This is no reflection on this man, as I'm sure he was a very bright fellow, but I really found nothing very compelling about this article.

Particularly lessor 4 and 7, I find his comments even less compelling.

And there's a hint of circularity here because he mentions the old church fathers knew about 'biblical issues' which explains why a rigid inerrant view of the book was not something the old church held. So his argument is we should hold that view now? That makes no sense to me.

Like most of the Christian physicians, engineers, clinicians, and researchers that post here......he probably "fears science".

JJMt said:

---

I don't think that the article was written to be "compelling", if by that you mean somehow persuasive to non-believers. Rather, it appears to me to have been written as an encouragement to believers who are members, or contemplating becoming a member of, the academy.

---

Fair enough.

JJMt said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

And there's a hint of circularity here because he mentions the old church fathers knew about 'biblical issues' which explains why a rigid inerrant view of the book was not something the old church held. So his argument is we should hold that view now? That makes no sense to me.

---

I'm sorry but I missed that in the article, perhaps due to reading it too fast. Can you tell me where exactly in the article he mentions that? Plus, I can't find any mention of "inerrant", "biblical issues" or "church fathers" in the article doing a search.

---

So, you are correct. It does not use the word inerrant.

However, in my mind, when these code words are used:
"Classic Christianity"
"unborns"
"Sexually permissive"
"Traditional Christianity"

That leads me down that interpretation, especially since the article is geared towards Evangelicals. I mean that is kind of a cornerstone of Evangelicalism, right?

Quote:

---

Lesson 4: Scholarly views can have serious social consequences.

---

Fads that are popular in academia != "scholarly views".