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