaking to this important issue.

There are numerous complexities in this issue, but one simplification explains a fair amount of the grave concerns many Evangelicals have about any de-emphasis: fear of the slippery slope.

It is probably correct (and not a problem in my mind) that backing off in any meaninful way on inerrancy would open the door for a string of other "liberalizations." The ETS doctrinal membership requirement on this, with only the Trinity in addition, underlines this.

As to the concern of some about taking "revelations" and such seriously, how did Paul so easily become an exception -- one accepted for now two millenia? In the final analysis, nothing authorized/canonized his teachings beyond his personal revelations and the strength of his personally-projected authority (apparently grudgingly allowed by leaders in Jerusalem, given his clever maneuvers and the reality that it would have been hard to stop him anyway). Maybe subconsciously, most Evangelicals sense that the entire doctrinal system rests a lot, lot more on subjectivity than they want to admit, even to themselves.

John Frame's comment (above) is absolutely correct.

When the bible says that "Scripture... thoroughly equips the man of God for every good work", the phrase "thoroughly equip" means that all we need to know about Gospel, God and how to serve him is found in scripture. The Bible doesn't say anything about democracy, toothpaste or whether to use Windows, Mac or Linux.

To my mind, the application of this verse (2 Tim 3.16 but you all knew that) is that the Reformer's idea of "Sola Scriptura" was fundamentally correct, and will act as a restorative to the modern church.

Think of people like Joel Osteen, Pat Robertson and James Dobson. These three Christian leaders would argue vehemently that they believe the bible, yet the practice of their preaching and teaching indicates a desire to go above and beyond scripture. The fact that evangelicals today are viewed as "reliable Republicans" has more to do with a loss of Biblical understanding than with any adherence to Biblical beliefs.

Of course the inerrancy of scripture is vitally important, but then so is the sufficiency of scripture. One without the other has led to disastrous consequences for American Evangelicalism.

Moreland (A guy I respect a lot) is threading dangerous ground here.

Scripture should always have the final say in our lives since it is God's Word. It isn't so much as we are treating from our own world but much more like this sinful world does not understand us.

"You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood." (1 John 4:4-6)

Spend time with the One that saved you....know Him well...recognize His hands and voice....He hasn't changed..... deception is subtle, like a snake...

Can anyone successfully explain to me how the doctrine of sola scriptura is not based on the logical fallacy circulus in demonstrando ?

I must profess a certain level of amusement with these posts, since none appear to be from anyone who actually attended the conference, save the original article author. We are getting all fired up about someone's summary of Moreland's arguments, a summary which I assume is fairly accurate, but which is still just a summary. That being said, what we have in the summary is not Moreland's argument that Scripture is not valid or normative, but rather his argument that other sources of knowledge may be valid and (dare I say it) normative as well. Truth is not relative, but truth can be found in almost every major religious system or philosophy. Surely truth should be normative, wherever we find it. I am not saying that other religions/philosophies are wholly true, merely that truth can be found in them. But when it all comes down to it, truth must be founded upon the revelation of God, since He is the only one with authority to so declare truth. And Scripture is by far the most amazing and powerful revelation of God to humanity anywhere. But it is not the only source of revelation. And that seems to me Moreland's point, at least as the summary states it. Should we weigh everything against Scripture? Absolutely. How else would we weigh it? We have no other sure revelation. But our understanding of that revelation can be, and often is, elevated by our experiences, by some event which clarifies truth in a tangible way. Who was not moved by the depth of physical pain shown in Gibson's "Passion of the Christ"? Sure, some were moved to anger, and some were moved to indignation, but those depictions were moving. For all who believe that the Son of God really came, and really suffered at the hands of the Romans, and really died, that experiential movie became a powerful catalyst to love. Seeing what Jesus might have gone through pushed me toward greater devotion and love. Was Gibson's movie totally biblical? By his own admission, some of the dialogue and descriptions came from an ecstatic experience that a nun had in the 19th century. Does that make the depiction any less true, or moving? This is, as I understand the summary, what Moreland wants us to be available to. Sometimes God will subvert our rational processes and strike on an emotional level. It is often the only way we moderns will listen. And I, for one, say let us listen more. Anything that pushes the people of God closer to His heart, His real, true heart, is a good and desirable thing. Kudos to Moreland for his courage to push this envelope.

Fallacy, I assume you are referring to the idea that Scripture itself says it is to be the sole authority on spiritual knowledge about God's plan for humanity? As in the verse from 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Your presupposition that this is circulus in demonstrando might be true if such statements as the verse above were the only reason Christians accepted the Bible as the sole authority. But in fact, Christians have for centuries found that the Bible does indeed reflect our experience of God's work in our lives. We have come to accept Sola Scriptura not dogmatically but intuitively and experientially. Moreland's argument is in fact against people who accept Sola Scriptura dogmatically, and against those who arrive at personal conclusions about their experience and then cherry-pick Scripture to justify their policies and judgments -- even when the whole of Scripture, when considered alongside the panorama of 2000 years of history and tradition, does not bolster their personal views one whit. I do not accept the Bible as God's Word because the Bible itself says it is. I accept the Bible as God's Word because the Holy Spirit works in my life to prove that it is.

Fallacy, I assume you are referring to the idea that Scripture itself says it is to be the sole authority on spiritual knowledge about God's plan for humanity? As in the verse from 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Your presupposition that this is circulus in demonstrando might be true if such statements as the verse above were the only reason Christians accepted the Bible as the sole authority. But in fact, Christians have for centuries found that the Bible does indeed reflect our experience of God's work in our lives. We have come to accept Sola Scriptura not dogmatically but intuitively and experientially. Moreland's argument is in fact against people who accept Sola Scriptura dogmatically, and against those who arrive at personal conclusions about their experience and then cherry-pick Scripture to justify their policies and judgments -- even when the whole of Scripture, when considered alongside the panorama of 2000 years of history and tradition, does not bolster their personal views one whit. I do not accept the Bible as God's Word because the Bible itself says it is. I accept the Bible as God's Word because the Holy Spirit works in my life to prove that it is.

I noticed that an earlier comment of mine on the reliability of extra-Biblical knowledge elicited a question from Alain Maashe. He asks, "How does one [evaluate subjective personal experience] in practice without it being a matter of personal opinion (hence relativism)?" This isn't the place for me to reply at length to that question, except to say that Moreland lists several resources in his book "Kingdom Triangle". Dallas Willard deals with it some in "Hearing God" and William Alston also deals with it in the book "Perceiving God".

For those attending ETS, there is an interesting paper on the docket for tomorrow (Friday, Nov 16) entitled "Charismatic Experience as Religious Experience: an Evidential Approach" by philosopher Craig Thompson. I'm told it will deal with that very question. Nov. 16 from 2:10-2:50 in Esquire Room.

In another postcard from Jerusalem, Jesus Christ said to the Jewish authorities: "You study the Scriptures because you think that in them you will find eternal life. And these very Scriptures speak about me! ..." Not only were the Jews unwilling to come to Him to have life, they were more determined to kill Him (John 5: 18, 39-40). So much about Bibliolatry!

J.P. Moreland is right on target. The "reality" is, indeed, far greater than all "Scriptures" (the Bible included). Since no Scriptures whatsosever are eqiuvalent to eternal life, we will miss the prize if we make them stand on the way of their personification. It will be a humbling experience for Christians to know, for example, that the Holy Quran, just like the Holy Bible, contains in its pages the exact address of Jesus Christ as "God of the living" (Surah IV: 157-159),i.e., the cross -- which, I bet, few
Christians know about!

