Something needs to be said concerning the Peter Enns, James McGraths, and Daniel Kirks of the world. They need to be told how much they need to speak positively.
For too long folks have questioned and reinterpreted the Genesis creation narrative with impunity. It is implied, insinuated, and explicitly stated that Adam did not literally exist. We are told that we can have the doctrine and covenant of Adam without having had Adam himself. The issue, we are told, is that the Bible is Christotelic and Christocentric. Supposedly that means that somehow the literal Adam is unnecessary. We can have the antitype, Jesus Christ, without the type, Adam. We aren’t told exactly how this is so.
We are simply left with doubt about Adam’s existence.
We are left with a void where Adam once was.
We are left with the negative, and we are given very little positive.
If these gentlemen truly care for the church, they will supply us exegesis, theology, and sound reasoning based upon Scripture as to why and how we can and must do without Adam.
Replace the void with something constructive.
Offset the negative with something positive.
Don’t leave people in doubt of the Scriptures and of God. Use Scripture to build a constructive case for your position.
Give God’s people a reason for believing Scripture.
If you can only sow seeds of doubt, stir up dissension, and leave the man in the pew scratching his head in confusion, just hush it up! You are doing no one any good.
Either teach a truly positive and Christocentric theology which upholds the veracity of Scripture as Jesus did, or be silent until you can.

They say Doug Wilson is racist, but he proves that the shoe probably fits on the other’s foot better than on his.

Beginning with Margaret Sanger’s contempt for “human weeds,” the pro-abort contingent has waged an unrelenting and very clever war on the black future. They have been very successful in this because of the radical abdication of black men. These black men have abandoned their children, and they must be called to repentance. What they are doing is twisted, demented. Sin always is.

Black skin is a gift of God, a gift that only God can give. When He gives it, as He is beginning to give it in the womb, that gift should be honored and protected. It should be honored and protected, in the first instance, by the black father of that child. But a black father will not and cannot do this if he has a black heart. He cannot do it if he pimps out his women, and places his black legacy to be slain on the Altar of Eight Thrusts. As we stare at this ad, flummoxed at the blindness, we have to remember that only God can give a black skin, and only God can take away a black heart. He will do that when someone summons up the courage to preach the gospel to black men.

By the way, before the usual suspects start to yell about my different uses of “black” in the previous paragraph, alleging my racism with loud screeches — as is their custom — I will simply point out that English uses the word black as a term of condemnation (e.g. blackguard, black heart) and honor both (e.g. Black Watch, Black & Tan). So if you want, go right ahead. Yell about etymological racism if you like. Go through the roof with it whenever some Republican tool tries to save Medicare through minor adjustments of the payouts. In the meantime, some people have noticed how many millions of our black children you have slaughtered, and we have noticed the quisling fathers.

Here is a statement from Infidels.org.

“NOTE: These lists are meant to identify possible problems in the Bible, especially problems which are inherent in a literalist or fundamentalist interpretation. Some of the selections may be resolvable on certain interpretations–after all, almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations–but it is the reader’s obligation to test this possibility and to decide whether it really makes appropriate sense to do this. To help readers in this task, these lists are aimed at presenting examples where problems may exist given certain allowable (but not always obligatory) assumptions. It should be kept in mind that a perfect and omnipotent God could, should, and likely would see to it that such problems did not exist in a book which s/he had inspired. It should also be kept in mind that what is and is not an inconsistency or contradiction is to some extent a matter of opinion. You are entitled to disagree with the author that these are, in fact, inconsistencies or contradictions.

IMPORTANT: Please keep in mind that by “inconsistencies” I do not necessarily mean “contradictions.” Even though accepted and common definitions of the two terms often make them synonymous, I make a subtle distinction which is reflected in at least some of the accepted definitions. What I have in mind is that an inconsistency involves a lack of harmonious uniformity, regularity, steady continuity, or agreement among the verses cited. Thus, whereas a contradiction is necessarily an inconsistency, an inconsistency is not necessarily a contradiction. But certainly some of the listed biblical inconsistencies could be taken as biblical contradictions.”

