Social Bookmarks
re: facebook, (not)literal?
EDIT: The conversation has devolved into back and forth, thus comments have been closed. Thanks to all who participated.
A brief discussion was started on facebook regarding belief in a literal translation of the genesis account.
Here’s the comments on the topic, if you have something to add feel free to post it.
Bill C
No, Rob does not believe in a literal Genesis account. That’s the whole point of calling it a poem. You don’t take poems literally. This line of thinking fits nicely with the prevailing embrace of Evolutionism by the evangelical church in the West and is in line with Rob’s other personal teachings (”Everything is Spiritual” was referenced by someone else as an example of such a teaching).
I won’t post any links here so as not to stir up trouble, but I watched the video in its entirety, took notes, and wrote up a critique of it in a Facebook note as well as on my personal blog. Feel free to view my profile and/or contact me personally if you want to talk more.
Matt W
well, bill, i’m glad that you’re here to clear that up for us. I mean, where would facebook and Christianity be without the theology police patrolling the scenes, making sure everything is safe and doctrinally sound.
And just because someone refers to part of the bible as a poem, does not mean it is not true. The entire book of Song of Songs is a poem, and it can be taken literally, but you have to use the right hermeneutics when interpreting.
Bill C
Matt: are we not to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints? Is right doctrine (i.e. right thinking about who God is and what He does) not important? Surely Dr. Easley would contend that it is.
Matt S (thats me)
Bill C: Christians once refused to believe that the world was round and not the center of the universe, they were wrong then. If you have questions on the view of theistic evolution www.thankgodforevolution.com is a great place to start.
If you’d like to converse about my opinion feel free to send me a message.
Bill C
Matt Scott:
1. Do not confuse Roman Catholicism with biblical Christianity.
2. Galileo was persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church because he challenged the traditions of the Catholic Church (which it holds as equal in authority to Scripture). Interesting to note, the geocentric teachings of the Catholic Church were arrived at not through biblical exegesis, but by way of the pagan Aristotle. See Clement and Origen, both of Alexandria.
Matt S
Bill C:
And who are you to decide that Roman Catholics are not Christians?
Anyways, where is the hurt in reading the Genesis poem as a poem and not a literal interpretation?
Nate S
He has EVERY right to state Roman Catholics are not Christians… Acts 20:29, I Timothy 4:16, and Jesus Himself states it in Matthew 5:17! I’m not saying it is right to slash out at Roman Catholics, but if someone is teaching false doctrine we have EVERY right and before God should call them out!
Why read Genesis as literal? … because it IS literal. Study it yourself!
comments
24 Responses to “re: facebook, (not)literal?”
Using those verses to make a point obviously involves your own personal assumption that both Paul and Jesus were talking about the Catholic Church. How do you know he wasn’t talking about your own church? Someone could make the same argument. Maybe that’s what I’m doing. (or maybe not)
“You should believe something because I believe it” has never been much of a good reason. The “emerging church” gets such flack for encouraging conversation, but I think it’s because headstrong traditionalists usually don’t know how to handle conversation on a horizontal level rather than handing something down as truth from the pulpit on high.
Literal or non-literal the point of the Genesis poem is that God is the author and creator of us and the world we live in. I don’t think the point is when or how He did it. Arguing over those things, or holding onto your 6 day doctrine of creation with a death grip is so trivial because its not the foundation of the doctrine.. what difference does it make to believe in theistic evolution as long as you believe God is responsible for it… isn’t that the point?
I won’t even get into the Roman Catholic thing because that is completely ridiculous. No one can play God. In fact I’m pretty sure Jesus taught us not to presume who is in or out of the kingdom of God.
Matt, I say that Roman Catholicism is not biblical Christianity because they teach a different Gospel than the one that was handed down to the saints once for all. They teach that salvation is by the works of man, i.e. the Roman Catholic sacraments. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Paul said that if anyone preached a different Gospel, not “have a conversation with him,” but to “let him be anathema!” Truth is dictated not by the tainted and fallen hearts of men, but by the Holy Spirit who speaks through the Word of God, which is the Bible.
The reason the emergent church gets flak is not for encouraging conversation, but encouraging the rejection of Scripture as the sole authority by which we know truth about God and the duties which He requires of us.
