kryoung1983 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Posted February 17, 2016 1 hour ago, Vance said: Ok, so either there are not many evangelical scholars or you are just unaware of them. Or both. Either way, it doesn't look good for you. It was "scholars" and "scholarship" that was said, NOT a "leader of a contemporary Christian church or denomination". There is a HUGE difference. Plus at least in terms of the divine council there is Michael Heiser who is an evangelical. Granted he tries to fit the divine council into absolute monotheism because he believes in ex nihilo creation, but he at least would agree with the divine council. I am not sure how he can justify belief in ex nihilo creation given all the evidence. But I guess we all have our biases. I often found in his writings that he would supply all the evidence for interpreting the scriptures a certain way, and then try to force that evidence into making God species unique. I never found his arguments convincing but our evangelical friend here might. 2
danielwoods Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 The argument that a majority support this or that position, therefore it's true is a common fallacy. We could argue until we're blue in the face about who has the most scholarship or more authority, or more numbers that support their position. The question is how is truth found to be true? We answer this question in different ways, so it follows that our conclusions about which theology is true is also different.
volgadon Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 1 hour ago, danielwoods said: The argument that a majority support this or that position, therefore it's true is a common fallacy. We could argue until we're blue in the face about who has the most scholarship or more authority, or more numbers that support their position. The question is how is truth found to be true? We answer this question in different ways, so it follows that our conclusions about which theology is true is also different. A scholarly consensus does not automatically equal truth, but there is a reason for consensus, and thus a claim must be evaluated seriously. 3
boblloyd91 Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 I think the OP makes a good point, in that these positions are being found to have more and more credence. 1
danielwoods Posted February 18, 2016 Posted February 18, 2016 11 hours ago, volgadon said: A scholarly consensus does not automatically equal truth, but there is a reason for consensus, and thus a claim must be evaluated seriously. The assumptions that either side makes also contribute to that consensus. I agree that all contributing factors should be evaluated seriously.
volgadon Posted February 18, 2016 Posted February 18, 2016 39 minutes ago, danielwoods said: The assumptions that either side makes also contribute to that consensus. I agree that all contributing factors should be evaluated seriously. Of course, assumptions are entirely natural. That is where methodology steps in. 1
Five Solas Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 On 2/15/2016 at 9:34 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Sorry Erik, but, as I said, the majority of biblical scholars support all four positions cited. Most evangelicals do not. No surprise at all there, although you might want to watch this video in which evangelical Peter Enns interviews Anglican Bishop Tom Wright: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk . Of course, I already gave you the book and video of evangelical John Walton. Even serious evangelical scholars now accept all four of the positions cited. You need to get with the program, Erik. That you do not even know the names of these prominent evangelicals (Enns and Walton), is part of your problem. Jeff Morrow of Seton Hall says: I gave only a few examples of this majority view, but you can discover many more by looking at the footnotes of those I have cited. Afraid I'm getting swallowed up in life & don't have the time I used to. But I wanted to get back to this and make some reply. N.T. Wright is obviously a thoughtful guy. But the subject/discussion between him and Peter Enns has *nothing* to do with rejecting creation ex nihilo, arguing for eternally existent matter, or any other ideas championed by Joseph Smith outlined in the OP. Peter Enns is asking a very reasonable question - if we can't take the creation account in Genesis literally (which to some Christians implies a "young earth") how can we take any part of Scripture literally? And Wright gives what I think is a good answer, contrasting the examples of the parable of the prodigal son (no one inquires as to the location of the farm) vs. the event of Christ's crucifixion. I started to listen to John Walton, but it appears to be along a similar line of thought. Basically you're taking an in-house Christian debate about the Genesis account and its implication for the rest of Scripture--and you're imagining it as support for Joseph Smith. And it's difficult to suppose N.T. Wright or anyone else you've cited would agree with you on that! --Erik
Robert F. Smith Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Five Solas said: Afraid I'm getting swallowed up in life & don't have the time I used to. But I wanted to get back to this and make some reply. N.T. Wright is obviously a thoughtful guy. But the subject/discussion between him and Peter Enns has *nothing* to do with rejecting creation ex nihilo, arguing for eternally existent matter, or any other ideas championed by Joseph Smith outlined in the OP. Peter Enns is asking a very reasonable question - if we can't take the creation account in Genesis literally (which to some Christians implies a "young earth") how can we take any part of Scripture literally? And Wright gives what I think is a good answer, contrasting the examples of the parable of the prodigal son (no one inquires as to the location of the farm) vs. the event of Christ's crucifixion. I started to listen to John Walton, but it appears to be along a similar line of thought. Basically you're taking an in-house Christian debate about the Genesis account and its implication for the rest of Scripture--and you're imagining it as support for Joseph Smith. And it's difficult to suppose N.T. Wright or anyone else you've cited would agree with you on that! --Erik The Wright - Enns interview had nothing to do with creatio ex nihilo, and I did not say that it did. However, had you listened carefully you would have heard Bishop Wright argue the majority view that the Creation and Garden story are temple texts, not "literal" stories in your sense. He redefined "literal" for you, but you apparently didn't pay close attention. We were addressing four principles, and I addressed all four separately, leaving not a leg for you to stand on. Of course, Wright, Enns, Walton, and others are not addressing the Restoration theology of Joseph Smith -- if they are even aware of it -- but are speaking on their own scholarly behalf. You apparently see things only on the basis of games and battles between religions and theologies, while the scholars are more interested in finding the truth. It's called "honesty." Edited February 29, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 3
mfbukowski Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 3 hours ago, Five Solas said: Peter Enns is asking a very reasonable question - if we can't take the creation account in Genesis literally (which to some Christians implies a "young earth") how can we take any part of Scripture literally? Simple answer- you can't.
