In response to my claim that the Westminster Confession does not afford an adequate statement on the inerrancy of Scripture to address modern-day liberals, Kevin has this to say:
<< What?!? Note here the one who downplays the importance of the Confession on the issue of inerrancy of Scripture! This is no small point. In short, the Reformed faith and here the Westminster Confession in this seminary student’s point of view (as if it was a point of view worth listening to) is somehow inadequate to answer the claims of skeptics and others today regarding the inerrancy of Scripture.
I find that absolutely astounding and ridiculous. >>
But my claim is only “astounding and ridiculous” because Kevin, as a “Reformed-Catholic,” is so out of touch with the real Reformed community that he has no idea what’s going on.
Let us take RTS, Westminster Theological Seminary, Westminster Seminary California, and Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. These are probably the four leading Reformed seminaries in America. All four seminaries require their faculty to swear by the Westminster Standards. But that is not all. Above and beyond the Westminster Standard, all four seminaries have a separate and auxiliary statement of faith on the inerrancy of Scripture to which their faculty must also swear.
Consider, for example, what Greenville has to say:
<< Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary is passionately committed to the authority of Scripture. GPTS has maintained its identity as an Old School Presbyterian seminary.
While both "Old School" and "New School" Presbyterianism claim to hold to the full authority of Scripture, it was the Old School theologians of old Princeton who further developed the original concept of the inerrancy of Scripture. This doctrine has become a part of the ordination vows of the Presbyterian Church of America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
GPTS is unequivocally committed to the inerrancy of Scripture as its foundational theological principle. The broad evangelicalism that often arises within Reformed churches points to a failure of her leaders to grasp fully the implications of this foundational doctrine. At GPTS we seek to work out this great doctrine in every area of our instruction.
http://www.gpts.edu/distinctives.html
>>
Notice that this additional development is not only a requirement of Greenville faculty, but of ordinands in the OPC and PCA.
Or take the supplementary statement of faith for faculty of Westminster Seminary California:
<< Concerning the Inerrancy of Scripture we believe:
THAT THE SCRIPTURE is the very Word of God written. Since God can neither lie, be mistaken, nor change, his Word cannot contain error. Therefore, Scripture is inerrant.
THAT SCRIPTURE'S AUTHORITY extends to all that it actually teaches. The careful study of Scripture will sometimes require us to correct our traditional views of what it says. But once the actual teachings of Scripture are ascertained, they bind our consciences, our theories, and our behavior. They take precedence over any rival claims to knowledge.
THAT GOD'S SPECIAL REVELATION IN THE BIBLE is compatible in every respect with his general revelation in nature. Human interpretations of general revelation, however, must submit to the authority of special revelation.
THAT SCRIPTURE'S PRIMARY SUBJECT is the message of redemption from sin through Jesus Christ. But all Scripture's subject matter is God's Word and always true. When Scripture speaks to matters of history, science, ethics, or anything else, it is true and authoritative, and it governs our thinking in these areas.
THAT THE INFALLIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE necessarily implies the inerrancy of Scripture.
http://www.wscal.edu/ttot/ttot.html - top
>>
And while we’re on the subject of Presbyterian theology, “Reformed-Catholics” are fond of marginalizing Reformed Baptists, but the hyper-covenantalism of “Reformed Catholicism” and the whole Auburnite heresy is just as contrary to traditional Presbyterian theology. For a primer on the background to this theological innovation and aberration, cf. W. Young, “Historic Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism,” WTJ 36 (1973-74), 48-64, 156-173.
Concerning the Chicago statement, this is what Kevin has to say:
<< But let’s talk about the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. It is notably one-sided, short-sighted, framed in the language of a hyperactive fundamentalist modernist approach to the issues of inerrancy and infallibility, and most certainly does not represent the whole or entire tradition of the Church over the last two thousand years. In effect, it represents a tradition that has not only winked at tradition but kept its eyes forcibly scrunched closed and its ears covered at what Christians have been up to over the last two thousand years all the while screaming “I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!” >>
Kevin is quite right about this. The Chicago Statement does not represent the whole of historical theology. It doesn’t represent the views of Briggs and Bultmann and Barr and Fosdick and Rahner and Spong, or Colenso, Loisy, and Wellhausen--to name a few.
Kevin also refers the reader to the following:
<< By the way, N.T. Wright has some excellent comments here on inerrancy. Of course, they won’t satisfy the “truly Reformed”…but who really cares? >>
And just what are some of these “excellent” comments of Wright?
<< A lot of that debate has happened within modernity, within post-Western-Enlightenment modernity, makes me worried because often, then, you get modernist categories about certainty and objectivity dumped on Scripture which really don’t do it justice and really don’t do what needs to be done.
If I say that I believe X but that the Bible says Y which is different, then chances are I’m making a mistake somewhere…
I know what the people who say inerrancy are trying to say, and broadly I want to affirm something like what they’re trying to affirm. >>
“Chances are” I’m making a mistake. I want to affirm “something like” that.
Yep, that doesn’t satisfy me. If I believe one thing, but the Bible says another, there’s more than a “chance” that I’m the one in the wrong. It’s a dead certainty. But, of course, Kevin, like Wright, doesn’t approve of words like “certainty.”
Likewise, I want to affirm much more than “something like” inerrancy. I affirm the plenary inspiration of Scripture.
Also, in my reading of history, it’s the attacks on the inerrancy of Scripture which were the result of Enlightenment modernity, and not the doctrine itself. But clearly I’m in bondage to my “hyperactivist fundamentalist modernist approach.”
Finally, as to the question of my “uncharitable” tone—Mt 3:1-12 is not distinguished by its charitable tone. Neither is Mt 23. Neither is the Letter to the Galatians, or the Book of Revelation. Scriptural illustrations could be multiplied.
Charity can be abused. Kevin never passes up an opportunity to pass up an opportunity to set the record straight. Although I’ve repeatedly pointed out that Enloe was the one who introduced the Chicago statement as his point of reference, Kevin continues to accuse me of imposing that standard on Enloe.
When a theological opponent repeatedly resists correction, even when he’s demonstrably in the wrong, he is not entitled to either charity or respect.
As to my own conduct; I’m more than happy to leave that verdict to the impartial judgment of others better than myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment