Started off with a brief discussion of the constant problem with Islamic apologetics—the necessary double standard it has to employ to defend the Qur’an on one hand, and attack the Bible on the other. Then we moved back to the Russell Moore/Andy Stanley discussion, once again noting fundamental issues of ecclesiology and Scriptural authority lying at the root of the topic.
Here is the YouTube link:
Well done, James. It was irritating to hear Stanley continually harp on the fact that sinful people will attack the Scriptures as if that, of itself, is something that should cause us fear and trembling. The problem with his approach, as you noted, is that these same folks attack his own premises and reject whatever evidence he provides them.
There is a relevant quote from Bavinck that I think is worth sharing:
“Science, accordingly, has nothing to fear from the supernatural. But every science must remain within the bounds of its own area and not arrogate to itself the right to pose the law of another science. It is the right and duty of natural science to search within its area for the natural causes of phenomena. But, it should not attempt to rule over philosophy when the latter investigates the origin and destiny of things. It should also recognize the right and independence of religion and theology and not attempt to undermine the foundation on which they rest. For at stake here are religious motives for belief in a revelation about which natural science as such cannot make any judgment.”
–Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 1:371
Stanley seems to think that Natural Sciences has any real voice in the validity of miracles and revelation. It is this failing that, I fear, will lead some to rationalism.