NT Framework - Fabricated Infallibility

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.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas and
our series on the New TestamentFramework.
Today a smaller, bite-sizedpiece from the larger lesson.
We hope you enjoy it.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
If men refuse to ascribe infallibility to
Scripture, it is because theconcept has been transferred to
someone else.
Always, this is always the wayit is, he wrote.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardinspoke of quote the infallibility
of the evolutionary process.
In other words, it doesn't makemistakes, it's infallibly true.

(00:36):
This is the exchange of thepersonal, sovereign God for a
blind evolutionary process.
Is that where you locateinfallibility?
Well, many people in the worlddo they.
Is that where you locateinfallibility?
Well, many people in the worlddo.
They haven't got rid ofinfallibility, see, they've just
moved it over to theevolutionary process.
They've exchanged the infinitepersonal God for a finite

(00:56):
impersonal process, but theystill hold to infallibility.
Charles Clough wrote Oneobserves this movement of
infallibility away from Jesusand the Bible to man in the
conflict between Genesis andhistorical science.
Modern schemes of earth historyare basically considered
infallible in that no amount ofdata, it is believed, will

(01:21):
radically alter them toward theview of early Genesis believed
will radically alter them towardthe view of early Genesis.
In other words, no amount ofevidence that is shown to modern
evolutionists will change theirmind.
Why?
Well, because they're going toreinterpret the data within an

(01:45):
evolutionary paradigm.
It's not something that ischallengeable.
You cannot challenge it.
When I was in the universitydoing my biology studies, one of
my main professors, dr MichaelDeeney One of my main professors

(02:06):
, dr Michael Deeney, said thatall of the disciplines that we
studied are like spokes on abicycle wheel and the hub of the
wheel is evolutionary theory inits broadest sense, meaning
cosmic or physical evolution,chemical evolution and
biological evolution.
He says that's the hub of thewheel.

(02:27):
All the disciplines, whetherit's anthropology, botany,
ecology, biology, chemistry,molecular chemistry,
neurobiology all of thesedisciplines are spokes of the
wheel and he says they all pointto this one hub.
It's an unchallengeablephilosophy.

(02:50):
No matter how much data youbring to the contrary, it will
never change their mind.
Now I'm going to quote fromRichard Lewontin, who was a
historian of evolution, andhopefully this quote if your

(03:11):
life has not already beenchanged by quotes to this extent
, it'll be changed forever whenyou read this.
Our willingness, he says, toaccept scientific claims that
are against common sense is thekey to understanding of the real
struggle between science andthe supernatural.
Let's not read any further.
Our willingness to acceptscientific claims that are

(03:32):
against common sense is the keyto understanding the real
struggle between science and thesupernatural.
We take the side of science, inspite of the patent absurdity of
some of its contracts, in spiteof its failure to fulfill many
of its extravagant promises ofhealth and life, in spite of the
tolerance of the scientificcommunity for unsubstantiated

(03:55):
just-so stories, because we havea 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

(04:17):
conclusions?
They have to be because we arecommitted to materialism before
we ever even get to the data.
It is not that the methods andinstitutions of science somehow
compel us to accept a materialexplanation of the phenomenal
world, but, on the contrary,that we are forced by our a

(04:38):
priori, before the facts,adherence to material causes.
Okay, before the facts evencome in, we're already committed
to this.
So once a fact comes in, whatdo we do?
We just interpret the fact interms of our a priori commitment
.
That's the way the game isplayed.
We are forced by our a prioriadherence to material causes.

(05:01):
In other words, everything musthave a material cause.
You cannot talk aboutsupernatural causes, they will
say To create an apparatus ofinvestigation and a set of
concepts that produce materialexplanations.
In other words, it's alwaysgoing to have a material
explanation, because we set itup that way, no matter how
counterintuitive, no matter howmystifying to the uninitiated

(05:23):
Like huh, no matter howmystifying to the uninitiated
Like huh.
Moreover, that materialism isabsolute, for we cannot allow a
divine foot in the door.
We can't, we're not going to dothat, we're not going to go
there.
It's part of the game.
It's the way they aim.
You can present all theevidence in the world, it
doesn't matter.
They've already set up thesystem so that, when they do the

(05:44):
investigation, they're justgoing to take your fact or
whatever you've brought to thetable and they're going to
reinterpret it in terms of amaterialistic worldview.
More Infallibility concepts areall around us, a great variety
of substitutes for theinfallible word.
In other words, these are allsubstitutes for the Bible.

(06:04):
One of my other favoriteteachers, cornelius Van Til,
always taught that all otherviews borrow or steal concepts
from the Bible and that theyhave to.
Here's a concept that theyborrow from the Bible
infallibility they stole thatfrom the Bible.

(06:25):
Most of the best ideas inhistory were stolen from the
Bible.
Infallibility they stole thatfrom the Bible.
Most of the best ideas inhistory were stolen from the
Bible.
I'll get on too long of arabbit trail if I go down that
trail and start giving youexamples.
But democracy is one suchsubstitute.
By the way, technically we'renot supposed to be a democracy.

(06:48):
We're, technically a republic.
Right, the republic for which Istand, not the democracy for
which I stand.
Democracy is a very, verydifferent idea than a republic.
Democracy is one suchsubstitute for the infallible
word From ancient times.
Its essential faith has beensummed up in the Latin motto Vox

(07:10):
Papuli, vox Dei.
That is, the voice of thepeople, is the voice of God.
In other words, if 50.5% of thepeople, if 50.5% of the people
say that in the womb an infantis not a life, then that's the

(07:32):
voice of God.
That's infallible.
The people, or democracy, arethe new God and they speak
infallibly through majorities.
That's a false placement ofinfallibility.

Speaker 1 (07:50):
Thank you for joining us on Beyond the Walls with
Jeremy Thomas.
If you would like to see thevisuals that went along with
today's sermon, you can findthose on Rumble and on YouTube
under Spokane Bible Church.
That is where Jeremy is thepastor and teacher.
Spokane Bible Church that iswhere Jeremy is the pastor and
teacher.
We hope you found today'slesson productive and useful in

(08:10):
growing closer to God andwalking more obediently with Him
.
If you found this podcast to beuseful and helpful, then please
consider rating us in yourfavorite podcast app, and until
next time, we hope you have ablessed and wonderful day.