What is contradictory about this statement?
The fact that they think that they are able to point out contradictions.
You see, logic is only logical in the worldview of the Christian Theist.  The atheist and agnostic cannot use logic consistently with their worldview.

Why?

Because there is no absolute, intelligent, reasoning personality.  That is, there is no standard for logic.  If we have simply evolved to where we are today, our logic has evolved.  That means that, tomorrow, our logic may have evolved even more.  If that were the case, what was an inconsistency or contradiction today may be perfectly clear to us tomorrow.  Reason would not be reason, because our thinking would be in a constant state of change.

Logic DEMANDS an absolute.  Atheism and agnosticism have no absolutes.  Thus they have no logic.

Thus they cannot logically speak of inconsistencies and contradictions in the Scriptures.

Just musing..

Too bad Joseph is a total stud and Potiphar’s wife has a thing for him.

Byas, Jared; Enns, Peter (2012-04-09). Genesis for Normal People: A Guide to the Most Controversial, Misunderstood, and Abused Book of the Bible (Kindle Locations 1529-1530). Patheos Press. Kindle Edition.

This flippant attitude toward Scripture is one that seems to be prevalent among modern day “Evangelicals”. I must honestly say that I have a great disdain for it.

1. Nowhere do we read that Joseph is a stud. That is exaggeration and eisegesis.

2. It is a careless handling of Scripture that wants to bring modern profane viewpoints to bear on this ancient, holy book.

Along with his very bad theology, this is the reason that I refuse to recommend Enns’ work.

The law of non-contradiction simply states that something cannot be both A and non-A at the same time.

If a person decides that the law of non-contradiction is incorrect he must then say that his position, or another position of which he is aware is correct.

The problem with that declaration is that, if the law of non-contradiction is correct, it is incorrect to declare it incorrect. After all, it’s not that it must be either correct or incorrect; it may be both correct and incorrect, if the logic of those who oppose the law of non-contradiction is followed to its end. Thus the logic of declaring it incorrect fails.

The other problem is that, if the law of non-contradiction is declared incorrect, one must use the law of non-contradiction to declare it incorrect. After all, one must say “Either my position is correct, or the law of non-contradiction is correct.” What that does is tell us that both his position and the law of non-contradiction are unable to be correct at the same time. What just happened with such a statement? The law of non-contradiction was used to declare the law of non-contradiction wrong. The person opposing the law of non-contradiction declares that it cannot be correct and incorrect at the same time, so it is incorrect. He also says that his position cannot be correct and incorrect at the same time, so his position is correct.

That is why I declared that to deny the law of non-contradiction is to descend into irrationality. To oppose the law of non-contradiction is similar to a person saying, “Words have no meaning!” To which I respond, “And yet you think your words do have meaning.”

The law of non-contradiction is inevitable. We use it when we stand on the street corner. We look and see a bus coming. Do we believe that life and non-life can exist in our bodies at the same time? Do we step out in front of the bus? The law of non-contradiction is a matter of “either, or” as opposed to “both, and.” Why? Because it is not both the bus and I, it is either me or the bus.

Related articles

• Descending Into Irrationality (pastoralmusings.com)

I don’t recall having ever said this, but search engines are odd things.

This is a search term that led someone to this blog.

very few philosophies in the world are as bigoted as liberalism

 

I must say, from my experience, there’s much truth in that; though it won’t apply to every liberal.

Rod said,

they have no choice but to resort to personal attacks.

One only need to read here to see that no personal attack was made by me. I am unashamed of my conduct, because I’ve simply stated facts. In the post of mine that I linked to, one only need to read to see that Rod’s post takes his comments out of context as well as mine. That is patently dishonest.

Rod also says,

For some strange reason, all of these quotes put me in the category of being “uncharitable” and “a liberal.”

Yet he cannot find where I called him a liberal. I called his interaction uncharitable because he didn’t like my saying that his comments were self-contradicting. He then said in our Google+ discussion, in response to my statement regarding his self-contradicting comments,

By using the ‘you’re being hypocritical’ answer typical in conservative circles, I can only assume you have no real rebuttal to me.