The harm when you divorce a literal six day creation from the Genesis account is that you then have several dozen more irreconcilable differences within the rest of the whole counsel of Scripture. The problem with reading it as a poem and not as a literal historical account is that there is no reason to read it as a poem in the first place except in order to reconcile it with naturalistic evolutionary theories.
You do realize the entire point of the secularists preaching Evolutionism, do you not? It is to rid mankind of the need for God as Creator. If, as Carl Sagan postulates, the cosmos is all that has been, is now, and ever will be, and natural processes are able and have created all that we see, then there is no longer a need for God in the hearts and minds of sinful men. It is worship of the created thing rather than the Creator.
Christ said there would be false teachers. Paul echoes that sentiment. We know that false teachers are out there, so we should read with discernment. The Bible is the only absolutely reliable witness of God. And if someone is identified as a false teacher, as Rob Bell has been by his teachings, which are contrary to the clear teachings of Scripture, we ought to have nothing to do with him except to point out his error.
Trying to find truth in Rob Bell’s teaching is like chewing through a rat poison sandwich in order to get to a single bite of cold hamburger in the middle. Why waste our time searching for truth there when we can have a hot, juicy steak sandwich from the Word and trustworthy expositors of the Word?
I would assume Bill that since you have studied Bell’s work extensively then you are familiar with his theories on putting God in a box? I feel that by requiring a belief in a Six-Day young earth model, you’re doing God great injustice by setting him wholly against fact.
From fossil record to plate tectonics all evidence points to an evolutionary method.
What would be so bad about a divinely inspired evolutionary process?
How do you reconcile the fact that conservative schools such as Wheaton College are now teaching theistic evolution, and that 95% of scientists wholly affirm the idea of evolution?
As to the last comment about wasting time searching for Truth… I’m lead to believe you feel the Bible is something that can be understood at a base level, this discomforts me greatly. I feel we need to understand the culture, setting, and intent of the authors when we study the Bible.
For instance, if we didn’t understand the culture war between the Samaritans and the Jews than the story of the good Samaritan would loose a great deal of significance. Instead study of the culture and setting of the story has lead us to understand how much of a turn on principles it would have been for the Samaritan to help the robbed Jew.
Well. I believe that the bible is wholly 100% the complete word of God, and as such is infallible. Pragmatically speaking, there is no way to judge how long those days really were. Sure, there is reference to evening and morning… but when he began, there was no 24 hour scale marked by the passage of the sun. Was there..? (And just out of curiosity, what inconsistencies are raised if the creation story is not taken as a literal “six day” time-period?) Anyway, isn’t Genesis 1/2 as much about revealing/establishing God’s character as much as a historical account? I mean, the entire redemptive plan of the bible is started in Genesis 1.
And this is why I take issue more with Bell’s implication that God’s creation didn’t work out like he intended. When I look at how intentional he was in the creation account, that notion becomes very unpalatable to me.
I’m not putting God in a box. I’m repeating what God said. God gives us an account of the Creation. Genesis says that He created the earth and all that is in it in six literal days (in fact that’s the basis for the command to keep the Sabbath holy). Genesis also says that God spoke, and it was. That is, God spoke, and *immediately* that which God spoke came into existence, fully formed and functional.
All evidence does *not* point to evolutionary method. Biased assumptions toward naturalistic (that is, atheistic) evolution point us in that direction. The fossil record does not tell us that things are millions and billions of years old. They tell us that something which was once alive was buried rapidly and thus preserved through fossilization. The dating methods which are used to tell us that these things are supposedly millions and billions of years old rely on several unprovable assumptions, the likes of which are absurd if we’re to even begin to believe that the earth is billions of years old.
I have serious questions as regards Wheaton’s status as a “conservative” theological school given their fruit. Wheaton gave us Rob Bell. As for schools like Wheaton teaching evolution, what does that have to do with the veracity of evolution versus the biblical accounts? Evolutionism assumes things rest on the authority of men. Creationism assumes things which rest on the authority of the Word of God.
I believe men to be fallible. I believe the Word of God to be infallible. While some things it describes are a mystery, that doesn’t mean EVERYTHING is! You would do well to read some of the historical confessions of faith. No one claims that *everything* is absolutely clear, but there *are* many things which are absolutely clear.
