Re: [asa] Discovery Institute against harmonizing?

Yes but it also made it clear that inerrancy was not compatible with
evolution.

A pity they had not read BB Warfield

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "gordon brown" <gbrown@Colorado.EDU>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Discovery Institute against harmonizing?

> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, SteamDoc@aol.com wrote:
>
>> The first group is those with a fundamentalist approach to Scripture
>> (such
>> as the Chicago statement and other hardline versions of the "inerrancy"
>> doctrine), who insist that any Scripture that seems to touch on science
>> must be
>> scientifically perfect, who do not allow Scripture to use figurative
>> language
>> and the vehicle of story to communicate truth, who do not allow God to
>> accommodate his revelation to the limitations and conceptual framework of
>> the
>> original audience. For this group, reconciling with evolution is pretty
>> much
>> impossible. Even an Old Earth is difficult for this group, since to fit
>> it into
>> their approach to Scripture tends to require major interpretational
>> contortions. Of course such an approach has many more problems than
>> just its
>> interaction with evolution (including the way it can border on
>> idolatry) -- and I think
>> there is really no hope for constructive progress here (not just for
>> science/faith issues but for the overall health of the church) unless
>> people can be
>> convinced to stop trying to make God's Word conform to human-invented
>> standards of "perfection" arising from modern Western rationalism,
>> standards that
>> would have been foreign to the Biblical writers themselves.
>
> I believe that what I have appended below to this message is the science
> section of the Chicago statement mentioned above. It came out of the 1982
> Summit of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The main thrust
> of the invited lead paper on science at that meeting was that an old earth
> is perfectly consistent with inerrancy. Henry Morris refused to sign the
> statement.
>
> Gordon Brown (ASA member)
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> We affirm that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to
> Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to
> correction by it.
>
> We deny that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings,
> inconsistent with itself, such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism,
> secular humanism, and relativism.
>
> We affirm that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical
> and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks
> truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or
> anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data
> have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting
> correction of faulty interpretations.
>
> We deny that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture
> or hold priority over it.
>
> We affirm the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of
> biblical teaching with the facts of nature.
>
> We deny that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true
> meaning of any passage of Scripture.
>
> We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
>
> We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that
> scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity can be
> invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 16 17:32:45 2007