Be careful my friends----- you may just uncover 'truths' you will have to deal with. For what can one do when truth is revealed? One makes a choice to either follow or walk away from it. I in my search for 'truth' as a protestant I found that the ONLY way to the Father is through Jesus Christ--- not a new and novel idea but one that must become real to the individual.
I also found that God has revealed His truths by the holy scripture-- if one would but read in fullness of truth. The early church had that fullness of the truth and their worship was one instructed and handed to them by Christ Himself. Everyone should read John 6--- in its entirety.
Regardless of differing theology, doctrines, dogmas--- Christ gives Himself to us through the Eucharist. And thus as I uncovered church history, holy scripture, and the teachings of the early church--- mandated by Christ, I like so many have become catholic.
The joy that is mine now is unspeakable. The assurance of my salvation is now real.
And yes--- the catholic church is imbued with truth by scripture and the tradition of the early church--- that makes it profound, sensible, and livable.

I have reread the actual quotes attributed to Moreland in article and more importantly the discussions on his website and parts of his book "Kingdom Triangle". This gave me more perspective on the point he is trying to make. I might have gotten the wrong impression from the article above; I do not think that his point is about finding extra biblical normative truths that would be outside the validation process that scripture affords. Moreland emphasizes in the discussion portion of his website "the reality of the current form of the Kingdom along with the Kingdom’s association with healing, demonic deliverance, and interactive communication outside Scripture in guidance, words of knowledge and so forth, all under the authority of the Bible". I do not have a problem with the statement above as long as the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit remains the ultimate and sole arbiter of truth and error (this takes care of the issue of validation). I believe his argument needs to be evaluated in light of the current controversy in the SBC and the debate between continuationism and cessationism. The latter lacking clear biblical support. Of course, because of the excesses that can be routinely witnessed on TV, a lot of caution needs to be applied and Moreland seems to be well aware of that “this sort of ministry should always be combined with the other two legs (a commitment to the life of the mind, careful exegesis, good theology, a commitment to the day in and day out principles of discipleship and spiritual formation so the more overtly supernatural aspects of ministry do not become a quick fix to substitute for the daily acts of growth). That way things stay balanced.” My point earlier might then not apply to Moreland specifically but to those believe (and they are many in some Christian circles) who believe that normative spiritual truths can be obtained outside the validation of and even supersede Scripture.

Hey all,
Where is this kind of Church that we see operating in Scripture?

Acts 15:24
Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind,
Acts 15:28
'It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities,

This is clearly a church who believed in centralized and unified spiritual authority. It is also a church who believed in extra- biblical authority,yet not an authority seperate from scripture altogether. What gives? How is it that the Church we see operating in the Bible had this kind of authority to speak on behalf of God, ie, it is the decision of the holy Spirit...? Why would this kind of Church ever seise to exist? Indeed where is this kind of Church today? Incidently, this is the only kind of church eclesiology we see in the NT Church.

In Christ,
Pat

A very big Amen to JP Moreland's comments. It's about time someone had the courage to say something like that.

One of these comments mentioned the fact that probably none of these respondents, including myself, had attended this seminar, and in such a case I prefer to more fully examine the statements myself rather than basing opinions on a third party report. But just a couple of thoughts: When the early church was recognizing the New Testament canon, they agreed that all that is in the New Testament is inspired, not everything that is inspired is in the New Testament, that is, Scripture. The canon of Scripture gives us an anchor in the port of orthodoxy so to speak, and while other people and thoughts may be led by the Lord, they must be measured against that standard. Indeed we can learn from God's general revelation but if we have lost our anchor we are free to drift wherever the winds or tides take us.

Expect a full-response from biblicalthought.com to Moreland's “How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It.”

We have been warning against this for years now. Dr. Robert Morey's book, a refutation of Natural Theology, will be out soon, by God's grace, and God willing, will point Christians to Special Revelation as the origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty!

Sola Scriptura.

Tom,
You said:
"When the early church was recognizing the New Testament canon, they agreed that all that is in the New Testament is inspired,..."

I am sure you would believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding the recognition of the NT canon. So, did the Holy Spirit guide the early church to a fallible recognition or an infallible one?

Concerning the question about Sola Scriptura being circular, what higher authority would you accept as proof that the bible is from God? If such a higher authority can be found, we should bow to it, not the bible! See the problem?

I can't believe this!
Rev. Austin Miles

If you're presenting Moreland correctly, I think his title is ill chosen and that as a philosopher he has a thing or two to learn from Kuyper on the integration of faith and knowledge.

If ETS had wanted the job better done, they should have considered having Keith Mathison speak. He wrote "The Shape of Sola Scriptura" and to my way of thinking, does a much better job than what you describe while being more orthodox to boot!

David, great point. And, good to hear from you again! :)

For those who are not aware of "who" Moreland is directly referring to, it's us. We are neighbors, and several of his students attend our church. We believe in Sola Scriptura and make zealous effort to destroy the idea of Natural Theology, human autonomy, and ontological thinking, the very things that Moreland and his like-minded philosophers and apologists abstract from man and absolutize as the Origin of truth, morals etc.

We receive reports that Moreland strongly opposes our reformed theology, our view of humanistic philosophy, and our overall starting point for Christian apologetics: sanctify Christ the Messiah as Lord in your heart/mind, continually taking captive every thought in obedience to Christ!

We may be witnessing the early stages of a mass exodus of "Evangelicals" following the lead of Francis Beckwith. I pray that this is not the case, but if the Lord should choose to bless us with revival and reformation, it seems that a renewed love for His word would be a necessary element to that reformation. For this, we pray!

It is difficult to believe it has come to this! I formerly respected J.P. Moreland, but now, it is clear that he is coming out of the closet! Dean in his above comment stated that he "knows" J.P.'s heart. Many thought they knew Beckwith's heart. No one can know the heart except the Lord Himself. It is a shame with so many Christians following Moreland, that in the end we may see this rip current of the denial of Sola Scriptura leading many to apostasy as they follow a man instead of God (In the footsteps of Beckwith back to Rome). It angers me to hear the comments he makes about Christians being over committed to Scripture! Maybe that is just the reason Stephen was stoned! Maybe, just maybe, that is why the apostles and prophets were murdered, following the example of Messiah Himself! They made people angry! And this is what the Scripture does since the world hates God. Expect an answer from BiblicalThought.com and we must stand together as those overly committed to Scripture, mot letting ourselves be pressured to conform into the mold of this present world which is wasting away. The Lord sits on His throne! Psalm 2

There is validity in Moreland's talk but one question must be ask,

Are Christians to gain the respect of the non-believing people in academia or to please the Lord Jesus in their service and scholarship?

Consider the words of Paul,

21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God 1 Corinthians 1:21-24

Then again to Moreland, I am over committed to the Bible to quote the Bible and to follow the Bible!

How would Dr. Moreland distinguish his views from contemporary LDS scholarship? Bibliolatry is the cry against evangelicals in the LDS corridor.

Hmm, so okay I wasn't there either, but from what's written above it seems to me that the debate he intended to spark isn't the one reflected in these comments. And that may be partly because of some sloppy terminology in what he said (though let's not forget that this was said in a much larger context which may have clarified some of this).

Isn't the point not what we affirm in our creeds and confessions (I didn't get the impression that Moreland was suggesting anything other than Scriptural authority or even infallibility or inerrancy) but what we do in practice? It sounded to me like a tirade against the frankly feeble and naive biblical scholarship that has been done by evangelicals in the church and the academy for at least the last 100 years.

Surely no one truly wants to deny the validity of general revelation, nor common grace? So let's learn from whoever and whatever we can - wherever there is truth, let's seek it out.

