From: Michael Roberts (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Dec 28 2002 - 06:06:01 EST
the choice is not between a liberal view of scripture and Biblical
inerrancy. Often Inerrancy is popularlarly portrayed as insisting on a 6
day creation. That is not the case, as shown by people like B Graham, Jim
Packer and probably Denis Alexander (who wrote the excellent book
Rebuilding the Matrix) to name but 3. If we go back to the 19 century there
are the architects of inerrancy - Charles Hodge who accepted geology but not
evolution and BB Warfiedl who was a thoroughgoing Darwinian.
Further many many evangelcials (most of British evangs) who hold to a
conservative view of scripture but reject inerrancy.
I am aware that there is the propoganda of extreme inerrantists to insist on
a 6 day creation but theyare simply confusing the issue.
Also almost all evangelicals inerrantist or not recognise that the Bible is
a thoroughly human document.
(I began a spellcheck on thisand it suggested I should replace Inerrancy by
Jim are you rejecting the Bible or the loopy views of extreme inerrantists.
These loopy types who as pastors seem to dominate many churches are doing a
hell of lot of damage and most people on this list can give several
examples. By the definition of these loopy types I am as liberal as Spong!
> I think that I mentioned in a previous post how odd it is to
> now be more "liberal" than the most liberal ASAer. One consequence
> is that I now side with Christian liberals against Biblical inerrantists.
> In that sense, I respect all honest scholarship. Oh well, I find the
> number of my "postable" thoughts for this list dwindling. If faith
> "feels good, do it" :-) The real societal problems are the conservative
> inerrantists (predominantly YECs).
> >From: "Jim Eisele" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >To: "Peter Ruest" <email@example.com>
> >CC: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Subject: Re: Does the Bible teach a flat earth?
> >Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:48:37 -0000
> >Peter writes
> > >The Bible has to use the (flexible) language of the day, in a way
> > >compatible with God's intentions for _all_ of subsequent history.
> >Peter, first I would like to commend you on your valiant effort to
> >reconcile Gen 1 with the Bible. In an age when Christians still
> >believe the earth is 6K old, your approach is noble.
> >For the sake of Christianity, you may wish to cease making statements
> >like this, however. For the purposes of this list, I will only say
> >this (althought there are weightier problems with this angle) - the
> >Bible is way too long. The Christian message is all men are sinners
> >and need Christ to pay for their sins. Any perceived falsehood in
> >the Bible allows non-Christians to ignore its message (in Christian
> >terms, not get convicted of sin). This represents a contradiction.
> >God is supposed to be convicting non-Christians of sin, but because
> >of the falsehoods (I am simply tired of Christians explaining
> >inaccuracies as "figurative speech) they are turning their backs.
> >If Christianity is to survive, it is going to have to accept the Bible
> >as a human document. I don't know how successful Christians will be
> >with that approach, but its the only hope that they have.
> STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 3 months FREE*.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Dec 28 2002 - 21:32:37 EST