Falsifiabilty: The Atheist Dilemma

Casting the proverbial gauntlet against God and the problem of meaning, philosophical atheists posit that language, meaning, and truth claims that are falsifiable take preeminence over those which are non-falsifiable. By emphasizing analytical over against analogical argumentation, atheistic theorists seek to limit the validity of truth claims that depend on phenomena outside the physical world. (Osborne, 2006, p. 500).

The famous atheist, A. J. Ayer, wrote Language, Truth, and Logic, establishing principles of both falsifiability and verifiability. In his works, Ayer stated that theistic belief is untenable, because the only possible method of falsification depends upon the end of one's physical existence (Osborne, 2006, p. 500). The analytical approach limits us to the physical world, but an analogical approach provides additional epistemological help, which Ayer rejected all of his life. 

In the scriptures, Luke 16:31 provides a verifiable example of the type of truth claim that Ayer could have accepted analogically. Jesus states, "He (Abraham) said to him (the rich man), 'If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” The context of the passage is the death of the rich man and the disabled, poor man, Lazarus. Both men witness first hand a taste of the afterlife. The rich man, seeing his lot and the impassable chasm that separates him from Lazarus, begs Abraham to let him go back and tell his father and his brothers, so they will believe and repent (Luke 16:25-30, NASB).

Jesus’s response, in the form of parable, is both contextually relevant to his immediate hearers and consequentially persuasive for our time. He describes the dire punishment that awaits unbelievers, as represented by the rich man, and the relationship between physical evidence and unbelief. When Jesus refers to someone rising from the dead, his immediate context is the rich man's request in the parable. Yet the messianic meaning points to the future event of the resurrection of Christ himself. Thus, even when empirical facts with materialistic proof exist -- and even when that evidence can also subjected to falsification (John 20:27) -- those who hold an antithetical worldview won’t believe. Falsification and verification will not convince a hardened heart. By the time the atheist's life-long demand for verification materializes, it will be too late, as the experience of the rich man attests. 

Interestingly, later in life, A.J. Ayer recounted a near death experience of his own, which eerily juxtaposed Jesus’s statements in Luke 16. Ayer wrote:

 “My recent experiences (while medically declared dead) have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death, which is due fairly soon, will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be. They have not weakened my conviction that there is no god. I trust that my remaining an atheist will allay the anxieties of my fellow supporters of the British Humanist Association, the Rationalist Press Association and the South Place Ethical Society.” 

Ayer remained more consistent to his atheistic worldview than he did to his own theory of falsification, even though he admitted he had no more reason to hold to his disbelief. We know that unbelief and the quest for falsification will be thwarted in the end:

" at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:10-11)

A second atheistic theorist who held to the falsifiability principle, Anthony Flew, stated “no truth statement can claim veracity unless it can be falsified, that is, unless one can prove that the reverse cannot be true. (Osborne, 2006).

Here again we find rich irony, as Flew was also known for writing The Parable of the Invisible Gardener. In his parable, Flew's characters acknowledged the evidence of “the garden” (a metaphor for the world), its order, and its rationality as indisputable, empirical facts. However, what Flew's science was not empirically able to either prove or falsify in this system was the existence of the Gardener. From a rationalistic, analytical perspective, science could neither prove or disprove the existence of a gardener. Yet, in Flew’s case (unlike Ayer) the garden itself became a sufficient witness to the existence of deity - the Gardener. Eventually, Flew came to believe through the analogical argumentation of Aristotle and other classicists in the necessity of existence of an intelligent and rational Gardener behind the garden (Flew, 2007).

Flew transcended the weakness of analytical materialism and stumbled onto what analogical theorists taught, especially with regard to reclaiming the force of the linguistic device known as referent (or in this case, the Referent). Again, the scriptures speak to the very nature of the topic that Flew encountered, as Paul wrote to the early church in Rome: 

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20, NASB).

Another well-known atheist philosopher, Karl Popper, famously stated that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a “metaphysical research programme” (Popper, 1976). Alhough Popper modified his statement later by adding that  some aspects of Darwinism, such as natural selection, may be falsifiable, his premise that we have no means of proving or falsifying origins theories remains (Popper, 1978). 

