Comments on: Christians Who Hate the Bible http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2011/10/30/christians-who-hate-the-bible/ Theology you can eat and drink Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:01:57 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.41 By: Mike Bull http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2011/10/30/christians-who-hate-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-14344 Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:14:38 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=8197#comment-14344 Dear Mike,
Thanks for your comment. I really appreciate you taking the time. My main purpose here was to post excerpts of Dr. Leithart’s conversation with the author. Dr. Leithart has read the book. How about interacting with those? The title of my post was intended to highlight the practice of modern evangelicals of inventing methods to distance themselves from the text. They don’t believe they hate the Bible, but compared to Jordan and Leithart who actually do deal with the difficult bits and find corroboration, their love for the scripture is a strange kind of love. The work of these theologians is not widely known. I really recommend checking them out. It will make my perspective, or at least Dr. Leithart’s perspective, a great deal clearer. Again thanks for commenting.

]]> By: Mike Blyth http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2011/10/30/christians-who-hate-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-14309 Mon, 26 Dec 2011 09:15:29 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=8197#comment-14309 I see that this was written in October, so I certainly hope you have had the chance to read the book by now. Your post illustrates the dangers of critiquing a book you haven’t read.

To associate Dr. Smith with those who “hate the Bible” borders on slander, which as you know is not a good thing. As to the specifics you attribute to his writing, …

Smith defines biblicism in a very specific way as a constellation of features including the convictions that the Bible addresses all areas of life, speaks with a single, clear voice in all its parts (univocality and perspicuity), is universally applicable, is understood inductively (we can find the truth about any topic by putting together all the verses that seem to apply to that topic), and is all we need (there is no need for creeds, leaders, magesterium, etc.).

The main point of the book, as he makes clear many times, is that this entire constellation is incoherent, that is, self-defeating. He nowhere says that every part is wrong, only that all the pieces add up to something that is impossible. For example, if the Bible is clear to all who sincerely seek to understand it, and speaks with one voice, and is universal, then why do sincere Christians disagree on the atonement, or predestination, or eschatology? He considers several possible responses from biblicists to explain the situation, but shows the problems with each. Judging from your post, your response may be the first one he lists (and eliminates), i.e. blaming the reader: people who come to different interpretations than ours do so because they are insincere, sinful, using improper techniques, blinded by Satan or the flesh, etc.

Smith’s point about difficult passages is not at all that they can be ignored, as you suggest. Rather, he argues that they illustrate a problem for biblicists in that they are hard to fit into that universal, perspicuous, inductive framework. Whether or not this is true, he is not suggesting we can gloss over them.

I hope you do have a chance to read the book and try to understand it for what it is, on its own merits, and then to respond to what it does say.

]]>