The debate over inerrancy is heating up. There's a growing list of scholars on the left. That's entirely predictable.
There is, however, a parallel debate going on with center-right scholars. I notice that two of the critics are Robert Thomas and David Farnell. Both men are affiliated with the Master's Seminary.
Thomas is a staunch critic of progressive dispensationalism. He's a throwback to classical and/or revised dispensationalism. And I wonder if that's driving Farnell's position as well. In addition, Norman Geisler is another critic of progressive dispensationalism. Cf. Conviction without Compromise.
It may be that from their viewpoint, inerrancy is inseparable from classical/revised dispensational hermeneutics. Perhaps they view any deviation from classical/revised dispensational hermeneutics as implicitly compromising the literal inerrancy of Scripture. If that's their position, then it's only plausible if you agree with the hermeneutical system which underwrites their eschatological distinctives.
No comments:
Post a Comment