I am continuing to enjoy the installments of Terry’s video series.  This segment talks about the various ways in which we can find ourselves drifting away from absolute Biblical truth.  I do encourage you to watch all these videos.  Here are some extracts from today’s video:

“In an endeavor to be relevant . . . not just quaint and supposedly out of date…it is possible to move away from the unchanging truth. It is important to hold to Scriptures relevance…we have to work hard to translate Bible stories into the present world. Or it could be in an endeavor to give more time to worship, enjoying the presence of God, charismatic experience, you think we don’t have time for the preaching. We have always worked hard at being Spirit and Word. The experience of the Spirits presence, but also the preaching of truth. Without this we would be vulnerable to drift. . . You can find yourself being pushed away from biblical norms into reflecting the culture, being more acceptable to the man on the street, more plausible, therefore you leave some of the more difficult parts of Scripture . . . The Bible is an objective, authentic authority, it is not really for us to make choices about our preferences. . . We have tried hard to submit ourselves to what the Bible says. . . What men and women need is to know what God thinks and what God says, and the Bible perfectly expresses that for us”

Terry Virgo is continuing to share his series of video interviews with his son. Today I share here another video which addresses Terry’s view of the Bible. Here is an extract from his words about things we must preach boldly and clearly:

Present God in his person and character. Present Jesus without any disguise. We need the authentic Jesus. The fact that he is God and man. Be very clear about the trinity and these unchanging realities about God. People say he didn’t actually rise from the dead, we so no, he actually,physically rose from the dead. Once we have nailed things like the resurrection, other things fall into place. It is vital for us to hold onto big issues like how you become a Christian, who God is, there are huge themes that there is no room for any kind of debate about. Certainly there will be some things that are more open to question, and tentative attitudes are appropriate. It is for us to humble ourselves we don’t want to come across in an authoritarian way over things that are less clear. But the major issue is that we stand by the Bible, and most Christian issues really are very clear indeed and we are not going to be tentative with them.

Terry then goes on to explain why, for him, the outpouring of the Spirit to empower believers is not a peripheral or marginal issue, but is a main thing, and that he is a charismatic because of what he reads in the Bible. The interview concludes, “If it could be demonstrated to me that that is not biblical, I would have to rethink and review, because to me the Bible is the final word”

I am really enjoying this series of videos from Terry Virgo, I encourage you to subscribe to his blog if you haven’t already. In this one, he begins to speak about his very high view of Scripture and preaching. It is prompted by the second of a series of values that have governed his work with churches over the past decades. These values are expressed in the form of the kind of church he is looking to build:

‘A church where regular teaching and preaching of the Bible holds a primary role and where Scripture’s authority is final.’

This value and video reminded me that a while ago I did quite a long series of blog posts on preaching. We can never hear enough about valuing God’s word. Here is an extract of the video to whet your appetite:

“It is important that we are submitting our lives to what God has said. All that we are is a response to what God has said. . The Bible starts with God said, God spoke and then light comes and life comes. The church is God’s creation, and that comes to birth through his word. We can’t improve on hearing the word of God. We live in an day when people want to play down the importance of preaching . . .but the reality of the preached word in the power of the Holy Spirit has a unique skill to penetrate people’s hearts. . . The authority of the Spirit on the preached word makes it relevant whatever the day in which it is begin done. . .The early church devoted themselves to the Apostles teaching. Paul says I taught you day and night, publicly and from house church to house church. He was always preaching. He preached so long that a guy fell out of the window. When he raised him from the dead he preached on till morning. . . You need to know truth in order to be free, and in order to know what is the church of God. . . we adjust ourselves to what the word of God says. Preaching is not just telling the story it should be with powerful impact so that good preaching brings people to decisions, choices, Its an event, its a moment, when you hear good preaching your life is affected you make changes. PReaching shouldn’t be dull it should be relevant, it should be full of truth, it should have application so that I know what I have to do in view of these things.”

As a scientist, I have been raised with the idea that there is, indeed, such a thing as absolute truth. Either something has mass or it doesn’t. Either I will fall down because of gravity or float because I am in space. How can theology be any different? Give me someone who absolutely rejects the message of the Bible and the existence of its God any day over someone who tries to blur boundaries and talk about the “spiritual meaning” of events that they believe are basically lies.

