MSH | March 31, 2009
In John’s second post, he talks about a “dual dynamic” when it comes to the canon. Here’s a portion of what he says: On the one hand, the existence of an agreed upon nucleus of authoritative literature in various times and places is undeniable; on the other, the supplementation of existing authoritative writings via interpolations [...]
MSH | March 25, 2009
If you don’t like the way I’ve described inspiration, notably: (1) my denial that God gave the words to each writer and (2) the subsequent notion that humans are the immediate source of Scripture while God is the ultimate source (and so BOTH are sources), then you need to read this article on one of [...]
MSH | March 20, 2009
I’ve decided (maybe against better judgment) that the Bellingham Statement ought to say something about canonicity (at least I think that now). To that end, let’s jump in. I’ve been wanting to personally revisit John Hobbins’ posts on the canon, and so that seems a good place to start — and to introduce all of [...]
MSH | March 17, 2009
Thanks to Mr. Molina for this convenient suggestion. I don’t have to do much work here to start this off, and maybe this post will be all the farther this goes. A friend of mine, Dr. Bob Chisholm from Dallas Seminary, wrote a paper for a regional ETS meeting on this topic. Here is the [...]
MSH | March 13, 2009
John Hobbins has once again added helpful commentary on the Bellingham Statement. I hope more will chime in, especially academically-trained bibliobloggers who have expressed concerns over inspiration and inerrancy. Technorati Tags: inerrancy, inspiration
