dheddle
Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007
|
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 29 2008,13:32) | Quote (dheddle @ July 29 2008,12:26) | Actually, if I understand you correctly, you may be surprised that several if not most of the signatories to the Chicago statement would affirm, in the words of one of them (John Gerstner)
Quote | The bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. |
That is, I think, your point. They acknowledge that scripture is inspired, but (and this is what may surprise you) that our collection of what we take to be the canon of scripture is not.
|
Is this another, "Our method allows false negatives, but never a false positive!" type thing? |
Puh-leeze! Gerstner, Sproul, Schaeffer, and Packer (and a few others) are personal heroes of mine. One simply cannot liken their honesty to the Nixplanatory Filter without causing spasms of projectile vomiting.
But, in a word, no. I think they would acknowledge both the slim possibility of a false positive (Maybe like, hey, Jude doesn't really belong) and the (probably slimmer but nonzero) possibility of false negative (maybe 1st Clement does---just like Clemente belongs in Cooperstown)
Edited to improve fallible word choices.
-------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris
|