High or low views of Scripture and creation form an important part of the discussion in Lyle Campbell's contribution to the Paleontological Society's first publication on the evolution-creation controversy. The PS website and papers buried in boxes awaiting my move and unpacking have more bibliographic detail. This paper follows the Reformed tradition that Terry described, with both author and theological reviewer being in the PCA.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droigate Spa
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 15:23:23 -0700
>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 : Mon Apr 08 2002 - 19:40:27 EDT