From the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith: “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.”
How do you reconcile evolution with the accounts of Adam and Eve? What is the story of the Garden of Eden and the serpent and the forbidden fruit, if not a historical account? Christ certainly believed that Adam and Eve were literal, historical people. In fact, He alludes to it in His discussion of divorce with the Pharisees. He says “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, `FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?” Christ goes on to say “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.”
Evolution is blasphemous because it makes God the author of millions of years of death and bloodshed before the Fall. Everything God created was *good* and had no need for improvement. Evolution says that things are constantly evolving and improving of necessity. Those who believe in theistic evolution trust the in the authority of men over the authority of the plain accounts of Scripture.
yikes, i guess i shouldn’t admit that i’m a wheaton grad or i’ll be discredited as a hardcore liberal. anyways, i couldn’t read this without responding to a few of the points made:
The Creation Poem is an origin story that teaches and explains origins and reasons for doing things a certain way. What does the Creation Poem teach? It teaches the principles of Sabbath, marriage (as Jesus alluded to), and a few others as well as highlighting God’s power (showing Him as capable of overcoming chaos- common in Creation poems throughout the Ancient Near East). That’s just one explanation as to how Jesus might quote all of this without us having to uphold it’s literal historicity (I say literal historicity because to some degree we reenact the Fall every day, don’t we? there’s another point of the creation poem…)
I guess this leads to (or maybe I should have started with) the infallibility issue. I think you would agree that the Bible is infallible in everything it desires to say. The problem is that we often don’t have a clue what it is trying to say. If it is written in a style similar to other origin stories that are not concerned with being historically accurate why do we demand that it is written with the Western mindset of historical accuracy in mind?
As far as Scripture’s account, God tells us in Job that man cannot understand God’s ways and the nature of Creation. The Creation poem is pretty straightforward but God tells us we cannot understand it. Maybe God simplified it- gave us some basics- “I created everything, my breath is in humanity, and because I created you I will not forsake you…” That’s just a maybe, but it is food for thought, I think.
anyways, i hope that this all comes off as charitable. grace and peace to you all.
Quick note: sorry to jake and jeremy, I’ve been sick the past day so I was asleep when y’all put up your posts and couldn’t approve them.
Don’t misunderstand me, Matt. I said I have serious questions regarding designating Wheaton as a conservative school given the fruit of Rob Bell. I did not say that I would write them off altogether. My church’s youth pastor is a Wheaton grad, and when I asked him to describe his thoughts in brief on Rob Bell, he had one word for me: caution. So I can’t decide one way or the other without examining the evidence further. My apologies if I was unclear. You would be welcome at my dinner table.
The question long-agers and theistic evolutionists still fail to answer is why we *should* read the Genesis accounts of the Creation as anything but a historical account. I see no other motivation to do so other than a syncretistic attempt to reconcile the Word of God with the word of man (evolutionary theories).
The principles of the Sabbath and the inseparable bond of marriage have no foundation if there is no literal historical first man and first woman into whom God breathed the breath of life. I posit to you that God had Moses write down six days because He meant six literal days, and that this is not a difficult or impossible thing to know and comprehend. I look not to the Western literary styles, but to the rest of the Scripture for my interpretation. The best and most reliable interpretor of Scripture is Scripture itself, for the whole counsel of God is contained therein.
The command to keep the Sabbath holy is commanded “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”
The same Hebrew word is used in Exodus 20 as is used in Genesis 1. To say that those six days are not literally six days renders the commandment of Exodus grammatically useless. The consistent theistic evolutionist would, of necessity, translate that verse “For in six indeterminately long periods of time the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh indeterminately long period of time; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath indeterminately long period of time and made it holy.”
Choose for yourself whose authority is greater: the testimony of God or the testimony of man. God tells Job that we cannot understand *how* He does what He does or *how* He thinks. That does not preclude us from knowing some of *what* it is that He does and *what* it is that He thinks. In fact, He bluntly tells us many such things.
We do not reenact the Fall every day because we are already Fallen in our nature. We were born with original sin because Adam and Eve fell. Other than Christ, Adam and Eve were the only man and woman to ever have a truly free will. Every son of Adam and daughter of Eve is born with an enmity with God as their nature. Until and unless the Holy Spirit regenerates us, reconciles us to God by bringing us to repentance and faith in the shed blood of Christ, we are God’s enemies, and His wrath remains on us.
