The Emergent Apostate: A Paradigm for Deceptive Unbelief

As I continue to provide an apologetic for the traditional Christian belief about Scripture as over against, let’s call him Ted to respect his request not to be called by name, my detractor, I want to be clear that if the reader thinks we are going to provide the sort of argument Ted thinks he needs to change his mind, then he or she will be sorely disappointed. I told Ted at the beginning of our discourse over at Cannon Fodder that our basic disagreement was at the level of worldview. Specifically, my belief about the nature of Scripture and Ted’s belief about the nature of Scripture are radically contradictory. Ted has repeatedly argued that Scripture is not the Word of God, that it is not authoritative, that it is not binding, and that it is not inerrant. Ted argues that a person’s view on the nature of Scripture cannot rise above the level of opinion. It is all a matter of interpretation and since it is a matter of interpretation, there can be no final word on the subject. Now, it is not my purpose to write a defense of Scripture. I provided a previous post to that end. It is my intent to criticize Ted’s line of reasoning, his method of argumentation if you will.

First of all, we are gong to work with the definition of knowledge as justified true belief. We say that a person possesses knowledge when they hold a belief x, that they have good reason for believing x, and that x happens to be the case. Notice that if Ted is correct in his understanding of interpretation, he cannot know anything at all. The best he can do is form an opinion. Opinions, at least in this context, are not authoritative. Hence, God does not have these sorts of opinions. In order for Ted to refute traditional Christianity, he will have to do better than give us his opinion. Second, Ted wishes to make claims about whether or not other people possess knowledge. For instance, he says that I cannot know God’s position on Luke’s belief that Adam was a historical person. To what does Ted appeal in order to substantiate his claim? After all, if everything is a matter of opinion and interpretation, so too is this view. And if this statement by Ted is nothing more than Ted’s opinion based on his own fallible interpretation, then why should I bother to pay any attention to what he says? Does Ted possess knowledge that all human opinions are just human opinions and that none of them ever rise to the level of knowledge? Would not such a position require omniscience? I suspect Ted would deny that he makes this claim even though this is the logical end of his argument.

Now, Ted believes that the Scriptures are not the Word of God. Ted’s belief is based on his claim that Bible never claims to be the Word of God. Is it the case that the Bible is not the Word of God? Does Ted demonstrate justified true belief?

The key to Ted’s claim to knowledge is in the second proposition: “Ted’s belief that the Bible is not the Word of God” is based on his view that the Bible does not make this literal claim about itself. Is this a good reason for Ted’s belief? Does the Bible have to say that it is the Word of God in order for me to believe that it is the Word of God? I do not know how such a proposition can be defended. Does Ted have to claim to be a man in order for someone to believe he is a man? Does my wife have to claim to be my wife before I believe that she is my wife? Does a dog have to claim that it is a dog in order for me to believe it is a dog? Are there other reasons that would justify my belief that the Bible is the Word of God? I think I have given those reasons. The Bible communicates with presumed final authority. The authors of Scripture refer to other parts of Scripture as the Word of God and binding. Jesus’ own position lends itself to this view. Ancient Judaism and historic Christianity have both held this view of Scripture. The history of the Bible itself demonstrates that at the very least, the Jewish and Christian authors, and leaders throughout the centuries testify to this belief. But more than that, the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit on Christian beliefs lead us to conclude that the holy Scripture is the Word of God, binding, authoritative, inspired by God, and inerrant. Christianity as a system affirms the Bible is the Word of God. Christianity also affirms that only the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit can open human understanding to know this truth. Finally, Christianity affirms the belief that the Bible is the Word of God is a faith position.

The conclusion is that Ted’s reason for rejecting the belief that the Bible is the Word of God is simply not plausible. It follows then that Ted’s reason for his belief is not a good reason. Since knowledge requires good reason for the belief, we can conclude that Ted cannot possible know that the Bible is not the word of God because his knowledge claim involves insufficient reasons. What we end up with is that Ted believes that the Bible is not the X. But his reason for believing that the Bible is not X is logically implausible. Additionally, it is actually not the case that the Bible is not X. Hence, Ted’s claim to knowledge in this case turns out to be a logically indefensible argument. I should also mention that Ted’s claim that I nor anyone else can know that the Bible is the Word of God is even more of a epistemological and logical blunder than his claim that it is not the Word of God. The reasons are obvious and I will not get into them here. How could Ted know what someone else knows?

The Nature of God

Ted also argues against the traditional view of God’s righteous nature. Ted claims that the actions of OT Israel, where children were killed are immoral. The Christian God, Ted claims, is a loving God and He would never participate in such conduct. First of all, Ted provides no argument for how he knows this about the Christian God. Remember the requirements for true knowledge. Ted must believe that God is X; he must have good reasons for believing that God is X; and X must actually be the case. But when pressed about his claims, Ted provides no objective reasons whatsoever. All he gives us are his own opinions about what God is like. The basis of Ted’s opinions is not objectively grounded in knowledge about God but rather, Ted’s feelings or sense of what God must be like. Ted may want to quote the New Testament in order to support his view. But if he does, he will have to explain to us why his fallible interpretation should be preferred over two millennia of Church history and scholarship. Secondly, Ted will have to explain why he thinks Scripture is unreliable in other places but reliable when it comes to this or that isolated text that describes God as loving. An example of God’s wrath is displayed in Acts 5 when Ananias and Sapphira were both executed by God for lying. Here we have two people who sold their property and gave half of it to the Church. Couldn’t God have overlooked a little vanity? After all, to give half is more than generous. Yet, God killed both of them. Ted may retort that this story should be taken as myth. But Luke gives us no reason to think that the story is anything but actual history.  We are not entitled to relegate historical narrative to myth just because we don’t like how the narrative depicts God.

