I do think that over-commitment to the Bible could be responsible for moral relativism among youth. Rob Bell had a great example in Velvet Elvis that I think holds water: A young person is told that only the Bible (I believe that Bell phrases it "only Christianity") is true, and everything else is false. Then that young person discovers something outside of Christianity/the Bible (I know they aren't equivalent) that is also true - for example, something in physics or psychology. Because the young person has been taught some wrong things about truth, they now face a false dichotomy: do I accept Christianity, or intellectual integrity? They see this as a "choice" because they have been given an incomplete view of truth.

So, in summary, I think that some degree of moral relativism among youth is the result of inadequate epistomology among elders.

Hi Mike,

Interestingly, I think that example supports both arguments. It supports Dr. Moreland's in that the teaching of over-commitment eventually leads to a morally deficient view of the world. It also supports my argument because when the person acts on his relativistic worldview, he is acting out of an under-commitment to the Bible.

However, it's the solution to the problem that's the issue here: Dr. Moreland appears to to be arguing that our response should be to instruct the person in all the different areas knowledge and truth can be found outside of the the Bible. My point is that this is not the responsibility or role of the church, and that what this person really needs is to be instructed in the proper role of the Bible and the knowledge and truth found therein so that he will be more committed to the Bible than his relativism allows him to be.

Calvin, commenting on 2 Tim 3:16 says:

"In order to uphold the authority of the Scripture, he declares that it is divinely inspired; for, if it be so, it is beyond all controversy that men ought to receive it with reverence. This is a principle which distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God hath spoken to us, and are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestion, but that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare. Whoever then wishes to profit in the Scriptures, let him first of all, lay down this as a settled point, that the Law and the Prophets are not a doctrine delivered according to the will and pleasure of men, but dictated by the Holy Spirit... This is the first clause, that we owe to the Scripture the same reverence which we owe to God; because it has proceeded from him alone, and has nothing belonging to man mixed with it."

Do you agree with Calvin?

What kind of problem do you see "over-commitment" to the Bible creating?

If you agree with Calvin, do you think its possible to be "over-committed" to God?

I do agree with Calvin for the most part (I have questions about he "nothing belonging to man mixed with it" line).

I think "over-commitment" isn't really the right label in the first place, but I haven't come up with a better one yet so I've been using that. I think someone who confuses the Bible with God is over-committed to it. We do not worship the Bible, the Bible does not save us or love us. But we honor it because it points us to the One we should worship who did save us out of His perfect love and grace.

However, what Dr. Moreland is getting at, and what I agree with him on, is that there are those who ascribe inappropriate authority to the Bible such that they believe that knowledge and truth cannot be found outside of the Bible. Dr. Moreland's labeled that "over-commitment." I don't think it has to do with any level of commitment so much as it has to do with an incorrect view of the Bible. It could be that someone believes that about the Bible yet still refuses to follow it- I wouldn't call that person over-committed.

I doubt it's possible to be over-committed to God.

"the Bible does not save us"

What is your interpretation of the following verse?

James 1:21 Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.

Greg Koukl did a masterful job dealing with many of the same topics in a Stand to Reason piece on Biblical Counseling.

He makes a great case for the right use of natural theology. It's the paper I wish Dr. Moreland had given.

Thanks for sharing the link. I read through it and I would hardly say it was masterful.

The first half of his paper is the same argument Romanists use against Sola Scriptura. He contradicts himself in footnote #5 because he knows he's attacking Sola Scriptura.

I haven't read anything from the Biblical Counseling group, so I don't want to defend them without knowing what they stand for. However, another problem is that Koukl tries to cite examples of people teaching the truth about man apart from revelation. He uses the example of passages of Proverbs originating in the Amenomope. He thinks this justifies seeking truth outside of Scripture. A problem that arises is that not all of the Amenomope was used in Proverbs. How then are we to know which parts of it were truthful and which were not?

He also uses the example of a society that uses the death penalty to execute criminals without coming to this decision from Scripture. He says that proves people can discern truth and apply it successfully to their lives apart from Scripture. Once again, what about all the other societies that don't reach the same conclusion? Many argue that the death penalty is cruel and that rehabilitation is more effective. How are we to know which society, which belief is true?

This is the problem with what he is defending. Perhaps some psychologists teach things that are true, but how can we know which things are true and which things are false? I say we know by comparing it with Scripture. How do we know how governments should operate? By Scripture. If one agrees that all psychology has to conform with Scripture, then you're affirming Sola Scriptura.

