Bob,
The definitive work is that of Hodge and Warfield entitled
"Inspiration" (1881, rpt. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979).
Along the same lines is the work of J. G. Machen from the 1920's and
1930's. Many scholars in conservative Presbyterian denominations
(OPC, PCA, EPC) would continue to stand by Machen's work.
A more recent statement and discussion by faculty of the Westminster
Seminaries (Philadelphia and Escondido) is "Inerrancy and
Hermeneutic: A Tradition, a Challenge, a Debate" (1988) edited by
Harvie M. Conn.
A more broadly evangelical statement is in D.A. Carson and John D.
Woodbridge's collection of essays entitled, "Scripture and Truth"
(1983)
I'm sure that there are other more fundamentalist statements, say
such as Lindsell's, "The Battle for the Bible", but the one's that I
have mentioned are significantly more nuanced, in my opinion. For
what it's worth, I would place myself in this conservative
Presbyterian tradition, so, indeed, there are some of us with these
views in the ASA. When I was in my mid-20's, I spent several years
reading the then current literature pro and con on the question of
inerrancy. I gave close attention to what has been labeled
neo-evangelical views (Rogers, McKim, the later Pinnock, etc.) I came
to the conclusion early in my study that my belief in Christianity
would withstand a re-working of my views on Biblical inerrancy,
infallibility, and authority (i.e. a denial of inerrancy and
infallibility), but in the end I re-affirmed my belief in Biblical
inerrancy and infallibility along the more nuanced lines of the
Hodge, Warfield, Machen, and Westiminster Seminary position. For the
Old Princeton/Westminster school, the ontological character of
scripture (as verbal, plenary, inerrant, infalllible inspiration) is
maintained and the "problems" are hermeneutical (what's the genre? --
is there an accomodation to common language? -- etc.) and perhaps a
recognition that unsolved "problems" don't necessarily undercut what
scripture says about itself. (For a very nice discussion of this in a
slightly different context see Davis Young's final chapter of
"Christianity and the Age of the Earth".)
I often get the feeling around the ASA that we must abandon this
"high view of scripture" in order to not end up as young-earth
creationists. It is clear to me that this was not the case for Hodge,
Warfield, Machen, and others. I seldom see this view being defended
in ASA circles (for fear of being labeled an evangelical or even
worse, a fundamentalist).
TG
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/ phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 06 2002 - 17:23:47 EST