Hi Phil. I agree 100 percent on your conclusion. However, many
evangelical church leaders and members would affirm without resevation
Article XII.
Frankly, I think most of these folks have not read their Bibles very
carefully. Many Christians have a Bible that consists of the following:
a.. parts of Genesis and Exodus
b.. snippets of Leviticus, Numbers, and Dueteronomy
c.. portions of Joshua, Judges, 1 &2 Kings
d.. snippets of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles
e.. Selections from Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes
f.. Isolated sections of the Prophets having to do with Messianic
prophecies
g.. Most of the New Testament, interpreted from the viewpoint of Paul's
Letter to the Romans
What I have set out is pretty much the "Bible according to
Evangelicals". Much of the Bible, e.g. 1 chronicles 1-9 is pretty much
passed over, as if it does not exist. Even for the NT, Paul, John, the
synoptic gospels, and the Catholic Epistles are all harmonised and
interpreted as if they are saying pretty much the same thing- a view which
no respected Biblical scholar would agree with.
This rose-colored, childish view of the Bible is propagated constantly
from almost every evangelical pulpit in the land-which makes it difficult to
engage in any fruitful discussion on the science-religion issue.
a..
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of PHSEELY@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 1:49 AM
To: jdac@alphalink.com.au; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Ramblings on a "High View" of Scripture
<< 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 - 18:49:36 EDT