Another big complaint with Koukl's paper is that he tends to compartmentalize things. He affirms that only the bible can give us spiritual truth, that only the bible can lead us to salvation, but he doesn't think only the bible can help us with our personal struggles. No where does he seem to think that our personal struggles are the result of sin, that they are spiritual in nature and that they need a spiritual cure. Is one's depression the same as a bruised knee?

Do we simply apply the same techniques to healing our mind as we do to healing our physical body?

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?

This article might offer some thoughts to compare: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=245

OK, "masterful" was gushing a bit. But Dr. Moreland didn't really argue for his position; while you may disagree with Mr. Koukl's arguments, at least he made some, and did so from the text and with an appeal to "the old books," as C.S. Lewis would say.

To your central point, Brandon, I think you're begging the question on a couple of points. When you fault Koukl regarding "teaching the truth about man apart from revelation," you're missing the point that this is precisely what he's arguing for. Again, when you say, "he doesn't think only the Bible can help us with our personal struggles," you're presupposing the conclusion that this sort of Bible-only approach is the only correct one and faulting Koukl for attempting to argue otherwise. So at least on these two counts, you haven't responded to his arguments; you've just expressed your prior commitment to a contrary conclusion.

You said, "if one agrees that all psychology has to conform with Scripture, then you're affirming Sola Scriptura." Perhaps, but not so fast. I agree that any teaching that is contrary to truth revealed in Scripture must be rejected, but I know of no basis upon which we must reject teaching about which Scripture is silent, incomplete, or imprecise.

This raises a fundamental question: do you think there any subjects about which the revelation of truth in Scripture is (A) absent, (B) incomplete, or (C) imprecise? Are those even valid categories?

If so, doesn't that mean that "pursuing truth apart from Scripture" cannot be categorically anathematized?

If not, how does one (using Scripture alone and sound hermeneutics founded upon authorial intent) acquire the necessary wisdom to extract and apply the exhaustive teachings contained in Scripture?

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not faulting him for simply trying to argue his point (teaching truth about man apart from revelation). I was trying to say that he argues it unsuccessfully.

I understand he is arguing that things outside the bible can solve our personal problems. I was hoping it was obvious how un-Christian is his notion that our problems are not spiritual.

Roger asked me to keep my comments concise, so I didn't answer Koukl point by point. I can if you'd like.

The problem with saying that we don't have to reject psychology because the bible is silent on the issue is that the bible may be silent because psychology has invented false understandings of the nature of man. Understandings that are unbiblical and thus not mentioned in the bible. If we allow the bible to shape our understanding of ourselves, we don't have that problem.

I think that the bible is sufficient to deal with what we need to know in life. Perhaps you could give me some possible objections or examples. I believe the bible deals sufficiently with how to deal with our personal problems, its called sanctification. To use Koukl's example, I also think the bible is sufficient to tell us how governments should operate. What other things are you considering?

how does one (using Scripture alone and sound hermeneutics founded upon authorial intent) acquire the necessary wisdom to extract and apply the exhaustive teachings contained in Scripture?

I'm not really sure what you're asking. Through a lot of hard work would be my answer.

Hi Brandon,

I was hoping it was obvious how un-Christian is his notion that our problems are not spiritual.

Must every problem either be spiritual or physical? Are there no cases in which it would be an and/both rather than an either/or?

The problem with saying that we don't have to reject psychology because the bible is silent on the issue is that the bible may be silent because psychology has invented false understandings of the nature of man.

I don't think that Greg ever makes this argument, which means it is a bit of a straw man. Nor do I know anyone arguing against the total rejection of psychology who uses this argument. Perhaps you could point me to where Koukl says this. In fact, he explicitly says that his paper is not a "sweeping defense of psychology." He really only addresses two issues that he sees as being foundational to the modern rejection of psychology: whether the Bible teaches "Bible-only", and whether man is so distorted by sin as to be unable to discover things about himslef and his world and develop ways to improve both. I don't see in your (understandably brief) critique any address to these two points and where he went wrong.

Sorry if this is too far off-topic, Roger.

Thanks for the questions Aaron,

I have no intention of denying that we have physical problems. Perhaps you could clarify what you are talking about though, so I don't misunderstand you.

My sister contracted malaria last year from Haiti. It caused a tremendous amount of problems. It prevented her from thinking clearly. It went untreated for a long time in the US because the doctors refused to consider that her problems were from malaria. Of course I'm not trying to say that malaria did not cause her problems. However, that has nothing to do with psychology.