Even so, the Christian worldview and our truth claims do not rest on empirical evidence or the falsifiability of facts. Rather, our foundation is based on the power of the God, proclaimed in the Gospel of Christ. We are not mere theists, but rather we have the full wisdom of God in special revelation, in which we believe because of the Spirit's work in us. Paul wrote:

 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:21-24).

While our faith does not depend on evidence, we also know that Jesus accommodated the disciples by appearing to them after His death, by teaching them through miracles and healing in their presence. Therefore, God cares about the Christian's desire for experiential validation of key tenants of the faith as an ancillary feature of knowledge. By the Holy Spirit 's witness to the Word, He serves as a deposit for our faith and continues to draw us back to the source of all truth, knowledge, and wisdom.  

When the Lord returns, we know our questions will cease once and for all, because our faith will be made sight:

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. (1 Cor. 13:12)

Maranatha!

References

Ayer, A.J. (1998). What I saw when I was dead. The Sunday Telegraph. http://www.philosopher.eu/others-writings/a-j-ayer-what-i-saw-when-i-was-dead/

Flew, Anthony. (1950-51) "Theology and Falsification," from Joel Feinberg, ed., Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. Belmont, CA: Dickenson Publishing Company, Inc., pp. 48-49.
 
Flew, Anthony & Verghese, R. A. (2007). There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. HarperOne. Reprint edition. P. 92.

Osborne, G. R. (2006) The hermeneutical spiral: a comprehensive introduction to biblical interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. pp. 500-505.

Popper, K. R. (1976). Unended quest. Glasgow: Fontana, Collins. p.151. 

Popper, K. R. (1978). Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind, Dialectica, v.32, 3-4, pp. 339-355

You keep using that word...

Since Diane and Kim have been posting on Bible study and hermeneutics, I am going to follow in their train. This is a repost from my personal blog from 2014.


Lately I've been digging into the nuts and bolts of Bible interpretation. This was triggered by a journal article I had read which examined different views among conservative Christians on a particular subject. These differing views stemmed from different interpretations of a single New Testament (NT) word which in turn led to different applications. On one side, the meaning was derived with emphasis on the root definition. On the other side, the context was given more weight.

As a result, I've been consulting D.A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies, Invitation To Biblical Interpretation by Drs. Kostenberger and Patterson, and this Tabletalk article. These resources shed quite a bit of light on the pitfalls of interpreting Scripture and the fallacies we inadvertently commit. It's also been highly mortifying. I've committed many if not all of these word fallacies and made assumptions about biblical words that were just plain wrong. After cringing inside at my mistakes, I couldn't help but think of this:



So with Inigo Montoya's admonition, here a few things I've gleaned about how not to interpret that Bible:

- The Bible was written in a real language by real people for real people in a real historical period. It is not a mystical book where every noun is symbolic and every word has hidden meaning. There is no code to crack. There is no special "Holy Spirit" Greek.¹

- A little Greek (or Hebrew) can be a dangerous thing. Looking up a Strong's number does not a scholar make.

 - One can't assume meaning is always derived from the root word (etymological fallacy). If I say, "Mrs. Smith is a nice person," I'm not implying she is ignorant. The Latin root for "nice" is the word for ignorant, but the usage has changed over time. Since Greek is a real language, it too can change over the centuries. Etymology derived from Homer's day (8th century B.C.) will not be helpful for understanding a NT word. As an example, "missing the mark" is probably not the best definition for sin as that meaning was probably obsolete by NT times, not to mention downplaying the seriousness of sin. ²

- Conversely, don't impose our modern understanding of a word on the Bible (semantic anachronism). The root word for "power" is "dynamos" from which Alfred Nobel coined the name of his explosive. But his discovery took place in the 1860's. The NT writers, therefore, could not have had dynamite in mind when they wrote about the power of the Holy Spirit, and neither should we. ³

- The meaning of a word is not necessarily derived from the sum of its parts. Our understanding of "butterfly" is not enhanced by knowing the definition of "butter" and "fly." Likewise, we can't assume this about the Greek language either. ⁴

- The authors of the NT used synonyms like any writer to vary the language. Therefore, one can't assume theological meaning behind every word choice. The prime example is assuming that "agapao" and "phileo" always refer to two different types of love. (Raise your hand if you've done this too.) But this isn't so! Both words are used interchangeably for divine and human love in the Gospel of John. ⁵

- A definition is a one piece of information to take into consideration. Don't miss the tree or even the entire forest by focusing on a single twig.

