THE 4-MAT REVIEW ENTWISTLE TEXT AND MCMINN TEXT

The 4-MAT review Entwistle text and McMinn text

Entwistle

Abstract

In reconsidering the annals of Christianity and research as it performed into the interaction of Christianity and psychology, Entwistle (2004) remarks, "Owing to demonstrations like Galileo, the church… is often depicted as anti-scientific, attached in its narrow-minded ecclesiastical outlook of truth in which any clues that seems to be at odds with the current outlook of scripture is easily dismissed".(Entwistle 2010)

Concrete Response

This awkward hostility in the direction of belief was conveyed dwelling to me on an individual grade throughout a class on Shakespeare at a localized community college. The lecturer was openly atheist and I was openly (but not outspokenly) Christian, particularly in my homework. Our interactions were congenial and polite, but one day he answered to another scholar with the phrases "All Christians are morons!" I don't believe he even recognized the dichotomy of his phrases with the very good interactions and degrees he afforded me; it was easily embedded in him to be anti-religious. Though I was not outraged, I was absolutely made vividly cognizant that we can anticipate not anything less than profoundly embedded abhorrence from a world that does not understand God. (McMinn 1996) As it is stated that, "If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, the world despises you."

Reflection

Entwistle takes a dim outlook of our proficiency to "know" without doubt. He states, "At best… we can be tentatively certain about our conclusions" (2004, p. 90). What about the work of the Holy Spirit? Throughout the entirety of the publication and most conspicuously in this part, he falls short to take into account that the Spirit of Truth inhabits inside the redeemed and educates us all things.

Entwistle furthermore assertions that, "God has granted us two publications, the publication of His world and the publication of His works" and subtly suggests that only when the two publications are examined as identical in administration will there be adequate defense from mistake in our discoveries and conclusions. (Entwistle 2010) Where in Scripture does God permit for or endorse any source of reality exception from the Word of God? While I realize and acquiesce with Entwistle's anxieties that understanding of scripture is often bewildered with the phrase of scripture, putting any source of information overhead God's phrase is both unbiblical and unwise. The world round us is stained by sin; the Word of God is not. It solely has been maintained by the Spirit as the source of information that reliably discloses the reality of God to us.

Action

Despite my contradiction with Entwistle's "faithful reading" set about, the warnings for the "prima scriptura" set about are worth noting. Although I will habitually location God's in writing phrase in its rightful location of administration, I will work diligently to double-check I am not bewildering the validity of understanding with the administration of the in writing ...