And finally… - 14 October 2011 |
|
Part 4 of some highlights from the recent Study Day on the Doctrine of Scripture at London Theological Seminary’s John Owen Centre with Garry Williams – this time on the subject of inerrancy:
- The doctrine is at once capable of detail and subtlety, and yet also very simple statement: ‘The Bible contains no errors’.
- Against “Religious infallibility not historical inerrancy”; Rogers and McKim; etc. The problem here is the attempted separation of theology and history. Bavinck: “The split between ‘that which is needed for salvation’ and the ‘incidentally historical’ is impossible, since in Scripture doctrine and history are completely intertwined.”
- Bavinck: “The historical books are commentary on the facts of God’s covenant with Israel. They are not history in our sense of the word but prophecy; they are meant to be judged by another standard than the history books of other peoples. It is not their aim that we should acquire accurate knowledge of Israel’s history but that in the history of Israel we should gain understanding of the revelation of God.”
- A problematic assumption operating in many errantist arguments is that the humanity of Scripture or Christ requires error. But a single successful example of infallible communication through a human being would show that fallibility is not a necessary feature of humanity.
- How to handle apparently insoluble exegetical and theological problems: Bavinck: “Those who do not want to eat before they understand the entire process by which food arrives at their table will starve to death.”
| Tweet | Post comment via Facebook |
Posted by Steve Jeffery · Topics: Minister's Blog