Monday, April 16, 2007

Food for Thought

This is one of Ross's books that I had a chance to read a bit of while he was in rehearsal on Sunday. I thought Chapter 5 was really interesting. It looks at Lewis and Schaeffer's differing views on the inerrancy of Scripture. Schaeffer believed that the Bible must be factually accurate in all regards -history, science, etc. - or it would be reliable in none. Lewis held another position.
"That the over-all operation of Scripture is to convey God's Word to the reader (he also needs insipiration) who reads in the right spirit, I fully believe. That it also gives true answers to all the questions (often religiously irrelevent) which he might ask, I don't. The very kind of truth we are often demanding was, in my opinion, not even envisaged by the ancients." -C. S. Lewis

"Revelation is not given to satisfy our curiosity but to help us become the kind of creatures God desires." -C. S. Lewis

"God wishes to move the will rather than the mind. Perfect clarity would help the mind and harm the will." -Pascal

"An inductive study of the biblical data leads us to the conclusion that God was apparently less concerned with the exact wording of Scripture and more concerned with the essential reliability of his overall message. The ambiguity that arises out of the data points to the possibility that God did not determine precisely what the authors would say but rather ensured that his essential message was communicated while allowing the authors legitimate libertarian freedom in crafting that message. The same is true in the transmission process. God has ensured the successful transmission of the essential components of Scripture.

"This does not diminish the role of God but rather heightens his creativity, since he dynamically engages creatures with true libertarian freedom, rather than determining their precise move at each turn." - Burson & Walls, Authors


"We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage and purpose. We futher deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as lack of modern technical percision, irregularities of grammer or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of flasehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts and the use of free citations." -The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy



8 comments:

Rachel said...

Kim, this is not related in any way to your post, but i have a question! Ann says she can't leave a comment on my blog without registering. I have it on the "anyone" setting under comments, so I'm not sure why it's doing that. Any ideas?

Rachel said...

Ok, scratch that! We figured it out.

Ross does sound dazzling and perfect for you! Good luck with your new job. Now what's your family up to?

Friar Tuck said...

deep thinking. i like it.

Crystal said...

I am LOVIN' Dr. Who!!!!

Crystal said...

Hey I'm enjoying your music list! I love Squeeze it brings me back to when I was pregnant with Emily....

Janett Sue said...

I'm glad that Ross's rehearsal gave you time to envisage the inerrancy of the Scripture. I must say I lean toward C.S.. I had to look both of those words up. It was nice hanging out today. Love you!

Friar Tuck said...

What do you think on the whole issue?

Kim Traynor said...

Hey Friar! Having a good Spring? Sorry I haven't been updating the blog much - I finally went out and got a real job ;P I'm definitely in the That the over-all operation of Scripture is to convey God's Word to the reader (he also needs insipiration) who reads in the right spirit, I fully believe. That it also gives true answers to all the questions (often religiously irrelevent) which he might ask, I don't. The very kind of truth we are often demanding was, in my opinion, not even envisaged by the ancients. camp. And given your view of women in ministry I think I can guess where you are on this one :)