Bill, I appreciate your zeal… although your words do stike me with a percieved undercurrent of hostility. I know that it is easy to misinterpret tone/intent when reading somewhat anonymous posts on the internet, but I picture you shouting at times as I read your comments. (I apologize if I do indeed misread your comments)
That being said, I feel absolutely no obligation to reconcile evolution with with my belief in God’s creation. However, how can you speak authoritatively on a subject that only God can know authoritatively? Unless you were actually present during creation, you must go by the account laid out in Genesis 1. I remain unconvinced that refering to each phase as a “day” does not necessearialy denote a “24 hour” period. Nor am I convinced that detracts in any way from the significance of the account.
Saying that vs. advocating “Evolutionary Creation” is different, though.
@Matt: No worries man
Feel better.
Apologies for the abundance of spelling errors. I am notorious for fat-fingering the keyboard and not proofreading my posts.
I’m not going to go into creation, as it’s something I struggle with constantly and don’t have a clear view of either way. The only thing I really would like to say is that you, Bill, seem to imply that there is only one true way to read the Bible, that in that one true way things are blunt and clear and should be for everyone. I could not disagree more. Everyone has their own perceptions, what is obvious and plain for one is stiff and obtuse to another. You read the Bible through only your eyes, and you read others interpretations through theirs and then through yours. To say that there is one right way to read and understand the Bible is arrogance. It is saying that the way you read and understand is above all others. To me, this strikes me as putting oneself in the role of God, for only through God’s eyes can the entire truth of the His word be seen.
@ Rob, be careful there - that’s a slippery slope. Truth is not subjective. And there are most definitely wrong ways to interpret the bible (either in part or in whole). People have been doing just that for centuries, misusing it to justify some of the most awful things in the history of humanity. Are you famillier with the Westboro Baptists?
Hmm, Bill, (not sure if anyone is still reading this) I must have been writing that response at the same time you were posting yours. You pretty much addressed all of my concerns… And have given me a lot to think about. I tip my hat to ya.
Jeremy- we do read the Bible with our own prejudices though. Often times we read the Bible and get from it exactly what we are wanting. The Bible has been used to justify awful things, such as slavery and the killing of Jews, what (I think) we lack is an understanding of the culture/history/story of the Bible. Each of the authors had some purpose in their writings, each of the authors brought their own personality to their own stories. I would propose that no one truly understands the fullness of the text, and that no one will (until eternity), it’s just not possible, believing otherwise seriously devalues the Bible. Thus I think that as long as man is trying to interpret the Bible he is going to get parts wrong, he is going to misunderstand things, and his misunderstandings will likely cause some problems along the way.
Thus I feel like there isn’t really one way to read the Bible that’s correct, at least not a way that we are going to attain in this lifetime.
Just a few points to add to what Matt said (which I totally agree with):
Somewhere up there in Bill’s wall of text he says something of the imperfection of man. How we should not trust in the words of men (scientists). This works both ways, and unto ourselves. We are men, imperfect by definition, to try and say that we can ever truly understand God is fallacy. All words ever written, including those of God, have been argued over by man. It is what we do. The very fact that you have so many differing viewpoints all coming from people who identify themselves as ‘Christian’ is proof of this (and that is just staying with Christianity). Until death or the second coming happen, there will never be one true “right” way to see God’s word.
To Jeremy: Truth may not be subjective, but the ways in which we seek it always are. See, the thing is (I feel) Truth, in it’s greatest form, is not ever totally achievable by us in life. I understand that there are and have been terrible interpretations of the Bible, but that does not mean that we (sane) people should not continue searching for the truth. When I was young and rebellious I saw a book of rules that were there to hinder my life, and I turned away from it. Years later, I now look at that same book as a guide to living my life the best possible way. People change, their views change, as life moves and flows from one event to another the Bible changes right before peoples eyes. It is a living text, always changing in the eyes of those reading it.
