« Mac Richard: A Vision of Beauty | Main | Brian Habig, Devotion To The Prayers »

May 03, 2006

Comments

I'm very much interested in this issue of scriptural interpretation--will go find a copy of Justin Holcomb's book. Am particularly interested by Justin's comment that "As Christians we say Jesus is the “word of God” (John 1) and scripture is the “word of God,” but this should not guide us into thinking that Christianity is focused on the Bible, rather than the Incarnation, as the primary form of revelation. From my experience, evangelicals have a tendency to make the Bible central to their belief." For a believer like me, who has problems with inerrancy as a concept (due to the disappearance of original texts, and the changes made over centuries), this rings true. I like to keep thinking about the role of scripture, and probing the boundaries in my Christian walk. Also," Regarding this, there are two extremes to avoid--" as Justin implies, there is a solid median ground Christians can occupy, in which we keep Jesus central, yet don't displace scripture in its role.

Do you think there's a slippery slope inherent in letting go of strict inerrancy? I think that may be what frightens some Christians in discussing the role of Scripture.

Great interview--thanks, Glenn.

Vicky

Vicky,
I'd like to hear your thoughts after you read the volume. I don't think there is a slippery slop inherent in letting go of strict inerrancy. First, I'm not a big fan of slippery slope arguments. I'm sure there is some validaity to them in general, but they seem kind of manufactured to me. Also, sure, we need to be aware of implications of our beliefs but pursuing the truth isn't alwasy pretty either. Second, I like the concept of inerrancy as defined by the Chicago statement on Inerrancy (1978) because it says what the concept is and is not. It lists 19 affirmations and denials....and mainly I like the denials because they help qualify what inerrancy doesn't mean. I don't really like the "word" inerrancy because it defines the nature and authroity of the bible negatively. I'd rather say that teh bible is trustworthy and doesn't misrepresent the facts. Third, (and this is not really related to you inerrancy question) I think the incarnation (God becoming human in the person of Jesus) has been brushed aside for bibliolatry in some evangelical circles.
J

The comments to this entry are closed.

Welcome to CGO


  • Welcome to Common Grounds Online. Readers of Common Grounds have suggested a website to continue the explorations they began in the book. In keeping with the interactions of Professor MacGregor, Brad, Lauren and Jarrod, the theme of this site is ‘learning and living the Christian story.’

    I have invited friends, and a few friends of friends, to communicate aspects of the Christian story that have been significant in their own lives. We’re all trying to find joy and pleasure in this life and the next, but often we forfeit the joy that could be ours by living out foolish, competing scripts. What distinguishes Common Grounds Online Contributors is not our own goodness, achievement or service, but rather the recognition of our need of God’s grace abounding in our lives.

Follow Us

CGO Contributors