Biblical Inerrancy & Middle ways on evolution
Just thought I’d share two interesting articles with you, both covering fairly controversial issues.
The first by Roger Olsen looks at Biblical “innerancy”, or more specifically, the term “innerancy” itself:
A common response to my rejection of the term “inerrancy” is “If the Bible contains a single error, how can we know it is God’s Word?”
First, let me say again: It is the TERM “inerrancy” that I reject, not the authority or trustworthiness of Scripture. AND every inerrantist I know or have read admits there are errors in Scripture as we have it today. Only the original autographs were inerrant in the strictest sense. What I want is an authoritative Bible that actually exists and not one that used to exist!
The second by John Farrell over at the Guardian covers evolution and he notes some rather intriguing facts relating to Pope Pius X11 and John Paul II in this regard:
More and more these days it seems like evolution is turning into a litmus test with only two possible results. If you accept evolution, creationists consider you a heretic. If you question evolution, Darwinists denounce you as a moron. But history shows that a qualified acceptance of evolution was, from the moment Darwin published his Origin of Species, a default position for many who were open to the theory, even when they were deeply disturbed by it.
Sixty years ago the controversial pope Pius XII, for example, made an accommodation with evolution the official position of the Catholic Church, when he wrote in his encyclical Humani Generis, that the scientific investigation of the material origins of the human body was perfectly legitimate, provided Catholic theologians kept in mind that the soul was to be considered always the direct creation of God.
Tags: Church Life, Science & Medical, Theology Doctrine Philosophy