> I was wondering how TE's view scripture (not doctrinal confessions) as
> this is very pertinent to their explanation regarding origins. Is the
> Bible God's inerrant and inspired written message/revelation to mankind?
As you can imagine, there is a range of views of scripture amongst TE's,
just as there is amongst any other group of Christians. The TE's which I
have read (books or electronic discussion forums) tend to be pretty
conservative theologically. All would strongly affirm that the Bible is
God's inspired written message/revelation to mankind, and most would
describe the Bible as "inerrant." Of course, that term itself has been
interpretted many different ways by theologians, so it needs some further
explanation.
IMO, this is roughly the "average" view of scripture amongst theologically
conservative TE's: The Bible inerrently teaches us everything we need to
know for salvation. Historical points which are necessary for salvation
(e.g. God's promises to us, Jesus' death and resurrection) are therefore
absolutely certain. Other historical details which are NOT necessary for
salvation are, in most cases, historically accurate --- though nothing
important is lost if certain details happened differently, since the main
point of the text in these cases was to teach a theological truth rather
than an historical fact. (E.g. The events in each of the gospels need
not have happened chronologically in the order recorded; the author might
have switched the ordering of some events to make a point. The "sermon on
the mount" might be a word-for-word account of an actual sermon, but it
might also be a collection of shorter teachings which Jesus told many
times and in many different locations. The conversations recorded in the
books like Judges and Kings might not have happened word-for-word as
described, but the basic elements and teachings of the stories are
correct.) Different kinds of literature exist in the Bible, and it is
important to understand the cultural mindset of the author and the
intended audience to determine the central point(s) of each text and
to understand just how important various historical details are to those
points.
I hope this is more helpful than confusing. I expect some TE's will want
to offer corrective points to the above paragraph.
I urge all of us to be careful in any discussion about "view of
scripture." It's far too easy to take pot-shots at one another.
For example: One person expresses a view of scripture and tries to
show how it is both orthodox and compatible with evolution; others try
to poke holes in it. Another example: One person expresses a view of
scripture and tries to show how it is both orthodox and incompatible with
evolution; others try to poke holes in it.
"View of scripture" is an important topic. It's also very sensitive. I
want to urge everyone to avoid the temptation to do nothing more than poke
holes in other people's arguments. Try to offer something constructive
along with your arguments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's a fine line between |
participation and mockery." | Loren Haarsma
--Wally the Engineer (_Dilbert_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu