In a prior post, I spoke about Saving Inerrancy from the Americans where I argued that many conservative evangelicals in America conflate the authority/veracity of the biblical text with the authority/normativity of their interpretation.
Doug was one of my OT professors and a faithful elder at New Life PCA in Glenside when I knew him ('95-'99). He was an excellent teacher, careful thinker, and joyful Christian. He was charitable to all (those on his left and right - he was solidly Reformed and confessional - very much in the middle). I'm grateful for his influence on my own thinking and engagement with God's Word over 20 years later. I was disappointed to see him bounced at WTS.
Michael, Thanks for your work. I was working on my PhD at WTS and Doug was one of my professors. I can only say the best things about his character and his teaching ability. He was one of the best! It saddens me that Christians act this way but it is true. We expect better for those in the leadership of our seminaries. The very ones who are supposed to be training our pastors and the next generation of leaders. Shameful!
Intriguing! Tragically, so much gets down to tribal allegiances and factions. So this makes a good reminder of the loss of perspective on living the gospel rather than just arguing for a manufactured pisition.
"Inerrancy" typically applies to the text itself, mainly the original mss. The case you cite is more like extending the concept to a particular hermeneutical framework, which is a few levels more nutty than affirming some particular translation is "inerrant."
It’s a shame examples like this exist. All I can do is roll my eyes at that. Yet it’s also tiring seeing all Americans clubbed for the misuse by some of the doctrine of inerrancy. I’m almost finished at SBTS (a big fan of inerrancy!) and in my time here I have been warned away from the abuses of inerrancy. The hermeneutic used for Ps 23 was one I was introduced to by one of the most conservative professors on campus. So if your critique of “American inerrancy” is off base for a place like SBTS, then maybe it’s not the best critique anymore? It’s still an applicable critique at the popular level (it takes time for things to flow out!), and I’m sure an institution here and there is off, but it’s honestly so…what’s the word? Tiring. It’s so tiring hearing critiques against the worst of my circles when the best parts, the parts that people are actually following, don’t hold to those positions *or* practices.
Hi Garrison, mate, this is kind of my point. The American inerrancy debates are not actually about inerrancy, often they are about the in-group and inerrancy is just what they call the things that the in-group prizes.
Thanks for the response! Haven’t read any of your work, but have heard a number of podcasts and what not from you and have been helped by them. Thank you!
I understand what you’re saying, and I’ve seen that before both in writing and personal experience. What I’m saying, though, is that I’ve had my professors explicitly warn us away from that kind of misuse of inerrancy.
I have spent an inordinate amount of time reading and thinking about the critique of American Evangelicalism. It has weighed very heavily on me. I know issues exist. But do they exist in places where leaders in those circles aren’t already addressing them? For example, would I take issue with Grudem’s and Doug Wilson’s approach to some things? I would. But what about Carson, Tom Schreiner, Doug Moo, or Tim Keller?
It seems to me that things are getting painted with too broad of a brush. American Evangelicalism is way more diverse than “the good ol’ boys from the SBC,” and I’m bot sure that reality is very well appreciated by those critiquing from the outside.
I for one have been so thankful for God’s painful providence in bringing Doug to Australia. Phil
Hi Phil, yes, a great blessing to QTC and PCQ!
Doug was one of my OT professors and a faithful elder at New Life PCA in Glenside when I knew him ('95-'99). He was an excellent teacher, careful thinker, and joyful Christian. He was charitable to all (those on his left and right - he was solidly Reformed and confessional - very much in the middle). I'm grateful for his influence on my own thinking and engagement with God's Word over 20 years later. I was disappointed to see him bounced at WTS.
I know, it was terrible!
Michael, Thanks for your work. I was working on my PhD at WTS and Doug was one of my professors. I can only say the best things about his character and his teaching ability. He was one of the best! It saddens me that Christians act this way but it is true. We expect better for those in the leadership of our seminaries. The very ones who are supposed to be training our pastors and the next generation of leaders. Shameful!
Rob, I know, it was a shame he got treated like that.
Intriguing! Tragically, so much gets down to tribal allegiances and factions. So this makes a good reminder of the loss of perspective on living the gospel rather than just arguing for a manufactured pisition.
So true!
"Inerrancy" typically applies to the text itself, mainly the original mss. The case you cite is more like extending the concept to a particular hermeneutical framework, which is a few levels more nutty than affirming some particular translation is "inerrant."
It’s a shame examples like this exist. All I can do is roll my eyes at that. Yet it’s also tiring seeing all Americans clubbed for the misuse by some of the doctrine of inerrancy. I’m almost finished at SBTS (a big fan of inerrancy!) and in my time here I have been warned away from the abuses of inerrancy. The hermeneutic used for Ps 23 was one I was introduced to by one of the most conservative professors on campus. So if your critique of “American inerrancy” is off base for a place like SBTS, then maybe it’s not the best critique anymore? It’s still an applicable critique at the popular level (it takes time for things to flow out!), and I’m sure an institution here and there is off, but it’s honestly so…what’s the word? Tiring. It’s so tiring hearing critiques against the worst of my circles when the best parts, the parts that people are actually following, don’t hold to those positions *or* practices.
Hi Garrison, mate, this is kind of my point. The American inerrancy debates are not actually about inerrancy, often they are about the in-group and inerrancy is just what they call the things that the in-group prizes.
Thanks for the response! Haven’t read any of your work, but have heard a number of podcasts and what not from you and have been helped by them. Thank you!
I understand what you’re saying, and I’ve seen that before both in writing and personal experience. What I’m saying, though, is that I’ve had my professors explicitly warn us away from that kind of misuse of inerrancy.
I have spent an inordinate amount of time reading and thinking about the critique of American Evangelicalism. It has weighed very heavily on me. I know issues exist. But do they exist in places where leaders in those circles aren’t already addressing them? For example, would I take issue with Grudem’s and Doug Wilson’s approach to some things? I would. But what about Carson, Tom Schreiner, Doug Moo, or Tim Keller?
It seems to me that things are getting painted with too broad of a brush. American Evangelicalism is way more diverse than “the good ol’ boys from the SBC,” and I’m bot sure that reality is very well appreciated by those critiquing from the outside.
That "Christians" would act like this is more than sick! I wonder how they interpret John 13:34-35
The "you" referred to those directly present. We have no reason to assume it applied to anyone else.
Kidding, but not inconceivable.