705 - A Resolution on Scripture - regional forums

Download paper_705.pdf

Rejected

Comments

[Curtis Turner]

In 2005, I had the opportunity to be at a scientific forum at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington DC. It was interesting because of the format and the way research was presented. A prominent scientist would present his paper, followed by two commentators who spoke to problems or issues of the research. Then members of the scientific community were allowed to stand and address these issues. By such sifting and winnowing, general consensus was gained.

With all the hype of the Da Vinci Code, the osuary of James bones and the casket of Jesus, etc.; it seems that it would be valuable to consider the evidence and re-assert its credence when so many in the entertainment community as well as the internet sling disbelief at us in almost unending torrents.

[Mark Adams]

I do not support this resolution. I do believe it hits on something healthy by seeking debate on the matter of scriptural authority, and clarity of teaching from leadership. This sort of activity might well be called for by the bishops, or by superintendents, or by college presidents, or local district leaders, and rise and fall to meet the ebb and flow of critical theological inquiry from time to time. To make such debate a requirement or point of polity I think would have a detrimental effect to the spirit of debate and learning.

[James Reeverts]

I support the motion in concept, while Mark's comments are crucial to the debate over codifying of this procedure. As a located elder who is involved with the sciences on a regular basis in public education, I agree that pastors and lay persons should be exposed on a regular basis to valued dialogue and investigation with regard to the scriptures - their statements, interpretation, and application in modern culture. Further, I think there is great need among the laity for sound biblical thinking by way of being able to discern movements in our culture -whether through the media or the education systems, and witness for Christ in clear, unobtrusive ways.

To that end, I support a general church effort - that could circulate on a local level - to promote biblical truths in today's culture. There are plenty of models in secular and sacred enterprizes that we might borrow from to achieve both Curtis's and Mark's responses.

[Curtis Turner]

As a university student, two professors, an evangelical Christian and an atheist, had a public debate on the validity of scriptural principles. The debate was like two ships passing in the night since the atheist's arguments did not address the issues brought up by the Christian and the Christian addressed the atheist's issues on scriptural grounds which the atheist did not accept apriori. Thus, nothing of substance was accomplished other than to show the public that Christians are credible and are able to debate issues in a public forum with intelligence.

I agree with Mark that these kinds of propositions are not for the uninitiated. Some of what we see can be rejected out of hand because of our faith and belief that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work." Many times secular folks discredit their own propositions and it comes to light that the things they present were done for the wrong reason and not expressly to seek out the truth. That kind of Dan Brown knowledge is easily discredited and can be dismissed out of hand.