[asa] Lamoureux, Concordism, and Inerrancy

Denis Lamoureux's article in the current PSCF is interesting. It is similar
to a longer article by Lamoureux in a recent issue of Christian Scholar's
Review on evangelicals and concordism.

I'm sure all of this will be discussed in more details in Denis' forthcoming
book, but I feel that he's not doing justice to the spectrum of contemporary
evangelical views on inerrancy and that his definition of "concordism" is a
bit wooden. He seems to equate "the" evangelical position with Harold
Lindsell and a strict reading of the Chicago Statement.

But this begs the question, it seems to me, of what "evangelical" means. Is
Fuller Seminary "evangelical?" Fuller's statement on Biblical authority
diverges from the Chicago Statement, and certainly from Lindsell, in many
key respects. Is John Stott "evangelical?" Alister McGrath? Stott might
be closer to the Chicago Statement but in "Evangelical Essentials" he
qualifies inerrancy basically to what the text "intends" to teach, and I'm
not sure McGrath would even use the term "inerrancy" (query -- does anyone
know anything specific McGrath has written on this?) How about Donald
Bloesch? Bloesch's "Holy Scripture" IMHO is a wonderfully balanced text
that discusses "inerrancy" in a particular way. Even one of the evangelical
Baptist stalwarts Lamoureux cites, Millard Erickson, takes a much more
nuanced position in his "Systematic Theology" than Lamoureux lets on:
Erickson says *"The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level
to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it
was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully
truthful in all that it affirms,"* and he specifically discusses the use of
phenomenological language to describe natural and historical events.

Likewise, the term "concordism" seems ill-defined to me in Lamoureux's
usage. There is of course Hugh Ross style "high concordism," in which the
Biblical text is seen to be making scientific claims that essentially
remained hidden for millennia and can only be fully understood in light of
modern scientific knowledge. But Lamoureux seems to suggest that an
assertion that Genesis 1-11 refers to any "real" history is "concordism."
It seems to me that he forces the reader into an artifical box:
*either*accommodation or a dreaded "ism," "concordism."

In my view, we need to get away from this "ism" talk. The question isn't
accommodation vs. concordism, or inerrancy vs. errancy (or "limited
inerrancy"). Why not just say this: the canonical scriptures are God's
written word and are authoritative for the Church. They reflect God's
character as perfectly truthful and good; they also reflect God's character
as the God who empties Himself and condescends to meet us on human terms;
and they reflect the humanity of the writers and editors through whom God
has spoken. Part of the Church's task, under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit, is to understand and apply the authoritative scriptures in each
time, culture, and place in which the Church exists."

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 29 20:00:18 2008