Recently, I wrote a paper about John Lightfoot, one of the Westminster Divines and one of the first Christian scholars of the rabbinic literature. He was able to recognise that the Jews, though enemies of the gospel, were often the best interpreters of the bible. Plundering the Egyptians has a long and noble heritage.

A few weeks ago, a young man who was headed out on a missionary trip to India asked friends to, “…pray that the Holy Spirit prepare the hearts of those whom He is directing our ministry to, through dreams, visions, and other circumstances.”

That statement is very similar to what Moreland presented. Since the completion of the inspired Word of God when has the Holy Spirit been speaking through, “dreams, visions and other circumstances?”

If this teaching by Moreland is representative of where the ETS has been headed, it leaves little doubt why men like Norman Geisler resigned from the ETS.

LM

“And it has produced a mean-spiritedness among the over-committed that is a grotesque and often ignorant distortion of discipleship unto the Lord Jesus.”

Boy, did not Moreland nail it, as evidenced by some of the comments here.

If anyone wants to take a peak into the ugly world of Protestant meanness, just take a look at the blogs of the Pyromaniac, James White, and Robert Morey. What one finds in these blogs is intellectually shallow and emotionally childish. There's no sense of maturity or depth in these writings. Compare these men and their works to those of Dallas Willard, Peter Kreeft, C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, or N. T. Wright. One senses in these writers a multilayered example of Christian practice of classical orthodoxy, a depth and breath of knowledge and wisdom unsurpassed by the bloggers named above. Why is this? It is because there is a connection between spiritual maturity and clarity of mind. These bloggers seem prickly, defensive, uneasy, exhibiting a bluster borne of insecurity pretending to be confidence. The scholars I mentioned will have none of that. They exhibit a confidence borne of humility.

This is why Moreland matters.

Aquinas,

Karen Armstrong in her latest book, The Bible (2007) would be postured in a similar vein to what you think is "intellectually shallow and emotionally childish."

She would be "charitable" to all except the propositions made by the conservative evangelical like John Frame on this thread or biblical fundamentalists.

I hope to gather Dr. Morland's writings for some personal reflection. I do know that Christian humility is bowing one's heart to Christ's stance on Scripture.

thinking of heart issues . . .

Dr. Moreland is correct, and his detractors fail to see "extra-Biblical" revelation/knowledge as a spectrum. An archeolgist locating a city partially described in the Bible may perhaps be on one end of the spectrum, as this discovery is more complete than a simple mention of the city in a passage of Scripture. At the other end of the spectrum may exist the methodologies for dealing with sick people. To amplify this, is James' admonition to have elders pray for the sick more applicable to us than Jesus' example of never praying for the cisk, but simply healing them? Who then shall we follow if presented with a sick person. We are to imitate Christ, but heed Scripture - all of it. So the only conclusion at this end of the spectrum is to treat all instances of ministry to the sick as a unique opportunity to let the Holy Spirit guide and counsel us on how to engage in that ministry. Should we spit in mud and rub it on blind eyes like Jesus did, or call elders? I am engaging in exageration for the purpose of pointing out the difference between actually finding tangible evidence of something mentioned in Scripture (one end of the info spectrum) and trying to determine how to minister to someone, which can only be ascertained by reliance on the Holy Spirit, since Biblical revelation does not give us a singular model to follow.

I agree with Dr. Moreland's inerrant view of Scripture, but bibliolatry eliminates the need for the continued guidance and minstry of the Third Person of the Trinity in our daily lives.

Where should I go to evangelize today? Let me look that up in my Bible...

Sorry for the misspelled words above. Pre-coffee.

Is there room for the Holy Spirit in all this?

Todd:

You miss the point of my post, and offer up another example of what Moreland talked about. When pressed by a legitimate criticism, you ignore the criticism and say, "But this person acts like an adult and she's a heretic. So, I can't like an adult without tempting heresy." The same goes for other Evangelical false dilemmas: it's either sola scripture or nothing else; it's either God's will or mine; it's either God's grace or my works; it's either God's wisdom or man's wisdom.

Yesterday, John Piper gave a talk at ETS in which he said that rejecting the Reformed view of imputed grace diminishes God's glory. So, we have another dilemma: either imputation or you have a lesser God. His reasoning was an embarrassment. Of course, there are good defenses of imputed grace. But one must not have a very good case if one has to hold God's glory hostage in order to get people to believe in it. Does Piper actually believe that if the Bible had taught infusion of grace that would have been a good reason to reject its divine status, for in that case we could have thought of a better way for God to do it, imputation?

If this is "Evangelical theology," then good riddance.

There are a lot of false dilemmas being thrown around. This is not a case of: Scripture vs. Spirit. The two are completely interwoven in the life of the church. We are people of the Spirit and people of the Book.

The problem is also not one of receiving truth from sources other than the Bible. Most evangelicals have no problem with the idea that "all truth is God's truth." To suggest that there is some predominant evangelical opposition to "plundering the Egyptians" is simply inaccurate. If anything, we have tended to eagerly adopt extra-biblical insights with too little discernment.

To be fair, Moreland also doesn't seem to be attacking scriptural inerrancy or Sola Scriptura, at least not directly. But a problem that many of us have with Moreland's points, as reported by CT, is that he goes beyond an acknowledgment of extra-biblical truth to decrying that, in his words, "the Bible is taken to be the sole authority for faith and practice" [emphasis Moreland's]. Moreland seems to be proposing not merely extra-biblical insights, but extra-biblical insights that are authoritative for faith and practice. This is alarming. What authorities are we accepting other than Scripture? And in what way are they authoritative? These issues must be clarified. To promote extra-biblical authorities for faith and practice is at least potentially degrading to the authority of the Bible.

And, again, Moreland may have a good description of the symptoms, but he misdiagnoses the problem. If Moreland is correct that we are over-committed to Scripture, then the answer is less commitment to the Bible! Less commitment to the Word of God will lead to people being more Christ-like? Actually, even the phrasing is misleading. Most evangelicals are committed to the Bible only in the sense that they are committed to God, and the Bible is His Word to His people. A true commitment to drawing close to God through His Word and being led, instructed and molded by His Spirit through the use of His Word does not lead to being unloving, legalistic or spiritually immature. The problem is not how committed people are, but to what are they actually committed. A misuse of Scripture does not invalidate its uniquely authoritative role in the church. We need to be more committed to the Word of God and less committed to our own agendas.

Instead of devaluing a profound commitment to the Word of God and the unique authority of Scripture in our lives, we should address the real problem. If Moreland does not intend to challenge the unique authority of Scripture for faith and practice, then perhaps he should reconsider his inflammatory language. If he is intending to elevate other truth sources to authoritative roles alongside Scripture, then he has a lot of explaining to do.

Curt:

Everything you say is on the money. You seem to be saying that Scripture cannot be read in isolation of God's spirit, his church, etc. But that is not the typical American evangelical view. In fact, if a Christian were to say that the Spirit led him to do such and such because of his reading of God's word, the response would be: you're letting your subjective experience trump the word of God. Buried beneath this rebuttal is the demystified Christianity of the church that developed after the Enlightenment, a highly rationalistic version of the faith that sees the disembodied rational mind as the archetype of the holy Christian. In such a framework, saints are unlikely to find a place. So,what you get are moderately decent saintless people who can quote Scripture well. In other words, you get Grace Community.

TA

Wow, that is quite a condemnation on a church family, Aquinas.

I just know that the more I delve into the word of the Lord and desire to glorify the word of the Lord, the more I long to hit the streets with discussions centered directly upon the loving, living Word.