Again, I'm not defending the BCF. I don't know what they believe or teach. I am simply responding to Koukl's paper. I never brought up anything about physical problems.

Wikipedia says the following (and this is the definition of psychology I am operating from):

Psychology (from Greek, Literally "to talk about the soul" (from psyche (soul) and logos)) is both an academic and applied discipline involving the scientific study of mental processes and behavior. Psychologists study such phenomena as perception, cognition, emotion, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships. Psychology also refers to the application of such knowledge to various spheres of human activity, including issues related to daily life�e.g. family, education, and work�and the treatment of mental health problems.


My point was that issues like the ones just mentioned are spiritual in nature. The impression that I get from those who defend "christian psychology" is that there are physical problems, mental problems, and then spiritual problems. Perhaps this is an unwarranted impression. Perhaps that is not what they all believe.

However, if they do agree with me and see it as physical/spiritual (body/soul), then I don't understand the need for anything in addition to the Bible to deal with our sinful souls.


My comment about the bible being silent on certain issues was more or less related to what I just explained. Psychiatrists invent things about man (such as faculty psychology) that are not mentioned in the Bible. Some might then use that understanding of man to try and counsel or treat people. They might say that the Bible doesn't go into detail as to the structure of the mind. You know, cause the Bible's not scientific. So we just have a better understanding of our minds now, so we can use these new understandings to help people, in addition to their sanctification (or maybe instead of).

Instead, we should seek to understand ourselves by understanding what the Bible teaches about ourselves, and then seek to heal ourselves and others by understanding what the Bible teaches is our problem and our solution.


With regards to Koukl's specific points: I do not think he is successful in arguing that the Bible does not teach "bible-only." As mentioned above, his attack is the same attack Romanists use to refute Sola Scriptura. I think a major problem with his second point is how we can know when a psychiatrist or someone else has discovered truth. There are all kinds of theories thrown out there, which are overturned every day in science. If any of them are true, how do we know which ones? Koukl mentions Calvin's mention of Aristotle. How do we know what Aristotle was right about and what he was wrong about? Aquinas drew much of his teaching from Aristotle. We know where they are right and where they are wrong because the Bible has given us truth with which to compare them to. But that simply raises the question, if the Bible provides us with the truth, then why do we need Aristotle?

correction: any mention of psychiatrist above should be replaced with psychologist.

sorry, i see now where i made the comment about the bruised knee. I see that is where your comment about physical/spiritual came from. Yes, our problems can be the result of both physical and spiritual problems. I suppose my original comments were not clear.

In my opinion our spiritual problems are given adequate cures in the Bible. Therefore if someone is saying we need something other than the Bible to solve a personal problem I would assume they think that problem is not spiritual. (I could be wrong and they actually think that it is spiritual but that it does not have an adequate solution in the Bible).

Sorry for making myself unclear and causing confusion.

Hi Roger,
You've misapplied the notion of the genetic fallacy in both instances where you have claimed Moreland commits it. For those of you playing at home who are tempted to zone out at this point, the genetic fallacy occurs when someone argues that since some view is argued for by a certain (usually unseemly) group, it is therefore false. But of course, no entailment follows; hence to reason this way is to commit an informal logical fallacy.

But Moreland commits no such error when he gives the sociological and historical explanation for how we got to today (which I presume is what you were referring to when you mentioned the genetic fallacy occurring in the section entitled, "Why are Contemporary American Evangelicals Over-committed to the Bible?") Of course he would have been guilty had he said, "If so-and-so says it, x is false," but he didn't say that.

With regard to the Richard Gaffin citation, I'm not quite sure why you claim this is an example of the genetic fallacy. He's citing an example of a proponent of cessationism for the reader. Now, one may attempt to argue that Gaffin does not hold the view Moreland attributes to him, but that would be something altogether different. It would not be the genetic fallacy.

You mentioned that you hadn't read Kingdom Triangle. He deals with many of the issues you raise. With regard to your genetic fallacy accusation, in the chapters in which he deals with the relationship between the Spirit-heavy folks and the Bible-heavy folks, he claims specifically that though the observations on the socio-historical milieu doesn't entail cessationism's falsity, they are valuable in that cessationism's current marginalization ought to lead proponents of the view to at least reexamine it.