You see, Rod wishes to make it seem as if I called him hypocritical. I did not. I simply stated that his logic was erroneous. There’s often a vast difference between hypocrisy and a logical fallacy. However, if the shoe fits, Rodney is certainly welcome to wear it.

I responded and bade Rodney farewell, which means I was exiting the discussion because I didn’t wish to become embroiled in an affair such as this has turned out to be.

No, I’m using the law of non-contradiction, a fundamental principle of logic.
Seeing you remain the same ROA who refuses to engage in charitable discussion, I bid you farewell.

To bid someone farewell means to tell them goodbye and that you wish them well. I meant only that, yet Rodney evidently felt that there was some nefarious intent behind my words, because he said,

Farewell? Like Piper on Rob Bell I see……….

Just exactly where have I been uncharitable, Jason? Did I resort to calling anyone names? Did I go after arguments you believe with all of your heart but refuse to be critical of? Of course! Thats your charity for you. Your inability to “convert” me or +Joel Watts to your Calvinist brand of fundamentalism. Pathetic really.

Again, I am just gonna assume you have no real rebuttal because you don’t; Language comes from humans. The end.

Honestly, sometimes I simply don’t think that it’s worth wasting my time to try to speak with someone who responds as Rodney did. That is why I tried to gracefully and quietly bow out of the discussion on Google+.

Rodney continues his blog and says,

 Furthermore, my posts against fundamentalist epistemologies such as “Presuppositionalism” only state the awkward positions that famous racist presuppositionalists such as R.J. Rushdoony have held: see me on Presuppositionalism and Segregation [linked here]. My purpose is to show the Christian presuppositionalism is really a merri-go-round epistemology, which places epistemology over and against all else, and then places God second or third. Following the “LAWS OF PHALLUS, I MEAN, LOGIC” means following a rather circular logic that leads down the path of uncritical thinking, anti-intellectuallism, and reactionary politics. No siree. No thank you!

Rodney commits another logical fallacy by associating all presuppositionalists with Rushdooney. That is guilt by association, yet I have no association with Rushdooney. I’ve not read his writings, listened to his sermons, or watched his videos. Rodney continues and decides to get even more profane by insinuating that logic is somehow phallic worship, or something of the sort. And what does he know of my thinking, intellect and politics? Next to nothing is the answer, because Rodney doesn’t know me beyond some interaction on the web.

Rodney goes on to say,

This is not the first time, and I am sure it won’t be the last time, that a fundamentalist anti-intellectual has accused me of not following the “law of contradiction.”

Amazing. I never called names, yet am accused of calling names, but Rodney unabashedly calls me an anti-intellectual. Hmmm…methinks that there is a very smutted up pot speaking of the blackness of a kettle here. After all, it the one who seems to desire to reject logic and reasoning that is actually against the right use of the mind.

Rodney further says,

 May I ask a question, if I may? Who set up this law? Who voted you to enforce this law? That’s all I ask. In the spirit of the police officer in Marvel’s The Avengers who asked Captain America, “Why should I take orders from you?,” I ask, WHO ARE YOU? Especially the fundamentalist blog I linked to in this post is a questionable authority on “rationality” and “logic” at best, when he is given to emotional rants against historical criticism and evolutionary science.

Who set up the law? I’ll give you a hint. Just read here. It’s a good start.

Who voted for me to enforce the law of non-contradiction? No one. Neither shall I try to enforce it. On the other hand, if you respond to me when I’ve not spoken to you, I may indeed tell you when your logic fails. That is what happened. Nothing more and nothing less.

Perhaps I am a questionable authority on logic and rationality. Actually, I’m no authority at all. Logic and rationality have their roots in God and are part of the essence of man as being the image of God. The authority is the Creator. Your beef is with Him.

Of course, Rodney finally shows what the true issue is when he speaks of “emotional rants against historical criticism and evolutionary science.” I suppose “emotional rants” must be in the eyes of the beholder, because I can see that Rodney was certainly not lacking in passion as he posted this, though his logic surely failed again. The reality is that I challenge these modern day shibboleths of historical criticism and evolutionary philosophy. That is what troubles Rodney so much.

