Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Rich,
I don't doubt that the Westminster divines spoke of six days, for they
had no solid counter evidence at the time. If my memory serves, the first
modern suggestion of an ancient earth came from Whiston, who was not born
until a couple decades after the deliberation. Steno was earlier, but I
don't know that he thought of antiquity when he noted the deposition of
strata and fossils. Calvin was able to discuss the difference between the
biblical view and reality relative to the moon and Saturn because of
Galileo and Kepler. Were the Institutes a century earlier, the passage on
astronomy could not have been written.

I have to sympathize with the folks who have to ask whether more recently
discovered truths can correct an earlier dogma. Then there's the
assurance some folks have that the KJV is THE Word of God, with all other
translations more or less departures from THE truth.
Dave (ASA)

On Sat, 10 May 2008 19:23:04 -0600 Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
writes:

On May 10, 2008, at 1:04 PM, David Heddle wrote:

D.F. Simmons,

You must be reading the WC quite differently. I see no place where it
limits the scope of biblical infallibility. Of course, scripture says
very little about science, and not a great deal about history or
archeology, but the WC does not teach that scripture, when it deviates
from soteriology, is no longer inerrant. Perhaps you could point out
where the divines stated that scripture is possibly unreliable when it
describes science or history.

In order to get that interpretation of the WC you need to deal with that
chapter in isolation. When the confession deals with creation it has the
phrase (I am going from memory here so the phrase may not be exactly
correct) "in the span of six days". This caused no small amount of
controversy earlier this decade in the PCA. The debate was whether the
confession merely echoed Scripture and thus it could be interpreted
according to the Framework Hypothesis etc. or was the confession
specifically teaching 144-day creation and the use of that phrase says
more than mere echoing. Regardless of which side of this controversy came
down, one thing was clear from a Reformed perspective. That which
Scripture speaks to must be taken seriously. We cannot ghettoize
Scripture to only talk about faith and practice. We may differ in HOW
Scripture speaks but not THAT it speaks. Since accomodationism come from
a Reformed perspective people need to understand its proper context.
Accomodationism is not a wax nose that conforms to any and every whim of
the interpreter. Rather, as Calvin would put it God lisps to us as his
children as George Murphy does to his grandchildren.

In summary, modern innerrantism is somewhat foreign to Reformed theology
but not so foreign that people such as Gerstner, Sproul, and Boice could
affirm it. If we are to replace it with something less restrictive it
does NOT mean anything goes, however.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 11 23:07:20 2008