Good Riddance Thomas Aquinas! Very often in real time history, the Spirit of Grace reveals what Faith is truly about, which is understood from Scripture alone. People who are religious and unregenerate cannot handle the Truth of Scripture. Human Reason apart from Biblical Revelation never came to know God. Jesus said it best, "These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum. Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?"

But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?

"What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

"But there are some of you who do not believe " For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

I think Moreland is trying to say something to an academic audience in academic language, which can be said very simply:
How do we know how to do various things in Christian praxis?

(I won't even touch the issue of Christians in places where there are no Scriptures to read for 'guidance')

Communion once a week, once a month...
Ten worship songs or five...
Thirty minute prayer meetings or one hour...
Serving at the Rescue Mission or street witnessing at a carnival...

Who decides these examples? Obviously not Scripture. Men/Women in leadership usually do. How do they decide? Impressions? Denominational preferences? Gut feelings?

I think what Moreland wants to get across is that the core and essentials of all that we do and are is in the inerrant word. But we need a blending of the Holy Spirit's guidance in determining certain other things. Now granted, I'm not sure the Lord cares if we have communion once a week or once a month ... but people do ... that's why churches do it a certain way.

The more important issues of church praxis involve ministry to believers and to unbelievers. Isn't that why we are here? We aren't here to build megachurches or small groups of potato chip eating believers. We are to advance His kingdom.

Has the Holy Spirit ever prevented you from ministering in a certain place? He prevented Paul (Acts 16:6-10). Why, especially knowing that Jesus said to go into ALL the world and preach the Gospel to everyone. There was an interplay here between what Jesus commissioned and what the Holy Spirit allowed. How do you explain that apart from the extra-Biblical revelation that Paul received?

How do we know how to pray for people? James tells elders to use oil in anointing; Jesus said all believers would lay hands on the sick, without mentioning oil. So if there are sick folks in the church, what should the church leaders do or allow? Pray with oil, or allow church members to pray for each other?

Paul said that whenever we come together, EACH would have something to share (1 Cor. 14:26). Did he tell us how to implement that? Not that I'm aware of. As long as the ways its done are decently and in order, we have no real blueprint.

In short, we have the written inerrant word to guide us into the essentials and even some non-essentials; but we are amiss if we think that every circumstance we run into as "ministers/priests/members of the body" can look up a verse each time to tell us how to do something, where to do something, or even how.

Intimacy with God and studious knowledge of Scripture are both vital for the church to impact this world.

"SOLA Scriptura, not SOLO Scriptura." That is a distinction (as one commentor put it) Moreland is talking about ... and it seems many here have a hard time.

If Scripture were the only source of truth, then why does Scripture direct us to study the creation that we might better understand God, and even find enough sufficient evidence/testimony there that all mankind is without excuse not to know Him even if they should not have access to the Scriptures themselves?

And then (regarding "bibliolatry") what is the difference between the "Bible" and "Scripture". Have you noticed how many versions of the Bible we have, and how many (sometimes wildly) different interpretations of many a verse are preached from the many pulpits in the church(es)? Not to mention the differences between denominations, theologians, and ... Which one are you so lucky to have been placed in? I'm sure YOURS is Holy Spirit led and advised, and not anyone else's, right? Now, don't be "mean spirited" in your answer.

When I came to the Lord, it was after nearly a half-century of atheism and life as a scientist. After quite a few years, and having come to a strong profession (and belief) in "Biblical inerrancy", my experience and confidence in what I also knew and accepted as "scientific truth" caused me great difficulty in reconciling my beliefs with the first chapters of Genesis. Especially with those ardent and intolerant Young Earth Creationists. I prayed for years for direction. He gave it to me, blessing me with a serious crippling time of illmess and the leading to re-examine, and to re-translate the Scriptures with the knowledge and insight I had from my scientific background.

I used linguistics like a forensics tool, and science for advice in constructing my interpretations. The Genesis I came forth with was much different than any of the hundreds of versions and other languages, not to mention the traditional "allegorical" story of creation we all argue over. And I found little in today's science to disagree with, and that modern scioence is only converging more and more with the account that God gave us some 3500 years ago.

SOLO Scripture, I was lost! Sola Scripture, I am found!

Frank,

Your last sentence in your last comment: I would connect well with that. Thanks. A person can have large passages of O.T. Hebrew text and N.T. Greek text memorized and yet live like a jerk, unconnected to any kind of humble heart cry for daily Spirit illumination and empowerment.

Scripture centered ministry divorced from God centered ministry is a valley full of only dry bones.

I am curious because my evangelicals refuse to ask a simple question. Is truth deeper and simpler within scripture than we are making it? What if we have this wrong? I would challenge that we cannot continue to limit God to a book. Be it bible, book of discipline or anything else. To limit God to what is within the Bible and to limit the function and mission of the Church to what is in the bible creates an extremely simplistic epistemology. It says God can only do some things, some ways, some of the time. It says the church can only be lead some ways and hold certain liturgical traditions.
If we are true biblical literalists and I submit it is impossible given the radical diversity in the cosmologies, epistemologies and let alone the varying gnosis expounded within the book. We all took historical theology. We all know how diverse the theology of Genesis alone is.....Right.....
We need to continually challenge the bible literalists to come out from their wall an actually engage with postmodern theology. The liberal church is wrestling with issues of how to change from being protest focused to mission focused. This means as evangelicals this is an opportunity to be Christ....actually maybe more like Jacob meeting Essau after his experience at the river Jabbok. Can we... I don't know. I know this we don't want to be in the position the Catholic Church found itself after Vatican II, 600 years behind the discussion.

Where did we ever get the idea that the phrase "word of God" in the Bible every refers to written scripture? I have investigated the Bible fairly carefully regarding this, and "word" or "word of God" always appear to refer to the verbal proclamation of the Gospel, or simply the Gospel message itself. And of course, Jesus himself is called the Word of God in John and Revalation.
And of course the Bible didn't even exist when the writers of the Bible were using the phrases "word" or "word of God", so how could it possibly refer to the Bible?
I believe we should have a Biblical view of the Bible, nothing more or less. To elevate the Bible to a greater status has the effect of objectifying Christianity to the extent of gutting it of its power, which is Christ in us through the Holy Spirit. Christianity is Christ, and will exist and conquer through anyone who is in Christ, with or without the Bible.

The attack on the word of God began in the Garden and continues today. I'd rather remain incurably over-committed. I also possess the wit to discern among the word of God, what it says about itself and the Lord it so powerfully reveals.
bbrown

The issue relates primarily to the question of authority--or Authority in this instance. Much of what was debated in the Reformation turned on this point. If Luther thought the papists were antichrist, it would seem now that JP would like to suggest that bibliolaters are antichrist. And probably, in context, both are correct--at a different level of course. Evangelicals at least don't suggest that the Bible is alter Christi. Or, do they? It is true, as a colleague once suggested to me, that the default position of Evangelicals is theonomic. And the greatest problem with that, in our present context (in the West at least) is that such a position grants us absolutely no voice in the public square. And it also creates these odd situations where we must assume that all experience of God (or truth) is viewed with skepticism until we have validated it convincingly by chapter and verse. Imagine how it would be if God had to wait for our consensus before He did something He has never done before--say to send His Son to return to earth (as promised). If we all had to agree on how to "validate" it before He could inaugurate the kingdom, He would never come!
Since JP and I are friends and since I know he would never say or imply some of the things attributed to him in this string I know that he is not questioning inerrancy. He is, however, questioning whether anyone is in possession of an inerrant interpretation. At least in that respect he is parting company with FB and his return to the Roman magisterium (and I know that's probably a cheap shot). But he is also parting company with those in our ranks who fail to see or honestly explore the "hand" of God in all His works. And anyone who has had the misfortune to be involved in a church dominated by the village idiot--however devout--knows that JP speaks the truth when he calls it "mean spirited" and "grotesque."

