Hi Shaun
I don't think this comment is either accurate or fair for many evangelicals, it is a caricature.
Jon
> Shuan Rose wrote:
>
> 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:
>
> * parts of Genesis and Exodus
> * snippets of Leviticus, Numbers, and Dueteronomy
> * portions of Joshua, Judges, 1 &2 Kings
> * snippets of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles
> * Selections from Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes
> * Isolated sections of the Prophets having to do with Messianic prophecies
> * 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.
>
>
> *
> -----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 : Mon Apr 08 2002 - 17:40:15 EDT