Yes, I know of the Westboro Baptists, and yes, I think they got it wrong. But here’s the big difference between what I am saying and the terrible mis-interpretations that you see; I am claiming that I will never truly understand it. I do not claim that the way I see it is the “right” way. I didn’t post here to argue for or against evolution, because I assume that I may be wrong. The Westboro Baptists assume that they are Right and that everyone else is wrong. By keeping it open, by saying that no one (no man) has all of the answers to the Bible, we discourage people like Westboro. Only when we assume that we are totally right do we fall into being like those people.
Now, let me say one thing, because I can see what is coming next. I’m not saying that all parts of the Bible can be interpreted by anyone to prove whatever point they feel like making that particular day. I’m not saying that any interpretation should be heard or accepted. Like in every decent college in the country, you can’t just make a claim without backing it up. All verses should be considered with the text that surrounds them. We should look at the historical context, we should find other examples of that topic, we should really dig deep into any claim that is made. I’m not saying let’s all just get whatever we want to get out of it, I’m saying everyone sees it differently, and we should be intelligent about all interpretations.
Oh, and as for Rob Bell, I can’t find anywhere that he has ever publicly said how he feels about the creation either way. For all I can find, maybe he calls Genesis a poem simply because, well, when looking at it from the standpoint of literature, it is. It’s very lyrical, it has a flow to it, a measure. It’s structured in what appears to be a very deliberate way. The writing has a beauty to it.
Moving beyond that, Bell has some great ideas, and he speaks of God in a way that fills me with hope. I don’t agree with all he says, some things I very much disagree with, but I have never been one to shut out opposing viewpoints. He still has a great message, even if you don’t agree with the whole. To say that he is in anyway bad to have out there, well, he may not say all things you agree with, but good things still come of it. Who knows how many people of come to Christ through him. I don’t know about you, but I don’t ever consider that a bad thing.
The problem with such statements such as “no one has ever got it right” is that it places the speaker of such a statement in a position of vastly superior knowledge to every man who has ever lived. Not only that, but it places the speaker in a position to where he necessarily has all knowledge so as to be able to accurately make the claim that no one has ever gotten it right. That is the ultimate in arrogance, not the one who makes a truth claim. This is the fallacy of post-modernism, and when examined, allows one to see how presumptuous such statements from the Emergent camp are.
To claim that someone has knowledge of a right and true thing does not, in and of itself, make one arrogant. To claim *all* right knowledge of *everything* does (and it has already been explained why this make the post-modernist the ultimately arrogant one. You have mistakenly equated a specific claim of truth to a claim of right knowledge of everything.
That you are able to claim that the Westboro folks, or the Reformed folks, or any other folks have got it wrong shows is testimony to the fact that there *is* a right and wrong way to interpret Scripture. The only infallible interpretor of Scripture is Scripture itself. Knowing historical, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds are important, but they do not replace Scripture as the infallible interpretor.
Truth be told, the consistent post-modernist would not bat an eye at the Westboro folks, because that’s “just their interpretation of it.” Words have specific and precise meaning. They cannot mean whatever we suppose them to mean. Language is a somewhat fluid, but it is more akin to tree sap in winter than a rushing waterfall. If words had no meaning, the consistent post-modernist wouldn’t pay exactly what the clerk at the grocery store asked for. No, we couldn’t even be having this conversation at the moment if words had no meaning or were absolutely subjective (wrap your head around that one for a moment) in nature.
Rob Bell’s modus operandi is calculated ambiguity. He gives you enough truth to make himself believable, and then enough heresy to dishonor the Captain of our salvation, bringing glory to Rob Bell, the created thing, rather than the Jesus Christ, the Creator.
To say that Rob Bell speaks truth and that we should listen to him is to say that we ought to look through a rat poison sandwich which Rob has offered us to find the morsel of cold hamburger that may or may be there. Sure, you could find it if you picked it apart and cut around it enough, but what’s there isn’t worth the effort when a better friend is waiting to offer you a hot, juicy steak sandwich.
Given his consistently poor exegesis of Scripture and constant dabbling in the realm of half-truths and heresies, I would no more trust Rob Bell to teach the flock of God than I would trust a world-renowned thief to guard a truckload of unmarked $100 bills.
