On Sun, 31 Dec 1995 13:11:42 +0100 you wrote:
TG>Jim and Denis (along with Donald Bloesch) are advocating a
>"well-known" view of scripture that I'm afraid I can't go along with.
>Is the Bible the TRUTH or is the Bible a WITNESS to the truth?
>Neo-orthodoxy, following Karl Barth, and the neo-evangelicals
>(Rogers, McKim, Bloesch, Pinnock, the later Berkouwer, et al.) opt
>for the latter at the expense of the former. No longer can it be
>said that "Thy Word is Truth!" but "Thy Word is a Witness to the
>Truth".
[...]
I am probably somewhere between Warfield and Barth. I have just
finished Pinnock's "The Scripture Principle", and although I
sympathise with him, IMHO he unnecessarily concedes too much.
I believe the Bible both *is* the word of God at one level and
*contains* the word of God at a deeper level.
OTOH, I believe that the phenomena of scripture reveals that God did
not preserve the human writers of Scripture from inconsequential human
errors. However, I would argue that many claimed errors were not in
the original.
TG>...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 am a fan of Warfield, but reluctantly disagree that his position of
is "able to handle the textual and critical issues raised by much of
modern scholarship". IMHO he does not really "handle" the phenomena
of scripture, but simply states they are facts to be adjusted to the
normative doctrine of scripture. Indeed many of his facts can be
adjusted, but not all.
TG>....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.
But here is rub. Warfield was "willing to live with the difficulties"
(which means ignore them! :-)) but the modern neo-evangelical scholars
like Pinnock and Bloesch (I presume), try to face these "difficulties"
and formulate a doctrine of Scripture that attempts to bring the
deductive (doctrine) and inductive (phenomena) together. I know
the doctrine is also inductive but IMHO it is a mixture of deductive
and inductive.
TG>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.
I am not sure this is true of Jim's view. I think we all agree on
Scripture's "authority". Most of us would probably subscribe to
"infallibility" and "inerrancy", but we would also need to qualify
that with words like "in the original", "in what it intends to teach",
etc.
TG>Does the acceptance of evolution from a theistic perspective
>require the acceptance of Denis and Jim's view of scripture? MOST
>DEFINITELY NOT!...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.
Right on Terry! I agree totally with you. About six-months after I
was first converted (in 1967), I set out to find out what Gn 1
*really* taught. I wrote a word-by-word commentary on Gn 1 in an
exercise book. I found that Gn 1 does *not* teach a YEC 6 x 24 hour
day view. IMHO, it is a complete myth that it does. And I also doubt
if the ancient Hebrews thought it did, despite Denis' views on ANE
thought-forms. See Hugh Ross "Creation and Time", and Hayward
"Creation and Evolution", where common YEC arguments are addresses
Biblically as well as scientifically.
TG>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 don't think they did believe it. Ross in "Creation and Time" lists
a number of early Church Fathers who believed the days of Gn 1 were
not 24-hour days.
TG>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.
I share your concern, but I would not call Pinnock et al "unorthodox".
They just represent the "left wing" of orthodox, evangelical
scholarship.
And as for labelling Jim's views as "unorthodox", I seem to remember
Glenn complaining long and loud that Jim had called his views
"unorthodox" and demanding an apology, which Jim duly gave.
I do appreciate your theological conservatism, Terry. I much respect
your TE views because of them. Much of my opposition to some TE views
is not so much because of the author's evolutionism (although I do
disagree with that), but more because of what I consider their
inadequate theology, particularly its IMHO incipient deism. I don't
see that problem with you.
Now if I can only persuade you to consider that a truly Bibical
position on *creation* must be a form of *creationism*! :-)
Happy New Year!
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------