New unpublished
Jonathan Edwards Sermons! 

edwardssmall

Sound Cloud

Listen to my Songs at

SoundClound

soundcloud-logo

 

 

 

 

 

   

How the liberal Emergence Church self-refutes itself Print E-mail
Written by Oshea Davis   
Tuesday, 05 April 2011

 800px-horseshoes_game I recently had a person who sparked my interest yet again in the

nonsense of the liberal part of the Emergent church movement.  People like Brian Mclaren, Greg Boyd and Rob Bell talk about Christianity as if it is an open conversation of Christians trying to press in and find the truth. They say we only have ideas and approximations to what the original writers of the Scripture meant to say. 

      At this point people will try, understandably, to quote scripture to show how this is not true, but I personally like to show how this position is self-refuting and so it is not necessarily needed to go to the scriptures.  A position that self-refutes itself is false, and so as a worldview it does not exist, and so it stands as no threat in anyway to the Biblical Worldview.  It is easy for most to see this position and point out that it invalidates the Biblical doctrine of the infallibility of the scripture by making it unintelligible or skeptical, but the real issue is that this position is unintelligible or that because it self-refutes itself it cannot say anything about the Bible, for before this system-of-thought can speak it proclaims itself as false. 

         Persons who stand on this irrational system-of-thought often accuse the Biblical Worldview of trying to put words in their mouth.   But since the conversation, to them, is evolving and the truth not established and epistemology impossible for this worldview then I am able to assert whatever about truth and anyone in this system-of-thought I wish.  Yet, the Biblical Worldview has a self-necessary and justifying epistemology, and its metaphysics are not contradictive, and it uses deduction as its logical system, so that the Christian standing in the Biblical worldview is able to proclaim many truths about every other person and system-of-thought, and since other systems-of-thought cannot produce knowledge it must borrow from the Biblical Worldview in order to even speak its nonsense, but the Bible says all other systems-of-thought are false.

 

       This was similar to a recent response my brother received. To this I responded with the bellow: 

         Yet, my brother's point is not about asserting what you or Rob believed but asserting that he does not know what you believe (or that, your system-of-thought is irrational), because he has read Rob stating that Christianity is no-less an open dialog or evolving conversation-approximation of our insights and longings pressing to understand what the Bible says.

          But an evolving conversation is not truth.  And who is to say the conversation could have evolved since yesterday.   What this means is that Rob is talking about a probable or plausible biblical proposition(s); or in other words, such dialogs or sincere attempts resembles or approximates to the truth . The problem for this is that it is infeasible to use these expressions, for without identifying the truth to which they are established these terms are unintelligible.
...

It is impossible to know if something resembles the truth, or is probable of the truth without knowing the truth to begin with. But if the truth is known then there is no need for having a conversation about trying to find the truth. It is self-refuting to have a conversation about what the truth is if one already knows the truth. Now if one does not have the truth, then it is self-refuting to say we have probable or approximation to the truth without knowing what the truth is, for these terms are un-intelligible without truth.[1]   It's like saying I am two feet away from the stake, when playing a game of horseshoe, when there is no stake; its utter nonsense.  The open conversation worldview position that Greg Boyd and Brian Mclaren and Rod adhere to in various forms is a self-refuting position; it is utter nonsense, and thus, it is false worldview.   Likewise, because this system-of-thought is irrational, and thus truth impossible, it is impossible for me, using this worldview to know what you believe or anything else and so I might as well just make up my own John 3:26, and make up what I think the conversation is to be.

 

        Also, consider 2 Timothy 3:7, [People who reject the truth are] "always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth-- men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected."  See my friends, according to the Biblical worldview to always be in an evolving conversation about the truth of the Bible so that its only approximations; to always be dialoging about the what the truth is but never being able to say this is truth and this is heresy, you are by Biblical definition "rejected" by the same faith and truth. For this same faith says in Romans 9:17, that the Scripture is equated to God. So, if scriptures original meaning cannot be understood in God's original meaning, then by defining God cannot be known; but this is self-refuting: because how can you say God is unknowable without knowing enough about God to say this, or how can you say God is unknowable if do not know enough about God to make such a statement?  This is one of the main reasons Islam is shown to be self-refuting by saying their god is unknowable.  Scripture is God's revelation to man, and God by His Spirit divinely causes His elect to know His revelation' original meanings and intentions, for what is revealed is for man, who was created in God's image, Deut.29:29. 

