TU&AD

Trust me, I do appreciate your words of caution. I have witnessed first hand the affect the HC has had on Christians not firmly established in their bibliology. I would agree that before one delves into a study in HC, one should have a sure footing in verbal plenary inspiration and historical-grammatical-canonical methodology to understand why the Bible is the word of God as opposed to becoming or containing the word of God. Otherwise, the seemingly rationale does have an appealing allure as does even the dialectal model espoused by Barth.

I don’t suggest one engages in study for mere sake of scholarship. Yes, that study in a vacuum could prove harmful. But for the purposes of understanding points of departure that have so undermined the Biblical text and in order to defend divine communication appropriate to revelation and inspiration that does make the Bible, God’s word, understanding HC can be quite helpful. Perhaps I’m biased since this is my particular interest and see such study as having tremendous apologetic value.

Btw, I love Machen, Carson, Pache, Geisler and Henry so no worries on this end

“TU&AD,

If one wishes to engage in honest Biblical scholarship, it would be of necessity to understand the HC method, would you not agree? Not for agreement but for effective intellectual interaction.”

Lisa Robinson,

It might be fun to dissect and parse the words further in your sentences. But let me instead respond with a counsel of humble caution. As someone who believes in a literal Eve in a Garden of Eden, she was urged to engage in “effective intellectual/physical interaction” with forbidden fruit. Not to say that the methodology of Historical-Criticism is “forbidden fruit”, but rather that H-C has left a rather long and destructive wake of apostate souls who have drank the corrosive acid of her seeds. Not everyone, obviously, but far too many!

Sometimes, perhaps not you, but others, there is the temptation to make “scholarship” a false idol. And an idol to take self-pride in.

And with regards to “honest”, how “honest” are the assumptions of H-C biblical scholarship when weighed in the balance against the self-attestations of the Written Word and Living Word? And what about turning the methodology of H-C back upon itself? How does it fare in the mirror?

Yet assuming the earnestness of your question, I would approach H-C methodology as if it was the required viewing of an R-rated movie, a film that everyone in academia raves about and which you’re expected to have some currency in. My hope is that you would have the intestinal fortitude and moxie of a Machen, a D.A. Carson, or an R.C. Sproul by which to enter the Lion’s Den of theological liberals and still leave unscathed and intact.

In addition to Professor Linnemann’s essay above, I commend to you C.S. Lewis’s famous essay titled “Fern-Seed and Elephants.” You’ll have a good chuckle or two, but there is a worthy lesson there too.

Also, I might suggest knowing H-C and the assumptions underlying all its variants for the purposes of undermining it, and then *evangelizing* those theological liberal-atheists whose faith has been sabotaged by higher criticism. God willing.

TU&AD,

If one wishes to engage in honest Biblical scholarship, it would be of necessity to understand the HC method, would you not agree? Not for agreement but for effective intellectual interaction.

TAVW, #42: “Moreover, biblical criticism is (at least as far as my experience went) often dismissed or downplayed at DTS with an embarrassing quickness, one somehow thought justified by the crippling modernist, hermeneutical straitjacket of inerrancy (at least insofar as inerrancy is seen through the lens of the Chicago Statement or its doctrinal analogs). ”

Dan Wallace, #61: “BTW, one of the key things the NT faculty ask students who want to get into our department for a PhD is how open they are to historical criticism. They may hold to a view that is far to the right of where we are, but if they are open to the evidence and can affirm a willingness to engage, rather than shut down or shout down, then they’re a decent candidate.”

If we’re going to set equal standards for both sides, then a clear lack of tact and irenicity (per C. Michael Patton’s continued insistence) is displayed by TAVW’s assertion that inerrancy is a “crippling, modernist, hermeneutical straitjacket” which shows contra Wallace an unwillingness to engage, but rather to shut down or shout down Inerrantists.

With regards to “decent” candidates for DTS’s doctoral program, have them engage this brief by NT Professor Eta Linnemann, a student of Dr. Rudolf Bultmann, titled “Confessions of a Former Bultmannian” as regards to the hermeneutic of Historical Criticism and its myriad of descendants.

IMO the Manhattan Declaration issue is not so much about the contents of the declaration, but the fact that people from the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are signing it. Perhaps this controversy could have been resolved if the Calvinists just copied the Manhattan Declaration word-for-word, except where it says “We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians”, just replace it with “We are evangelical 5-point Calvinistic Christians”. Then, just call it the “Reformed Manhattan Declaration”. Then there wouldn’t be so much controversy. But it’s kind of too late now, and it’s unreasonable to expect any signatories such as Grudem to unsign it.

Since the declaration only mentions the gospel and not the eternal fate of babies who are aborted, there will be no need to distinguish between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians. Neither is there a need to distinguish between infras and supras.

Likewise, Arminians (like Oden and McDowell) who want to sign it could make their own version of the Manhattan Declaration.

Jason C., I think there are ways to slap down the argument without slapping down the person. Problem is we take our theology too personally.

Dear CMP,

(Sorry for being off-topic) It seems some of the controversy over the Manhattan Declaration stems for the doctrine of Sola Fide. From this old post of yours, you wrote that Sola Fide was essential for orthodoxy, but not essential for salvation:

“I believe that faith alone saves a person, not an adherence to the belief in salvation by faith alone. Having said this, I believe that it is a primary part of the discharge of the Gospel to proclaim strongly and loudly that salvation is by faith alone. Those who deny such are in great danger in many ways. Paul exhorted the Galatians not to fall back into a worthless system of works. The means by which they were saved (faith) is also the means by which they are kept (faith). When man attempts to add anything to the faith, they have denied the Gospel by which they were saved. This is tragic.”

This makes sense to me and I agree with you, but it seems to me that the critics of the Protestant signers and supporters of the Manhattan Declaration are saying that Sola Fide is a 1st-Order doctrine and essential for salvation.

Michael T,

I thought it was quite apparent what I was asking of CMP: “Do these comments qualify as irenic, tactful rhetoric? Or do you think that the seriousness of their concerns merits and justifies the rhetoric that they used.”

TuaD,
Aren’t you proving CMP’s point here by pointing out the exact type of comments CMP is saying shouldn’t be made? I’m confused.

Challenge-riposte was the standard form of rhetoric in Jesus’ day. If you couldn’t stand up manfully and slap down those attempting to slap you down then obviously your position wasn’t very strong.

John 8:38-45 is an example of that.

Modern man is a rather insipid creature compared to the ancients so we have to be more gentle with him.