dvunkannon
Posts: 1377 Joined: June 2008
|
Quote (dheddle @ July 29 2008,13:26) | Quote (dvunkannon @ July 29 2008,12:12) | Quote (dheddle @ July 29 2008,12:39) | For point of reference, most Protestants who affirm inerrancy do so along the lines of the Chicago statement.
Rich, you live in Chicago, right? |
By never defining the term Holy Scripture, it almost makes you forget what a debate there was over deciding what was scripture and what wasn't. :p |
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.
The official Roman Catholic position is stronger, they would say the bible is an infallible collection of infallible books. |
No, my point was that it's easy to think about "Holy Scripture" as a unified whole when looking at the result of the historical process, without acknowledging that a historical process of selection and human controversy was involved. Rabbi Akiba had to pull out all the stops to get Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs included. The Chicago Statement is ahistorical. It lacks an axiomatic definition of the texts included, and why. Does it mean the Catholic version of Esther or the Jewish one? Does it include the Gospel of Thomas? Why or why not?
-------------- I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima
|