Burgy,
As one who might be more sympathetic to the Chicago Statement than
many on this list, let me give you an interpretation of this that
doesn't quite go where you seem to think it goes.
The final sentence that you quoted:
"We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may
properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation
and the flood."
can simply be understood to say that science does not or cannot stand
over scripture to determine its meaning. Day-age or literary views of
creation or local flood theories are not established by science
(although science may induce us to re-examine a traditional
interpretation)--if they are established, they are established by
proper rules of historical/grammatical interpretation not by some
authority that stands over scripture.
For example, in my heresy trial, I never argued that science shows
definitively that humans have animal ancestors and thus we must
revise our interpretation of Genesis in order to "accomodate" that
truth, but rather, our traditional interpretations may be in error
and the scientific theories may enable us to see a correct
interpretation that is not in conflict. This is much the view of
Charles Hodge in the 19th century when dealing with the old earth
geology that was just then emerging.
Although I was originally charged with placing science as an
authority over the Bible, those charges were not sustained because of
the above explanation.
Finally, I must echo Michael Roberts' distinction between the
fundamentalist doctrine of inerrancy (Lindsell for example) and the
Old Princeton/Westminster doctrine of inerrancy. We may not like the
word inerrancy because of what Lindsell et al. have done with it, but
it doesn't necessarily make it a bad word--in the theological circles
I roam in it is nearly synonymous with infallibility (although some
small distinctions are made--for example, J.I. Packer writes
"Infallibility signifies the full trustworthiness of a guide that is
not deceived and does not deceive...Inerrancy signifies the total
truthfulness of a source of information that contains no mistakes."
New Dictionary of Theology
The Old Princeton/Westminster doctrine has little difficulty with the
concept of accomodation or phenomenological language (as advocated on
this list by Paul Seely and others). They would NOT call these
errors. A nice collection of essays by folks in this tradition is
*Inerrancy and Hermeneutic* edited by Harvie Conn.
Someone earlier emphasized the "faith and life" limitation seemingly
endorsed by some Reformed confessions. While I understand the point,
I want to be as cautious as the Chicago statement here as well. (See
my "The Role of the Bible in the Scientist's Work" at
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Physical%20Science/Gray1999.html.)
TG
>This afternoon I was reading the responses to my earlier challenges by
>you. It does seem that the issue of "biblical inerrancy" plays an
>important part in our understandings (or misunderstandings).
>
>I found the following definition on a web site and wonder if it in any
>way corresponds to your understanding. I suspect it may be too
>fundamentalist, but I'm not sure.
>
>Article XII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy reads: "We
>affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all
>falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and
>inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes,
>exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further
>deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used
>to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood."
>
>John Burgeson (Burgy)
>
>http://www.burgy.50megs.com
> (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
> humor, cars, philosophy and much more)
-- _________________ 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 : Sat Jun 29 2002 - 01:00:21 EDT