Is anyone here equated with the work of Hector Avalos, who argues that the Bible is completely irrelevant to modern life, and that biblical studies, should change it’s focus to removing the Bible from human life?
Are there any good responses to his work?
From what I’ve read, Avalos, seems like a fundamentalist, who believes anything which isn’t pragmatic to helping humanity should be rejected. I honestly find that even if the Bible isn’t relevant as a moral guide, it can still be studied as a work of literature.
But even so, I find the Bible is relevant based on the fact that it gives us a transcendent value for human life, something missing in the modern world.
I´m not that well versed in biblical studies as you are. But I know that Craig has debated him once.
It should be clear that Avalos has an axe to grind. But do you have any thesis of his in mind that requires answer, besides the assertion that you have quoted? Because this, it seems to me, can safely just be dismissed as the statement of, as you rightly say, an angry fundamentalist, no better than threatening someone with hell for not following my position.
I also want to mention that around 18 months ago I read a review of of one of Avalos´ works (I think “The End of Biblical Studies”) by an agnostic scholar who accuses him of following an agenda. I really tried to find it again for you, but I couldn´t and the search results mainly come up with fundamentalist Christians and Atheists and endorsements by Robert Price. Ugh!
It all depends on how you read the Bible. The way a lot of people read it, you might as well move it into the science fiction, fantasy, or comic book sections of the library. It certainly doesn’t hack it in either the science or history sections.
It unique in that it is written by many authors over a considerable span of time, with some stories likely told in oral traditions before that. And there are many types of literature with a variety of purposes and messages.
It is because the church age is over. Doctrine, theology, all teaching is over.
It is time for only preaching repentance and turning from sin. There is no more time, and thus no more need. Now if 7 billion souls were brought to Christ, because the church repented and confessed their sins, that would be a necessity . If all would humble themselves, pray and seek God’s face, God says He will hear from Heaven, forgive the whole earth, and heal it spiritually. Revival is needed now, not much of anything else.
Preaching repentance and faith is always in need, but so is doctrine and theology. Consider some of the terms you used:
What is repentance?
What is sin?
What is the church?
Who is God and what is God like?
Where do we find reliable knowledge about God?
What is revival and how does it happen?
How one answers those questions is influenced by one’s understanding of doctrine. In seeking to answer those questions one is doing theology because all of those terms are theological ‘short hand’.
Your post is sopping wet full of doctrine and theology.
For example, your post presumes a futurist understanding of revelation.
In the historicist view all that prophecy stuff is in the past, and in the preterist view all but the second coming of Christ is in the past. Thus neither of these will agree with your idea that the church age is over.
Yes, but most people know all that, at least those raised in religion, which is also most athiest. Some athiest know more about it than the average person going to church.
How many people and who accepted the message of John the Baptist the first time Christ lived on the earth? It was not received by the religion of the day, even if it was doctrine and theology.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
16 All Scripture is a inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for [b]training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
If you and I were to walk through my town here in the UK you would find droves of people who couldn’t answer those questions. Neither could the local Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus? Crumbs, walk into many of the churches and you find Christians who would struggle to articulate a biblical answer to those questions.
“He who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
Just because you preach, doesn’t mean you understand, and serving God as you understand Him doesn’t necessarily give you entry into the kingdom of God.
I think many who were not raised in religion know better than those who were. Too often the latter simply assume they know what these things mean while the former (like myself) have to dig rather deep in order to find any meaning in such things.
But then just because people have answers to those questions doesn’t mean they have the same answers, let alone that their answers make any sense.
True. But what will the substance of those conversations? Theology.
My point really is this: people are not saved by their theological precision, but to share the gospel is to share a doctrine and to talk about the bible/Christianity with someone is to engage in a theological discussion.
No where is this seen more sharply than in conversations with Muslims about Jesus. Both Christian and Muslims have different theological conceptions concerning Jesus which are underpinned by our different doctrinal statements about God (among other things). For a Muslim to grasp what the gospel means for them, one is going to have to do some formal/informal teaching on basic Christian doctrine and theology - even if those words never enter the conversation.
Friend, perhaps I have misunderstood you, however, it appears you are suffering from something called confirmation bias. In science and statistics, confirmation bias is when a person brings a prior conclusion to a body of evidence and then seeks to make the evidence fit their theory, rather than adjusting the theory to fit the evidence. You could say it is the ‘thinking’ equivalent of trying to force a square peg through a round hole.
That’s what it appears you are doing here. It looks to me like you have decided that all theology (whatever you think that is) is bad or at best an unnecessary hindrance to evangelism. Having come to that conclusion it appears you are trying to make my arguments fit your theory, even though I am arguing for the exact opposite.
Ok, that said, think about this for a moment. Theology is a contraction of two Greek words: ‘Theos’ meaning God and ‘logos’ meaning word or, in this case, ‘speech’. So we could say that Theology is God speech, speech about God, or, my personal favourite, God-talk. Granted it is a gross oversimplification, but for our purposes Theology is God-talk.
Which means any time you or anyone else talks, or even thinks, about God or anything causally connected to him, they are are doing God-talk, they are doing theology. When you share the gospel, you are doing God-talk, you are sharing something that is theological at its very beating heart.
So do you see the problem with the line of reasoning you’ve been taking in this thread? Am I making sense?
It is the end. No one accepts that even if they understand.
I am not talking about people agreeing or putting aside their differences. I mean this is the end.
I was agreeing with the OP, but not with the same reason specifically. The prophecy of a great falling away, would be more in line with the OP.
Not, me. It is the end, period. Yes a lot of the church seems to have lost a lot of it’s apologetics. Even the death of Ravi Zacharias shows that all things come to an end. Nor is it just generational changes. The church was not going to be around forever. In fact it had 2000 years. The OT Hebrews only had about 1400.
No, really it is the end. Yes, talking about the end of doctrine and theology could be construed as theology. Except, I am not writing new doctrine and theology. It is just the end, and repentance and preparing for the end is just being wise, like the 5 wise virgins who were prepared. The unwise virgins were not prepared. Telling others about the Gospel was the original command left to those who just watched Jesus leave.
Now that is the only thing to do. Be prepared and if you know any one, pass along the same message. If the Holy Spirit tells you to do something else, then do that. If a spirit just says this is foolishness. It more than likely means you really need to repent and be prepared. Why would God tell you not to be prepared?
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
