Re: [asa] Lamoureux, Concordism, and Inerrancy

George has given you a Lutheran take from the Evangelical Lutheran Church
in America. Besides the traditional Lutheran take, there are some in the
group who are what I would call revisionists, intending to make the
scriptures fit a politically correct attitude. Whether this will produce
schism, I cannot predict.

There is another approach to "evangelical" that comes close to
equivalence to the older "fundamentalist." The Evangelical Theological
Society has an inerrantist bent, with many seeming to insist that all
science in the scriptures must be true. As a consequence, Fuller is now
often viewed as neo-evangelical. The usage is different in Great Britain,
where "evangelical" does not mean subscription to the Chicago Statement.
This applies also on the Continent.

Consequently, one has to note the context to determine which sense of
"evangelical" applies. Denis' usage clearly fits the restricted sense of
ETS, for example.
Dave (ASA)

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:58:55 -0500 "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
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 21:49:20 2008