Quite simply, it is not possible to have a Bible that is full of error and yet also the word of God. God is no liar. I cannot see how we can compromise with post-modern ideas of truth and have any Gospel left. For either God is too weak or disinterested to make sure we have a Bible that we can trust, or He is a deceiver.

It simply will not do to say that the Bible contains God’s words and we have to discern them. For, even with a Bible that we have all agreed is trustworthy, evangelicals have succeeded in coming up with differing interpretations. Imagine what we would be like if the anchor of our faith is severed and we are cast adrift . . .

Read more from original post . . .

John Piper’s message from the Resurgence Conference was on the reliability of the Scriptures. It is available to listen to online, along with notes to read.

Mark Dever is not a man who is shy of controversy. For example, during my recent interview with him, he stated concerning the book, Pierced For Our Transgressions, “If you don’t like that book, you don’t like Christianity!” Strong stuff!

Before we leave Mark for awhile, I want to share with you once again some excerpts from what I believe has been his best blog post ever. It was written in 2006 and is entitled “Undermining Tolerance of Egalitarianism.” Whatever your views on this subject may be, you will surely see in these quotes his passion and the reasoning behind his strong belief in the crucial nature of the controversy facing the Church over this issue:

“. . . it is my observation that those older than me who are complementarian generally want to downplay this issue, and those younger than me want to lead with it, or at least be very up front about it. . . .

The older group is among peers who see women’s ordination as an extension of civil rights for people of different races. The younger group is among peers who see women’s ordination as a precursor for creating legal categories of gay rights. But having a certain skin pigmentation is to the glory of God; having a sexual partner of the same gender is sin. The younger group is more alarmed not simply by the egalitarian position, but by what it is assumed that will eventually entail, either in those who allow it, or in those who come after them.

There are, of course, many evangelical feminists. Some Christians whom I most love and respect and have learned from are in this category. . . . ‘Well then,’ you might say, ‘Why don’t you leave this issue of complementarianism at the level of baptism or church polity? Surely you cooperate with those who disagree with you on such matters.’ Because, though I could be wrong, it is my best and most sober judgment that this position is effectively an undermining of—a breach in—the authority of Scripture. As Lig [Duncan], the paedo-baptist, has often said, ‘If there were a verse in 1 Timothy saying, ‘I do not permit an infant to be baptized . . .’ we wouldn’t be having this conversation about baptism! There is such a verse about women serving as teacher/elders!’

Dear reader, you may not agree with me on this. And I don’t desire to be right in my fears. But it seems to me and others (many who are younger than myself) that this issue of egalitarianism and complementarianism is increasingly acting as the watershed distinguishing those who will accomodate Scripture to culture, and those who will attempt to shape culture by Scripture. You may disagree, but this is our honest concern before God. It is no lack of charity, nor honesty. It is no desire for power or tradition for tradition’s sake. It is our sober conclusion from observing the last 50 years.”

For more information about Mark Dever, see the following sites: Together for the Gospel Blog, Capitol Hill Baptist Church, and 9Marks.

Literary criticism has a bad reputation amongst evangelical Christians. This is, of course, misplaced since viewing the Bible as literature is not an option. It is, after all, a book! Anyway, the good folks at Crossway have decided to do their best to help us understand how a literary view of the Bible is essential. Here is an extract of an early review of the book which is coming out next week.

“The premiere benefit of the LSB is viewing Scripture as literature, without reducing Scripture to the level of mere literature. In Leland Ryken fashion, rebuttals are given to show that viewing Scripture as literature (1) does not show a liberal bias, (2) reinforces Scripture’s view of itself as literature, (3) does not reduce Scripture to fiction, (4) does not reduce Scripture to another mere piece of literature, (5) nor deny the inspiration of Scripture. In fact, the editors argue that an accurate interpretation of Scripture first requires an understanding of the many literary features of Scripture.

“To approach the Bible as literature as this literary Bible does is not like dessert — something pleasurable to add to more important aspects of the Bible. The literary approach is the first item on the agenda — the starting point for other approaches to the Bible. This has been a point of neglect among Bible readers and Bible scholars that this literary Bible aims to correct.”

Because, the editors make clear, “meaning is conveyed through form, starting with language itself but moving beyond that to a whole range of literary forms and genres” and “There is no meaning without the form in which a piece of writing is expressed.” Forms directly impact interpretation.

