Well, maybe it is overstating it. I should probably qualify the "many" and
" most" with " in my experience". Time for me to leave my soapbox. The thin
air up here is clouding my mind...
I do think that for many evangelicals, especially prominent ones like
Chuck Colson, it is fair comment.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Clarke [mailto:jdac@alphalink.com.au]
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 6:08 PM
To: Shuan Rose
Cc: PHSEELY@aol.com; Asa
Subject: Re: Ramblings on a "High View" of Scripture
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 - 18:04:22 EDT