       The original meaning of scripture is God's not man's, for again scripture is equated as God itself, thus, to reject the perfect knowability of scripture is to reject this about God; at this point the Christian God is gone and paganism is now in; such a stance is paganism not Christianity, let alone it being self-refuting.  The Biblical worldview states that not only does good works prove you have been born-again, but also if you are able to know the truth is as equally a sign if you have been born-again.  Those who are God's hear (i.e. understand) His words.  

      God, over and over, in the scriptures asserts that the people of God will "know" the Lord. Jesus testifies in John 6 that the elect will be all "taught by God Himself" and later He says by the "Holy Spirit," and from what I've heard an Infinite God is a good teacher indeed, very good.  Furthermore, in such places as Jer.31:33 and Ezekiel 36 we are given the promise of the new-birth of the Holy Spirit, for God will "put [His] laws [their] their minds."  See, the elect or true believers know what the truth is because they are born-again and the Spirit puts the gospel knowledge in them.  In fact, the Father is said to put the gospel "knowledge" into the hearts of believers as supernaturally as He created light out of nothing, 2 Corin.4:6. Thus, it is not by reading words from a page that puts God's knowledge in the elect, but God's divine power itself.  The Biblical worldview's epistemology rejects observation, imperialism and the use of the senses for knowledge, but all knowledge is by God's divine power. Observation has no being; it does not exist and so it cannot give knowledge. Observation is fine when used to describing the process of viewing, but it has no being; therefore, it is a failed epistemology. God does use, because He sovereignly wants to, the occasion of Bible reading or a preacher preaching to then supernaturally put gospel knowledge in the elect's hearts, but it is "by" God's divine power, not metaphysical power. God has used dreams to convey divine truth, when not metaphysical observation or senses were involved; this shows that these are not the bases for epistemology. And for those who are on the receiving end of this Divine Gospel Power they do come to an "understanding of the truth", and not approximations, for again, such terms rely on knowing the truth to begin with.

 

         Secondly, this same person thought my brother being bold with him was unloving.  Below was my response:

         As to your second point it is an easy thing to show how Jesus was not "loving" to the standard you just gave, for you said it is unloving to blast people for wrong biblical views.  Jesus blasted people all the time for their wrong views of the Scripture; He even blasted and drove some people right out of the temple telling their view of scripture was wrong because God's house was to be "house of prayer for all nations." Regarding religious leaders Jesus often blasted them with words of fools, morons, sons of devils and snakes, and greatly misunderstanding the scriptures many times.  Now if you cannot give "truth" (or prove through the Biblical Worldview) that I am not to repeat this same behavior of Jesus then you cannot accuse any Calvinist or anyone of being "un-Christ like" or "unloving" for blasting people when they resist the truth and have wrong views of the Scripture.  If all you can do is question that I am not to be like Jesus in these examples then it is as if you are blowing hot-air, for questions are not truth, questions will not judge me on judgment day; rather, Jesus said it is "His words" that will "judge" me on judgment day.  And as said above the system-of-thought that stands on an open-dialog regarding truth is a irrational and self-refuting worldview and thus it is impossible for myself to be judged or threatened or questioned by it, for being false it does not exist.

 

Recommend Reading: The Undefeatable Worldview, http://www.osheadavis.com/content/view/148/31/

 

------------End Notes-------------

[1] G. Clark put it like this:

"The skeptics call propositions false, doubtful, probable, and plausible. Their basic principle, however, does not in consistency permit them to use any of these terms. A false proposition is one opposite to the truth. How then can one say that a proposition is false, unless one knows the truth? A doubtful proposition is one that might possibly be true; a probable or plausible proposition resembles or approximates the truth. But it is impossible to apply these terms without knowing the truth by which they are determined." Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey

 

 
< Prev   Next >