Perhaps what Dr. Moreland is sensing is that the oft-touted but seldom-defined doctrine of Sola Scriptura is false and divisive.

I fear that his solution may be problematic, and may cause more division rather than unity. A solution is very much worth searching for, and perhaps discussion and historical research will help avoid some of the pitfalls.

So we as Christians believe we are indwelt by a loving God, our Father, who for some reason doesn't want to talk to us personally, only through our study of the Bible. And we expect nonbelievers to understand that. That's weird. In our quest to eliminate error we've shut our ears to hear the voice of our loving Father as He attempts to speak to us. Did God arrange all of this so that He could finally have an intimate relationship with the man he created in His image, or was it so that we could pass a Bible quiz when we get to heaven?

"At least in that respect he is parting company with FB and his return to the Roman magisterium (and I know that's probably a cheap shot)."

Not probably. It is.

At the risk of sounding defensive, why are folks like Dan incapable of using non-inflammatory language in communicating my return to the Catholic Church? By using phrases like "Roman magisterium" it seems that people like Dan do not have a full-orbed understanding what it means to be Catholic. This is what means to me: I have, by the grace of God, been placed in an historically-grounded tradition that is in conversation with eternity. I have not substituted my reason for the capricious stipulations of an authoritarian priestcraft. I have entered a community in which faith seeks understanding, in which faith and reason, like God and man, flesh and spirit, works and faith, cooperate with each other for the glory of God. They are not opponents warring for supremacy, but integral aspects of the order and nature of things. The authority that one finds in the church on doctrinal matters is ancient, and thus is in fact dependent on Scripture and the church and councils that have had the privilege to preserve its integrity since its infancy. For this reason, the "Roman magisterium," as Den puts it, has far less power to tinker with doctrine than the typical megachurch pastor. For example, at ETS last week I heard that a well-known Evangelical theologian did not embrace the Chalcedonian formulation of the incarnation. This was seen as not such a big deal, for, after all, the theologian is a strong proponent of inerrancy and can embrace the Trinity (the two aspects of the ETS doctrinal statement). I have no quibble with this person being a member of an academic society like ETS. But my point is that if one is interested in preserving Christian orthodoxy for present and future generations, inerrancy is not enough.

JP is a dear friend for whom I have great respect. People would do well to listen to his case with a charitable spirit.

Brian:

Thanks for raising this important point. It's not biblical to refer to the Bible as "The Word of God" (as if the two were identical). To see this, simply search your concordance for the phrase "word of God" or "the word" and replace each occurrence with "bible" and see how many passages still make sense (not many). The Word of God is something deeper and bigger than the printed page; those who seek to limit it may miss it.

With so little understanding and thus little reliance upon the Holy Spirit among Evangelicals, it would be more honest to admit that the Evangelical doctrine of the Trinity consists of the Father, Son and Holy Bible.

How could we ever be over-committed to Scripture? Jesus was committed to His Word. He trusted it absolutely and acted on it. Should we not do the same instead of being afraid of it?

http://joekontinen.blogspot.com/

I am just a stay-at-home mom, so what do I know? But how do we know that these "dreams and visions" are from the Holy Spirit, or are from that really spicy bowl of chili we ate last night? (I had a dream last week that my fammly had a Dr. Dolittle-type two-headed llama. What was the Holy Spirit trying to tell me?) From my understanding of Scripture, if we accept that God is speaking words to us, we should just put our Bibles in a 3-ring binder and start adding pages as we go. Maybe if the church hadn't completely accepted existentialist philosophy, we wouldn't be debating this. Our Christian experience has now become the most important thing. We base our decisions on if it "feels" right.

In light of this article, wouldn't Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians be more balanced with their emphasis on both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition?

The so-called Protestant churches in America have done more to discredit the advancement of the teachings of Jesus than have their atheistic opponents. Is it not evident from human history that the greatest threats to a movement are not necessarily those that are external? More likely than not, threats to the church are internal dangers; faithlessness, disobedience, hypocracy, distortion of the known truth, quarreling and bickering among believers and an abandonment of love. Too many Christian leaders follow the lead of their secular counterparts in which the "personality" of the leader is the centerpiece of the church, not the message and not the Source of the message. Why should we be so surprised at the failure of the churches in their mission. The most serious charge against the church today is that the "church" is difficult to distinguish from the "world." The specific criteria set forth by Jesus for loving one another has been discarded in favor of the individualistic desire for personal power and recognition. When Christians are persecuted today, it is more likely that the persecutor is another Christian and not an unbeliever.

It is one thing to uphold the Bible as having come from God and therefore being authoritative in itself. The problem arises because there are so many different interpretations of the words of the Bible, all offered by people who claim to have a better interpretation based on their knowledge of Greek or because the interpretation was endorsed by a person who was both smart and good. To say the Bible is authoritative does nothing to settle three, four or ten different interpretations.

For example, not too long ago there was a discussion on CT concerning John McCain having been baptized as an infant in an Episcopal church but now attending a Baptist church without having been baptized again. The commenters could not agree on whether or not infant baptism was valid, or even whether baptism is necessary for salvation. What good does it do to say "The Bible has the answer" when no one can agree on what the Bible actually says? The Bible might as well never have been translated into English since we have no agreement as to what it means. Are all the conflicting interpretations supposed to be equally valid? Or one of them? Or perhaps none? When this might be an issue affecting one's salvation, don't we need some way to authoritatively determine the truth, rather than make it a contest of credentials, or lengthy theological reasoning?

When the Jerusalem Council was held (as described in Acts 15), there was no New Testament and certainly no Book of Acts for the apostles to refer to. The Old Testament was to a certain extent being overturned, so it could not be relied on. In fact, the argument of the Judaizers for making all Gentiles into Jews before becoming saints relied on the only Bible they had at the time, which went from Genesis to Malachi.

Peter instead relied on the vision he had received that sent him to baptize Cornelius, and the other apostles affirmed this, based on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There was no citation to a written scripture. Rather, the voice of the Spirit to Peter, John and James became scripture as it was recorded by Luke and, years later, accepted as scripture by the early saints. But even before the ruling was scripture, it was a letter from the apostles to the Gentile saints, a letter that had greater authority than any Judaizer's interpretation of the Bible.

Where is the ability within Christianity today to authoritatively answer a burning question that is not unambiguously answered in scripture, to give an answer that might even appear to be contrary to scripture? Where is a Peter for today?

Let me respond to Perry Patterson's question as best I can, not being Orthodox, but a Methodist who has studied Orthodoxy for some time. The Orthodox do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura, but rather to Sacred Tradition. This does not, however, (as some evangelicals think) lower the standing of Scripture. Sacred Tradition means that Scripture is the paramount source, but Scripture is always being interpreted by human beings. You therefore have two options: (1) to claim Sola Scriptura, but in fact try to hide or deny your human interpretation (this is what evangelicalism does, and thus all the confusion reflected in the many responses to this article, and to the general confusion of evangelical theology), or (2) admit that there is interpretation, so submit this interpretation to a long-runing corporate project with checks and balances (the Orthodox tradition). Sacred Tradition imposes guidelines upon interpretation, the foremost of being the Nicene Creed. Within this corporate project there is incredible freedom and creativity, but those who start to stray from the Nicene mainstream get called to accounting. What do straying evangelicals do? Start a new denomination! Many evangelicals have discovered this and bypassed Catholicism to get back to the original Church.

