Moreland's ETS Paper
24 comments | Permalink
J. P. Moreland has posted a copy of his controversial ETS paper: How Evangelicals Became Overcommitted to the Bible and What Can Be Done about It.
He has also posted a response to the CT Liveblog summary.
I may have more to say in the future about Moreland's paper (which I heard live). I suspect that the "stir" about it has more to do what the way in which Moreland presented his arguments than with the actual thesis itself.
He has also posted a response to the CT Liveblog summary.
I may have more to say in the future about Moreland's paper (which I heard live). I suspect that the "stir" about it has more to do what the way in which Moreland presented his arguments than with the actual thesis itself.
posted by JT at Wednesday, November 21, 2007
24 Comments:
I was there too. It was...ah...interesting.
I've been a fan of Moreland's work on worldview/apologetics for a few years.
I read his paper...there's alot to chew on, but I am definitely alarmed by some statements initially.
He makes some good points about the evangelical aversion to general revelation (at least practically)...I need to read it again before I offer any criticism. Its one of those papers that bothers you and you can't immediately articulate why.
what was "interesting?" what was the manner in which he presented?
also, has anyone read his book "The Kingdom Triangle?"
Gavin,
I think one of the issues--at least for me--is Moreland's black hats / white hats approach...like an old western where there are only good guys and bad guys. One comes away with the impression from Moreland that everyone who disagrees with him on this issue is a dullard, and Moreland never once presents or responds to anything like an argument for the position of those with whom he disagrees. That makes his paper difficult to interact with.
Related to this, he sets up virtually all of evangelicalism as extremists on this issue of bibliolatry--but I just don't think that case can be made. At the very least, Moreland didn't make it--even if his positive thesis / alternative is itself basically correct.
JT
I have found Psalm 138:2b a very satisfying text for formulating a view of the relationship between God's Word and His Name.
Bibliolatry, in the proper sense of the word, is absurd - but I rarely, if ever, run into the position. Actually I find this accusation mostly presented by those who aren't wanting to submit to the Bible. I'm definitely not saying Moreland belongs to this camp.
Dr. Moreland’s paper is intriguing and perplexing to me – in one area especially I’m not sure what he’s really trying to say. It’s a perennial debate within evangelicalism and he describes it in terms of “the rejection of guidance, revelation, and so forth from God through impressions, dreams, visions, prophetic words, words of knowledge and wisdom.”
He then defines what he means by “revelation,” namely, “the divine communication of information that was not or could not have been known at the time otherwise…” And, with that definition in view he declares, “…God is constantly giving revelation to his people.”
What comes next is what I truly don’t get, for now he adds the caveats that his divinely-communicated revelation is not “theology and [not] ethics, not revelation for the universal church, and not revelation on authoritative par with Scripture.” But why wouldn’t it fit these categories? (The example he gives of church elders deliberating at a planning retreat, and concluding that “God has lead them to emphasize the family this year….” serves to inform the analysis he has given.)
So, ‘not theology’? How could a communication from God not disclose something about Him, and thus how could it not be theological?
‘Not ethics’? If the elders’ conclusion had to do with what ought and ought not to be done, how can this fail to be considered ethical?
‘Not revelation for the universal church’? I’m not sure how to take this, but when Paul told Timothy to be sure to bring the parchments, there is a sense in which this wasn’t ‘revelation for the universal church’ – but that has to do with the particularities of the situation that is consistently the context of canonical revelation, and doesn’t really relate to the character of inspired (inscripturated) revelation as such.
‘Not revelation on authoritative par with Scripture’? Again, why not? Moreland must mean more than it is not as universal in scope as Scripture, because he just addressed that issue in his previous assertion. But I do not see how ‘divine communication’ can be anything other than authoritative. (I considered writing ‘fully’ authoritative, but is that a meaningful category?.... Is there such a thing as a ‘semi-authoritative’ word from God.)