The number of identifiable biblical genres in Scripture “readily exceeds one hundred” and that does not include archetypes, motifs, styles, rhetoric, and artistry. Scripture is a wonderfully diverse collection of literature with great variety. None are better qualified to bring these to the surface than Leland Ryken.”

In the first post of this interview with Liam Goligher we focused on the distinctives between our backgrounds. In this post we discuss important doctrinal challenges facing the church today which should prompt confessing evangelicals like Liam and myself to stand together. Tomorrow we will address the atonement and Liam’s book on the subject.

To Liam, unity is not everything. He reported receiving strong criticism from some prominent evangelicals over his stand on some of the issues we will spend the rest of this article discussing. He was told that he was “creating trouble,” and in his own words, some evangelicals are “crying unity.” Liam became fired up and his Celtic passion was very apparent when he said, “You cannot sacrifice truth for unity!” Liam believes that because of some of the current debates, the word “evangelical” has already become devoid of meaning and significance. He believes that the whole house of evangelicalism is coming tumbling down around us whilst we are doing little about it. Much of our activity is, to Liam, nothing more than rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. Liam believes, “The only substantial resistance to the breakdown of evangelicalism will come from reformed confessing evangelicals, whether they be charismatic or not charismatic, for they are the only ones with the strength and conviction to stand against the assault.”

There are several lines of assault in what Goligher feels is a battle for the very survival of the Gospel. He believes that our children will be left with nothing if we do not boldly defend and declare the Gospel with which we have been entrusted. We briefly discussed each major battle he feels we are facing:

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD

Attacks on the nature of God are occurring on two fronts. Liam is greatly concerned by those who say that God is surprised by events as they unfold. Open Theism denies the essential nature of the biblical God by saying that God is acting without a script. There are also some who claim that the notion of God as almighty or omnipotent is a Greek idea. Liam urges us to go back to the Bible where we see God clearly described as knowing everything and being totally in control of everything. Romans 8:28 really is true – it is not wishful thinking!

JUSTIFICATION

For Liam, any accommodation with those who promote the “New Perspectives on Paul” is nothing short of “redefining what it means to stand right before God.” Justification becomes something that happens in the future and is dependent on our works. Liam is concerned that the works of these theologians are overly complex, and that it seems it simply isn’t possible to popularise their teaching. To him, theology should be capable of a simple explanation that even a child can understand, whilst, of course, it can also be explored and discussed at much greater levels of complexity. Liam feels it is highly suspect that many of these writers constantly claim that their critics simply cannot understand them: “It smells of gnosticism, that is, having a secret knowledge available only to a few.”

THE DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE

To Liam, this doctrine — and particularly the sufficiency of Scripture — is undermined by those who propagate the “New Perspectives on Paul.” This is because there is almost a recreation of a “priestly class.” Ordinary believers are told they can only understand the Scriptures if they read the complex writings of certain scholars. This is, according to Liam, counter to the view that Scripture, whilst benefiting from careful study and scholarship, is also simply understood by ordinary people. To Liam, this process is almost a reversal of the Reformation — “We might as well become Roman Catholics,” he said.

Continued in part three . . .

There are those today who would argue that belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is merely a modern invention. In the following passage from Calvin’s Institutes, we see that the reformer could easily have signed the Chicago Statement. As a reformed charismatic, I am, of course, also intrigued by the concept of the Spirit’s work in attesting to us that the Scriptures are the Word of God. It is concerning to me that so little emphasis seems to be placed on all the functions of God’s Holy Spirit today.

“. . . the Scriptures are the only records in which God has been pleased to consign his truth to perpetual remembrance . . . the full authority which they ought to possess with the faithful is not recognized, unless they are believed to have come from heaven, as directly as if God had been heard giving utterance to them . . . our faith in doctrine is not established until we have a perfect conviction that God is its author. Hence, the highest proof of Scripture is uniformly taken from the character of him whose Word it is. The prophets and apostles boast not their own acuteness or any qualities which win credit to speakers, nor do they dwell on reasons; but they appeal to the sacred name of God, in order that the whole world may be compelled to submission . . .

Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit. Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human judgment, feel perfectly assured—as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it—that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God.

We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our judgment, but we subject our intellect and judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate. This, however, we do, not in the manner in which some are wont to fasten on an unknown object, which, as soon as known, displeases, but because we have a thorough conviction that, in holding it, we hold unassailable truth; not like miserable men, whose minds are enslaved by superstition, but because we feel a divine energy living and breathing in it—an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge.”