This only gets worse,

The fact of the matter is this; It is this fundamentalist who has forgotten the source of truth. If you find the inventor of the Law of Noncontradiction, you will see it’s not god, but Greek philosophers like Plato and Socrates. Are they god? Nope. Speaking of rationality, I find the term highly problematic, especially in this fundamentalist’s usage of it. For centuries, good Christians have used rationality as THE definition of God’s image in humanity, to separate us from animals. The likes of Thomas Aquinas, among others; my problem is that this definition is very limited, and excludes special needs persons. Plus, this exclusive view of rationality/the divine image in us all has been used to justify oppression; people who have been seen as not rational as Europeans (hint hint hint) were to be subjected to European colonial rule. Exclusivist European Rationality is a very imperialist mode of thinking.

Rodney doesn’t know what I believe about the imago Dei. He assumes, but does not know. He speaks of that which he doesn’t know, and he errs in that which he speaks.

Rodney also seems to find a European behind many of the world’s ills. Thinking people will realize that you can’t put all of the blame on one group of people. There’s a world of prejudice in Rodney’s statement.

Finally, Rodney says,

Yup, fundamentalists deny God’s own freedom of choice, to use particular histories and specific bodies IN time to tell God’s story.

The thing is, I do not deny God the right to use whomever He pleases to tell His story however He pleases. In fact, that is irrelevant to the subject, except for the fact that God is true and will not deny Himself- i.e. He will not contradict Himself. He will not lie.

The essence of this post is to show that there is no logic in Rodney’s reply, but there is much bigotry against Caucasians who use logic, believe the Bible is God’s Word without error, and refuse to bow to the “run-of-the-mill post-modern narrative theory of truth” as Rodney calls it.

This is my final say on the matter. Let whoever will say whatever they will. I am satisfied that from the beginning I spoke plainly and kindly, albeit in a straightforward manner. I have no reason to blush, except for the man who is unable to admit when he is mistaken and chooses rather to stoop to libel and slander.

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

…it is a reasonable principle, recognized among critics of secular historians, that two writers must not be held to be contradictory where any natural mode of harmonizing can be imagined. Otherwise it amounts to holding that we know fully and thoroughly all facts of the case, – better even than eye-witnesses seem ever to know them.

Warfield, Works vol 1 pg 417

Related articles

• Warfield On The Incarnational Model Of The Scriptures (pastoralmusings.com)

All of this below relates to this.

This is a comment that I left.

I rest my case that I present no ad hominem arguments. I don’t call names. I don’t disrespect people who disagree with me. I simply expect educated people to speak reasonably.

This my reply that is, at 9:42 pm CDST Friday May 11, 2012, awaiting moderator approval.

No, but that’s the essence of what you’re insinuating. And then to say that I’m trying to enforce something is truly fallacious. I simply responded to a comment that you made to me. I find it quite strange that you can comment to me, but I cannot reply and contradict you. I am then misrepresented, maligned, and run down with all sorts of trash talk. I’m trying to enforce nothing except the will of God in my own life, which I should do. If I respond to you when you speak to me, I’m trying to enforce nothing, but to simply answer you.
Let’s just put it all in context. It all occurred here  https://plus.google.com/u/0/106669832127104651727/posts/fvPtYgbwkFY  I then blogged here, but did not reference anyone nor call names as it has been claimed that I did.  http://pastoralmusings.com/descending-into-irrationality/
The result is this libelous blog post and ad hominem attack.
Let the reader decide. I rest my case.
“Scott LenckeMay 8, 2012 – Mobile – Public
Truth does not necessarily have to be established as ‘objective’ for it to be true. #practicalrealism #nonmodernistreality
6 comments

Gracefully HomeschoolingMay 8, 2012Edit
ScottL,
This is truly disturbing.
Objective:being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective?s=t

ScottL, words mean something. Truth is not dependent upon us, our ideology, or anything external to God. God is truth. Scripture presents us that truth.
I am very saddened by all of this.