One more thing, I find it a little critical that you'd fault him for not offering much argumentation when this doesn't seem to be the purpose of his paper to begin with. He does argue for his point, though by analogy to archeology, and only very briefly. As he pointed out in his rejoinder posted at kingdomtriangle.blogspot.com, his paper was given in a very specific context, specifically one in which many of the attendees were presumably on the same page with respect to background knowledge. He seems not to have intended the talk to be a comprehensive polemic (or apologetic) for his view. Furthermore, the guy had only 30 minutes of presentation and 10 of Q and A. I must say that it's far from fair to question his commitment to the Bible given the context in which and audience to whom his paper was given. He has plenty of other writings over his career that attempt to make clear commitment. And further, especially given the fact that you're a student in Talbot's philosophy program, you have the rare opportunity among all the other bloggers out there to ask him yourself about his position. I would go set up a time to talk things over with him before insinuating things about him online.

AAT

"AAT"

I may have mis-labeled what Dr. Moreland did wrong (I'm rusty on the taxonomy of fallacies), but he still did not engage the positions he criticized at all. He ignored the arguments due to "sociological and historical explanations." Whether that's genetic or ad-hominem or whatever, that's fallacious. In regard to Gaffin, he said "there is no good reason to reject this sort of thing out of hand. But those who are over-committed to Scripture do this all the time," and he cited Gaffin at this point. Gaffin has arguments for his position- it's Dr. Moreland who is rejecting things "out of hand."

I think the context of the 30 minute paper is a warn out excuse. That doesn't give him the right to make accusations or draw conclusions about positions without arguing for them. I recently gave a 20 minute paper, so I understand time constraints and having to make difficult decisions about what to include and what to leave out. He knew going into it what he was doing and he decided not to engage anyone critical of his position and dismiss their arguments as the mere results of sociological events.

I'm not sure what we would talk about if I set up an appointment with him- if I asked him if he's committed to the Bible as the ultimate authority, he'd say he is- he said as much in his paper. I'm simply pointing out that this commitment wasn't demonstrated in this paper, and given the topic of the paper, it should have been. His commitment was demonstrated well in Love Your God with All Your Mind, but that was a long time ago and he's changed a lot since then (to my knowledge he had no inclinations toward Third Wave theology at that point). In his move to the Third Wave, several lectures he's given over the past few years, and this paper, that commitment doesn't show itself as strongly as it used to. As I said, I hope it's demonstrated in The Kingdom Triangle.

Roger,
I don't fault you for being rusty on taxonomies, but the Gaffin citation isn't an example of any sort of logical fallacy to begin with. It's not genetic, and it's certainly not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be "So-and-so says it, and we all know how what a louse he is, therefore, his view is false." No. There is nothing fallacious about it.

As far as the claim about "not dealing with the positions he criticized at all," he does offer an argument. You may not like the argument or think it's very elaborate, let alone think it's a success, but it is an argument (I think it is successful). The argument is on the first couple pages: He makes the claim that sola Scriptura has only entailed the supremacy of Scripture, not its being the sole authority. He cites the Westminster Confession and the Chicago Statement for examples of this. Then he points out that a number of evangelicals apparently affirm Westminster and Chicago, yet deny extra-Biblical knowledge to varying degrees (some to the point of denying the efficacy of natural law)--something not required to affirm sola Scriptura. The idea is that this is representative of many evangelicals who, in the name of sola Scriptura, inappropriately go beyond what it requires--to the detriment of the believer. That is indeed an argument. (And by the way, just on my recollection of reading the paper, it also contained an argument part way through for the validity of Charles Kraft's demon research by way of analogy with the validity of archeology)

But let's suppose you're not convinced. That's fine, but then your problem is with the argument he did in fact offer or at least with all the arguments he didn't consider or whatever. Not with his failure to provide an argument to justify his accusations. His examples of overly hasty denials of extra-Biblical knowledge in the name of a misunderstood and misapplied sola Scriptura is where the citation of Gaffin fits in. If Gaffin isn't guilty of this, I'm sure he can respond. But that's how citations usually work...you have a point and usually with little argumentation, you say "See this guy for an example of what I'm talking about" knowing full well your audience may say "You have misread the guy...he's not a good example of your point." At any rate, you may not like it, but it's not ad hominem, and in no regard is it logically fallacious (unless it it simply isn't true, but that's another matter)!

