To the Editor,
I’ve read both of Mr. Herb Panko’s commentaries from March 26 and May 7. His first presupposition in the March 26 commentary sets the tone for everything. I am sure many of the readers caught this sleight of phrase: “Since there are frequent articles in the FCJ on religion, specifically on Christianity and by writers who claim the authenticity of their own beliefs at the exclusion of all other views, perhaps it is time to look at such opinions objectively.” He begins with the presupposition that those who believe the Bible is the Word of God have this belief by “opinion.” Simultaneously he asserts that biblical scholars are judging what he calls “opinions,” in an “objective” way. He refuses to take the original source document (the Bible) seriously, by foisting the opinions of secondary sources, and beyond, on Holy Writ. God Himself testifies that His own word is true; He stakes His own name and reputation on His word. God used fallible men (prophets, apostles, and evangelists) both to speak His infallible word and write down His infallible word (Scripture). Those who believe the Bible is the word of God ascent to this by the power of the same Holy Spirit who caused these fallible men to speak and write God’s word; the same Holy Spirit who creates faith through hearing the gospel. In the end, Mr. Panko’s problem is not with men, but with God. No proof is needed. I hope that Mr. Panko will receive these words in the spirit of truth and love with which they are written: Find a church where you can hear the preaching and teaching of God’s word in its truth and purity. Perhaps the Holy Spirit will remove the scales from your eyes.
Mike Grieve
Golden, Ill.
kRL says
Who cares what Mr. Panko thinks reach out to those who will listen, many will chose hell.
Ross Kramer says
Amen Mr. Grieve. Mr. Panko has no more proof of his beliefs than we do of ours. But why does he feel he needs to continue to tell us that we are wrong? Perhaps the devil is involved? We will someday find out who is correct, Herb. Good luck.
Rev. Mike Grieve says
Mr. Kramer,
Thanks for your comment. However, I could have done better at clarifying what I meant by “no proof needed.” The point is this: Mr. Panko’s efforts to disprove the Bible as the Word of God using the extra-biblical writings of men, is just as fruitless an endeavor as trying to prove the Bible is the Word of God using the writings of men. God proves Himself in the Bible. It is His Word. He authenticates Himself, He gives the original testimony of Himself. This is why, in the end, it really doesn’t matter what Mr. Panko says “about” the Bible. He can say and write anything he wants “about” the Bible. One’s beliefs in the truth don’t come anywhere else than from the truth in which one believes. So, no man needs to prove to Mr. Panko, who is also a man, that the Bible did not originate with man, but with the God who Himself is its source.
Thomas E.H. says
Hello Mike,
//He begins with the presupposition that those who believe the Bible is the Word of God have this belief by “opinion.”//
How did you determine this was a presupposition? Are you sure this wasn’t the carefully evaluated and tested conclusion of a lifetime of amalgamated experiences?
//Simultaneously he asserts that biblical scholars are judging what he calls “opinions,” in an “objective” way.//
Considering Biblical scholars included Christians, Jews, non-theists, Muslims, etc., from all backgrounds and all walks of life from various parts of the world, I imagine it’s as objective as we can get.
//He refuses to take the original source document (the Bible) seriously, by foisting the opinions of secondary sources, and beyond, on Holy Writ.//
Again, how did you figure this? Unless you’ve known this man throughout all his life with regards to his Biblical thoughts, I think you’re reaching.
//God Himself testifies that His own word is true; He stakes His own name and reputation on His word.//
I think the point Mr. Panko was making is that you don’t know that. I believe he was implying that since men wrote the Bible, you must first have faith in those who wrote it before you can have faith in what they write. Or if you do skip the former, you’re just ignoring the fact that men are flawed.
// God used fallible men (prophets, apostles, and evangelists) both to speak His infallible word and write down His infallible word (Scripture).//
So what does that get you? That’s the question. Do fallible men writing for an infallible Being create an infallible Word? How can you be sure of this? This is where faith comes in.
//Those who believe the Bible is the word of God ascent to this by the power of the same Holy Spirit who caused these fallible men to speak and write God’s word; the same Holy Spirit who creates faith through hearing the gospel. In the end, Mr. Panko’s problem is not with men, but with God.//
No. No, it’s definitely with the men first. Have you ever been approached by someone claiming to be God and believed them? Probably not. Imagine that. I’d think that you’d ask for evidence, as opposed to taking the bloke on faith that he is God. Right?
//No proof is needed.//
For some. Really, it’s evidence, not proof. Proofs are only in mathematics, alcohol, and coins.
Anonymous says
To Mike Grieve and Ross Kramer: Please read Thomas” rebuttal to “Letter About No Proof Needed.” Thomas E.H. actually does a better job at clarifying my points than I did in my original article. The problem with Fundamentalist Christians is that they continually confuse such terms as “faith” and “belief” with “evidence.” Also Thomas rightly emphasizes my point that just claiming you are transmitting the word of God really carries no weight since fallible humans are interpreting the words of a human-produced “sacred” book In the way they choose. How do we actually know for sure that the Bible really is the inspired word of God and not just a human manufactured fraud by a tribal people who really thought they were doing the right thing? Evidence please? (Not “faith” or “belief”)
Herb Panko
Rev. Mike Grieve says
Hello Thomas,
You ask: “How did you determine this was a presupposition? Are you sure this wasn’t the carefully evaluated and tested conclusion of a lifetime of amalgamated experiences?”
