Re: BIBLE/ORIGINS: seeking feedback

From: Robert Schneider (
Date: Mon Jan 27 2003 - 21:13:46 EST

  • Next message: Bill Payne: "Re: Unleashing the Storm"

    Michael writes, responding to Gordon:

    > Sorry to nit-pick but Orr did not accept inerrancy and nor did many
    > evangelicals throughout the 19th century.
    > Having said that MOST of the ardent defenders of inerrancy up to 1980 were
    > old-earthers. I cannot think of any inerrantists who were YEC before WWII,
    > though Ted Davis will provide a few for me! But I dont think he will
    > contradict me!
    > We need to get away from the myth that Inerrancy =YEC. It is not a
    > consequence.
    > Michael

    In _Revelation and Inspiration_ (p. 199) Orr denied that "inerrancy--i.e.,
    hard and fast literality in minute matters of historical, geographical and
    scientific detail" was "a point in the _essence_ of the doctrine of best, such 'inerrancy' can never be demonstrated with a
    cogency which entitles it to rank as the foundation of a belief in
    inspiration. It must remain to those who hold it a doctrine of faith; a
    deduction from what they deem to be implied in an inspiration established
    independently of it; not a ground of belief in the inspiration."

    In _The Fundamentals_, vol. 1, "Science and Christian Faith" (p. 346), Orr
    wrote this about evolution: " coming to be recognized as a
    new name for 'creation,' only that the creative power now works from
    _within_, instead of, as in the old conception, in an _external_, plastic
    fashion. It is, however, creation, none the less." I wonder how many of
    our contemporary fundamentalists are aware of this essay.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 27 2003 - 21:19:03 EST