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Translation of: Institutio Christianae religionis.; Reprint, with new introd. Originally published: Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846); Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, I, vii, pp. 1-5.

Berkouwer agrees that the belief in the veracity of Scripture is truly an old one:

“There can be no doubt that for a long time during Church history certainty of faith was specifically linked to the trustworthiness of Holy Scripture as the Word of God . . . From its earliest days the Church held that Scripture is not an imperfect, humanly untrustworthy book of various religious experiences, but one with a peculiar mystery.”

G. C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture (Translation of De Heilige Schrift; Ed. Jack Bartlett Rogers; Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), p. 11.

Our view of the Bible is fundamental to everything else we believe, as I have been explaining in my Together for the Gospel series. Last autumn I spoke at Jubilee Church on the doctine of Scripture in a series of talks on more theological issues.

The audio has now become available to download here (you may need to right click and save the file onto your PC), as are my PowerPoint slides (which should open in your browser), as well as a handout which has some blank points for you to fill in. I hope that you will find some of this material useful.

“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2Timothy 2:15).

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2Timothy 3:16-17).

I havent forgotten Sven and Richard et al and I will get onto interacting with them. But in the meantime, david has helped me out AGAIN by reminding me of two fantastic posts on biblical inerrrancy he did last year here and here. I hop they are of interest, and to be honest the approach to scripture is the foundational issue in my view.

Challies Review of – A Generous Orthodoxy. This review really lays down the guantlet. Challies quotes the back cover of hte book which states that Brian Maclaren “argues for a post-liberal, post-conservative, post-protestant convergence that will stimulate lively interest and global conversation among thoughtful Christians from all traditions.” Whilst I have never read the book this is exactly what I mean by neo-liberalism.

“In short, it is awful. I consider it, in terms of content, one of the worst I have ever read and it stands as damning evidence of what passes for Christian reading in our day. Though it was easy to read, and even enjoyable at times, throughout the text Brian McLaren has consistently, deliberately and systematically dismantled historical Protestantism. From Sola Scriptura to hell to biblical inerrancy, nothing is sacred. At this point, those who are devotees of McLaren, The Emergent Church and post-modernism, will no doubt already have felt their blood boil and will be ready for a fight. I would encourage those people to keep reading. Those who are more traditional Christians will be grappling with an all-too-familiar feeling that this book represents yet another attack on the faith. And that is exactly what this book is. The remainder of this review will concern itself with showing how this book does away with biblical faith, replacing it with something far less godly and far more human. In short, something that is simply not Christianity.

It is difficult to critique the writing of people like McLaren because discerning what they actually believe is far more difficult than finding what they do not believe. Settling on those beliefs is akin to nailing Jello to the wall – it is a near impossible task as the Jello has no consistent form or shape, always changing, always conforming to what contains it. We are often left to read between the lines, interpreting what the author believes in light of what he rejects…….

He teaches false, anti-biblical doctrine throughout this book. The faith of Brian McLaren is not the faith of the Bible and only bears the most vague resemblance to Christianity.

So then, as seems to happen often in the blogosphere (maybe because somewhere someone is thinking similarly to you!) this issue seems to be coming to the fore in a number of blogs. Are the Emerging Christians dangerous heretics or are they the future for the church? Lets discuss this in the interconnected tangle that blogging does best.

It is always good to allow people to speak for themselves so as the next post in my series on neo-liberalism with thanks to every thought captive I am going to give some exerts from a book.

Justin Taylor has done a great job of doing this in “Reclaiming the Center” stating that “a significant shift is taking place in some segments of evangelicalism”. He is not sure what to call this group but settles on what to me is the totally unacceptable juxtapositon of two contradictory words- postconservative evangelicalism. He describes the group as follows-

“They are self-professed evangelicals seeking to revision the theology, renew the center, and transform the worshiping community of evangelicalism, cognizant of the postmodern global context within which we live. They desire a generous orthodoxy that would steer a faithful course between the Scylla of conservative-traditionalism and the Charybdis of liberal-progressivism.

I will not be conceding that neo-liberals have the right to call themselves evanglicals, just yet. It is up to them to pursuade me and others why they still want to bear that name. So for want of a better term, neo-liberals it is.

