This view is
represented by such theologians as A. H. Strong and James Orr. A few statements
from Strong will make plain this position.
Inspiration, therefore, did not remove, but rather pressed into its own service,
all the personal peculiarities of the writers, together with their defects of
culture and literary style. Every imperfection not inconsistent with truth in a
human composition may exist in inspired Scripture.3
Inspiration did not guarantee inerrancy in things not essential to the
main purpose of Scripture.4
Inspiration is therefore not verbal, while yet we claim that no form of
words which taken in its connections would teach essential error has been admitted
into Scripture.5
When the unity of the Scripture is fully recognized, the Bible, in spite
of imperfections in matters non-essential to its religious purpose, furnishes a
safe and sufficient guide to truth and to salvation.6
In short, inspiration is characteristically neither natural, partial,
nor mechanical, but supernatural, plenary, and dynamical.7
The unity and authority of Scripture as a whole are entirely consistent
with its gradual evolution and with great imperfection in its non-essential parts.8
3 A.
H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1907),
p. 213.
4 Ibid.,
p. 215.
5 Ibid.,
p. 216.
6 Ibid.,
p. 218.
7 bid.,
p. 211.
8 Ibid.,
p. 220.
PREVIOUS
NEXT
No comments:
Post a Comment