Când este vorba de a analiza „serios” teologia unuia ca B. B. Warfield (și a da gata pe un ilustru anonim care a îndrăznit să îi critice rătăcirile), domnul Conțac, sprijinit îndeaproape de un renegat, al său prieten metamorfozat actualmente în anglican, apelează (culmea ironiei) la Mark A. Noll (aici), un lup în piele de oaie care dă peste bord tot ceea ce este valoros în creștinimul evanghelic, începând cu creaționismul și sfârșind cu dispensaționalismul.
Cititorii ar trebui să știe că Mark A. Noll a publicat o carte în 1994, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, în care acuză pe credincioșii evanghelici că nu au minte, întrucât în loc să studieze așa zisele științe care neagă doctrinele Scripturii, ei studiază Biblia! Să vezi și să nu crezi! Și mai ales să apelezi la un asemenea autor pentru a ataca fundamentalismul, așa cum o fac cei doi doctori cu ochi duri, nu dovedește altceva decât gradul mare de confuzie intelectuală (ca să nu mai vorbim de cea doctrinară) în care se află aceștia. Nu avem nici o nădejde pentru întoarcerea la o judecată sănătoasă a arhiepiscopului de Iași, dar nădăjduim că domnul Conțac experimentează rătăciri de moment pe care le va elimina pe măsură ce se maturizează.
Iată mai jos o recenzie laudativă a unuia ce recomandă cartea lui Noll, Robert Knetsch, care nu știe nici ce crede, nici de ce crede (în această privință îl emulează pe amicul anglican):
Mark Noll has written a most scathing review of the evangelical mind. His opening sentence says it all: "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is no evangelical mind". True, harsh words, but Noll was able to put into words so much of what bothers me about evangelical Christianity. From creationism to dispensationalism I have been frustrated by the lack of deep thinking within Christian circles and often I find myself branded as a cynic for asking too many questions.
The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind does not quite drift into the territory of criticizing BEING an evangelical, only that somewhere along the way, we have let ourselves be co-opted by thinking patterns that stifle good thought processes. Noll deftly traces some of the history and development of the evangelical mind thorough the past few hundred years.
I would say that this book changed my life. It helped me to realize much of what bothers me about evangelicalism. It ALMOST made me want to give it up. And some may say that this is the danger of the book. However, I think that Noll does not want us to go that far; he honestly described the problems and begins to offer a solution to the way that we have forgotten how to love God with our minds.
Nu ne-ar mira dacă după o lectură ca și aceea a cărții lui Noll cei doi doctori vor renunța la „credința” lor evanghelică, ce oricum este plină de găuri... negre! Dacă teologi ca și Noll (evoluționiști și anti-dispensaționaliști) au devenit mentorii domnului Conțac, înțelegem de ce este atât de (des)orientat.
Oferim acum crâmpeie din noemele „profunde” ale cărții The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Mark A. Noll (Eerdmans 1994) și critica acestora făcută de Andrew S. Kulikovsky . Citind cele câteva citate ale recenziei ne putem da seama de felul „riguros” în care gândește Noll, și implicit al celor care îl citează pentru a-și sprijini ideile briliante! Cititorii pot merge direct la recenzia lui Kulikovsky: http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/nollrev.htm
Noll never really defines what he means by "fundamentalism" although he talks of it being a "disaster" and identifies various groups as being fundamentalists. One assumes he means those who hold to full inspiration, inerrancy and authority of scripture and its perspicuity.
Noll appears to mock the idea that the Bible may be read and interpreted according to a logical and scientific procedure (p. 127-128).
He comments that fundamentalism has failed to think in a Christian manner about society, arts, humanity and nature (p. 132). However, the mind boggles in trying to determine how Noll managed to forget all about Francis A. Schaeffer, who in fact wrote 22 books on this very subject! (Surprisingly, Schaeffer’s work and writings are largely ignored by Noll).
Autorul recenziei amintește de cei peste 300 de cărturari ce au semnat Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy printre care James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, John Wenham… Oare pe câți din aceștia i-au citit, sau i-au luat în serios cei doi doctori cu ochi duri?
Noll also holds to a dual revelation theory (p. 182), but it is completely unreasonable to suggest that general revelation in the natural world should be given equal weighting with the special revelation of scripture… It is also ridiculous to think that the scope of revelation in the natural world comes even close to that of scripture.
He also wrongly defines "creationism" as "the effort to construct an alternative, fundamentalist science based directly on the Bible." (p. 186). This gives the impression that creation scientists have invented their own form of science with its own set of rules and methods. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of the creation scientists are highly qualified professionals who also publish in secular journals in their respective fields.
Again Noll, makes the astounding claim that creationism is "making it much more difficult to think clearly about human origins" (p. 197). Yet it is creationists who hold to the "plain" and simple reading of Genesis ("plain" is a more accurate description than "literal"). The old-earthers, on the other hand, insist on a complicated, figurative and non-chronological reading, despite the narrative nature of the text. Noll also accuses creationists of not being careful thinkers (p. 197), and again no reason or documentation is given to support his accusation. Presumably, it is because they don’t agree with him!
Noll chides creationists for not looking at the world they wish to understand in light of the Bible (p. 199). This amazing statement simply highlights Noll’s utter ignorance of creationists work and publications. One only has to look at the literally thousands of articles, technical monographs and books published by creation scientists on the natural world to realize that Noll really has no idea what he is talking about.
Noll uses a logically fallacious argument to suggest that "If the consensus of modern scientists, who devote their lives to looking at the data of the physical world, is that humans have existed on the planet for a very long time, it is foolish for Biblical interpreters to say that ‘the Bible teaches’ the recent creation of human beings." (p. 207). One wonders, if Noll also believes that it is foolish for interpreters to say the Bible teaches a virgin birth without IVF technology and bodily resurrection from the dead, since the consensus of scientists who devote their lives to looking at the natural world, is that these are impossible! Noll’s line of reasoning is completely fallacious. Consensus is never a necessary indicator of truth - a billion Chinese can be wrong! While Noll chides creationists for being uncritical, he himself uncritically accepts the conclusions of rationalistic and humanistic pseudoscience as indisputable proven facts, when in fact they are not.
In the final analysis, Noll’s book is very disappointing and it is quite obvious that Noll himself is all too often guilty of the very things for which he attacks creationists - a gross naivety of science, uncritical acceptance of ideas, bad hermeneutics and a poor handling of scripture.
Iată cât de riguros se dovedește acest (ne)gânditor pe care domnul Conțac îl aduce în sprijinul atacurilor pe care le dă împotriva fundamentalismului! Metoda lui Peștaloții la cel mai înalt nivel!