<<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.>>
Yes, you have said some strong words. I appreciate your study of the issue,
and I hope you appreciate that I have studied it, too, along with the
scholatic journals and so forth. And I could make a very strong argument here
that your contention that my view is "unorthodox and destructive to the very
character of Biblical authority" is not only misguided rhetoric, but quite
destructive itself. And I could argue that it is your view which actually
skews Scriptural witness and authority, and that it is Warfield's view that is
novel (late 1800s) and NOT at all in line with the Reformers. I think,
however, we would be revisiting much of what we've both read.
I will say this: No one has a higher view of Scripture than I do. I hope you
can accept that.
I was wrong to call Glenn "unorthodox" a while back. I can understand how he
felt. I think you're wrong here to do the same for those who believe in the
absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, but in a slightly different fashion
than you do.
Jim