I posted the following in the comment section to a YouTube video wherein Dr. McClatchie interviews Dr. Lydia McGrew and Dr. Timothy McGrew, here.
Barry Jones
if Lydia McGrew denies that her ceaseless loquaciousness constitutes the sin of word-wrangling which Paul prohibited in 2nd Timothy 2:14, will Lydia provide a few examples of fictional dialogue which she thinks DO constitute the sin of word-wrangling? The Greek term merely means to fight over words, and since Paul left this unqualified in the context, I'm not seeing an academic basis to object to the interpretation which says it was precisely what we routinely see in modern scholarly Christian apologetics, that Paul was calling "word-wrangling. That might be a fatal blow to Christianity, but so what? There are arguments that are fatal to Mormonism, does that justify the Mormon to insist those arguments are false?
How does Lydia McGrew reconcile her undeniably mouthy nature, with those Proverbs that leave no logically possible room for mouthy people to be free of foolishness?
Proverbs10:19When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent.
Proverbs 18:2 A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
Will Lydia argue that in the social context of the Proverbs author, speaking thousands of words literally every day was normal, therefore, because Lydia doesn't speak thousands of words everyday, she's under the limit?
What would you do if you found out that reasonableness can sometimes exist even where accurate belief doesn't (e.g., you think other Christians are wrong in their eschatology, but you refuse to call them unreasonable)? Would you become open to the possibility that resurrection skeptics might be reasonable even if their basis for skepticism is inaccurate belief?
How long does god want me to study the differences between Christian and non-Christian scholars on the resurrection of Jesus (e.g., McGrew v. Licona; Ehrman v. W.L. Craig) before God will demand that I start drawing ultimate conclusions? If you don't know, don't you forfeit the right to balk if I answer those questions for myself in a way you don't like?
What rule of historiography requires those investigating ancient truth claims to believe the declarations first and not assume fraud or error until the declaration can be proven to contradict other known realities. Don't say "Aristotle's Dictum", Josh McDowell was lying about that, it never existed, and it is never even mentioned by non-Christian historians. And since when do Christian apologists recommend unbelievers follow the advice of pagan idolater? But if there is no such rule of historiography, then it must be reasonable to conclude that skeptics are not violating any rule of historiography if they choose to completely disregard any and all forms of bible study.
Suppose God wanted me to study 1st Corinthians 15 starting tomorrow at noon my time zone. What can I reasonably expect him to do to alert me to this aspect of his will? A stranger bringing up that chapter in conversation? A bible hits my windshield and it is opened to 1st Cor. 15? What exactly, and how do you know God would act that way to get my attention? How do you know when my failure to notice God's attempts to get my attention become unreasonableness on my part? Will god alert me to this part of his will with the same obvious undeniability that the neighbor does when he says "hello"?
If it be true that not even spiritually alive people can correctly figure out biblical matters, wouldn't you have to be a scorching stupid fool to pretend that you expect spiritually dead atheists to do better at discerning biblical truth? Or did I forget that Lydia McGrew violates 1st Cor. 2:15 by objecting like an atheist and saying "Being spiritually alive has zilch to do with it." http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2017/10/on_some_examples_in_plutarch.html
Posted by Lydia | November 14, 2017 5:15 PM
What is unreasonable about my demand that if God wants my attention, he stop being silent and start doing miracles? I've already contacted the apologists like Craig Keener who hawk modern day miracles the most, with an offer to give me the one modern miracle they think is most impervious to falsification, and I'm getting no answers. https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/12/my-questions-to-dr-craig-keener.html
Lydia will say I would deny God even if he did a miracle, but that's not true. I've disagreed with my bosses in the last 20 years, and personally hated some of them, but I still performed whatever lawful task they asked of me because I respected the fact that they were rightfully in a position of power over me. So it wouldn't matter if I 'hated god', that does not justify you to dogmatically conclude that surely God would be wasting his time doing a miracle for me. You actually don't know that, and there's plenty of evidence in your bible to the contrary. Paul was more antagonistic toward Christianity than most modern atheist bible skeptic trolls, but Lydia must confess that God's miracle convinced Paul to change his mind. Have fun pretending that you "know" that God views the conversion of Paul as a "special exception" which "doesn't normally apply". You don't know that. It could just as easily be that we never see confirmation of conversions similar to Paul's because Paul's conversion story is fiction in the first place.
If it is reasonable to require that the more you entrust yourself to somebody else's care, the more strict the tests of authentication their claims to trustworthiness must pass, then what is unreasonable with the skeptical argument that says because my decision to accept Christ will affect where I spend eternity, the proofs for the trustworthiness of the bible must pass the strictest possible tests of authenticity? My guess is you'd confess to losing that particular debate, since too many Christian scholars deny the apostolic authorship of the gospels to pretend that they have any reasonable chance of passing the "strictest possible" authentication tests. When I demand that Matthew appear to me and confess to his authorship of Matthew, is that stupid because I'm asking for a miracle of the sort the bible says happened (Matthew 17:3, Acts 16:9), or is it stupid because Lydia McGrew agrees with skeptics that we all know miracles are too unlikely to justify asking god to do them?
Would a skeptic be stupid to make sure his book was historically reliable, while doing nothing about the fact that thousands of people disagree on how to correctly interpret it? Then what shall we say of a god who makes sure his bible is demonstrably historically reliable, but does nothing to provide them a demonstrably correct interpretive key? All Christian scholars admit the relevance of grammar, immediate context, larger context, social context and genre, yet apparently, when you employee these just as much as the next Christian scholar, you cannot avoid arriving at interpretations they disagree with. What's wrong with the skeptical theory that God wants people to believe the bible is historically reliable, but doesn't want Christians to obey 1st Cor. 1:10? It doesn't matter if it contradicts the bible, it sure does look like it is supported by obvious reality...unless you insist that the only reason other Christians disagree with your interpretations of the bible is because they are not sincere in asking God to guide them.
If "god's ways are mysterious" doesn't sound convincing to you when a Calvinist or a Sabellian uses it to get away from a problem created by their theology, why should I find that excuse compelling when YOU use it to get away from a problem created by YOUR theology? Is it written in the stars that sacramentalism is the right form of Christianity?
Is it reasonable to infer from the fact that Lydia McGrew and Mike Licona disagree on how to argue the resurrection, that one of these people is not as receptive to the Holy Spirit as the bible says they should be? Or does Lydia deny that the Holy Spirit enlightens those who walk in the light of Christ? If God has his reasons for refusing to enlighten some of his sincere followers, then how could you ever pretend that a skeptic's false understanding of the bible is unreasonable?
Can it be reasonable for a skeptic to agree with the Christian scholarly majority that Mark was the earliest of the canonical gospels to be published? Can it be reasonable for the skeptic to agree with the Christian scholarly majority that authentic Markan text ends at 16:8. If so, then how could it possibly be unreasonable for the skeptic to draw the inference that the earliest gospel never said anybody actually saw the risen Christ? How could the skeptic be unreasonable to draw the further inference that the stories of resurrection eyewitnesses in the later 3 gospels are the result of fictional embellishment with the passing of time?
