“You Can’t Handle the Truth!!!”
Filed Under (Paul's posts) by Paul on 23-11-2009
Tagged Under : Covenant Creationists, Jason Bradfield, Paul's Post
Jason Bradfield in “The Test of Truth”, http://thereignofchrist.com/re-the-test-of-truth/, has written a brilliant attack against the theistic evolutionists in his camp. He not only points out the fallacious presupposition of the “covenant” creationists, (BCS) whose ultimate purpose is to place science on the pillar against which the claims of Scripture are to be measured he also demonstrates BCS can’t handle the truth. Jason’s review of the BCS claims regarding the text of both John 5 and 8 are very insightful. The lone exception being, I don’t believe he takes his analysis of John 8:15 far enough. Jason notes in discussing, “You judge according to the flesh…”,
They were attempting to hold Christ and His word, of which were “of the Spirit” from the world “above”, accountable to a standard “according to the flesh”. They were making judgments using a principle that could not possibly speak to the “majestic claims” of Christ.
While Jason’s point is certainly true, I would suggest the issue runs deeper than this. D.A. Carson points out,
Sadly, in assessing who Jesus is, his opponents are judging by human standards (kata ten sarka, lit. ‘according to the flesh’). This is probably even worse than judging ‘by mere appearance’ (7:24); here they are resorting to the criteria of the flesh, of fallen mankind in a fallen world… (The Gospel According to John, D.A. Carson, Eerdmans, pg 339)
My point is that the standard to which Tim Martin and JL Vaughn are subjecting Scripture is a standard that has as its base assumption the exclusion of God. Science presupposes the non existence of the supernatural and therefore out of hand dismisses God from a possible explanation. To measure God’s Word against a standard that presupposes God does not exist is the ultimate in the rejection of the Creator. It is my belief had Jason “fleshed”, (no pun intended) out this argument a little more his brilliant assault would have been even more devastating.
However, that being sad, I would be remiss if I failed to point out the straw-man for which Jason lays the foundation. Buried in the middle of Jason’s comments he writes,
This is akin to those who argue against preterists that we would not have the Bible if it were not for the church. John Owens argued against this “Papist” doctrine by pointing out that the church derives its authority from the word of God
Frankly, I amazed that Jason could with such precision and detail take apart the argument of the theistic evolutionists yet offer up such a blatant mistake. Jason, your statement is wrong on 2 points, 1st it is a universal statement regarding all your opposition, which simply isn’t true. How do you include all Clarkians in your statement? There may have been some opponents of yours that have argued the position stated but the fallacy is that you’ve included all, including reformed and Clarkians. Truly God presented the church his word, but it was nevertheless given to the church which is our point. 2nd you have demonstrated you are missing the nuance of Owen’s position. Owen is not denying the churches role in authenticating Scripture, his attack is against the ‘Papist’s’ assumption of authority over Scripture, which is akin to the Martin/Vaughn’s desire to place science as an authority over Scripture.
If one takes the time to read the link Jason provides in support of his ill-formed argument you will find the following quote,
(5.) And, lastly, that the church (allow us our sense) may be a help to us, and furtherance to our faith, in receiving the Scripture as the word of God, we will grant as well as they. That the universal concurrence of all believers in receiving the Scripture, and [that] the testimony they do, and in all ages have, in their way and capacity, given to it, is a strong argument to persuade dissenters to submit to the divine authority of it, we easily yield; and that it is the duty of the present church, during its time, to labour to preserve the Scripture pure and entire, and to hold it forth to others, and endeavour to persuade them of its divineness, and so to perform the part of a teacher, we are willing likewise to yield.
Jason has misunderstood an argument against the authority Rome seeks to employ as an argument against how Scripture was authenticated. As revealed in the above quote Owen clearly recognized the churches role in recognizing the Scripture that had been passed down to them. This testimony or ‘witness’ if you will is what is represented in the table of contents of every protestant Bible you crack open. Owen recognizes the ecumenical “churches” role in agreeing as to what was and was not the Scripture which had been delivered to them by God.
Indeed right after affirming the role of the Church in receiving, protecting and defending the Scriptures John Owen goes on to explain his complaint against the ‘Papists’, point out what he takes issue with is,
They affirm the testimony of the present church (and that must be of Rome only now, for they count that only the catholic one) — that is, of the pastors of it convened in a general council, either with the pope, as some of them say, or without him, as others, or virtually in him, as others — to be the only sufficient ground of men’s believing the Scripture to be the word of God;
Additionally Owen writes,
By the concession of the Papists themselves, who acknowledge that the church only declares the Scripture to be authentic, but doth not make it so. Surely, then, it was authentic in itself before that declaration of the church, which is only a pronouncing that to be which was before. And if it be in itself authentic, it is so to us too; that is, it hath in itself a power of binding us to the belief of it, so soon as we come to hear of it, whether the church hath declared its authenticness or not.
Owen’s issue was that Rome was setting itself up as an authority over Scripture.
Jason missed an opportunity. While he wrote a brilliant defense of the authority of the Word of God as the standard by which all other claims are to be measured he couldn’t help his anti-creedal bias from distorting another argument that was not germane to his larger premise. What Jason doesn’t seem to comprehend is that the ‘witness’ of the universal church, acts as a creed, as affirmed by John Owen and which is spelled out in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the list of the 66 books which comprise the canon of Scripture as presented to the church. Indeed the Bible is the “received” word of God as attested to be “authentic” by the church.
Jason, great work, you just need to set your bias aside and read the remarks of John Owen more closely. However, you are more than welcome to leverage the arguments of great futurists like John Calvin, John Owen, Gordon Clark and others in your assault against those who would deny the standard by which we are to measure truth given to us by God.
BTW, I’ve noticed Norm claims your argument is a straw-man, while I would agree, as I pointed out your argument does contain some straw, I would disagree with where Norm thinks the straw lies. However, I would like to note, the difference between Norm’s charge and mine is that I’ve demonstrated where I believe you to be arguing a straw-man position. On the other hand, Norm makes an empty charge. Your argument against the theistic evolutionists in your camp is spot on, which no doubt is why Norm can only offer empty accusations.