- Context, context, context!

After this foray into fallacies, I'm probably a bit more cautious about how I interpret the Bible. There are many factors including etymology, usage at the time written, context, culture, and authorship, to name a few, that all need to be taken into account and given their appropriate weight for the given text. There is no single, one-size-fits-all, rigid formula because language is not static.

I also needn't be afraid of making an attempt to interpret Scripture, but this doesn't give me a license to be careless either. This is God's Holy Word we're talking about. All the more reason to approach the Bible with humility, treat it with respect, think carefully, use resources wisely, and pray for the Holy Spirit to illumine the text and keep me from error.


For more information:

Exegetical Fallacies, D.A. Carson, Baker Book House, 1996, 2nd. edition.

Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology, Andreas J. Kostenberger, Richard D. Patterson, Kregel, 2011.

Word-Study Fallacies: Words of Caution, Robert J. Cara, Tabletalk, Vol. 38. No. 1, January 2014, pp. 13-15.

1. Kostenberger and Patterson, pp. 579-580.
2. Cara pg. 13, Carson pp. 28-29.
3. Cara,  pg. 14, Carson, pp. 34-35
4. Carson, pg. 30.
5. Kostenberger and Patterson, pp. 643-644.

Some additional resources since I wrote the original post:

Doin' the Wonky with Words: 4 Word Study Missteps, George Guthrie - Part 1 and Part 2

Grasping God's Word, J. Scott Duvall, J. Daniel Hays, Zondervan, 2012.

Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., Thomas Nelson, 2004.

Contending for Old School Hermeneutics

“what is one small hermeneutical step in the wrong direction turns out to be one giant step toward the wrong theology” 1  - Norman L. Geisler

 If you've followed this blog for a while you know that we love the subject of hermeneutics.  Proper interpretation of the Bible is essential in order to have a right understanding of God's Word and to protect  us against false doctrine.  I don't pretend to be a scholar but I have been around long enough to be able to spot the insidious new wave of liberalism resurfacing in conservative evangelical churches in recent years.

One reason for this is the ongoing attack on the inerrancy of Scripture and a departure from traditional principles of  interpretation.   The emergence of the “new” hermeneutic  has been investigated  by  Robert L. Thomas  in his book Evangelical Hermeneutics;  The New Versus the Old :

“Changes in hermeneutics have coincided with changes in evangelicalism. … Recent hermeneutical trends have forced evangelical interpreters to choose between two hermeneutical systems that oppose each other in dramatic ways.   ….There is utter confusion because they share no commonly accepted hermeneutical procedures among themselves.” 2

"the most notable difference between new hermeneutics and traditional principles is the overwhelmingly subjective nature of the new approaches versus the objectivism of the old.  ... The new hermeneutics provide no stopping points to limit the extremes to which  individual personal inclination may go in fostering new teachings allegedly derived from Scripture."3  

Many of these changes in hermeneutics are affecting the church’s thinking regarding feminism,  missiology,  ecumenism,  Gnosticism,  and homosexuality,   just to name a few.    So,  here's a reminder of some of the  fundamental rules for engaging in a God honoring study of the Bible. 

 

 TRADITIONAL HERMENEUTICS

Inerrancy:  Believing in the inerrancy of Scripture is an absolute prerequisite.   We must come to the  Bible believing that it  is entirely true  and without error in the original writings.    It can be fully trusted in every sense, including all matters pertaining to science,  history,  geology,  and spiritual enlightenment. 

