On 31 Dec 95 16:43:31 EST you wrote:
TG>I have said some rather strong words here and hope that I've
>offended neither Denis or Jim or any of the fans of the
>*neo-evangelicals*. I have come to a very strong conviction that
>this view of scripture is not only novel but at the root is
>unorthodox and destructive to the very character of Biblical
>authority and that it is an *unnecessary* capitulation to modern
>critical Biblical scholarship.>>
JB>Yes, you have said some strong words. I appreciate your study of
>the issue, and I hope you appreciate that I have studied it, too,
>along with the scholatic journals and so forth. And I could make a
>very strong argument here that your contention that my view is
>"unorthodox and destructive to the very character of Biblical
>authority" is not only misguided rhetoric, but quite destructive
>itself.
Yes. I think Terry has overstepped the mark here. You are entitled
to an apology IMHO.
JB>And I could argue that it is your view which actually skews
>Scriptural witness and authority, and that it is Warfield's view that
>is novel (late 1800s) and NOT at all in line with the Reformers. I
>think, however, we would be revisiting much of what we've both read.
Agreed. While I have a lot of time for Warfield, I think his view is
too "high", and he does not really get his hands dirty wrestling with
the phenomena of Scripture, as Pinnock and the other neo-evangelicals
do.
JB>I will say this: No one has a higher view of Scripture than I do.
>I hope you can accept that.
I don't think we need to be pushed into competing with each other to
see who has the highest view of Scripture. The important thing is to
have a right view of Scripture! The Pharisees proved it is actually
possible to have too high a view of Scripture - they believe that
the LORD sat in heaven reading the Torah! Ramm, in combating what he
called the "hyper-orthodoxy" of his day warned:
"We can sin to the right as well as to the left. Patriotism can
degenerate into jingoism and enthusiasm into fanaticism and virtue
into prudishness. It is possible not only to have slack theological
views, but to have views far more rigid and dogmatic than Scripture
itself. Hyper-orthodoxy in trying to be loyal to the Bible has
developed an exaggerated sense of what loyalty to the Bible means."
(Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture", Paternoster:
London, 1955, p23).
JB>I was wrong to call Glenn "unorthodox" a while back. I can
>understand how he felt. I think you're wrong here to do the same for
>those who believe in the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, but
>in a slightly different fashion than you do.
Agreed. If "unorthodox" means simply "different", then it's not such a
bad label. I would not object to being called "unorthodox" in that
sense, eg. my espousal of a 2-Adam model. But if it means "heterodox",
ie. actually *opposite* to historic, evangelical Christian doctrine,
then
that is too strong a label, and you are deserved an apology.
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------