PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
> Howard wrote,
>
> << From: Peter Ruest <pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch>
>
> > Perhaps we should reconsider what divine inspiration really
> > means.
>
> That would be an interesting thing to do. Vastly differing theories
> regarding the character and appropriate use of the biblical text lurk
> beneath the surface of many of the disagreements on this list. >>
>
> Yes. Both concordists and creation science followers, as well as most
> Evangelical para-church organizations, and, of course, a multitude of
> "conservative" Churchs are committed to the doctrine that the International
> Council on Biblical Inerrancy set forth in the 80's (though not new with
> them). This includes Article XII:
>
> "We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all
> falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and
> inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes,
> exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny
> that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to
> overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood."
>
> This is the heart of the Hydra.
>
> Where does the Bible teach that divine inspiration guarantees the inerrancy
> of bibical history and science? I say it is a human tradition, not a biblical
> teaching. Let whoever will, show us from Scripture that this doctrine is
> really biblical.
A serious problem in all debates about "inerrancy" &c has been the
assumption by many that inerrancy must mean the accuracy of biblical texts _as
historical accounts_. It is easy to see that assumption at work in the statement
Paul quotes above. As long as that (usually tacit) assumption is made, the only
choices will be rejection of the Bible as "errant" or concordisms of varying
degrees of implausibility. This is why I avoid use of the word "inerrant"
myself: For most people it means not just that the Bible is true but that any
part of it that looks superficially like history or science is in fact accurate
historical or scientific narrative.
We should begin as Christians by saying that scripture is inspired, true,
and authoritative witness to God's revelation in Christ. That, in a way, is the
easy part. Then we need to do the hard work of trying to understand the types of
accounts that we have in various parts of the Bible and the types of truth they
convey.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 07:39:04 EST