We believe in the grammatical-historical method of interpreting Scripture  based on a specific set of hermeneutical principles.   When we talk about grammatical we’re referring to the words, their meanings,  the sentence structure,  the interaction with the original language, ect.    By historical we’re speaking of things like:    Who wrote it?  Why did they write it?  When did they write it?  Who did they write it to?    What was the cultural context?  Was it written to Israel or the Church?  

Changes have brought about  much confusion over definitions  therefore a  good traditional definition of Hermeneutics  could be defined  as “a set of principles” while  exegesis   “is an implementation of valid interpretive principles" 4.    Simply stated,  hermeneutics would be equivalent to the “rule book” for playing the game and exegesis would be like “playing the game”.

“As a theological discipline hermeneutics is the science of the correct interpretation of the Bible….It stands in the same relationship to exegesis that a rule-book stands to a game. …The rules are not the game, and the game is meaningless without the rules.  Hermeneutics proper is not exegesis, but exegesis is applied to hermeneutics” 5-  Bernard Ramm 

PLAYING BY THE RULES 

Scripture Must Be Interpreted Literally 

 

We’ve always abided by the principle,  “If the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense.”     The authors of Scripture wrote  to their audiences with a specific purpose  (authorial intent) and just as we wouldn't  look for mystical meanings in  an email from a  friend,  we  also don't want to tamper with the plain intentions the author of Scripture had in mind.   Ramm points out that to interpret Scripture literally is to  “understand a document the best one can in the context of the normal, usual, and customary, tradition” 6

The Principle of Single Meaning

Traditional  hermeneutics have always held that  Scripture has  but one meaning although there may be many applications.  

“A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection.  The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture.”7– Milton S. Terry

The principle of single meaning has especially fallen on hard times in the world of hermeneutics.   Robert Thomas  sounds the alarm  in his rebuttal  to a number of modern authors in his article   The Principle of Single Meaning:

“A mass evangelical exodus from this time-honored principle of interpreting Scripture is jeopardizing the church’s access to the truths that are taught therein.  Whether interpreters have forsaken the principle intentionally or have subconsciously ignored it, the damage is the same. The only hope of escape from the pit into which so many have fallen is to reaffirm the principle of single meaning along with the other hermeneutical principles that have served the believing community so well through the centuries.” 8

Doctrinal Unity

This principle protects us from false doctrine.  When we come to difficult  passages  we go with the whole teaching of Scripture on the subject.   For instance,  verses like Philippians 2:12 “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”  are used by cults to teach a works based salvation.    But the principle of Doctrinal (or Theological)  Unity takes into consideration the fact that the entire body of Scripture combined overwhelmingly teaches otherwise, therefore there must be another explanation of  this verse because we know the Bible does not contradict itself.   

Scripture Is Its Own Authority

The authority of interpretation  does not come from ourselves.   The popular trend  of asking  "What does this passage mean to you?"  is a sure prescription for doctrinal disaster.   Equally dangerous is the belief that  religious  institutions have the  final authority in interpreting Scripture.  Rather, it is from within  the Scriptures themselves that we have the means to interpret them.

 “obscure passages in Scripture must give way to clear passages….The Roman Catholic Church claimed that it possessed the mind of Christ and the mind of the Spirit in its teaching magisterium so that it could render obscure doctrines clear.   The Reformers rejected the claim  of the [RCC] that it had the gift of grace and illumination to know what the Holy Scripture taught.  In place of an appeal to the teaching magisterium of the Church, the Reformers proclaimed that Scripture interprets Scripture” 9

Grammar

That is, the words and sentences must be properly understood.    Of course knowing the original language would be preferable but for the rest of us the use of various Greek and Hebrew word study books will come in handy.  

Context 

A. What are the verses before and after it saying?    

Just as  location, location, location is to real estate,   context is king in Scripture.    It is easy to assume popular evangelical interpretations.   For example,  I Corinthians 6:19  states:  “do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit”    is often taken out of context to present a case for healthy living when it is actually  referring to  fleeing sexual immorality.   Other questions include - What is the  book and its  theme?  Is it Old or New Testament?    How does the word relate to the verse,  the  paragraph,  the chapter,  and the entire book?    