A "word" is a wonderful thing. It is a God-given ability to express something from deep within. It is the manifestation of the essence of one's being. It is like the light going outward from a star. It perfectly expresses the nature of the star. It can be measured, studied, enjoyed, experienced, and understood to a great degree, by anyone looking up at it. The star itself is too distant to be seen by even the most powerful of our tools, but it's light...it's very essence going forth...makes itself known. So it is with God's Word. We need to embrace what He has shown of Himself to us, and rejoice with the others who have "looked up" also, and know Him as He has shown Himself ......the bible is true.....let's not be found fighting over it when He comes for us.

Dr. Moreland and Dr. Beckwith,

Could you slip over here at my blog for a minute, sometime? I just posted this.

http://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/bibliolatry-discussion-noma-and-poma-part-2/

Would these labels by McGrath be appropriate for the discussion?

NOMA and POMA

I do think God uses inerrant scripture as a sufficient magisteria for God's people, despite the mess in evangelical mega churches.

One of my great 'aha' moments in my study of scripture was when I was first learning where we Christians differ most with Islam. They use the phrase "Word of God" of the Koran. We use it of the Bible". However they are not in that context using it as we do. For them the option is not between the Bible as the word of God or Scripture but the Koran as the word of God instead of Jesus. We make the disasterous mistake of thinking that they view the Koran to be for them what the divinely inspired bible is for us. That changed my whole understanding of Islam. it also changed my own sloppy language about the word of God and what is the ultimate source of God's revelation of himself and his purposes for his people. Is not this sloppy use of religious language about scripture a large part of the confusion that has led this scholar to challenge us evangelicals to think things through afresh?

J.P. Moreland would rather that we wander into the realm of mysticism and experience rather than taking Scripture as the source of our doctrine and practice? And where are these so-called miracles today? I was a Pentecostal/charismatic for 10 years and was a member of the Society of Pentecostal Studies for 2 years. Frankly, I believe the charismatic/pentecostal movement is heretical and is a form of gnosticism/mysticism. I have seen fakes, anecdotal accounts of miracles, and witnessed the words of knowledge, glossolalia, etc. I have also at one time practiced all these things and I am now convinced that these practices are not what was experienced supernaturally in time of the New Testament church. What we see today is merely manipulation and trickery.

What should alarm all Evangelicals is the lessened emphasis on the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation and the outright attacks made on the very Gospel itself by charismatics and pentecostals. J.P. Moreland should become Catholic if he thinks the Bible isn't the final word in matters of doctrine and practice. In fact, his argument isn't new. It's a Roman Catholic argument.

In Christ,

Charlie

“In the actual practices of the Evangelical community in North America, there is an over-commitment to Scripture in a way that is false, irrational, and harmful to the cause of Christ,” he said. “And it has produced a mean-spiritedness among the over-committed that is a grotesque and often ignorant distortion of discipleship unto the Lord Jesus.”

Amen. All you have to read is theologyonline.com to see the venom coming out of Christianity.

One other question: How does one insist on belief in both the Trinity (as formulated in the creeds of the Catholic Church) AND the sole authority of the Bible in doctrine? The doctrine that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of one substance, without body, parts, or passions is an extrabiblical doctrine, yet it is asserted as just as authoritative as the Bible itself. The Son, Jesus Christ, has a body of flesh that is felt by the apostles and which eats food with them. The Son suffered the agony of atoning for the sins of mankind. If the Son is part of an undifferentiated Trinity, is not the Trinity required to encompass the attributes of the Son, namely a resurrected body and passions? Or is the sum less than the parts? At the least, the full concept of the Trinity is not in the Bible, and arguably contradicts the Bible. Why isn't that part of the Trinitarian creeds that is extrabiblical rejected for that reason? If it is not, then the Bible is NOT the sole authority it is claimed to be. The internal logical contradictions of trinitarian doctrine create a contradiction with the essential doctrine of the sole authority of the Bible. That seems to give two good reasons for questioning the authority of the creeds that offer a non-Biblical Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The creedal Trinity was a concept created by a Catholic Church, not by the apostles. Do Christians who embrace the creedal Trinity say that the Catholic concept of creating new authoritative statements of God's Word was valid for several centuries, but is not now? Could it be that the schizophrenic approach to the Trinitarian Creeds is creating a tension in the doctrine underlying the Protestant Reformation that is pushing Evangelicals into the Catholic fold?

I think it's taken a few centuries for tensions to lessen enough for folks to start looking dispassionately at passages that command Christians to obey a teaching authority outside of the Bible (and outside of themselves), such as Matthew 18:15ff.

The problem is not Bibliolatry, but rather fundamentalism that wet forth rules for interpreting Scripture based upon a desired objective in society. You can talk all you want to about various themes of interpretation, but the bottom line of Moreland's approach has already been demonstrated in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, and is precisely the reason for so many erratic doctrines floating around in our culture and leading people away from the true meaning of Scripture. Over the years, Evangelicals have been afraid to proclaim and seek the fullness of the Holy Spirit. That doctrine, which is plainly taught throughout the Book of Acts, and by Jesus Himself is the only cure for what is ailing the "church," both from the lack of power in the "Church" and the right understanding of Scripture.

My paper was read at an academic conference for an audience of professors. Thus, precision was a premium. It was not intended for a lay audience because lay folk have a tendency---and this is not meant to be harsh—of running with ideas beyond the context in which they were originally given. A professorial friend of mine preached at a church I used to attend and argued that, while he was totally against condom distribution in the public schools, nevertheless, a widely used argument by Evangelicals was a bad argument, and he showed why. After the service, I personally heard several parishioners criticize him for promoting condom distribution in the schools!

While I am sure it was well intended, the CT editor’s summary of my paper is generally fair (though the use of “bibliolatry” in the title is a bit sensationalistic—I used it once in my paper and clarified it’s meaning by the over-commitment claim), but it is still a summary, and as such, did not and could not provide the needed context for understanding my paper. What followed was a large number (but by no means all) of misleading, irrelevant and tangential comments that had little and, often, nothing to do with my paper.

In the paper, I make clear that no one could be over-committed to the Bible (the inerrant Word of God) in loving, promoting and seeking to obey it. By over-commitment, I mean specifically that too many Evangelicals do not believe we can have extra-biblical knowledge or justified beliefs about God, morality, and other important, related matters: e.g., the existence of God and some of his attributes; the nature of the moral law and some of the absolutes that constitute it; the nature of the human soul and its functional relationships to the brain, parenting, defense mechanisms, childhood development, etc.; the reality of demons and important information about how they work in a specific culture along with important and effective ways to deal with them; and God’s guidance and speaking though impressions, circumstances, prophetic words, words of knowledge and wisdom, dreams, and so forth. In all these cases, information that is contrary to scripture is to be rejected, but extra-biblical truth and the knowledge thereof is very, very important.

We are harming people terribly, we are embarrassing the cause of Christ, and we are failing to help people appropriate and wisely use these sources of information when we are over-committed to the Bible in and only in the precise sense I define in the paper. It is time for us to mature as a community in this way and overcome the secularist socialization that lead to our over-commitment, a position that I claim in the paper cannot be justified biblically or theologically. Does anyone seriously think that non-Christians who have never seen a Bible have no knowledge of God or the moral law? That folk in Brazil have no knowledge of how demons work even though they have never seen a Bible? That God never speaks to people and guides them in ways that carry an appropriate degree of authority in their lives (under scripture and to the degree they are justified in believing it was God who was guiding them)? Are there abuses in all these areas? Of course, but that was not part of my talk which was, after all, a mere 40 minutes including Q & A!! Besides, the proper response to abuse is not Ostrich-like denial of the reality of these areas of knowledge, but rather, wise and mature usage. Am I becoming a Catholic? I am a Protestant Evangelical of the Third Wave sort, and I have no inclination whatever to change my views on that. Finally, my paper should not be faulted for not addressing things for which I had no time or which I was simply not addressing. Nor should people fault me for a lack of clarity or charge me with “having plenty of explaining to do” when my paper is, in fact, quite clear within the limited scope of my intentions. And please do not attribute to me views or implication that I do not hold or draw.

