Bible Question (short): How do you answer the criticisms? |
Question (full): Inmyheart, I have reviewed carefully your post and the website which Radioman suggests. I, frankly, had never paid any attention at all to Copeland. I had surfed past his many programs, but, as with most TV preachers, ignored them as (presumably) aiming mostly at more contributions to, in turn, remain on the air. So, I was intrigued to find someone who really subscribed to his views. Some of the criticisms of Radioman's suggested website seemed weak (i.e. appeals to 'tradition' and 'systematic theology'), but a couple of the criticisms seemed quite serious. I would be interested in your response to these: "Copeland seems vehemently opposed to sound reasoning. "Believers are not to be led by logic," he writes. "We are not even to be led by good sense" (emphasis in original).93 Copeland's statement is apparently based on his mistaken belief that the "ministry of Jesus was never governed by logic or reason....He was not led by logic. He was not led by the mind."94 Isaiah 1:18, on the other hand, quotes God as saying, "Come now, let us reason together." Second, Copeland fails to observe some basic principles of biblical interpretation (including fundamental rules of grammar and usage), at times relying instead on so-called revelation knowledge (information allegedly derived from direct, one-on-one communication with God). His neglect in this area is made embarrassingly apparent by his gross misunderstanding of key words (e.g., faith) and utter disregard of the context in which they appear." Do you (as an apparent supporter of Copeland) agree or disagree with these points? By the way, your summary of Copeland's intentions are not dispositive. Many are well-intentioned. I think it would be better to focus on whether Copeland (i) rejects reason (ii) rejects contextual interpretation of Biblical passages and (iii) believes in 'revelation knowledge'. This latter point (if true) strikes me as rather Mormon-like or RCC-like, seeming to offer an accretionary view of special revelation as opposed to the completed special revelation of the Bible as constituted. How do you respond to that? |