So how does Justin Taylor describe this group? (Incidently, my term neo-liberals… is probably broader than the group Taylor describes)

“Whereas traditionalists view the church as a bounded set, with strong boundary identification as a sign of authentic evangelical faith, reformists see the church as a centered set: the boundaries are open and undefined, so we should focus upon the center usually identified as the oft-cited Bebbington quadrilateral: conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and . . . crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross…….

…the old guard of evangelical scholars is obsessed with battles over inerrancy, higher criticism, and liberal theology….

The postconservatives, on the other hand, have seized the opportunity to reform, reshape, and revision theology. They are eager to engage and learn

from nonevangelical theologians, healing the divisions caused by modernity. They see the essence of Christianity not in doctrine but in a narrative-shaped experience. Sources for theology include not only the Bible, but also Christian tradition, culture, and the contemporary experience of God’s community. Postconservatives are open to open theism, have a hope of near-universal salvation, and place a renewed emphasis on synergy in the divine-human relationship. They are willing to rethink the language and concepts of Chalcedonian Christology, viewing Jesus divinity in relational terms. They are impatient with triumphalism, epistemological certainty, and theological systems, judging that traditional evangelicalism is suffering from a kind of hubris with regard to truth-claims….”

I struggle to recognise a group like this as Christian let alone Evangelical. Justin Taylor states that the group “believe in experience rather than doctrine as the enduring essence of evangelical Christianity” but interestingly in the light of Winks attempts to convince me he is not a neo-liberal, Taylor goes on to report the claim that this group have an over-riding commitment to ongoing reform of evangelical life, worship and belief in the light of God’s word. I fail to see how these two statements can possibly both be true.

How does the group see us? According to Justin Taylor’s introduction which quotes Roger Olson extensively

The postconservatives and their proposals are liberated, bold, vibrant, interesting, new, relevant, committed, faithful, fresh, and fascinating. The traditionalists are old guard, obsessive, reactionary, highly rationalistic, rigid naysayers with a scholastic spirit who love nothing more than gatekeeping, control[ling] the switches, and patrol[ling] the boundaries.

There is also a not too subtle attempt to imply that many of us are simply not “getting it” with regard to the way the world is. Taylor explains that to the neo-liberal -

The younger evangelical is anyone, older or younger, who deals thoughtfully with the shift from twentieth- to twenty-first-century culture. He or she is committed to construct a biblically rooted, historically informed, and culturally aware new evangelical witness in the twenty-first century.

There is nothing wrong with that statement, but there is everything wrong in the underlying implication that unless I want to ditch certain theological positions I am not wanting to be culturally aware and am not thoughtful.

What of Brian Maclaren, who is much loved in Emergent circles? He is described by Justin Talor as follows

“As McLaren interacted with unchurched postmodern seekers and studied

church history, he began to reexamine not only his changeable methods

but also his so-called unchanging message. He realized that his fairly standard

method-message system was relatively new in comparison with the

varied tradition of Christendom. As he searched for an unchanging message,

an irreducible doctrinal core of mere Christianity held in common by all

Christians at all times, he began to despair at the diversity of interpretations

and proposals. His doubts about both his methods and his message continued

to grow……

…he advocates dialogue over debate, community over individualism,

experience over proof. McLaren argues that evangelicals tend to think

that the gospel is about how individual souls get into heaven when they die;

emergent postmoderns point instead to Jesus message about the kingdom of

God, which concerns the here-and-now, not just heaven; community, not just

individuality; all of creation, not just the individual soul.

Stanley Grenz is described as the main theologian of the movement. He is described as believing that

to be evangelical means to participate in a community characterized by a shared narrative concerning a personal encounter with God told in terms of shared theological categories derived from the Bible…..This means that evangelicals have now shiftedfrom a creed-based to a spirituality-based identity. Spiritually rooted theology is the essence and ethos of the evangelical movement….What is the foundation for this new theological vision? Traditional evangelical theologians have seen propositional revelation as foundational material for the theological enterprise. But Grenz rejects this as the product of an outdated modernist mindset that ignores the social nature of theological discourse……

….Whereas traditional evangelicals tend to see Scripture as the only source of theology, Grenz argues that we must also draw upon the theological heritage of the church and the thought-forms and issues of our historical-cultural context.

Doesnt that all sound strangely like liberalism and its social gospel to you?

