Evangelical fear of Biblical scholarship

[Urloony]

Urloony,

To the OP...

I am an EV. I have no particular fear of Bible scholarship.

What sort of things seem to make Evangelicals fearful?

If so, what are they?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

My OP stems primarily from EV responses on another forum that seldom delves into discussing or considering Biblical scholarship. In recent weeks a number of issues were presented regarding the origins of Elohim and early preexilic Hebrew beliefs, many of which support our position of faith regarding the Godhead. I found the points presented by the LDS scholar quite fascinating. The reaction from members there was to engage in ad hominem rather than the evidence. While that type of behavior on that board is par for the course, I've begun to think this may be the issue among EV's beyond the confines of CARM. Many EV's are very quick to point out that there is significant archaeological evidence that supports the Bible that causes the BoM to pale in comparison. However, when presented with scholarly points of view that may challenge their faith, the reaction is usually... "Stone him!" Mudcat, I personally hold you a cut above the rest, I hope you don't find that patronizing.

[prisonchaplain]

OK, I read through about 10 of these. My comments on the topic itself:

1. There remains a segment of evangelicalism that is anti-intellectual. This is a remnant of the fundamentalist/modernist conflicts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. From the fundamentalist/evangelical perspective theological acadamia was overrun by anti-supernaturalist liberal intellectual that had more faith in human wisdom and politics than in Almighty God.

2. The vast majority of evangelical critique remains stuck on the same research used 20 years ago. There is little recognition of the vast improvement in LDS theological and apologetic achievements in acadamia in these past two decades. A few evangelical scholars have picked up on the developments, but most who attempt to evangelize LDS have not.

3. Religious forums on the internet can be very non-democratic, and probably are poor indications of the temperment of a religious movement as a whole.

[e=mc2]

OK, I read through about 10 of these. My comments on the topic itself:

1. There remains a segment of evangelicalism that is anti-intellectual. This is a remnant of the fundamentalist/modernist conflicts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. From the fundamentalist/evangelical perspective theological acadamia was overrun by anti-supernaturalist liberal intellectual that had more faith in human wisdom and politics than in Almighty God.

2. The vast majority of evangelical critique remains stuck on the same research used 20 years ago. There is little recognition of the vast improvement in LDS theological and apologetic achievements in acadamia in these past two decades. A few evangelical scholars have picked up on the developments, but most who attempt to evangelize LDS have not.

3. Religious forums on the internet can be very non-democratic, and probably are poor indications of the temperment of a religious movement as a whole.

Heh..... your post makes perfectly good sense. Thanks for this.

[Bill Hamblin]

Some interesting evaluation by Evangelical scholar Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (1994).

[Zakuska]

Urloony,

To the OP...

I am an EV. I have no particular fear of Bible scholarship.

What sort of things seem to make Evangelicals fearful?

If so, what are they?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

If I were EV... Bible inerrancy would give me heart burn. Ive seen the doctrine argued that every Jot and tittle would not even so much as be drawn inncorrectly, to the point of not even being able to be disernable as innearrancy in any distinguisable form.

[Zakuska]

It doesn't take a scholar to know if what the scholar says is true to the Bible or not. If a mormon "scholar" quotes another scholar that seems to support mormonism, it is either quoted out of context, or the other scholar is not Christian, regardless of what said scholar claims to be.

It is that simple mak. God said there are no other gods. That should be the premis for all your scholarly studies. If you based your studies off of that, you wouldn't be headed where you are to try to prove mormon doctrine on gazillions of gods exist.

A classic response for Maklelans most excellent post over at CARM.

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v...4&showall=1

Perfect example of Evangelical Fear of Scholarship.

[Mudcat]

My OP stems primarily from EV responses on another forum that seldom delves into discussing or considering Biblical scholarship. In recent weeks a number of issues were presented regarding the origins of Elohim and early preexilic Hebrew beliefs, many of which support our position of faith regarding the Godhead. I found the points presented by the LDS scholar quite fascinating. The reaction from members there was to engage in ad hominem rather than the evidence.

Hi Urloony,

I make no pretense to speak on behalf of the board in question. Though I have participated there as a very occasional poster. I do not doubt that such ad hominems occurred, instead of a discussion on Biblical scholarship. Especially if such discussion were to point towards possible consistencies with the view offered by CoJCoLDS. Given one of the "Stickies" that is pinned there. That forum exists to evangelize LDS, not give a platform for topics that would give any merit to an LDS position.

While that type of behavior on that board is par for the course, I've begun to think this may be the issue among EV's beyond the confines of CARM.

I think there are certain EV's who are leery of anything that could be perceived as a Biblical criticism. Some may feel it disengenders Sola Scriptura, and I think this reaction is generally one that is out of unawareness, not intent.

