tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post6246564153056847093..comments2024-03-18T18:19:19.002-07:00Comments on bylogos: Pro Rege Polemicsjohn bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-77695641642356908552020-04-27T22:15:24.823-07:002020-04-27T22:15:24.823-07:00Dr. Byl:
Well, there you have it. On the blogsite ...Dr. Byl:<br />Well, there you have it. On the blogsite Reformed Academics the authors, of which Sikkema was one, they denied inerrancy; now he's denying sola Scriptura.<br /><br />Makes you wonder whether he talking about the same theology at all. <br /><br />Though I agree with Hayes and Walicord that naturalists can stand on no other epistemological ground than that established by the Word of God, I think all that is really needed is to point out that: if Sikkema cannot know the plain meaning of Scripture then he also cannot mix evolutionary theory with it. All he is doing is mixing evolutionary theory with his own "interpretation within a particular context". <br /><br />That about ends it there.The churches still may not allow themselves to teach anything but God's own precepts; they're still not allowed to teach the doctrines of men. But Sikkema considers that an unsupportable idea. That puts his theology, never mind his science, outside the pale of the church.<br /><br />Because our churches confess Belgic Confession art. ii, we must strive to hold to sola Scriptura for theology and to objectivity for the witness of nature. We have no choice. <br /><br />Sikkema doesn't really interact with either science proper or theology proper.<br /><br />JohnVJohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.com