From: Robert Schneider (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 27 2003 - 21:13:46 EST
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
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
inspriation....at 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: "Evolution...is 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