In the debates among evangelicals who are seeking to re-define inerrancy, even non-inerrantists are flagging the problems related to moving away from a traditional understanding of inerrancy. You can't have a Chicago Statement viewpoint on inerrancy (which is based on written texts) and then turn around and be committed to a primacy of orality that is followed by a long process of literary/written production of the texts. You lose too much in the process and it makes the traditional inerrancy claim that the texts are historically true and reliable sound very hollow. This is the point made by this reviewer below (hardly a friend of the evangelical doctrine of Scripture)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/01/review-of-the-lost-world-of-scripture-walton-and-sandy-by-carlos-bovell/
No comments:
Post a Comment