D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
>
> Dictionaries usually only list terms that have a fairly broad usage in
> the kind of publications that the lexicographers check. "Concordism" is
> used by a small group of people involved in the relationship between
> evangelical exegesis and science. I recall a lexicographer specifying
> that they do not try to include technical cant.
I'm not well enough versed in the vocabulary used often on this list.
Can you suggest a website which might explain the terms -- or I'll just
ask when confused.
> I think I detect an assumption which a friend made explicitly, that
> "inspiration"="inerrancy." This was not in the statement of the
> Westminster divines (they cannot be accused of accommodating Darwin or
> Kant), who recognized scripture as the inerrant rule of faith and
> practice, with no mention of facts. The equation seems to have sprung as
> a reaction to the modernists. It led folks, according to a story that
> makes the rounds, to cut out every passage that the liberal pastor
> suggested was not literally true, leaving only a few shreds of pages. Not
> noted by the tellers is that the back of each sheet so assaulted was also
> removed, so the story was quite silly. All scripture is inspired, but I
> do not see a reference to truth in II Timothy 3:16f.
Actually I feel exactly the way you stated. I have never consider the
Bible to be "inerrant" but always considered it to be inspired. I
recently had turn down a position on the board of directors for a
Christian Organization for the very reason.
> I find it amazing that so many problems are ignored or papered over in
> the gap and day-age theories, let alone creation science/flood geology,
> that have been popular. The only way I know to read the record in Genesis
> 1:1-2:4a and 2:4bff literally is to take the former as a series of
> revelations over 6 days and the latter as a separate revelation, neither
> of which is to be taken as the history of creation.
Again, I was trying to speak only of Genesis chapter one and how, I
believe , it contains a number of things which I feel are highly
unlikely to have been stated by someone several thousands of years ago.
I don't think that errors in some aspects or similarity is some detail
negates what is valid.
> >
> > I don't suggest that the Bible be taken as an infallible book that
> > must
> > be taken always literally -- but I reject the opposite extreme of
> > rejection of a Biblical chapter out of hand if anybody can can find
> > any
> > discrepancies with the latest scientific notions.
> >
> This only holds if "inspiration"="inerrancy."
Don't understand. I read you as saying that a discrepancy with latest
scientific notions in ANY respect means that one should reject the
entire chapter. In other words, since the moon and sun are not in proper
historical order then you consider it valid to reject the entire chapter
as invalid. If so, that is my criticism of what is being said. I think
that one note what is correct as well as what is incorrect.
> > Let me emphacize that I firmly believe in some type of evolution. I
> > do
> > not accept the Bible as infallible and I am not YEC sandbagger --
> > or
> > anything like a concordism-monger. I may be a bit to open minded
> > for
> > this group, I think. (What they say is -- so open minded that his
> > brains
> > fall out?) ;)
> >
> I see a shift here between what you say you believe and the implicit
> assumptions in your arguments.
That is true. Since I don't take a position on many things I am likely
to argue against what i believe to be wrong, regardless of which side it
might be on. It's a personality quirk of a
"strong" INFP.
>
> > Walt
> <snip>
> >
> I sympathize with your approach, for I've been there. I was slowly forced
> by the evidence from an original YEC and gap position to an OEC approach,
> followed by TE. I also was forced from the fundamentalist view of
> inspired inerrant total truth to the classical "rule of faith and
> practice." But I have found no substitute for unconditional trust in God,
> who revealed himself in the incarnate Son.
I second that one, but I'm too wishy washy to fall in most categories.
Mostly a Deist or TE with respect to the physical universe and a mystic
on the rest.
Thanks for the informative response.
Walt
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 22 2002 - 15:59:30 EST