The former article engendered a lively discussion in which yr obdt svt took part. After a couple of dismissive comments, I added the following which, to prevent it being completely buried, I share with you (slightly edited):
The presumption of many folks like Longman (here) and his defenders is that we can shave off some select unpopular Biblical teachings here, without a negative impact on other equally-unpopular Biblical teachings there.Much as I agree with myself, my favorite comment still is the first, from a commenter named pduggie:
A secondary presumption is that any reading that today's flock of intelligentsia do not consider sufficiently "sophisticated" or "nuanced" should eo ipso be left at the roadside.
Unfortunately for both of those assumptions, there is a steady core of us Evangelicals who do remember history that stretches back more than ten years, and thus remember how the exact same line of argument in the late 1800s led to the apostasy and liberalism that vitiated the professing church through the 1900s, no matter how loudly and forcefully we are urged that "this time, it's different!"
We also remember that some of the first defectors maintained some core Christian beliefs that they liked, without the other equally-Biblical beliefs that they didn't — for awhile. But then their disciples applied their own premises more considerably, with an inevitable jettisoning of more and more core belief, until the core was pretty much gone.
So we decline the invitation to hop on the latest float in the parade, knowing (remembering!) that the ephemeral roses which make floats so pretty today won’t smell so sweet tomorrow.
Yep, I have a sin nature because of something some guy did in a story.UPDATE: Oh, dear. I should have predicted this. Don't miss the "Doubt as heroic" meme in the first meta linked, above.
Posts