Even if Mr. Panko has merged his experiences into one body (amalgamated as you put it), his presupposition still stands on the basis that he supposes that the Word of God is not objective as God Himself testifies that it is, but rather, that the Word of God is subject to deconstruction by fallible men such as scholars.
You said: “Considering Biblical scholars included Christians, Jews, non-theists, Muslims, etc., from all backgrounds and all walks of life from various parts of the world, I imagine it’s as objective as we can get.”
Now there is a fine equivocation…”I imagine it’s as objective as we can get.” It is either objective or it is not objective. There is no “kind of objective,” “sort of objective,” or “mostly objective.” Again, how ironic that Mr. Panko proposes that scholars can bring an “objective” judgment to people’s beliefs…beliefs which are already held regarding something that is itself inherently objective…the Word of God.
You said: “Again, how did you figure this? Unless you’ve known this man throughout all his life with regards to his Biblical thoughts, I think you’re reaching.”
Really? How is it that I am reaching when Mr. Panko completely disregarded another comment from someone who cited Bible passages? How is it that I am reaching when Mr. Panko in one breath says that Jesus never said He was God, and then follows it up by saying that John didn’t write the gospel? Those 2 things alone quite readily demonstrate that Mr. Panko has no interest in dealing with the primary source document, but only at standing aloof from it and casting aspersions upon it from scholars. He gave his biblical thoughts in his writings…that is the evidence Thomas.
You said: “So what does that get you? That’s the question. Do fallible men writing for an infallible Being create an infallible Word? How can you be sure of this? This is where faith comes in.”
You are right, that is where faith comes in. But as can be gleaned quite easily from Mr. Panko’s comment, “Evidence please…not faith or belief,” he misses the point of the nature of faith. Faith is not blind trust. Faith is trust in the evidence presented by God Himself in His own Word. The testimony is first His that He gives of Himself. Then, and only then, does the testimony follow from men who were moved by the Holy Spirit, first to speak His Word, then to write His Word.
You said: “For some. Really, it’s evidence, not proof. Proofs are only in mathematics, alcohol, and coins.”
The evidence is in God Himself, who testifies that His own Word is truth. God proves Himself. He does not need you or me to prove Him. That is why no proof is needed. As for evidence…the evidence is clear.
Thomas E.H. says
Hello Mike,
//Even if Mr. Panko has merged his experiences into one body (amalgamated as you put it), his presupposition still stands on the basis that he supposes that the Word of God is not objective as God Himself testifies that it is, but rather, that the Word of God is subject to deconstruction by fallible men such as scholars.//
This is not a presupposition. He supposes because of the amalgamation of life events, etc. That is not what presupposition is.
//Now there is a fine equivocation…”I imagine it’s as objective as we can get.” It is either objective or it is not objective. There is no “kind of objective,” “sort of objective,” or “mostly objective.” Again, how ironic that Mr. Panko proposes that scholars can bring an “objective” judgment to people’s beliefs…beliefs which are already held regarding something that is itself inherently objective…the Word of God.//
Very well. It is objective when you get blokes from all backgrounds, religions, cultures, nationalities, etc., coming to the same conclusion when viewing the same evidence.
//Really? How is it that I am reaching when Mr. Panko completely disregarded another comment from someone who cited Bible passages?//
Evidently you don’t understand Mr. Panko’s position of not accepting the Bible as an appropriate source to confirm itself.
//How is it that I am reaching when Mr. Panko in one breath says that Jesus never said He was God, and then follows it up by saying that John didn’t write the gospel?//
Because they follow in logic. If John isn’t verified to have written John, which he isn’t as all four Gospels were anonymously written. The earliest manuscripts we have are authorless. Authorship was added later. Jesus claiming to be God may indeed have been a reason for the Jews to execute him. Perhaps he was being facetious, rebellious, or perhaps he really believed it. That doesn’t mean Mr. Panko has to believe that to be true. Imagine, if you will, running into a bloke on the street claiming to be God in modern day. What would you think of the legitimacy of the claim? High likelihood? Low likelihood?
//You said: “So what does that get you? That’s the question. Do fallible men writing for an infallible Being create an infallible Word? How can you be sure of this? This is where faith comes in.”
You are right, that is where faith comes in. But as can be gleaned quite easily from Mr. Panko’s comment, “Evidence please…not faith or belief,” he misses the point of the nature of faith. Faith is not blind trust. Faith is trust in the evidence presented by God Himself in His own Word.//
No. No, I don’t think so. Something about “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (ironically in John), tells me Jesus himself states the difference between belief with evidence and belief without (faith).
//The testimony is first His that He gives of Himself. Then, and only then, does the testimony follow from men who were moved by the Holy Spirit, first to speak His Word, then to write His Word. //
Right. According to what? The Bible. Which was written by those very same men. So, you have faith that the testimony is first His that He gives of Himself, because man said that’s how it was. At least, I believe that is how Mr. Panko sees it.
//The evidence is in God Himself, who testifies that His own Word is truth. God proves Himself. He does not need you or me to prove Him. That is why no proof is needed. As for evidence…the evidence is clear.//
No. That’s not how evidence works. That’s not how proving oneself works. Imagine a person who makes a completely outrageous claim. I don’t know, maybe someone who says they flew to the moon on the back of a whale, but it took no time on earth. The evidence is in the man who made the claim himself? No. Not it’s not. No matter what he testifies as truth, that does not simply make it so. That is why evidence IS needed. It is needed to verify claims that are otherwise supernatural.