robert rogland wrote in part:
> It's time to quit lurking and help Terry Gray (I hope I'm helping) do =
> the heavy lifting.
>
> I am in complete agreement with Terry's recent posts and share his =
> frustration. As members of the ASA we all subscribe to a Statement of =
> Faith. It is quite minimal, making room for a wide variety of =
> Christians. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox scientists could =
> subscribe to it as well as Protestants. Nevertheless, the ASA Statement =
> of Faith does make affirmations that exclude some who profess the =
> Christian faith. One must be as orthodox as the Apostles' and Nicene =
> creeds. And, of significance for the recent exchange of postings on =
> Scripture, one must "accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness, and =
> authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct." Now, that =
> leaves a lot of room for views on origins. Theistic evolutionists, =
> day-age and other OE creationists, and YECs can all subscribe to the =
> Statement of Faith, state their particular views, and take their lumps =
> from those with other convictions. I appreciate this big tent aspect of =
> the ASA. =20
SNIP
> Words DO have an objective meaning (the protestations of =
> deconstructionists notwithstanding). Is it coherent to affirm the =
> "divine inspiration, trustworthiness, and authority of the Bible in =
> matters of faith" and also pick and choose which parts of the Bible to =
> accept on the basis of some other criterion (e.g., one's perception of =
> what a good and loving God would say or do)? Can one coherently affirm =
> the inspiration of the Bible and deny inerrancy? If words have any =
> objective meaning, the answer is no.
I was doing fine until the doctrine of inerrancy came up. I for one do not
accept that interpretation and will gladly leave the list if that is
irreconcilable. Let me first state my case.
I have done a scan of the Bible in a word search. The terms inerrancy or
infallible are not used to describe scripture anywhere. In fact, I can only
find one verse that specifies the nature of scripture. It is " 16 All
Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and
training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly
equipped for every good work." In 2 Timothy 3.
The notion of inerrancy" is a man made theory (IMO). I see no justification
for it in the Bible. If someone chooses to believe that, great, but I see no
reason to shove it down someone else's throat. When confronted with clear
errors, the story becomes -- Well the original was inerrant but errors were
made in copying it. So what does it matter where the errors come from? It has
the same effect. And then when it is clear that a secular image comes into
play we say -- "Oh well, that wasn't history, it was a parable." Inerrancy of
the Bible exists only because those who wish it to be so change the rules to
prove the case -- independent of common sense and obvious evidence to the
contrary.
Having a said all that, I do accept the Bible as the inspired word of God in
matters of Faith and Morals. It is too bad that you cannot just leave it at
that.
If this makes me unacceptable to ASA, let me know and I will say "goodbye" to
this list.
Walt
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 11:49:31 EDT