Finally, when Paul says in Galatians:11ff., “…I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” – it seems to me he has in mind something qualitatively different, in terms of divine revelation, than what Moreland describes in his example of elders doing ministry planning during a pastoral retreat.
Before everyone gets their knickers twisted into a knot over this, look on Moreland's website www.kingdomtriangle.com for his brief explanation about the reaction to his paper - to keep it in the right context. There' a link to actually read the paper too.
BJ,
I actually linked to both in the original post above.
JT
The following statement by Moreland on his own blog offers insight for properly understanding aspects of his essay--"I am a Protestant Evangelical of the Third Wave sort, and I have no inclination whatever to change my views on that."
I took a class with Moreland at Talbot several years ago. I have great respect for him and his mind. But I have far greater respect for the Bible. I humbly ask Dr. Moreland for verses from the Bible and logical reasoning from the Bible before I can embrace his "new" teaching. Without it, here I stand.
Am I being naive when I wonder if Paul would respond to Moreland's paper with these words?:
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
...as opposed to...
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God my be mostly competent, equipped for most good works, but he will also need to rely on scientific discoveries in the humanities and in psychology and other disciplines that engage God's general revelation, along with experiences of a supernatural sort (dreams, vistions, etc.).
Justin,
I had similar concerns with the paper: http://ateam.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/11/21/3367181.html
Prof. Caneday, do you care to summarize the paragraph from which the quote is set? Readers may be confused.
As I recall, Moreland was describing a series of questions to expose the naturalist worldview of scholar Dan Pipes.
Doug,
The elders of church A are led by God to emphasize family in 08.
The elders of church B are led to emphasiz evangelism in 08.
Neither leading is universally applicable.
Of course, both have ethical and theological implications rooted in inerrant Scripture. But no one would presume their leading from God is universally applicable. Only cults do that.
Why is this so hard understand?
Because of Jim Jones or Benny Hinn or Mormonism or ex cathedra Catholicism or Mary aparitions?
Because of Sola Scriptura?
Can God lead an elder board to redouble efforts to emphasize something commanded in the Bible or not?
I hope so! Not much in mission has happened without God leading the way.
Prof. Caneday: I conflated things in my mind, chap. 1 of his book with his blog.
He was answering whether he was turning toward Rome:
Am I becoming a Catholic? [No] I am a Protestant Evangelical of the Third Wave sort, and I have no inclination whatever to change my views on that.
Dear Anonymous,
That wasn't quite the point I was trying to make. I acknowledged the situation-specific character of inscripturated revelation (e.g., for Timothy to bring the parchments to Paul). But Dr. Moreland's view seems to apply a 'lesser' type of inspired revelation/communication from God.
My own undertanding goes along the lines of the difference between the Spirit's work of inspiring Scripture and his work of illuminating Scripture to our understanding (the way in which he truly leads us).
Happy Thanksgiving...
I only read the first portion of Moreland's paper, but it really didn't seem that radical in view.
Evangelicals have long stated that scripture alone doesn't mean scripture only. The reformers accounted for natural revelation, reason, and conscience, in their creeds. As for revelation outside of scripture, his position seems no different from the distinctions Grudem makes in his systematics or book on prophecy -- which is widely accepted among continuationists.
I think the thing that is frustrating is that a lot of people who will say they disagree with Moreland, in fact use arguments from logic and reason (natural law) to make their very arguments. You can't argue from scripture without borrowing tools from natural revelation. What scripture does is tell us explicitly where that natural reason comes from (a classic presuppositional apologetic argument; see Bahnsen for how he argues consistently from that standpoint).
Mason—Actually I find this accusation mostly presented by those who aren't wanting to submit to the Bible.
Ditto that. Or who find loyalty to God's Word inconvenient in some other way.
Greg Koukl did a masterful job addressing the same core topics in a Stand to Reason piece on Biblical Counseling.
Koukl is addressing certain excesses of Biblical Counseling, but along the way he makes an outstanding case for the right use of natural theology in a Reformed tradition.
