Shakeup at Patrick Henry College - Christianity Today Magazine
On March 8 another Source article, this one by Noe and Culberson entitled "The Role of General Revelation in Education," again prompted the administration's response.
"A common misconception among American evangelicals, and one that cannot be supported by the Scriptures themselves, is that the Bible is the only source of truth," the article began. "We argue that this misconception amounts to a blasphemous denial of Christ's words in Matthew 5 that 'he sends rain on the just and the unjust.'"
The 900-word article argued that "a Christian must refuse to view special and general revelation as hostile to one another. Nor should he hesitate to learn from a pagan. There is much wisdom to be gained from Parmenides and Plato, as well Machiavelli and Marx."
The article prompted a 2,600-word response by college chaplain Raymond Bouchoc, sent to students, faculty, and staff. The response, endorsed by Farris and Sanders, discussed seven "harmful implications" that could be drawn from the professors' article and claimed the piece "diminishes the import of Scripture."
Does acknowledging that the Bible is not the only source of truth reduce the significance of Scripture? What are your thoughts?
3 comments:
No it doesn't, not at all. But when potential implications and perceptions become the standards for evaluating an idea, then the most ignorant become the arbiters of what is allowed to be said.
Yes, it is a dangerous road we take when we add to scripture. Revelation 22:18 says, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"
We need to evaluate everything in context to the Bible. The Bible is the authoritative source of Truth. I'm sure all of us can come up with convincing arguments that other books and documents are true, but does that make them true?
All truth is God's truth
Post a Comment