From: Terry M. Gray (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jun 26 2003 - 14:19:13 EDT
George Murphy wrote:
> The inspiration of scripture should not be separated too
>sharply from the
>activity of the Spirit in the ongoing preaching and teaching of the
>church. Bot OTOH,
>preaching and teaching must be the proclamation and explication of
>Christ on the basis
>of scripture. They cannot, as Enthusiasts imagine, be done
>independently of scripture.
I think I agree with this (although I do want to distinguish between
inspiration and illumination). As for the comment about Enthusiasts,
while I agree, I wonder how, in the view that Howard seems to be
putting forth, one would defend this position. I'm not suggesting
that your view of scripture and the Howard is proposing is the same.
It does seem that in the "modern" view the specialness and uniqueness
of scripture is eliminated (other than in perhaps the unique
historical witness it gives--albeit a highly theologized historical
witness). While I doubt that the Enthusiasts' appeal to experience is
the same as Howard's appeal to experience, I wonder what significant
difference there really is.
The typical traditional protestant/evangelical expression of the
doctrine of scripture has not only taken a stand "against"
theological liberalism, but "against" various forms of traditionalism
and various forms of continuing revelation including charismatic
prophetic gifts. I think it is a rather new development in the
charismatic tradition and in the evangelical tradition to have
on-going word-gifts (prophecy and tongues/interpretation) tied to a
historical protestant/evangelical view of scripture and its
sufficiency and authority.
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/ phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 26 2003 - 14:18:55 EDT