Hyprepreterist Michael Loomis asks the question, “Does Truth Matter?” This is an interesting question from a guy who believes there are two sources of Truth, the Bible and Science. Just to make sure no one thinks I’m making this up or that I’m falsely representing Loomis here, from the horse’s mouth.
Some people want to pit science against creation and use science to debunk Christianity.
Some people want to marry the two and…Well…
I understand the two to be completely separate issues not concerned with one another. If I remember correctly the two were never in conflict with one another until the early 1800’s with the rise of dispensationalism and a strictly literal hermaneutic.
Amazing isn’t it, not only does Loomis claim God who created the Laws that science evaluates is independent of science but he clearly doesn’t have a clue as to what divided science and God in the 18th Century. Loomis, I’ll bet you’ve been indoctrinated by J.L.Vaughn who hyperpreterists like Jason Bradfield have documented plays fast and loose with the facts. Nevertheless, it wasn’t dispensationalism that drew the distinction; it was the humanists, (JL comes to mind) who like Darwin attempted to remove God from the plan. However, not to be “left behind”, Loomis has weighed in about the truth of Scripture. Loomis explains,
I guess I’m just not convinced that very much of the Bible is concerned with anything outside of old covenant Israel, it’s end and the beginning of Israels unending new covenant.
So according to Loomis God’s revelation of Himself to mankind is just about Old Covenant Israel. I wonder, when Loomis offers up the disclaimers on “Rivers of Eden” if he is being entirely honest about his point of view? Given, the Truth God has provided only applies to Old Covenant Israel and Science is independent of God who created it, you really have to wonder, what is the source for what Loomis claims is “truth”.
Loomis allow me to make a recommendation. While there are those who don’t seem to have a handle on theology quite as well as Dr. James White thinking confrontation with those who deform God’s truth is not in keeping with Christian principles of behavior in this link Dr. White does something you may not have heard. Loomis if you are really concerned about the TRUTH then allow me to suggest you dial up the podcast on this link and scroll on out to minute mark 13.42. http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20101109.mp3
The 1st 13 minutes of the tape are an explanation of what most of the internet heresy hunters don’t’ seem capable of doing, teaching the truth claims of God. Dr. White provides his listeners a recap of his recent trip to South America wherein he lectured students about the Truth Claims of God’s Word. However, I digress; at the point I suggest Dr. White picks up on the theme of the podcast which is an examination of your type of analysis to determine the truth. Dr. White examines a recent debate between a Christian and an Emergent in contrast with a letter written by Dr. Albert Molher and Biologos. The article of Dr. Mohler begins by pointing out the purpose of Biologos which seems to me is very similar to your agenda and that of the hyperpreterist. Dr. Mohler points out,
BioLogos is a movement that asserts theological arguments in the public square in order to convince evangelical Christians to accept their proposals. They now have the audacity to ask for a pass from theological responsibility. That is the one thing they may not have.
Isn’t that what you desire Loomis, a pass on theology in lieu of your absurd claims visa vie hyperpreterism? Frankly, I think Dr. White’s podcast is especially poignant given your viewpoints on both science, theology and the basis by which you arrive at your absurd positions are all addressed in the podcast. Hopefully, one day, a Christian who has a solid background in theology will get to you. At that point, hopefully you will opt not to demagogue your orthodox opponent, but you will shut your mouth and listen.
What the reader may find of interest is what the Biologos representative suggests is the evidence for how the Truth of God should be evaluated. Interesting enough Dr. White points out what many today think is evidence of the Spirit is truly misleading. What Dr. White addresses is the humanistic desire to combine secular claims with religiosity quoting Dr. Mohler who wrote,
But theology, he argues, “is put to the test not just by our logic, but by the witness of what God is doing in our lives and in the lives of others around the world.” He then states this: “Evidence of the Spirit at work is the only true measure we have of our theology; all other measures, including whether it fits our carefully-reasoned arguments of who is in and who is out, are vanity.”
That is an interesting statement, but it is nonsensical unless there is some means of evaluating what is and is not authentic evidence of the Spirit at work. And that, of course, would mean some kind of biblical and theological test. The effort to escape theology gets us nowhere.
Dr. White goes into a bit more detail comparing the statements of a heretic who avows emergent concepts and the views of the Biologos advocate. What struck me in listening to this review was how similar in viewpoint the emergent, the Darwinists from Biologos and the hyperrpeterists are in their arguments. Indeed many who claim to be orthodox have bought into the false view of reality for evaluating the Truth of God advocated by the Darwinist.
Frankly Loomis, based on the positions you maintain I’m amazed that any orthodox Christian would suggest you are a Christian. I wonder what those who claim behavior is evidence of ones status as a Christian think about Dr. White’s remark that comes as point 28:50. At that point in the review Dr. White points out heretics can be “nice” guys. Dr. White goes on to explain Arius was a “nice guy”. However, as Dr. Mohler points out above, Christians who have affirmed your status seem to miss the idea that if you are a Christian then the Spirit of God has moved within you contrary to the truth claims of Scripture. Although, I guess you likely are of the opinion the Spirit of God doesn’t work in any believer today, right?