tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post1562776743498001924..comments2024-02-29T19:21:32.831-05:00Comments on Possible Worlds: How Should We Feel about False Doctrine?Randy Everisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-85041975034935640032014-09-25T18:33:37.388-04:002014-09-25T18:33:37.388-04:00Hi Nolan, thanks for commenting! I sympathize with...Hi Nolan, thanks for commenting! I sympathize with your plight! I think the issue of hermeneutics, while important, in Ross' case probably plays a minor role (that is, presumably Ross can and does still affirm most, if not nearly all, of the major doctrinal beliefs that "normal" evangelical Christians do, differing mostly or solely where "normal" evangelicals do so). In that case, I wouldn't get too caught up in it from an emotional perspective: it tends to lean toward (though it does not necessarily need be the case) the attitude of frustration that people aren't <i>listening to me!</i><br /><br />I will refrain from commenting as to whether and how much of Ross' ministry may be compromised in what ways were concordism be shown to be false (which I do not support concordism, for what it's worth), though I think that to be an interesting exercise. I will say I think it's worth trying to persuade, as in all matters intellectual and Christian, because it's worth getting at the truth. However, "trying to persuade" and "insisting people hold to the doctrines I do, because of what I think it entails" are certainly not identical. I'm also not trying to claim you're doing this.<br /><br />Here's a prime example: Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism. I believe consistent Calvinism, taken to its logical end, entails that God would be inconsistent with the ground of objective moral values; God would be what we would say is morally culpable (if we were to stipulate God had moral duties). I further believe that certain Calvinistic views contribute to people leaving the faith (or else fuel justifications for such). However, I do not fight against Calvinism, wishing to eradicate it and insisting that those who don't want to contribute to atheism. Instead, I seek to persuade, while also seeking to mitigate those consequences.<br /><br />So might we mitigate those consequences in Ross' case? Perhaps by diversifying apologetic options; perhaps by teaching believers that their faith need not be hitched to arguments such that if they were to be defeated, they should become unbelievers, and so forth. This way, you need not find yourself in a position of having to either: a) tear down Ross, or b) pretend that something you find to be untrue is perfectly true. The balance is to have a humble spirit and seek to persuade, but also mitigate the consequences of what you perceive. Does that make sense? :)Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-61260251563696688822014-09-25T17:26:28.377-04:002014-09-25T17:26:28.377-04:00This approach seems appropriate when dealing with ...This approach seems appropriate when dealing with strictly theological matters, but what about when dealing with the presuppositions which are responsible for said false doctrine? In particular, how ought I feel about a concordist like Hugh Ross, who teaches that the Psalms (!) show that God used X geological phenomenon to bring about Y end, or that the scientific method is taught in Genesis 1, etc. I recently saw him speak at a megachurch, and it made me massively uncomfortable that literally thousands of people were gobbling up this concordist doctrine without giving it a second thought. Even worse, the pastor responsible for these thousands seemed perfectly alright with this sort of hermeneutic. Obviously Ross' heart is in the right place and he has been undeniably successful in bringing many people to Christ. Notwithstanding, concordism is not a healthy hermeneutic. Should concordism be shown to be false, much of Ross' work as an apologist is laid to waste. Should we even try to persuade those who hold such doctrine, yet are successful?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com