From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Fri Jul 18 2003 - 13:30:39 EDT
In my experience people became Christians because:
1. They were taught that way from childhood.
or
2. They were seeking.
I do not personally know of a single convert who was 'convinced' or
converted by any type of intellectualism. There are many seekers who have
rejected Christianity because of the reasons cited on this list. My point
is - I recommend not wasting breath on those who are not wanting a change.
Pray for them that they may become hungry. Let them know where you stand.
But any energy expended on the non-seeker should be done on one's knees.
And, this, by the way, is one of the positive outcomes of tragedy. When
people experience helplessness - they frequently seek help.
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of richard@biblewheel.com
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 11:48 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Clarification -- Re: Dawkins dissembles?
Re post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0364.html:
The question "how did things end up this way?" really touches my soul.
Here are a few root reasons for the schism between Church and Academy as I
see it:
1) Anti-intellectualism. This can arise from a number of causes:
a) Inappropriately opposing Faith and Reason as contradictory, rather than
complimentory, modes of cognition.
b) Deemphasising passages like Matthew 22.37 (Love the Lord with all your
MIND ...)
c) Intellectual laziness (extremely common vice!)
d) Overemphasising passages like Proverbs 3.5 (Lean not on your own
understanding ...)
e) The deliberate dumbing down of the sheep and appeal to their
anti-intellectual bias by wicked shepherds so they can fleece the flock.
This is by far the gravest danger to the church. It is painfully obvious
that the "get rich quick by giving me all your money" scheme of the
prosperity teachers would be utterly ineffective if the intellectual
integrity of the congegration were properly encouraged and nurished.
2) The Nature of Scholasticism. The schism between Church and Academy is
largely an historical anomoly. Christians were the primary movers and
shakers in scholastic endeavours, founding universities, propogating
literacy and science. But the nature of the scholastic quest made it
naturally vulnerable to an athiest conquest, especially in light of the
simultaneous rise of anti-intellectualism in the Church and materialism in
the Academy (19th century). Various aspects of the scholastic quest
naturally cause a tension with the Gospel, such as:
a) Knowledge puffeth up.
b) From the beginning, Knowledge, Pride, and Sin have been entangled (Gen
3).
c) Mockery, the Devil's Tool. The one thing scholars can not abide is
mockery, since their only currency is their reputation amongst other
scholars. Of course, we all know (from this very listserver!) that mockery
slips from the lips of man like vapours from a sewer. Athiests have used
this tool of the Devil to intimidate Christians for centuries now. It is
their most effective tool in their efforts to silence Chirstian scholars who
simply refuse to risk their reputation.
So now the question is - how do we heal the breach? I for one am not
interested in appeasing atheistic materialistic scholarship that denies a
priori the reality of God and the supernatural. Unfortunately, nearly the
entire academy of biblical scholars, in their efforts to mimic skeptical,
atheistic, materialistic and naturalistic methodologies, seems to have sold
its birthright for a bowl of sop that won't even fill the belly. And this
leads me to question what are the heumeneutical methods we should use in the
study of the Holy Bible? Here are a few questions:
1) The Grammatical/Historical Method: While this is obviously a necessary
and important way to study Scripture, it has one major shortcoming. It fails
to address what God, the ultimate Author, intended in His Word! E.g. the G/H
method can not move beyond the "young woman" of Isaiah 7.14, and can not not
see (i.e. is BLIND) to the crucifixion of Christ in Psalm 22.
2) The Documentary Hypothesis (JEPD): How many on this list believe this?
I have heard that it has failed. Is this valid?
3) Form Criticism/Higher Criticism/etc.: Can these methodologies, which
address only the *natural* history of the Bible, be sufficient for a
Christian scholar's study of Scripture?
4) Traditionally, the Church, following the text itself, has used
extensive typology in the study of the Bible. Do *serious* scholars still
engage in this form of exegesis? If not, why not? Is it invalid? If so, why
is it used by God in Scripture? Or have the skeptics won this battle and
forced the Christians off the field (with the threat of Mockery)?
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jul 18 2003 - 13:27:05 EDT