As far as the 30 minute context being worn out, my point was not that one can say whatever one wants and punt to "30 minutes" as an excuse. We both agree on that, I think. The point is that his paper DID contain argumentation, but it wasn't even intended to respond to every argument on the block (to which I want to say, what arguments are out there against Moreland's view? None that I know of save perhaps certain more staunch camps within Reformed theology...I'm willing to be wrong on this, but I know of none). I assume he took it that he could demonstrate his case good enough for 30-minute ETS presentation purposes simply by building his case on the fact that Westminster and Chicago do not entail the more problematic thesis. (Also, it was entitled "How Evangelicals...and What We Can Do about It" so why so surprised that he builds off the initial argument to describe where he sees how we became overcommitted?)

I still don't understand how you think his commitment to the Bible is called into question, but maybe that's because I've read a number of his other works, most recently Kingdom Triangle, which speaks in detail on this issue. I recommend reading it and reassessing from there. I think his position is very plausible and in fact not very controversial (other than perhaps the terminology of "overcommitment" he used).

As far as an appointment with him, I imagine, too, that he'd say yes that he's committed to Scripture. But I'd also think that--given your proximity to him as a Talbot student--you'd want to avail yourself of the opportunity to hear if he can defend his commitment to the Bible (it just struck me how vague the "commitment" terminology is...which, as an aside, would be an interesting discussion on whether these words only get their traction from their emotive force rather than substance). The point is it'd be prudent, as far as it's possible, given your proximity to him, to ask him all your pressing questions to determine for yourself if he's in fact committed to the Bible before you go putting stuff to print--stuff about which people will listen to you, given your status as a Talbot philosophy student.

AAT

"ATT" (It's difficult to take someone seriously when they don't provide their real name)

Saying someone believes something for sociological or historical reasons and based on that dismissing any argument they've put forward is most certainly fallacious. I don't care what you call it, but it's a problem logically and morally.

I didn't say Dr. Moreland didn't offer an argument for his position, what I did say, several times now, is that he works off the assumption that those he's criticizing don't have arguments for their position. He doesn't engage them or even acknowledge them. Whether or not I'm convinced of Dr. Moreland's argument is irrelevant. I'm taking issue with the manner in which he writes off his opposition "out of hand."

My problem is not that he didn't respond "to every argument on the block," my problem is that dismissed all arguments that are contrary to his view as the mere results of sociological factors. The time restraint has nothing to do with that problem. Instead of writing them off he could have engaged what someone like Gaffin actually said, even if it was brief.

Dr. Moreland presented this paper publicly and posted it online for everyone to read. He made this a public discourse and therefore it is appropriate for me to reply publicly, regardless of my status as a student in his program. I'm not opposed to meeting with him, but I don't see that it would accomplish anything.

Hi Roger and ATT,

Actually Roger, you didn't mis-label Moreland's fallacious argumentation (or at least your description of his argumentation; I haven't yet looked closely enough at his paper to affirm or deny what you've said). If he did argue in the manner you depicted, he did indeed committ the genetic fallacy. ATT, your definition:

the genetic fallacy occurs when someone argues that since some view is argued for by a certain (usually unseemly) group, it is therefore false. But of course, no entailment follows; hence to reason this way is to commit an informal logical fallacy.

is not quite correct. Technically, it is not broad enough. The genetic fallacy occurs when someone confuses the origin of the idea with the reasons for believing it and faults it for the former rather than the latter. This could indeed be, as you said, a group, but it is not limited to that. "Origin" also includes the social phenomenon and processes that produces the idea, which is exactly what Roger is saying JP used to reject the view in question.

Thanks Aaron,

That's what I was thinking, but I couldn't find my logic textbook ;)

Thanks Aaron for the clarification. Sorry if I added any confusion. I understand the genetic fallacy to be as you've described it.

A few exegetical comments from the paper before offering my final analysis of our logical fallacy dispute. The best chance, as I see it, of getting the genetic fallacy accusation to stick is to capitalize on the following statement: "If I am right about [the socio-historical analysis], then Evangelical over-commitment to the Bible is a result of the influence of secularization on the church and not of biblical or theological reflection." (Moreland's paper, p.5) I think if you find anything potentially fallacious, then it�s probably this. Now, in the right context, arguing from �result of the influence of� could signal a logical fallacy. But why think Moreland has done that when there are more plausible and charitable ways of reading that phrase, especially in light of the rest of his paper?