B. Cross referencing

“grammatical interpretation takes into consideration parallel passages or cross references…what is said in one part of Scripture may illuminate what is said in another part of Scripture.” 10

The  The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge  is an excellent tool for this.

C.  Historical and cultural 

When was it written?  Where did this take place?  What were the issues being addressed?  What was the cultural setting of the time?  etc.   Reference tools that are helpful would be Bible maps and encyclopedias and the works of early historians such Eusebius and Josephus.

It is so important to keep reaffirming these time honored principles  for interpretation  when we study our Bibles so that we might prove to be   “a workman who does not need to be ashamed,  accurately handling the word of truth.” 2 Tim. 2:15

____________________________

1. One Small Step for Hermeneutics, One Giant Leap for Theology by Norman L. Geisler
2. Evangelical Hermeneutics;  The New Versus the Old  by Robert Thomas: Kregel; 2002Thomas: ibid pg. 17, 19
3. Thomas ibid. pg 508
4. Thomas ibid; pg 27
5. Protestant Biblical  Interpretation:  A Textbook of Hermeneutics by Bernard Ramm;    Baker Book House;  1970; pg 27
6. Ramm: ibid: pg 121 
7. Biblical Hermeneutics by Milton S. Terry  2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan)  pg. 2
8. The Principle of Single Meaning;  Robert L. Thomas,  The Masters Seminary Journal;   Spring 2001; pg. 33-47
9. Ramm: ibid: pg 104-105
10. Ramm; ibid. pg.14

Reading the Bible in 90 Days

Having started on February 1, I am attempting to read the entire Bible in 90 days. It has been challenging, and I am already a little bit behind. But so far, it's been very good. I am still trying to find the optimal time of day to read, which varies from day to day, but the main goal is to read. I would not recommend this as the only method of Bible reading because it's not possible to do in-depth study at this pace. However, this is a great way to get the Bible's big picture. With less than a month under my belt, here are a few lessons I've learned so far.

The Bible has unity. It contains the overarching story of God's promise of redemption in Genesis 3:15 and His faithfulness to keep His word through the twists and turns of human history. Reading the historical narratives in 3-4 days has helped me maintain that storyline. For example, God is faithful in preserving Abraham's descendants in spite of the patriarchs failings, through their enslavement in Egypt, eventual release, and wilderness wanderings. The downward spiritual slide in Judges is contrasted with the hopeful message of Ruth and the reign of a man after God's own heart. While the patriarchs, judges, and kings foreshadow the coming Messiah, even the best of men are only men who stumble and fall. But God's plan is still moving forward step by step and will not be deterred.

Reading quickly has kept me from falling back into some bad hermeneutical habits. There isn't time to allegorize narrative because the pace forces me to read what is written as it is written. I don't get lost in the weeds and begin to wonder if there is a deeper, hidden significance to rock badgers (Lev. 11:5) There's also less temptation to read myself into the story because larger portions keep the context in the forefront. For example, the point of God's call to Abraham isn't about helping me step out of my comfort zone. God made a covenant with Abraham because He intended to preserve a people and a family line from whom Jesus would come. (Gen. 12; Matt. 1)

In the past, I have struggled with daily Bible reading. It may seem counterintuitive, but reading larger portions is helping my consistency. Getting the bigger picture makes the Bible that much more exciting. Rather than a compilation of nice and not-so-nice stories, verses, chapters, and books fit together to form God's unfolding plan of redemption. So if you haven't tried reading the Bible in 90 days, give it a try. It's a challenge, but a good one.

The logical conclusion to be drawn is that if the unity of the Bible has any meaning at all, the real context of any Bible text is the whole Bible. Any given text is more meaningful when related not only to its immediate context, but also to the entire plan of redemption revealed in the whole Bible.¹

1. Gospel and Kingdom: The Goldsworthy Trilogy, Graeme Goldsworthy, Paternoster Press, 2000, pg. 31.

Resources:
The Bible in 90 Days Reading Schedule: This is the plan I'm using, which is in book order.
Through the Bible in 90 Days: This plan intersperses the Psalms and goes back and forth between the Old and New Testaments.
There are probably many other plans available on the Internet.

