Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas

NT Framework - Fabricated Infallibility

Jeremy Thomas Season 6 Episode 117

Just as creation declares there is a Creator God, the inclusion of information everywhere we look testifies of an underlying truth; and so what do you do if you reject God but admit there is fundamental truth?

More information about Beyond the Walls, including additional resources can be found at www.beyondthewalls-ministry.com 

This series included graphics to illustrate what is being taught, if you would like to watch the teachings you can do so on Rumble (https://rumble.com/user/SpokaneBibleChurch) or on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtV_KhFVZ_waBcnuywiRKIyEcDkiujRqP).

Jeremy Thomas is the pastor at Spokane Bible Church in Spokane, Washington and a professor at Chafer Theological Seminary. He has been teaching the Bible for over 20 years, always seeking to present its truths in a clear and understandable manner.

Speaker 1:

Welcome to Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas and our series on the New Testament Framework. Today a smaller, bite-sized piece from the larger lesson. We hope you enjoy it.

Speaker 2:

If men refuse to ascribe infallibility to Scripture, it is because the concept has been transferred to someone else. Always, this is always the way it is, he wrote. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin spoke of quote the infallibility of the evolutionary process. In other words, it doesn't make mistakes, it's infallibly true. This is the exchange of the personal, sovereign God for a blind evolutionary process. Is that where you locate infallibility? Well, many people in the world do they. Is that where you locate infallibility? Well, many people in the world do. They haven't got rid of infallibility, see, they've just moved it over to the evolutionary process. They've exchanged the infinite personal God for a finite impersonal process, but they still hold to infallibility.

Speaker 2:

Charles Clough wrote One observes this movement of infallibility away from Jesus and the Bible to man in the conflict between Genesis and historical science. Modern schemes of earth history are basically considered infallible in that no amount of data, it is believed, will radically alter them toward the view of early Genesis believed will radically alter them toward the view of early Genesis. In other words, no amount of evidence that is shown to modern evolutionists will change their mind. Why? Well, because they're going to reinterpret the data within an evolutionary paradigm. It's not something that is challengeable. You cannot challenge it.

Speaker 2:

When I was in the university doing my biology studies, one of my main professors, dr Michael Deeney One of my main professors, dr Michael Deeney, said that all of the disciplines that we studied are like spokes on a bicycle wheel and the hub of the wheel is evolutionary theory in its broadest sense, meaning cosmic or physical evolution, chemical evolution and biological evolution. He says that's the hub of the wheel. All the disciplines, whether it's anthropology, botany, ecology, biology, chemistry, molecular chemistry, neurobiology all of these disciplines are spokes of the wheel and he says they all point to this one hub. It's an unchallengeable philosophy. No matter how much data you bring to the contrary, it will never change their mind. Now I'm going to quote from Richard Lewontin, who was a historian of evolution, and hopefully this quote if your life has not already been changed by quotes to this extent, it'll be changed forever when you read this. Our willingness, he says, to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. Let's not read any further. Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

Speaker 2:

We take the side of science, in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its contracts, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. See, it cannot be challenged, it is, quote-unquote infallible. It's infallible. So the just-so stories, supposedly these abstruse conclusions? They have to be because we are committed to materialism before we ever even get to the data. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori, before the facts, adherence to material causes. Okay, before the facts even come in, we're already committed to this. So once a fact comes in, what do we do? We just interpret the fact in terms of our a priori commitment.

Speaker 2:

That's the way the game is played. We are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes. In other words, everything must have a material cause. You cannot talk about supernatural causes, they will say To create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations. In other words, it's always going to have a material explanation, because we set it up that way, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated Like huh, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated Like huh. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door. We can't, we're not going to do that, we're not going to go there. It's part of the game. It's the way they aim. You can present all the evidence in the world, it doesn't matter. They've already set up the system so that, when they do the investigation, they're just going to take your fact or whatever you've brought to the table and they're going to reinterpret it in terms of a materialistic worldview.

Speaker 2:

More Infallibility concepts are all around us, a great variety of substitutes for the infallible word. In other words, these are all substitutes for the Bible. One of my other favorite teachers, cornelius Van Til, always taught that all other views borrow or steal concepts from the Bible and that they have to. Here's a concept that they borrow from the Bible infallibility they stole that from the Bible. Most of the best ideas in history were stolen from the Bible. Infallibility they stole that from the Bible. Most of the best ideas in history were stolen from the Bible. I'll get on too long of a rabbit trail if I go down that trail and start giving you examples.

Speaker 2:

But democracy is one such substitute. By the way, technically we're not supposed to be a democracy. We're, technically a republic. Right, the republic for which I stand, not the democracy for which I stand. Democracy is a very, very different idea than a republic. Democracy is one such substitute for the infallible word From ancient times. Its essential faith has been summed up in the Latin motto Vox Papuli, vox Dei. That is, the voice of the people, is the voice of God. In other words, if 50.5% of the people, if 50.5% of the people say that in the womb an infant is not a life, then that's the voice of God. That's infallible. The people, or democracy, are the new God and they speak infallibly through majorities. That's a false placement of infallibility.

Speaker 1:

Thank you for joining us on Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas. If you would like to see the visuals that went along with today's sermon, you can find those on Rumble and on YouTube under Spokane Bible Church. That is where Jeremy is the pastor and teacher. Spokane Bible Church that is where Jeremy is the pastor and teacher. We hope you found today's lesson productive and useful in growing closer to God and walking more obediently with Him. If you found this podcast to be useful and helpful, then please consider rating us in your favorite podcast app, and until next time, we hope you have a blessed and wonderful day.