MSH | February 6, 2009
John sent me what follows in an email, and I’m thrilled. This is just what I was hoping for. You’ll note we have disagreements (perhaps!). John doesn’t think my view of Scripture is “high enough.” I’ll be responding to this soon, as I think part of the disconnect is that the way catch-phrases get defined [...]
MSH | December 11, 2008
First, let me direct your attention to something I’ve added to the blog just below the blog’s name and tag-line: a page entitled “Naked Bible’s Inspiration Discussion.” For those who are new to this blog, we’re in a discussion on inspiration — why, in the Naked Bible’s view — the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy has [...]
MSH | November 7, 2008
Here we go again. I want to rehearse a few things from the previous two statements. In statements 1 and 2 I wrote: “. . . the usual process of inspiration meant that the words of the text were given to the authors by God. Instead, human beings were, for the most part, the immediate [...]
MSH | October 28, 2008
Just so you don’t need to go back and look, Bellingham Statement 1 (the revised version) went like this: I affirm that the Bible is revelation from God produced in writing through the agency of human authors. Although there are instances in the biblical record where God apparently dictated what would become part of the [...]
MSH | October 14, 2008
Here’s the text of the original Bellingham Statement 1. I affirm that the Bible is revelation from God produced in writing through the agency of human authors. This agency involved human authors writing on the basis of their own abilities, education, styles, worldview, backgrounds, and idiosyncrasies. I deny that the writing of the Bible required [...]