RodThe RogueDemonHunterMay 8, 2012 (edited)
+Gracefully Homeschooling

Words also change meaning, Words have historical contexts and have human community from which they are brought forth, therefore words can never be purely objective. God is Truth, yes, but what sort of truth, that is the question. Is God true to God’s word, and therefore, God can be True and Faithful, that we know from Scripture.

Jesus represents us Truth, and only through that Truth can we understand and read scripture. How do we know God? Revelation, yes? And who is that revelation? Christ, so Christ the Person is truth, Christ in his concrete, historical existence; therefore, the Christian idea of Truth should be different from abstract, objective propositional truth statements. It should come in the form of story.

Gracefully HomeschoolingMay 8, 2012Edit
You just made an abstract, propositional truth statement, so your position is contradictory.

RodThe RogueDemonHunterMay 8, 2012
By using the ‘you’re being hypocritical’ answer typical in conservative circles, I can only assume you have no real rebuttal to me.

Gracefully HomeschoolingMay 8, 2012Edit
No, I’m using the law of non-contradiction, a fundamental principle of logic.
Seeing you remain the same ROA who refuses to engage in charitable discussion, I bid you farewell.

RodThe RogueDemonHunterMay 8, 2012 (edited)
Farewell? Like Piper on Rob Bell I see……….

Just exactly where have I been uncharitable, Jason? Did I resort to calling anyone names? Did I go after arguments you believe with all of your heart but refuse to be critical of? Of course! Thats your charity for you. Your inability to “convert” me or +Joel Watts to your Calvinist brand of fundamentalism. Pathetic really.

Again, I am just gonna assume you have no real rebuttal because you don’t; Language comes from humans. The end.”

Is logic simply a human construct?

Did it begin with the Greek philosophers/

Is it only the invention of people who wish to oppress others who don’t know any better?

Is logic a tool of the white man to oppress the other (so-called) races?

Does a desire to think and speak logically mean that a person is placing logic on a plane that is higher than God?

Let me answer the last question first. For me, though I desire to think and speak logically, I understand that God’s thoughts are higher than my thoughts and His ways are higher than mine. His Word tells us as much. Thus I do not cause God to submit to the laws of logic. God stands above logic as Lord and Master.

God also stands above logic as Creator. Logic is something that proceeds from God. I have previously spoken of the fact that the very existence of knowledge points us to an absolute and objective source of knowledge. That source is God Himself.

God the source of logic? Yes, indeed He is. There is nothing in all of the universe that is not subject to God. His kingdom rules over all and His jurisdiction has no boundary. There was a time when all there was was God. There was no universe, no heaven, no starry heavens, and no earth; there was only God. Then we find that God created all things. By Him were all things made, and there are no exceptions. Those things were also made for Him and His glory. God is a God of knowledge, and the only wise God. If there is anything known in the world today, it will be due to God’s creating truth and knowledge.

But wait, you say, that’s all fine, but where is logic in all of this? It is right in the middle of this discussion, and is part and parcel of this discussion. You see, we can have no rational discussion without logic. We can have no coherent manner of speaking and communicating without a standard of truth and knowledge. God is the ultimate arbiter, yet He has made it possible for us to think and communicate so that we can understand one another. Thus logic enters the scene. God has told us through His Word that He is not the God of confusion. God is not into us being totally unable to communicate. God has made it possible for us to speak to one another, understand one another, and discuss various issue. This is because we have learned that the rules of logic, though imperfect due to our own human imperfections in discovering and using them, are helpful in allowing us to speak clearly, fairly, and sensibly.

It is because God gave us logic that you can read and understand this blog post. If you disagree with it, that is because there is something about this post that does not appeal to the form of thinking that you like to use; whether that be logic, or whether it goes by some other name.

If a person decides to reject logic they need to cease speaking with a desire to be understood. They need to cease speaking in sentences. They no longer need to use paragraphs or any other form of arrangement. They need to cease to declare that any person who disagrees with them is wrong. After all, to prove someone wrong, logic will be used of a necessity.

Logic comes from God and is inevitable that we will use it if we are to speak with any rationality.