In the SBC church I am a member of, I don't think its a big deal. The pastor has even mentioned some from the pulpit, when pertinent.

Many EV's are very quick to point out that there is significant archaeological evidence that supports the Bible that causes the BoM to pale in comparison. However, when presented with scholarly points of view that may challenge their faith, the reaction is usually... "Stone him!" Mudcat, I personally hold you a cut above the rest, I hope you don't find that patronizing.

No I don't think you are patronizing and thanks for the kind words.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Ron Beron]

Some interesting evaluation by Evangelical scholar Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (1994).

For which he was roundly criticized by the EV world. They eat their own.

[Ron Beron]

A classic response for Maklelans most excellent post over at CARM.

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v...4&showall=1

Perfect example of Evangelical Fear of Scholarship.

Wow! I usually don't even give the time of day to these websites, but the amount of ignorant arrogance they showed towards Mak's posts is beyond understanding. Run, don't walk towards the nearest exit and let them stew in their own codswallop.

[JLFuller]

In the SBC church I am a member of, I don't think its a big deal. The pastor has even mentioned some from the pulpit, when pertinent.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

A rare and wise man. Let the subject matter lead us where it will as long as it complete and the truth - not just someone's version of the truth.

[JLFuller]

Wow! I usually don't even give the time of day to these websites, but the amount of ignorant arrogance they showed towards Mak's posts is beyond understanding. Run, don't walk towards the nearest exit and let them stew in their own codswallop.

Have you ever visited any traditional Christian site where the orthodoxy was allowed to be challenged? I am a member of a Catholic site where they do not shut counter versions down, however they allow some vitriolic anti-Mormon codswallop. Such vehemence is very unproductive and the Spirit is not there.

[Sargon]

A classic response for Maklelans most excellent post over at CARM.

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v...4&showall=1

Perfect example of Evangelical Fear of Scholarship.

I spent more time than I should have posting over there on Friday (two days ago) under the name "Lehi".

Upon citing Heiser and noting that he is an Evangelical, instead of my debate opponents grappling with Heiser's arguments, I was instead challenged to produce a statement directly by Heiser declaring his Evangelical faith. They nitpick around the edges, making stupid demands that waste time and distract from the issues. They just can't handle scholarship over at CARM, and yet it is they who continually gnash their teeth about the ignoramus Mormon scholars with their heads in the sand.

It is that sort of ridiculousness that reminds me time and time again why I don't normally post there.

Oh ya, I was given a warning for posting this:

CARM Methodology:

Step 1: Incite the Mormon through over-the-top divisiveness and by being inflammatory.

Step 2: If the Mormon becomes divisive and inflammatory in reaction, discipline him and remind him of board rules against it.

Step 3: Do not enforce the same rules against CARMite posters.

Step 4: If the Mormon complains about board moderation, promptly report him, saving yourself the trouble of having to debate him anymore.

Step 5: Complain that no Mormons will step up to answer your challenges, even though you keep banning them all

[Ron Beron]

Have you ever visited any traditional Christian site where the orthodoxy was allowed to be challenged? I am a member of a Catholic site where they do not shut counter versions down, however they allow some vitriolic anti-Mormon codswallop. Such vehemence is very unproductive and the Spirit is not there.

I usually don't visit orthodox sites for the very reasons you stated. I would have hoped Catholics would have been more respectful. With tradition comes tolerance. Most EV's are so new to the gospel they have a tendency to attack with some venom. The same here at times, I would imagine.

I spent more time than I should have posting over there on Friday (two days ago) under the name "Lehi".Upon citing Heiser and noting that he is an Evangelical, instead of my debate opponents grappling with Heiser's arguments, I was instead challenged to produce a statement directly by Heiser declaring his Evangelical faith. They nitpick around the edges, making stupid demands that waste time and distract from the issues. They just can't handle scholarship over at CARM, and yet it is they who continually gnash their teeth about the ignoramus Mormon scholars with their heads in the sand.It is that sort of ridiculousness that reminds me time and time again why I don't normally post there.Oh ya, I was given a warning for posting this:CARM Methodology:Step 1: Incite the Mormon through over-the-top divisiveness and by being inflammatory.Step 2: If the Mormon becomes divisive and inflammatory in reaction, discipline him and remind him of board rules against it.Step 3: Do not enforce the same rules against CARMite posters.Step 4: If the Mormon complains about board moderation, promptly report him, saving yourself the trouble of having to debate him anymore.Step 5: Complain that no Mormons will step up to answer your challenges, even though you keep banning them all

Shame on you for reminding them of their buffoonery.