mfbukowski Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 On 2/17/2016 at 8:52 AM, danielwoods said: The argument that a majority support this or that position, therefore it's true is a common fallacy. We could argue until we're blue in the face about who has the most scholarship or more authority, or more numbers that support their position. The question is how is truth found to be true? We answer this question in different ways, so it follows that our conclusions about which theology is true is also different. The prior question being "what is truth in the first place?"
volgadon Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 On 2/29/2016 at 5:10 PM, Five Solas said: Afraid I'm getting swallowed up in life & don't have the time I used to. But I wanted to get back to this and make some reply. N.T. Wright is obviously a thoughtful guy. But the subject/discussion between him and Peter Enns has *nothing* to do with rejecting creation ex nihilo, arguing for eternally existent matter, or any other ideas championed by Joseph Smith outlined in the OP. Peter Enns is asking a very reasonable question - if we can't take the creation account in Genesis literally (which to some Christians implies a "young earth") how can we take any part of Scripture literally? And Wright gives what I think is a good answer, contrasting the examples of the parable of the prodigal son (no one inquires as to the location of the farm) vs. the event of Christ's crucifixion. I started to listen to John Walton, but it appears to be along a similar line of thought. Basically you're taking an in-house Christian debate about the Genesis account and its implication for the rest of Scripture--and you're imagining it as support for Joseph Smith. And it's difficult to suppose N.T. Wright or anyone else you've cited would agree with you on that! --Erik Here is some essential, and not terribly lengthy reading. https://books.google.com/books?id=eu4RBwAAQBAJ&pg=PR12&dq=creatio+ex+nihilo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD5df5uZ7LAhUC_WMKHX_xA_EQ6AEICjAA 1
Five Solas Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 On 2/29/2016 at 7:55 PM, mfbukowski said: Simple answer- you can't. "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." --H.L. Mencken ;0)
Vance Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 10 hours ago, volgadon said: Here is some essential, and not terribly lengthy reading. https://books.google.com/books?id=eu4RBwAAQBAJ&pg=PR12&dq=creatio+ex+nihilo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD5df5uZ7LAhUC_WMKHX_xA_EQ6AEICjAA Interesting. Here is my pull quote from the part I read. Quote The intellectual pre-conditions for the formulation of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo were achieved by Christian theology in the second century. In other words, it didn't come from the Bible but came from outside of the Bible and must be read back into the text.
cdowis Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) On 2/14/2016 at 8:18 PM, Five Solas said: The Joseph Smith/LDS view of Jesus sounds more than a little like what Arius invented. (If you're unfamiliar, let Google be your friend.) And for an example closer to the contemporary, fast forward 14 centuries from Arius to Emanuel Swedenborg--and again you're likely to find some of it familiar. Google was my friend "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing."[14] This quote describes the essence of Arius' doctrine. -- wiki This has absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. The Nicene Creed ("one substance entity") merely replaced one heresy with another. What made Joseph Smith a prophet was his personal experience with Deity, and was called by God as a prophet. Has nothing to do with how unique, clever, sophisticated his concept of Deity, but personal knowledge. Edited March 1, 2016 by cdowis
cdowis Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 On 2/29/2016 at 7:10 PM, Five Solas said: Peter Enns is asking a very reasonable question - if we can't take the creation account in Genesis literally (which to some Christians implies a "young earth") how can we take any part of Scripture literally? Let me respond with a question my own. Assuming that the Bible is inerrant, that still begs the question, where can I find the inerrant interpretation of the Bible. Enns question is unreasonable because it puts the cart before the horse. Search out that source of inerrant interpretation, and please share with us that source.
Recommended Posts