I am posting a version of my paper on the webcite for my book: www.kingdomtriangle.com. I would also recommend reading my book Kingdom Triangle (Zondervan; just released about 6 months ago) for additional discussion and bibliography about how to avoid abuses in employing the sorts of extra-biblical knowledge I mention in the paper.

Cheers,

JP Moreland

How can one believe in the Person, work and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and then maintain that the Bible is the only valid source of knowledge of God???? What a dry, mechanical, sterile, stifled, SPIRITLESS existence we would have if Scripture were the only way to know God!! Evangelicals often forget that God, our Creator is infinitely CREATIVE and is not limited to what was penned in the Bible! Ephesians 1:17 "I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit[f] of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints . . " Now let's see . . "The Spirit of wisdom and REVELATION, so that you may know Him better" . . What could be more clear????

If the "new testament" is all about: ["I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. None of them will have to teach his fellow-countryman to know the LORD, because all will know me, from the least to the greatest. I will forgive their sins and I will no longer remember their wrongs. I the LORD, have spoken." JEREMIAH 31: 33-34], is there any doubt that 'bibliolatry' is a common and accepted practice of long standing among so-called evangelical christians? God help us!

Dr. Moreland,

Why you are so right! How dare those single-minded evangelicals hold to the Bible as the sole source for authority. Come on now, we need to be more tolerant. We need to be more open minded!

We all can seek God in our own way, can't we?

Whose to say that those narrow minded Christians are right after all?

Look at all the wonderful doctrines we can find in the apocraphatic writings. Wow, we could even go so far as to unite everyone who calls themselves christian, and be a great political and social force!

You know, we can even try and seek God through crystals and tarot cards. This sure would expand our "camp" now. Wouldn't it?

Let's just get together and give ourselves one big hug!!

What an absolutely grand idea!

2 Timothy 3:1-7
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: FROM SUCH TURN AWAY.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

To John Calvin Hall.

Yours is the only posting that betrays a preset bias. You quote scripture ... What about Jesus' remark to the Pharisees: You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me ...

A third and final note: "bibliolatry" is the most subtle and difficult form of idolatry in which all the repect is outwardly given to the means ("Scriptures") and nothing to the end ("God's power"), in other words, a complete loss! (Matt. 22:23-33).
As such, bibliolatry is rampant mainly among Jews and
Christians who fail to differentiate between, on the one hand, prophets and apostles, respectively; and, on the other hand, the LORD Jesus Himself, i.e., "the resurrection and the life" (or "the God of the living"). How tragic that many Christians today are not aware that it is actually possible to know Jesus Christ personally and firsthand and believe in Him firmly (Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:34; Mic. 4:2; John 5: 39-40; 8:24).Two millenia after the all-in-one Advent, it is an indisputable fact that nothing much is happening even among Christians to recognize fully Jesus Christ for who He is! What we hear instead is an inversion of the order between "means" and "end" through claims that the Holy Bible (consisting of at least 66 books) is wholly, literally and equally inspired. The net effect is the division of the glory of Jesus Christ between prophets, apostles and even a growing number of present-day so-called "ministers" of the Word leaving practically little or nothing to the sole owner, i.e., Jesus Christ. Isn't the claim of inspiration, as it stands, the making of 66+ "tents" far worse than the mere desire to make just 3 by Peter (Matt.17: 1-8)? For our prosperity, peace, justice,and strength we had all better 1) search the way to know Jesus Christ as He is; and 2) learn from Him alone all that needs to be done. AMEN!

I'm speaking as the common man (or woman) here. I think it's impossible to hold the Bible in too high of a regard. However, I don't think that means it should be the 4th member of the Trinity. At a church I previously attended, the regularly sang a hymn to the Bible, "Holy Bible, Word Divine, Thou hast taught me, Thou art mine," or something to that effect. It hit me as being almost blasphemous.

To Colin Thomlinson,

Though I am a Fundamental Independent Baptist, there are times when I don't mind quoting from my protestant friends.

"Sola Scriptura"

Yes, I admit to having presuppositions. The difference lies between me and others is the fact the I admit having them. Anyone that claims to NOT have presuppositions is either lying, or is woefully self-deceived.

When I stand before my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I will be required to give an account for what I teach. I don't think I would want to have anything other than His Word tucked under my arm at that moment. Would I?

Dr. Moreland:

Thank you for making your paper available. This helped clarify your points and showed the nuances of your argument. There are a few details with which I might quibble, but let me focus on the bigger issues.

You describe a certain leader as 'painting with a broad bush.' I find this ironic, since in many ways you have done the same thing. I believe there will be a vast number of evangelicals who will agree with many of your concerns, but not with the scope and severity of your conclusions. Regarding some of your observations, you're preaching to the choir and our churches are not greatly struggling with these issues. Just how ubiquitous is this biblical over-commitment? One example you give is the refusal of the Biblical Counseling movement to consider extra-biblical input. But what of the myriad books filling our bookstores that draw directly from psychology and non-biblical sources? What you are decrying in this case is arguably in the minority of American evangelicalism. This is a real problem but is it truly characteristic of evangelicalism in general?

Your thoughts on the spiritual realm are intriguing, but you don't give adequate consideration of the very real differences between archaeology and demonology. Yes, they are both real, and, yes, the Bible does not give us exhaustive knowledge of either. But we simply do not have the same access and ability to study the spiritual realm as we do the physical. You dismiss the desire of Priest et al. for "careful scrutiny" of such insights as simply a rejection. I assume that your inference is based on some actual indication of such rejection on their part. But, setting aside any a priori rejection, would not careful scrutiny be the prudent and appropriate response to claimed extra-biblical knowledge of the spiritual realm? (And, btw, how is a teaching that is authoritative for faith and practice not doctrine?)

Your inclusion of different forms of revelation brings much of this discussion into focus. Yes, many within the church dismiss such revelation out of hand. However, others readily accept any claimed revelation without proper evaluation, often resulting in ludicrous circumstances. You don't acknowledge this other danger, which is also very common. The example you give of the elders returning from a retreat would be accepted by many, once again calling into question how universal this problem is. When faced with revelation many would not treat it with contempt, but would weigh carefully what is being offered as revelation---and they would do so because of a commitment to Scripture.

I question whether the problems you describe are as pervasive as you indicate. I also would question the terminology of "over-commitment to Scripture." Perhaps this is merely a question of semantics, but this charge, while admittedly provocative, will be unnecessarily inflammatory to many.

Respectfully,
Curt Parton

"But when he, the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth." Which came at Pentacost, the Spirit or the Bible?

Truth is only partly propositional and objective. It is also relational and subjective. A purely written, propositional truth is by definition removed from our experience. That is not what the Bible teaches. The ongoing revelation of the Holy Spirit does not consist of additional propositional truths, but it involves the manifestation and fulfillment of the many promises of the New Testament, such as receiving a "spirit of sonship" and "peace that surpasses all understanding". A purely objective, text-based "faith" is only belief and has no way to accomodate actual, divine manifestations of Christ in us. Such an existential way of life doesn't dimish the role of the Bible, just the opposite, it upholds the promises in the Bible of a personal, involved God that walks with us supernaturally on a daily basis, as opposed to an intellectually satisfying, but dead, belief system. This is part of the offense of the Gospel, "foolishness to the Greeks."

