We also need to look at the argument that @Wookin_Panub is trying to make.
That is If we believe in Jesus we need to believe in the Bible and if we believe in the Bible we need to believe in Gen 1 or YEC. This means that we need to understand the entire Bible the same way, which is manifestly false.
There is nothing in the Bible that says it is more important than Jesus or God. Yes, we do not know how God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit produced our salvation through its many aspects over the ages, BUT I think that we can say that God is the God of Truth. The word of God reflects the Truth, rather than creates that Truth.
God gave us the Truth of Genesis 1- 11, which we can see is not scientific truth. We need to see how it reflects God’s spiritual truth, rather than try to make it fit it into some human ideology.
What point? I assumed that the first half of my statement was clear: "Wookin Panub may be going on too narrowly…
In other words, I admit that he may be drawing a dichotomy that is partly false for its sheer narrowness.
So, of course he is presenting an extreme shorthand version of the argument that to depart from a claimed fundamental position of x is a departure from x. And, his claim is that a particular position with regard to the Bible is the fundamental position thereon.
But, is he denying that it is possible to interpret the Bible in such a way as to support a complex set of reasons to reject that particular position? He may be trying too narrowly to show how something that he finds self-evident is self-evident. But it is not clear to me that he is putting the Bible above Christ. On the contrary, he seems to be trying to make the case to you that the Bible is not a side issue, but a central issue of our present epistemology of Christ. You even are using the Bible (what it says about Christ as our foundation) to support a case that seems to him to be that of denying that the Bible has any central role.
“which we can see is not scientific truth” That’s a claim that is wide open for legitimate dispute. And, the fact that you think there are no legitimate concerns to the contrary of that claim is a fact that is inconsistent with your standard of Christian welcome on Bible interpretation. We both know that for an individual to be a genuine Christian does not depend on that individual’s assenting to a particular set of interpretations of the Bible, whether YEC, OEC, or EC. I even recognize the Christian genuineness of many who are ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’, despite that I vehemently oppose the main JW distinctives.
I’ve seen things of that description from pro-YEC churches my whole life (since age seven). And I’ve recognized it as such since age 11. But what I have seen there was not about YEC at all, but simply about taking the verbatim of the Bible as some kind of Complete Idiot’s Guide to What and How God Wants Us to Think. Wookin Panub may be slightly on that side of ‘the Bible’ issue in this thread. But I would argue that there are two opposite logical extremes toward which to go in terms of a pro-Bible outlook.
Wookin Panub is not denying the real faith of those who have no Bible in their own language. He is expressing a basic concern for how we present the Bible as a legitimate source of epistemic justification for that faith. It is one thing to inform such people groups of the debates within Bible-based Christianity, and another thing to expect those groups not to independently check out one’s own claims and arguments regarding which side in those debates is right. The Bible’s verbatim ought not be translated in accord with any one side on those debates. Yet we all normally have convictions as to how to present that verbatim.
Wookin Panub has been expressing due concern for the verbatim. Perhaps a little too narrowly, but nevertheless with good reason.
It is clear to me and we have been dialoguing with him for some time now.
Really the question is not whether we think the Bible is central or not, but what the Bible says that it is foundational or not. Or whether the Bible died for our sins.
@Daniel_Pech Why are you saying you speak for @Wookin_Panub when he can speak for himself and not for yourself?
My goodness, that is simply wrong. John 1:1 does not teach of the eternality of scripture, it teaches of the eternality of Christ.
I have a high regard for scripture. I am likely in an extreme minority here in affirming the inerrancy of scripture as described in the Chicago Statement. I believe that the authority of the church is derived from scripture, not the other way around. Even so, I find it unfathomable that a Christian would argue for the notion that the foundation of the Christian faith is something other than Christ, even if that something else is the bible.
I presume you mean the prior eternality of. I agree wholeheartedly. The Scripture is a record of God’s relation to Fallen humankind, and this, by bulk of Scripture, of human response by way of making and preserving that record. This is how Andy Stanley presents the story of Jesus to what he recognizes as a largely **mis**churched (and otherwise misled) audience. Stanley does not go with some para-pompous ‘Bible says’ this and "God says’ that. He simply shares the facts from his gut (like Paul did: according the outlook of the given audience), and then substantiates that sharing only after he has related the facts in ‘real time’ as it were.
Yep. This is really why I keep coming back here to these Biologos forums. They know how to get things in the right order in that regard. I cannot agree with the Evo-Christian distinctives. But I have grown up in ‘Bible’ churches that teach from the Bible as if the Bible is a fitting replacement for God-given universal normal sense. So it does seem to me, too, that Wookin Panud is making an erroneous conflation.
Wookin Panub has not been making any replies yet, and I am happy to try to speak for both for him and against him. Unless he comments here, soon, saying that I misunderstand the issue and therefore that I misunderstand him, then I shall continue to presume to speak on his behalf both in my support of his aim and my detraction of some of his efforts to that end.
I think you are OK in that it seems to be your musing about how best to understand his statements, and given the fact that there is a little piling on at times, feel you can be given some latitude here. However, in general we like to allow everyone to speak for themselves to avoid misunderstandings and making (ahem) presuppositions as to their meaning and intent, as I am sure you agree.
Ok. Thank you. I now shall have ended my presuming to speak for Wookin Panub. If he does not reply himself upon something, I shall generally avoid doing anything that even can look like I am trying to speak on his behalf.
It’s a strange fact of the way history and culture works that two positions may be diametrically opposed within a given cultural context and yet both be very much a product of the culture that gave rise to them.
In other words, yes, modern American Calvinist thought (all Calvinist thought, in fact… and most non-Calvinist thought as well, why not admit it’s universal) is absolutely very much a product of the culture in which it finds itself.
Go somewhere like where @Christy works, or where @Chris_Falter used to work, and you may begin to realize how much the way you think about your faith and about Scripture is actually shaped by your culture and not just a prophetic Biblical voice against your culture.