Hoaxes and Hermeneutics

“The biggest problem facing the church is lack of discernment.  If you can’t discern the truth you can die of a thousand heresies.”  - John MacArthur  

Shortly after the Civil War an atheistic cigar maker named George Hull got into a debate with a Protestant minister over the literal interpretation of Scripture.    The pastor’s insistence that Genesis 6:4—“There were giants in the earth in those days”,   should be taken literally, sparked a brilliant marketing scheme in the huckster’s mind.  Hoping to gain a profit while making a mockery of Christians,  Hull  created a  “giant petrified man” out of gypsum. 

Stonemasons and a Cardiff, New York farmer colluded with Hull on the ruse and buried the Giant in the farmer's field.    They hired workers to dig up the "new wonder",  placed it  under a tent,   and charged 50 cents for admission,  drawing crowds by the thousands.   When a group of investors bought shares in the Giant for $30,000  and moved it to Syracuse,    P.T. Barnum offered $60,000  to lease it.    His offer was denied so he created a plaster replica and made  even  more money than the original hoax.

People were divided over the Giant’s origin.   Some  believed it was a petrified man while others, including geologists, believed it was an ancient statue.     A Yale paleontologist finally uncovered  the scam declaring it a fake—and a poor one at that.    Many consider The Cardiff Giant to be one of the greatest hoaxes in history.

 “The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps.” Proverbs 14:15

 We may laugh at such naiveté but the truth is,  people today  can be as  gullible as ever.   Who hasn't  received an email hoax  or seen a Facebook  post  that  can be proven  false with a  quick Snopes search, right?   

 When it comes to  discerning  Biblical  truth everything we  hear  must be tested  against the Scriptures  regardless of how convincing it may seem.    The devil’s most cunning deceptions are  lies with an element of truth in them—a modus operandi that is as old as the Garden.   Truth distorted plunged the church into centuries of  apostasy before the  Reformation and  continues to do so in all of the Christian cults. 

Charles Spurgeon said,  “Discernment is not knowing the difference between right and wrong.   It is knowing the difference between right and almost right.”1.      Cultivating discernment is commanded of  all  believers  (I John 4:1) and it can only be accomplished through  the  means of  careful and diligent  Bible study. (Acts 17:11). 

“But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.”  Hebrews 5:14

Heresies arise  when faulty methods of interpretation are used,   but applying sound hermeneutical principles can  guard against false teaching.   Hermeneutics is the science of  Scripture interpretation which uses  a specific  set of  rules.    Those rules include in part,  interpreting the Bible in the  plain and literal sense,  corresponding  to the author's intent and  the context of the passage.   But when that approach is replaced by allegory, scientific opinion,  or subjectivism  the  text no longer speaks for itself and the meaning is left to the  reader's own  interpretation.   Tragically,  this  way of interpreting Scripture  is rampant today. 

There's  another alarming trend in the church today  and that  is the resurgence of  rank liberal theology.   These kinds of heresies were  fought against in the early twentieth century  by  men like J. Gresham Machen  but have turned up again like a bad penny.

We still have our silly hoaxes today but  far  more insidious  is the "new hermeneutic".    It is no surprise that an atheistic con artist  like George Hull would deny the literal interpretation of the Bible,  but we should be appalled  when this type of  thinking seeps into the church. 

For information regarding the current battle for the Inerrancy of Scripture,  many excellent articles and resources are available at Inerrant Word.

____________________________________

 

Quotes: John MacArthur -Strange Fire Conference 2013- Introduction
1. Spurgeon -reference unknown

Sources:
History.com
The Museum of Hoaxes

Worth a click:
 Responding to the New Attacks on Scripture: Dr. David Farnell
A Disastrous Hermeneutical Replacement by Grant Kolkow
No Adam, No Fall, No Original Sin, No Substitutionary Atonement by Rachel Miller

Worth purchasing:
Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics by Bernard Ramm
Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old by Robert L. Thomas