Bill I take great issue with your opening paragraph. To state no one has ever got it right is not the penultimate sum of arrogance but a simple deduction of logic. Take a look at the large number of world views, theological views, and social views held within the Church, well they can’t all be right can they? So to claim that no one group has ever (nor could ever) get it “all” right is, again, by no means a statement of arrogance.
Would it be arrogant to say “They didn’t get it all right, but we’ve got it right!”? Yes!
But a simple realization of the fact that there is so much unknown to us for us to ever really get it all right is in no way a statement of arrogance.
Your argument that the only infallible interpreter of scripture is scripture is rather circular, I would impose that the only infallible interpreter is God himself.
As far as your argument, that the claim that we feel that certain groups have gotten certain things wrong, goes, then I agree with you. We need a linguistic change from “They got it wrong” to “Based on what I think is right, I think they got it wrong, but I may be wrong.” I would say this is the most humble way to approach the topic of personal beliefs being right and wrong.
Now to your argument that words have specific and precise meanings. I would counter that, while you are correct, words do change over time, thus a need for a cultural understanding would reveal itself as quite necessary when trying to study the bible. You should also take into account different words mean different things to different people. Ask people to describe (in their own words, not just spit out the Webster’s definition) the word love, you’ll likely get a different response from each person, same with the word truth, same with the word faith. Each of their responses will be uniquely shaped off their worldviews. Thus that is where we come off saying that words can mean different things.
As to your last three paragraphs I’ll not give them credence as I feel they don’t deserve any.
“The problem with such statements such as “no one has ever got it right” is that it places the speaker of such a statement in a position of vastly superior knowledge to every man who has ever lived.”
You have something in quotes there that I certainly did not say. I also said that all claims should be properly analyzed and backed up. You’re using a lot of circular logic, and I could go through with a fine tooth comb and point out the fallacies of all of those arguments, but I simply don’t feel like it today.
Really, all of this doesn’t matter too much to me, but I do enjoy the discussion. The facts are these, all of us here believe in Jesus Christ. Period. The rest is just semantics.
Matt, feel free to add me on Facebook. Peace be with you all.
The implication of such statements by McLaren and company are not merely that no one has *all* of it right. Their leap is to the non sequitur that no one has ever gotten *any* of it right until the Emergent Church showed up on the scene to save the day with extra medium hoodies, black-rimmed glasses, and comfy chairs. That *is* arrogance, and that is what I’m talking about. No honest Christian claims to have *all* knowledge of truth, but we can rightly claim that we have knowledge of certain truths — certain truths like those laid out in the Westminster Confession of Faith and its corresponding catechisms, or the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith and the corresponding catechism of Benjamin Keach.
Jesus Christ transcends time and culture. His message is that of repentance and submissive obedience to His command. He offers life, hope, peace, and forgiveness. These are concepts which transcend time and culture and are common to the human condition. How you reason with a person that they are sinful and need to repent and believe may differ from culture to culture (see Paul with regard to the Jews and Greeks), but the command to go and preach it does not.
Bill… I don’t think you’ve ever actually read any McLaren. He plainly states that he doesn’t think that he has it all right.
Next time, read up before you speak up.
Thanks.
Excuse me Matt, but he plainly states that he thinks “NO ONE has ever gotten the Gospel right in the past or now.” In case it’s not absolutely crystal clear, he’s not just making the claim that *he* doesn’t have the Gospel right (and it’s plain to see from his teachings that he doesn’t), but that NO ONE has true knowledge of it now, nor has anyone ever.
To state such a thing is incredibly presumptuous, particularly in light of the legacy of the Reformers and Puritans. The problem McLaren and his disciples have is not merely with someone claiming to have all knowledge. Even a solidly Reformed theologian would reject such a statement as foolish and ignorant. What McLaren and the Emergent Church folks are rejecting out of hand is ANY claim of absolute truth — not just the claim of the knowledge of *all* things true, but even the knowledge of specific and singular truths such as “The holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.
Read more carefully what I wrote. Don’t put words in my mouth in order to erect a desperate defense for all things Emergent.
“Their leap is to the non sequitur that no one has ever gotten *any* of it right until the Emergent Church showed up on the scene to save the day with extra medium hoodies, black-rimmed glasses, and comfy chairs.”
You straight up claimed that we had it right.
Read your words more carefully before you erect a desperate attack on all things Emergent.