<<I *have* read Pinnock and Bloesch and while I resonate with much of what
they say, in the end I find their perspective to be fundamentally in error.
I am sympathetic with their emphasis on the purpose of scripture as a
hermeneutical principle so that many of the problems go away because
scripture is not addressing the questions that we are asking (what Jim
seems to mean by the scripture principle, I think). However, I believe
that Pinnock and Bloesch and many of who are sometimes called
"neo-evangelicals" (the Rogers and McKim school critical of the inerrancy
of Old Princeton and modern day Westminster Seminary and others) have given
away the store.>>
I respect your views, Terry. I like the fact that you have read these two
(have you read Ramm's "After Fundamentalism" and Noll's "Scandal of the
Evangelical Mind"? Both good) before you disagree with them.
It would be interesting to go into this further, especially about how you
think they have "given away the store." I actually think they have saved the
store from a fire. Karl Barth is on the roof, holding the hose.
But I suspect the evolution reflector is getting too heavy into theology, so
we'll do this another time, eh?
Jim