It's the paper I wish Dr. Moreland had given...
Brett:
Am I being naive when I wonder if Paul would respond to Moreland's paper with these words?:
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
...as opposed to...
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God my be mostly competent, equipped for most good works, but he will also need to rely on scientific discoveries in the humanities and in psychology and other disciplines that engage God's general revelation, along with experiences of a supernatural sort (dreams, vistions, etc.).
I don't think Paul would have objected at all to Moreland's paper, and--with all love and with all due respect--I think you've missed the point here.
Notice that Paul says that "all Scripture is profitable"; Paul does NOT say (nor can he be made to say) that ONLY Scripture is profitable.
This is the entire point of Moreland's paper, and it's dead on. Evangelicals of all sorts (which isn't quite the same thing as "all evangelicals") have been guilty of this sort of thing in a variety of different contexts. On TeamPyro or Challies, for example, you'll often run across a comment (presumably by an Arminian) that says something to the effect of, "You all can HAVE John Calvin--I'm sticking to THE BIBLE"...the presumption being, of course, that we can't learn anything from Calvin because his Institutes aren't printed in the Word.
In fact, some of the responses here are unfortunately brilliantly indicative of precisely the problem that Moreland noted in his paper. One commenter here has argued that unless Moreland shows verses in Scripture that talk about logical reasoning, s/he's not going to listen...but if that same commenter looks both ways before crossing the street, s/he is in fact USING the selfsame logical reasoning that's not found anywhere in Scripture. As Ravi Zacharias would say, such a person recognizes fully the law of non-contradiction: it's either the bus or you, but not both of you!
What Moreland says here--and ALL that he says here--is that we should measure what we get from all other sources against Scripture, rather than making an a priori assumption that other sources have no reliable information to offer.
It's a lesson that's much needed in the church today.
I think there is something else going on here. At the EMNR conference at Midwestern S. Baptist Sem. three years ago, Moreland went on a tirade against several scheduled workshops related to the KC prophets and word faith heresies. He didn't know what they were saying - he just got angry that it was on the schedule. The reason for this is that he is a friend of IHOP leader Mike Bickle and very open to the IHOP madness. Notice the "Third wave" comment. He also told the audience that he "hated Calvinists", and other fun things. He is into contemplative meditation now to deal with his anger. The "led the elders decide" was exactly what one of the KC prophets leaders told me twelve years ago. That didn't exactly work out...
He seems to be covering some of his more eccentric leanings behind the good name of general revelation.
Bill
Interesting post, Bill...but it bears saying that, assuming your story's true, Moreland's error will NOT have been that he acquired extrabiblical information; his error (again, assuming all this to be true) would have been that he failed to fully submit that extrabiblical information to the Ultimate Authority of Scripture.
tbe - I agree, but this is where is gets so slippery with the KC prophet link. After many years of allegedly comparing their "prophets" (Cain, Bickle, Jones, Joyner and many more) they always seemed to endorse all of it. We have an amazing capacity as humans to rationalize whatever we need to. The flexi-bible is so wonderful...Sorry my satirical self tends to run on at this point.
JP is too smart not to know what he is doing. His involvement with the contemplative prayer movement, similar to Dallas Willard, will show him less and less biblical and more and more mystical as time goes on.
Bill
Bill H,
On the KC/IHOP stuff, I recommend reading Sam Storms book "Convergence." It's about his personal spiritual journey, and the tension he lives in between being Reformed and Charismatic. He speaks of Bickle and others, and (I think) draws a helpful, charitable line between that which was good and that which was error in the movement.
He also seeks to clear some confusion surrounding the Third Wave community (of which he counts himself a part), specifically in regard to some of the excesses (Toronto blessing), which were actually denounced by Wimber, the "founder" of the movement. Wayne Grudem also identifies with the Third Wave community. There may be problems in some areas, but they also have some very sound, Reformed theologians in their midst.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home