Paul wrote:
>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."
Yes, but J.I. Packer was one of those involved in drafting this statement.
Yet he has stated that evolution is not inconflict with inerrancy as stated
above.
"It should be remembered, however, that scripture was given to reveal God,
not to address scientific issues in scientific terms, and that, as it does
not use the language of modern science, so it does not require scientific
knowledge about the internal processes of God's creation for the
understanding of its essential message about God and ourselves. Scripture
interprets scientific knowledge by relating it to the revealed purpose and
work of God, thus establishing an ultimate context for the study of
scientific ideas. It is not for scientific theories to dictate what
Scripture may and may not say, although extra-biblical information will
sometimes helpfully expose a misinterpretation of Scripture." (J. I.
Packer, 1988, God Has Spoken, p. 170. Packer even includes the statement
from the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy as an appendix in this
book.)
"I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and maintain it in print, but I
cannot see that anything Scripture says, in the first chapters of Genesis
or elsewhere, bears on the biological theory of evolution one way or the
other. On the theory itself, as a non-scientist, watching from a distance
the disputes of experts, I suspend judgment." (J. I. Packer, 1978, The
Evangelical Anglican Identity Problem, p. 5)
Warfield was another obvious example of someone who held strongly to
inerrancy but accepted evolution. It seems that the term inerrancy can be
understood as meaning that Scripture is true in what it affirms. Then the
issue become; What does scripture affirm. However, the great majority of
lay people do not understand inerrancy in this way. For that reason I do
not use the term.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 09:05:06 EST