I don't want to make my personal journey normative, but let me tell you of
my own experience. In the early 80's while in grad school I made an
intense study of this neo-evangelical position. I honestly was open to the
idea that Bible contained errors and was reliable as a witness to the truth
and was an infallible guide in matters of faith only. I was very willing
to live with the notion that if that was what God intended the Bible to be
then I was in no position to argue. I read hundreds of pages on both sides
of the debate including some of the technical theological treatises. What
came to be the bottom line for me was what the Bible claims about itself.
It was on this point that I came to agree with the perspective of Old
Princeton, B.B. Warfield, Westminster Seminary, and many other present-day
evangelical critics of this position. Warfield's position is exceedingly
complex and is very much able to handle the textual and critical issues
raised by much of modern scholarship. I think that many evangelicals with
a more fundamentalistic bent (e.g. Harold Lindsell in *The Battle for the
Bible*) have distorted Warfield's position to make it overly simplistic.
An excellent work on this subject is a collection of essays by the present
faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary entitled *Inerrancy and
Hermeneutic*.
Concordism results from a view of the Bible as the infallible and inerrant
Word of God that speaks truth in all that it says (not just metaphysical
and theological truth). On the other hand, the hermeneutical issues are
complex and getting is right is often hard work that requires more than
just looking at one's Greek/Hebrew lexicon and the interlinear text. Even
saying this all the difficulties are not removed, but then I'm willing to
live with the difficulties in view of what I consider to be the clear
self-attestation of scripture to its own infallibility and inerrancy in all
matters of life.
Denis and Jim's disdain of concordism stems from a fundamentally different
view of the nature of scripture and its infallibility, inerrancy, and
authority. Right guys? I'm afraid that this is a major impasse.
Does the acceptance of evolution from a theistic perspective require the
acceptance of Denis and Jim's view of scripture? MOST DEFINITELY NOT! I
for one have rejected their view of scripture and yet believe that
evolution fits in my "more conservative" view. Many (on both sides of the
fence) claim that I am inconsistant. I don't think so, and I am willing to
talk more about it. Let me give an example here. Denis claims that I
arbitrarily sweep Genesis 1 under the rug for the convenience of my
concordist needs. I claim that my view of Genesis 1 as non-chronology is
rooted in the text itself at best and even as the text presents that option
to me, I adopt it as the proper interpretation in light of the evidence
from creation. I will not say, as Denis seems to be willing to say, that
Genesis 1 does present a clear 6-24 hour day creation narrative that was
meant to be understood and was understood by its original audience in that
way, but it is in error given the greater insight of 20th century
cosmology. If the original audience or the church fathers understood it
that way (and there is some evidence to suggest that they did not), then
the problem lies with their interpretation and not the text itself.
I have said some rather strong words here and hope that I've offended
neither Denis or Jim or any of the fans of the *neo-evangelicals*. I have
come to a very strong conviction that this view of scripture is not only
novel but at the root is unorthodox and destructive to the very character
of Biblical authority and that it is an *unnecessary* capitulation to
modern critical Biblical scholarship.
Terry G.
>On 29 Dec 1995, Jim Bell wrote:
>>
>> "In my view, inspiration is the divine election and superintendence of
>> particular writers and writing in ORDER TO ENSURE A TRUSTWORTHY AND POTENT
>> WITNESS TO THE TRUTH....The critical elements in divine inspiration are the
>> election and divine guidance of the writers, the inward illumination of
>> hearers and readers, and the communication of the truth of revelation."
>> [Bloesch, Holy Scripture, p. 119]
>>
>
>So, guys, is how many "days" God took to create important? Is the order
>of the creative acts important? Is whether there really was a fast
>talking snake in a garden important? (Some might say it's me on the
>reflector ;-) ) Or even, is what type of fruit (it doesn't say an
>"apple") that was eaten in that garden important?
>
>Do you think our Lord and Savior cares if it is YEC, PC, or EC?
>
>Et bien . . . what is the TRUSTWORTHY AND POTENT WITNESS TO THE TRUTH
>present in Gen 1?
>
>Denis