Evangelicals in the Dock states open theists who would fit my definition of neo-liberals cannot believe in biblical inerrancy-

Both Sanders and Pinnock hold to open theism, a form of theology that posits a God who is not omniscient concerning the free actions of human beings. As was pointed out in the ETS meeting’s floor debate regarding Pinnock, it’s not at all clear how an open theist can consistently affirm inerrancy; theology proper must eventually affect one’s view of Scripture. Nicole in his charges made the connection between inerrancy and omniscience explicit, arguing that the inerrancy of Scripture depends on the inerrancy of God and questioning whether Pinnock’s God is inerrant.

I am delighted that even in this holiday season when I was fully anticipating somewhat of a lull in blogging the bait is being taken up at least by some. I believe that the recent tragedy has made these issues all the more important. Some of the people who I call neo-liberal probably have a very different explanation for why God allowed the disaster than classical evangelicals would.

Parableman has come forwards to identify himself as possibly a neo-liberal and says

“As far as I can tell, Adrian has fixed upon the term ‘Neo-Liberal’ in order to draw a parallel between the ‘Neo-Liberals’ and the liberal church. The two features of the liberal church that he is focused on is 1) the liberal church’s focus on acceptance by the rest of the world, and 2) a low regard for the Bible. The first is made evident by his claim that the goal of Neo-Liberals is to ‘make the church somehow more acceptable to today’s culture’. The second is made clear when he says ‘I don’t have the luxury of chucking out portions of the bible like [Neo-Liberals do] as I do believe it is the word of God’.”

I suspect that parableman may not have had a chance to read my subsequent explanation of what I mean by neo-liberalism before he posted. I am definining neo-liberalism as “the intentional adaptation of Christianity to post-modernity.” I am not a defender of modernity despite what some would say. For it is not the evangelicals who are guillty of intentionally adapting Christianity to modernity- that was the role of the liberals.

Parableman seems to think I believe that all neo-liberals deny the bible. In fact, I wish it was that simple. Most of todays advocates for signficant change to our theological systems would not deny up front that the bible was inerrant. Parableman does a great job, however, of showing how Pinnock often seems to imply he does not hold the bible to be without error and commented on Pinnock as follows “he’s extremely uncareful in stating his views and that he frequently says things that by implication deny inerrancy”. It is this lack of precision in stating views which troubles me most

My focus is not solely on what people say about the bible, but rather on how they frame their theology. I have not accused everyone of throwing out the bible. I do believe that there are no doubt some who genuinely believe that the bible teaches a different set of theological beliefs than those I was raised with. In fact, the main goal of my posting on this subject has been to try and draw out some people from the other side prepared to seriously engage with the bible (and not human reason only) on these issues. I have yet to hear a single good biblical argument for these positions, possibly because of my own theological isolationism.

Also, it seems there has been a misunderstanding- I didn’t expect to have to exegete my own post on Nahum 1, but parableman is inaccurate in his explanation of my quote above. I was not accusing neo-liberals of cutting out bits of the bible, but stating that as a bible-believing Christian I do not have the luxury of chucking out bits of the bible like Nahum 1 that are uncomfortable. In other words the word “this” should not be replaced by the word “neo-liberal” but rather by the words “Nahum One”!

So, the challenges remain. Who is willing to rise to the old ones and a few new ones thrown if for good measure? If you own a blog, do take one of these up on your blog linking back here and I in tern will reply (let me know you have done so as I may not realise it!) So answers on a blog please to the following questions-

-Why do neo-liberals think we are wrong on the wrath of God and what do they make of Nahum 1 ?(assuming they are not in the camp which would even in jest suggest that this is not scripture)

-how can someone claim to be reformed but not believe in reformed doctrine?

-Was Jesus being a modernist when he emphasised truth?

-Is it really possible to argue that the vast majority of evangelical theologicans teach a theory that amounts to “cosmic child abuse” and still claim the name evangelical? What are the biblical grounds (rather than human reason grounds) for questioning penal substitution?

-Should evangelicalism include a broad church of views or should it define itself more clearly to exclude the people I call neo-liberals?

-Do theological systems hang together so that if you tug at one loose string you don’t like the whole lot falls apart?

-Does evangelicalism=christianity. In other words, is it possible to be a true Christian and deny certain truths generally held by evangelicals? If so, which ones?