<< All these problems lead to most thought out statements of Biblical
inerrancy being convoluted and even contradictory. It s several years
since I have read them, but I recall that the shorter and longer versions
of the Chicago statement actually say quite different things. At that
time I could have signed off on one (the longer, I think, which is more
qualified), but not the other. >>
I agree. The longer statement gives at least a little room for the kind of
nuancing that Terry mentions; but the actual articles adopted by the
International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, which were signed by just about
every evangelical group in the country, are something else. And, I think it
is these articles which are the "high view of Scripture" to most people and
especially Article XII:
"We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from
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."
Although some may affirm this article and then go to the interpretations of
concordism to avoid such contextual historical-grammatical meanings as the
sun being created on the fourth day and a universal Flood that killed every
human on earth except the eight on the ark, the most natural course of action
for a believer in this article would be to go directly to creation science.
Either way, light is suppressed, so, I do not believe this is a view of
Scripture which Christians should hold.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 07 2002 - 01:49:54 EST