Moreland is right. Bilbliolatry has become the bastion of concrete-thinking evangelicals just as on the other extreme, Saintology has been the bastion of many magic-dependent Roman Catholics. The arguments of these men who deny bibliolatry make it plain to see they are deaf, dumb and blind to the power and infinite revelation of the Holy Spirit . . probably because they are not reborn of the Spirit and are not indwelt by Him!! Why would the Holy Spirit come in and stay awhile, if a person says, "the Bible is the only way to know God"?? Pastors like this are the reason so many churches and congregations are completely devoid of any spirited joy and are LIFELESS in their services/masses. They ought to be excommunicated . . but then, that's the "beauty" of having no official church governing body nor church laws in the evangelical church--there is no official tribunal that can cut off and throw out the dead branches who depend more on the book than on The Vine!

Danielle, even someone like me as a Christian fundamentalist pastor, would wholeheartedly embrace the direct testifying of the Holy Spirit to the human heart as mentioned in Romans. This is most precious. Wow. No man will rob me of this.

But the Holy Spirit does directly explosively speak through the word (Psalm 95, Hebrews 3 - what I looked at this past Sunday morning with my church family). And I want to know to what extent of sufficiency do evangelicals believe are the Holy Spirit's words in Scripture.

Amera, thanks for the link.

Pastor Todd, Does the Bible ever indicate that the words of scripture are "sufficient"? What would that even mean? Let's let the Bible speak for itself on this, instead of referring to "traditions of men", even if the man is Luther himself.

I agree that the Bible can speak powerfully, but only becaue it witnesses of the One who has all power, power that God thankfully condescends to put to work in us, right now if we are willing.

The revelation of Jesus, his adtions and life, is reflected in the Bible. Written words on a printed page need to have the Spirit to give them life. Also, what is in the bible was decided by a conference of church members, and the original language was not King James English but Greek and Hebrew. The Bible in short is not God, but is used by God who 'speaks' to us in many ways including in the silence of our being. Good thought provoking article.

Dr. Morey has said for many years that Beckwith was headed home to Rome...looks as if he was correct! He knew this not because of dreams, visions or "words of knowledge" but because of Beckwith's Foolosophy as compared to the Word of God. Despite Moreland's response to this blog, he seems to be headed to Rome as well...may God grant repentance...2 Tim. 2:25 as only He can.(that's from the Bible)...:>

Someone a while back (can't remember the blogger name) posted some thoughts on Orthodoxy. They seemed fairly right. Everything is a function of Tradition. The Church is what is authoritative because it is Christ's body following the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Moreland's critiques seemed generally right, I just think that the proof is in the pudding of the charismatic movement. There is no norm. If they were all led by the same Spirit, then how come so many messages?

For those of the Morey camp: You rely on a naive view of language and interpretation. Also a naive view of church history. If one makes a text authoritative, then relativism will necessarily ensue over time. This is because concepts and language very from culture to culture and across time, as due rules of interpretation. What has to be authoritative is a specific interpretation of the text in order to avoid relativism. What's really needed for that to happen is for the context in which the scriptures were written to be preserved over the ages, which is the case within the Orthodox Church. Knowledge of God is passed down from Spiritual father to spiritual child without break from the apostles down to us, with a continuity of worship through the liturical and sacramental life of the church.

As far as Church History goes: you think that the canon of Scripture just magically appeared finished for you. This is not so. Nor does Scripture conclusively and exhaustively self-testify. Nor can we deduce what is Scripture and what is not by looking at Scripture. That sort of evidence just doesn't exist. Nor can we simply look at who wrote the various books considering there are multiple books in the New Testament of which the authors are extremely uncertain. (Hebrews, 2 and 3 John anybody?) Although the Church used some of these sorts of criterion in figuring out which books were and which were not canonical, primarily what it came down to was which books were recognized by all Christians as inspired. The canon was a function of tradition, tradition was not based merely on the canon. The canon was agreed upon based on recognition of certain books being consistent with the rule of faith handed down by the apostles and experienced in the life of the Church.

For all those decrying mysticism: How do you think God primarily spoke to his people? The answer is through prophets and special appointed men who had direct experience of God. Some of this is preserved in the Scriptures so that we may have a written record, but the written word is not the primary way God has ever interacted with His people. Why think that this has stopped? It hasn't. There are plenty of modern day saints that have tremendous gifts of healings, clairvoiance, etc. Google St. John of San Francisco for an example.

Finally, I do agree with the Morey for the most part about my scepticism of natural theology. Revelation takes presidence over all and it is only by revelation that we can come to any understandin of reality whatsoever. However, Morey doesn't understand the revelation. The Bible contains various words of God, but Jesus Christ is the Word of God.

Mark Krause,

The visible Church founded by Christ set the canon, not what was recognized by "all" Christians as inspired... that would leave you with a very, very thin Bible as anyone claiming to be Christian could claim a certain book was hooey (and many have).

I will agree with you about the need for an authoritative interpretation. A lot of Evangelicals could grasp this issue better if they humbly used the words "my interpretation of" when they talked about "the Bible". The Bible isn't the one with thousands of conflicting and competing assertions. That comes in with the reader.

J.P. Moreland,

If you ever want to become Catholic, we'd be glad to have you. ;)

Over-committed to the Truth? Sounds like nonsense to me!

Mark Krause, you said "which is the case within the Orthodox Church. Knowledge of God is passed down from Spiritual father to spiritual child without break from the apostles down to us"

Having been charged by you of having a "naive view of church history," my comments may not be well received. However, it appears that either you overlooked or were never made aware of the irrefutable fact that the EO church was severely Hellenized at Alexandria. The church became paganized by bringing into the church the teachings of Plato and other Greel philosophers. Humanism displaced the Bible and enthroned man's reason, feelings, experience, and faith. The opinions of these pagan philosophers soon displaced the Bible and eventually contradicted it. This historical reality is confirmed by every standard reference work, Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike. The oridins of the teachings and rituals of EO are to be found in Athens, not Jerusalem.

See Constantine Cavarnos, Orthodoxy and Philosophy (Mass: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 2003)

See Blackwell's Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (pg. 384-386, 358, 482)

See A Dictionary of Greek Orthodoxy by Nicon Patrinacos (pg. 371)

See Orthodox Apologetic Theology, I.M. Andreyev (pg.52,53)

More, much more footnotes available upon request.

It is beyond refutation that Eastern Orthodox theology was molded and shaped by contemporary pagan doctrines and rituals. This is why the Orthodox pries, Patrick Reardon, in The History of Orthodox Christianity, begins the history with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (399 B.C.). Orthodox Christians took Greek philosophica; concepts and used them to build the theological and philosophical world view of Eastern Orthodox.

By adopting Platonism and Eastern mysticism, Orthodoxy clearly violated 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1. But once the Bible is displaced with pagan philosophy, there remains no objective standard to which EO can be measured. If I was EO, RC, or a Rationalist NT, I would opt for displacing Scripture as well.

For those who missed the absolutely hilarious satire "The Valley of Follosophy" that Dr. Morey wrote, the conclusion has just been posted at biblicalthought.com - The Reformation has begun!

P.S. Moreland, you said "we are embarrassing the cause of Christ." Can you define what the cause of Christ is by Reason alone? Revealed Theology says that when man abstracts an aspect of man (reason, feelings, faith, experience)and absolutizes it as the standard measure of all things, he will not be able to ever reach an accurate understanding of something like "the cause of Christ." It must be revealed to us in Scripture, the origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty. Your thoughts?

I only came here because a dear Bro in Christ mentioned this issue at hand. With all the theology flying around here, But no souls being