Ted says that it is immoral for God to send a 16 year-old boy to hell just because the boy sinned for 3-4 years. Now, this is an example straight out of Rob Bell. This is emergent nonsense. By thinking along such lines, Ted reveals a gross misunderstanding of God’s righteous nature as well as the nature of sin. Sin is behavior contrary to the perfect holy nature of an infinite God. Temporal punishment would never satisfy the nature of an infinitely righteous God. Additionally, Revelation 21:8 confines all men who were guilty of rejecting God in this life to eternal damnation and this is without respect to their age.

The Nature of Man

Ted has also denied that men are born sinners. Paul explicitly refutes this view in Romans 5:12-21. Ted’s view of sin does not comport with Paul’s teaching on Sin or on Jesus teaching on the necessity to be born again. David clearly said he was formed in sin in his mother’s womb. Men are not good people that make pretty bad mistakes from time to time. We are wicked people who engage in grossly wicked conduct from birth. But for grace, no man would ever submit his life to the holy God of Scripture. Ted denies that men hate God yet when the God revealed in Scripture is described to Ted; it is not hard to see how Ted feels about Him. He is an immoral monster unworthy of worship.

The Nature of Language

Another interesting move by Ted in his effort to eradicate historic Christian orthodoxy is his attempt to assign the biblical texts to that of the products of men, natural works with no supernatural components. Moreover, Ted claims that the OT historical narrative is really best understood as myth rather than Jewish men like Moses writing under the influence and control of the Holy Spirit to produce exactly what God wanted written. Why does Ted believe this? He claims that since all the other ANE narratives contain myth, so too must the Jewish religious texts. Once again, we have to ask if this argument is logically cohesive. Upon examination we discover that it is not. It commits the genetic fallacy, and that, in a very loose way. It is simply wrong to think that because writers from this era utilized myth as a literary device, that the Hebrew writers like Moses must have used it as well. Why should we believe this? Remember true knowledge is defined as follows: one believes X; one has good reasons for believing X, and X happens to be the case. Does Ted have good reasons for thinking that the Hebrew writers wrote just like every other ANE writer? What is the connection? Why is Scripture classified with those documents when it is clearly unique? Moreover, is all the material from the ANE mythic in nature? Are there details that are intended to be literal historical records? The problem for Ted is that he does not like the behavior of God on the one hand, the miracles on the other, and then, Ted’s idol of modern science that serves as his sole authority for what he will and will not believe. As it turns out, the argument that the OT is filled with myth or legend is based on an overly loose view of how ANE writers approached history on the one hand and, more importantly, it completely ignores the unique character of the sacred Scripture on the other hand.

For example, when we compare the Genesis creation account with the Enuma Elish, we observe a number of very significant differences. First, the Babylonians gods are identified with nature while the God of Genesis is separate from all of creation. The gods of Babylon depend on magical incantations while the God of Genesis is viewed as powerful within Himself. The God of Genesis is one while the Babylonian gods are many. The creation account in Genesis is orderly and structured while the Babylonian account takes place through intense conflict and warfare. These are just a few significant differences. In addition, the Enuma Elish was written somewhere around the 18^th to the 12^th century while Moses wrote Genesis around the 15^th century. Given the context of Moses’ life, it is simply a position of rank unbelief to think that he would have borrowed from such a pagan polytheistic source.

In summary

Ted’s doctrine on Scripture is based on his own indefensible claim that the Bible must claim to be the Word of God. Now, I believe the Scriptures actually do make that claim and they make it clearly. But for the sake of argument we shall be satisfied with debunking Ted’s method of argumentation.

Ted’s doctrine of God is based on his own philosophy as opposed to God’s own divine self-disclosure. He thinks he picks Christ over the God of the OT when all he has done is make the revelation for both completely unreliable, at least within his system.

Ted’s claim that men are not born sinners and that they do not hate God is a matter of outright contradiction to the teaching of Scripture on the subject. 1 Corinthians 1-2, Romans 1-3, 8 are all clear about this. Finally, Ted’s philosophy of language literally leads to skepticism. Based on Ted’s own view of true knowledge, no one could really know anything with any authority whatsoever. And if they could, then Ted’s entire argument reduces to nonsense. Ted’s entire approach is consistent with that of the emergent Church. They stand for nothing, or so they think, and question everything.

Ted’s position on the nature of Scripture, God, humanity, and language are each non-Christian positions. Ted’s argument is an argument from unbelief. Whatever Jesus Ted claims to love, it is not the Jesus who was brutally crucified today, 2,000 years ago to satisfy the wrath of a righteous God so that we might have life and have it more abundantly.

פסח מאושר

ἠγέρθη
ἠγέρθη αληθεια