Inerrant Wisdom by Paul Seely
Peter Enns recently reviewed Paul Seely’s book called Inerrant Wisdom: Science and Inerrancy in Biblical Perspective. The book, published in 1989, deals with the “doctrine” of biblical inerrancy and the closely related concept of concordance between Scripture and contemporary science. I haven’t read Seely’s book, but I am familiar with his more recent contributions to Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (PSCF), the journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA). You can locate several of Seely’s PSCF articles by searching the journals archives for “Seely, Paul”.
Here is a link to one of the more recent articles dealing with concordism: Seely, P. (2007). Concordism and a Biblical Alternative: An Examination of Hugh Ross’s Perspective. PSCF 59(1):37-45.
I’m in general agreement with Seely’s views about the the inadequacies and deficiencies of concordism. In my next post, I’ll share some of my own thoughts and reasons for not liking the term inerrancy. Admittedly, I’m no authority on the subject; I write as a “questioning” layperson, albeit one with sufficient scientific knowledge to know the magnitude of conflicts that make concordance and strict inerrancy untenable.
Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns
And, since I’ve mentioned Peter Enns, I might as well highlight his important 2005 book called Inspiration and Incarnation (Amazon link here). I am eager to read it sometime soon. He proposes “an ‘incarnational’ model of Scripture—one that recognizes and affirms both the divine and human aspects of the Bible.” I definitely agree with that concept.
…Actually, it occurs to me that it’s my turn next month to pick a book for my men’s group book club at church; perhaps I should propose this one!
Hi Doug,
For some reason your blog dropped out of my RSS feed .. not sure why. Anyways, it is back on now.
I highly recommend the Enns book. It is probably not one that is appropriate for every small group (eg. doubt it would work well for my own group at my church) … but it is probably guaranteed to generate good discussion.
Greetings. I am acutally a fan of Hugh Ross, and a member of RTB, and a member of ASA. One of the very few, I think, who are dual members. Unfortunate that I am, because the dialog between the two groups could be very helpful and enlightening, as long as it was kept civil!
Paul Seely’s article in PSCF touches on some points that are of interest to me. I try not to be an extremist on any viewpoint, and find that the middle ground is typically the better foundation, however the dual revelation approach of RTB is by far the most solid foundation I have found. It is in turn founded on reasonable concordism and reasonable inerrancy/infallibility. Those two terms are not the same – if you’re still trying to define them well, suggest you look at Stroebel’s “The Case for the Real Jesus”. In there he is discussing inerrancy with Daniel Wallace. As excellent resource.
But back to Ross, and Seely’s article. I think the Bible and nature should agree. They are both written by God. You apparently do not agree, if you are not a concordist. I have read Miller’s Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, and find it lacking in a satisfying explanation of a departure from concordism.
However, that being said, I do think that Seely has some valid points. One of the main divergences that I do have with RTB is their stance on the timeline in Genesis. I think that the concordist position would be strengthened by taking a different approach…one that is more concordant with what science, history and the archaeological record have told us about the origins of early man in Sumeria/Mesopotamia. In this, I tend to agree with Dick Fisher (ASA member) in his book “The Historical Genesis”. As a matter of fact, I have written a paper of sorts (draft, not published) that delineates what I think. It is in esssence a “two Adam” approach to Genesis, in that the first Adam was the first man, and the second Adam in Gen 2 was the first Hebrew.
You’re welcome to read it if you like:
http://www.byrdbiblestudy.net/Timeline_of_Man-rev031309.doc
Regards,
James Patterson
James,
At the ASA meeting there was open discussion about these different views and perspectives within the ASA. It is certainly frustrating to all sides that there are such divergent views within our community. Each of us wishes that we could settle the debate and move on, and the world outside must think we’re silly. But the ASA is the only place where such divergent views are debated with all seriousness and a high level of Christian humility and grace. For that I am thankful. Paul Seely and Dick Fisher were both at the meeting and presented their perspectives. There was also an entire session devoted to myths and common ground about and between ID and TE camps. Loren Haarsma has done the most honest and thorough job of defining and evaluating common ground and key differences between these perspectives.
Doug