Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Fundamentalism Revisited -- A Liberal View Message-ID: <4272@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 11:19:31 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.4272 Posted: Thu Dec 6 11:19:31 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Dec-84 02:36:41 EST References: <1124@akgua.UUCP>, <1546@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 52 I think that I am in fairly close agreement with Charley's position, though I've never considered myself to have a liberal view ("radical conservative" is an interesting term). I think that, in practice, most Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who hold the inerrancy doctrine are closer to this veiw than it might seem. Much of the trouble seems to come how each side defines the idea of inerrancy. I suppose as good a collection of essays as any can be found in a book called "Inerrancy" (Norman Geisler, ed. Zondervan, 197?). I get the feeling that most people think of the "typewriter theory" of insiration when the term "inerrancy" pops up, or that every statement in Scripture is to be taken in its most literal sense (usually without even considering the balancing factors in other parts of Scripture). There are some, however, who seem to believe in the infallibility of the KJV. Basic to the innerrancy view, though, is the believe that the original autographs were inerrant. The manuscripts that we have are viewd to be sufficiently free of transmissional errors and later isertions to them as a Divine standard. This in no way makes a claim that human reasoning with regard to Scripture is inerrant. Scripture holds no royal road to knowledge that would bypass rational processes (nor does experience or faith for that matter). Error in our understanding and application of Scripture must be dealt with through the reasoning process. Scripture is adressed to rational persons (yet reason is not autonomous). But it can't be stretched to fit anything (It seems like a person and hold any beliefs they want--even as far as agnosticism--and still call themselves a Christian these days. And, of course, nobody has any right to tell them they're not.) Sound hermenutics and exegesis must be maintained. Eisegesis must be gaurded against. Charley is right to emphasize the importance of Chruch tradition and history. Consulting those who have gone before prevents us from covering the same ground or making the same mistakes again. With regard to internal inconsistencies (and those between different books), I think they can be acknowledged provisionally. There is no reason that I know of that they need to be accepted as final. To do so may be to assume that our understanding of Scripture in these areas are final. Reasonable interpretations may be sought to reconcile them, they may be shown to be part of a larger whole (not antithetical to one another) or they may not be that critical. There is nothing wrong with taking an approach like this even though we will never obtain a knowledge of Scripture that is in itself inerrant. Arthur Holmes book "All Truth is God's Truth" (1977, IVP) deals very well with some of these concepts in an introductory fashion. I'm using it as a text in an adult "Sunday school" class that I've been teaching. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd