Do We Even Need the Bible? Responding To Stephen Wolfe

Join us for the newest episode of Apologia Radio in which we respond to and refute some of the recent claims and content of Stephen Wolfe regarding the Christian Worldview. Tell someone!

-Check out our new sponsor Page 50!!!

-Check out our new sponsor, Rooted Pine Homestead!
A family business that works to create natural wooden toys and herbal remedies. Their wooden toys/other wooden items are coated with only 2 ingredients (Coconut MCT oil and beeswax). Use discount code APOLOGIA for 10% off your first order.

ad music: PIXYOEGMJ99LLG0N

[haiasinosdnah]

Quote from Dr. Wolfe on X:

“I should be able to respond to this video next week. But I'll say here: when I say that something is not a "theological question", I'm not saying that theology or the Bible has no relevance to answering it. All domains of knowledge (theology, politics, ethics, economics, metaphysics, etc.) are united, coherent, and form a complete body of truth. Each impacts the other, insofar that you can't understand politics completely without understanding the household or ethics (or theology and metaphysics).

My point is that each question is answered principally or mainly within a certain discipline--by its distinct methodology and principles (principia).

I claimed that the fundamental question of climate change--whether greenhouse gas emissions impact long-term global temperatures--is a question of science, with its distinct methodology. It is true that theories and predictions arising from interpreting the data can violate theological truths (and others), e.g., the claim that high temperatures will cause human extinction contradicts eschatology. Those would be a false theory. But in that case, an error in reasoning has occurred and should be identifiable within the field's own proper methodology. Truths of distinct fields do not contradict each other. When contraries arise, either one is true and the other false, or both are false.

Our fundamental disagreement may be that I affirm distinct fields or disciplines and that each has it own principia or first principles or foundational elements:

Logic/philosophy: axioms of thought
Ethics: moral first principles
Political theory: principles of justice/governance
Theology: faith and scripture
Military: strategic doctrines

But the sound conclusions of each do not contradict but form a complete and coherent body of knowledge.

That's enough for now.”


He continues

“Addendum: This is why many early modern Reformed writers, when they wrote on "practical philosophy" would write in this order: ethics, home economy (oeconomics), and then politics.

You have to know ethics and the household before you can fully understand politics. And of course in a compete work, theology would precede practical philosophy.”

[hardboard]

David Reece, a theonomist, actually had a respectful argument with Stephen Wolfe discussing epistemological foundations recently. I found that to be a the most helpful refutation of Wolfe since it prevented the possibility of strawmanning from Reece. That can be found on Wolfe’s YouTube channel.

Maybe you guys could invite Wolfe on to your show, or perhaps better yet you could go onto his show to reach his more devoted fans?

[natedowney]

21st century Reformed: Read the reformers and puritans!

Wolfe: Ok, I will.

21st century reformed: NO! NOT THOSE ONES

[topkapi]

I truly hope and pray for reconciliation, repentance, and forgiveness between all parties involved in all of this mess. Apologia, RRM, Moscow, Ogden, and the rest. We are all supposed to serve the same Christ.

And happy late birthday, Jeff. 🙏🏽

[brettk]

The Reformers are on Wolfe’s side on these issues guys.

[BavinckGuy]

Really appreciate Stephen Wolfe. He's given me a love for the Reformers that I never really had.

[_ZachB_]

YES!!!! This is what wee need, more detailed responses or debates less not attending each others conferences and oblique online banter/trash talk.

[hairypawter]

Heres a crazy idea. Talk to Stephen wolf instead of doing this performative fake piety.

[jordanjohnson]

I’m sorry, brother Jeff. I love your ministry, but I don’t think you are responding to Wolfe in this video. When Wolfe says it’s not a “theological question”, he means 1.) how do we determine if climate change is taking place (the scientific process), and how do we, as a society, pursue legislation surrounding climate change (a political process). Both are grounded theologically and our answers will be determined by our theology, but that doesn’t mean they are theological questions per se.

[loganross]

Stephen Wolfe’s argument about the Bible is sound and doesn’t take anything away from the Bible. It actually frees us up to be more Biblical, IMO. bc we don’t have to be beholden to “chapter verse!” Autists.

It would be different if he was saying we didn’t need the Bible or the Bible isn’t the authority. But he isn’t. At least from what I heard him put forward. He’s saying we don’t have to stop and do and expository sermons to explain ourselves every time someone demands justification for common sense position. We CAN, but we don’t have to call timeout and stop the game to satiate debaters etc. At least that’s how I understood his overall position.

Falling into that kind of trap is how things have gotten so out of control and how conservatives have become so useless and innocuous to the left and establishment.

[HartyBiker]

Thank you Apologia editors for removing the dead air at the start 🙏

[GeoffGordonStuart]

Love and respect from South Africa. Keep fighting the good fight.

[ChiRhoXP]

I would love to see Stephen and Jeff have an in-person discussion. Not sure how helpful critiquing a guy chatting from his armchair actually is.

[BAN_]

An absolutely phenomenal episode. If the word of God is not the highest authority as the foundation over every thought, word, and action, then all objectivity is abandoned and hence is incompatible with Christianity.
I can’t thank God enough for your consistent faithfulness in ministry.

[mart]

Utterly wild depths of perfidious slander that Apologia is sinking to here.

[ZarathustraIskandar]

Please try to have a genuine discussion with Dr. Stephen Wolfe. It would be very beneficial for all Christians (especially the Reformed) to see what common ground you all have and what we can do to combat the greater enemies threatening Christians in the West.

[jamescook]

I initially had similar thoughts to Wolfe's video, however, I soon after had non-legislative Theonomist videos show up in my feed and I learned that Wolfe was responding to a real position (which is not your position, indeed, the same non-legislative Theonomist's likely reject your form of "Theonomy" ). It would be much better for you guys to show up to the conference and hash these things out in a public debate rather than attacking arguments against your position which weren't even made against your position.

[golfreak]

Look I already said I like Wolfe, you don’t have to sell me on it.

[NathanicusSmith]

Who cares what you think? You won't even talk to him.

[DefinedFaith]

I see people defending Wolfe in the comments, but no one is actually defending the substance of anything he said about the word "worldview." I'm not familiar at all with Wolfe, but I am familiar with presuppositionalism. If Wolfe's tweet here is at all supposed to be about presuppositionalism, it's an extremely uncharitable, simplistic strawman. But Jeff is being accused of straw manning Wolfe, so someone please clarify. From the outside looking in, the idea that the word "wordview" is not a legitimate and meaningful term is utterly ridiculous, regardless of how someone feels about presuppositional methodology.