What else could he likely have meant? you ask. Take the first half of it: "...Evangelical over-commitment...is a result of the influence of secularization...." The entire surrounding context is a discussion on the growing cultural favor granted to scientism�a terrible epistemology if you�re a Christian, I think we can all agree. Overcommitment isn�t bad because its origin is from the influence of secularization, per se, it�s bad because it presupposes a really poor theory of knowledge that breeds skepticism among believers about certain kinds of knowledge. His argument then is that if our current evangelical view of knowledge (i.e. the one resulting in overcommitment) is a species of an epistemology we already have good reason to reject, we therefore have good reason to reject the overcommitment grounded in that epistemology, as well.

And the second half: "...Evangelical over-commitment is...not [a result of] biblical or theological reflection." This is a summary statement based on earlier observations (p.2) to the conclusion that nothing from Scripture or church history demands this kind of overcommitment, pace the frequent claim of many evangelicals.

Given our background evidence about him and his paper, and given the fact that this epistemological focus is part of the thrust of "Kingdom Triangle" and similarly of "Love Your God with All Your Mind", there are far more plausible and charitable alternatives than thinking he committed the genetic fallacy in arguing for his central thesis.

With regard to accusations, I'm not sure exactly what position and what arguments (of Gaffin�s, for example) he doesn't interact with. Are you referring to arguments for scientism? This is too non-specific a charge to be very helpful. In the absence of specifics, why not rather just think that of the people he cited, he DID read whatever arguments they had and ended up not including them because they either aren't very good, or because they can be referred to in a citation rather than taking up more space than is necessary to adequately make a point? This isn't special pleading for Moreland, either. This is exactly what I do when I go to hear any person who I think is himself charitable and well-informed--regardless of whether I agree with his position or not.

And why think his paper doesn't engage the arguments of others at least on a more general scale? In light of what I've written above, we already know he's responding to any argument for a read of sola scriptura that unwittingly or not adopts a defunct epistemology like scientism. So from this, I don�t think it�s at all clear he�s done any inappropriate dismissal of others� arguments, nor does he evince some assumption that others don�t have arguments of their own.

On the other hand, I can easily call to mind people numerous examples of evangelicals dismissing the miraculous (or certain charismata) out of hand, based usually, interestingly enough, on misunderstandings about the nature of knowledge. For one to balk at their dismissals as Moreland does is not out of hand, it�s an observation about their epistemology.

Lastly, I�m troubled at your apparent reticence toward consulting Moreland personally with your concerns, which I think I�ve made a reasonable start at allaying. He did make the paper public and so invites public criticism, to be sure. I have no problem whatsoever with that side of things. But you admit that you have concerns now about his commitment to the Bible�concerns that you admit are not informed by the very work that pertains most to his paper, Kingdom Triangle. Don�t meet with him to �accomplish� something; meet with him because it�s charitable. If you don�t talk it over personally with him, then at least read the book.

AAT

"ATT"

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on these issues. I think your argument against the charge of a fallacy considering the context of Dr. Moreland's claim actually supports the charge of a fallacy.

There are a number of Christians who argue against the use and study of natural theology, but Dr. Moreland doesn't acknowledge them. I don't agree with most of their criticisms, but I think Dr. Moreland's claims would benefit from at least some brief engagement with them. I'm not a cessationist either, but there are even more of them available with ample arguments to engage. In my opinion, one footed noted reference to Gaffin just doesn't cut it when building the case for such a controversial claim.

I think I should note more clearly here that I agree that general problem Dr. Moreland is addressing is a problem- "over-commitment" to the Bible as he defined it (even though I would have chosen a different term). What I take issue with is his assumption that this problem is common among evangelicals and the manner in which he argues against the problem.

The book has been on my reading list for awhile, but I do have other obligations first. Upon re-reading my original post I can see that the language I used was stronger than I meant it to be. I'll be adding an editorial comment noting that. This paper, recent lectures, and the embrace of Third Way theology has indeed raised concerns for me about Dr. Moreland's commitment to the Bible as the ultimate authority for spiritual matters. However, my word choice of being "doubtful" about his commitment was too strong. At this point I'm merely concerned about it, and I apologize the confusion my poor word choice caused.

I know it may be hard to believe from this post, but Dr. Moreland was very influential in my early interest in philosophy and apologetics, and he's one of the primary reasons I wanted to go to Talbot. I have immense respect for him as a philosopher and as a Christian who seeks as much excellence in his personal life as in his philosophy.

I agree that it'll be best to agree to disagree here...I hope the way you and I reasoned through things was to the benefit of others reading these posts. It was for me and gave me an excuse to spend time thinking through an important issue. And thanks for reconsidering the language of "doubtful" and putting it to print.

By the way ATT is a phone company. It's AAT. ;)