4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Past Voices From Sagacious Leaders, November 7, 2007
This review is from: Quo Vadis, Evangelicalism?: Perspectives on the Past, Direction for the Future: Nine Presidential Addresses from the First Fifty Years of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (Paperback)
This work celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Journal of the Evangelical Society. It features 9 selected presidential addresses delivered by past JETS presidents. This book has both historic importance and contemporary relevance for the issues evangelicals face.
In seeking to preserve orthodoxy today, we benefit by hearing from voices from the past, who strengthened an unswerving commitment to the whole Word of God, and imbibed faith in that holy counsel. In its brief the essays offer wisdom-from-above to a post-modern world below. These addresses contextualize the complex issues the Society has faced in the past 50 years. The difficulty lies therein that the Society itself has evangelicals who hold to differing views on issues.
Ned B Stonehouse, erstwhile professor at Westminster, chose to remind his hearers in 1957 firstly of his position concerning Scripture:
'Our view of the Bible is thought to place us in bondage to a paper pope. In the face of the modern evaluations of Scripture shall we still maintain our historic position?' p 31
Stonehouse went on to answer his own question, affirming a commitment to inerrancy, and upholding the theistic import of inspiration: 'If on the other hand, we are to maintain this doctrine, it can only be because we recognize that our doctrine of Scripture is an aspect of our doctrine of God.' p 32 He further distinguished between Scripture and tradition, without denying tradition a place in the history of the church, yet stating that tradition had its limitations. Marring the doctrine of inspiration, many critical objection theories were intruding upon sacred ground, seeking to garner uncertainty. Modern skepticism with regard to the trustworthiness of the Bible attempted to eradicate the implications attendant to claims that it was the sole interpreter of God's will. Matters further became tenuous when heretics and defectors from the traditional view claimed the infallibility of Scripture as well, requiring that exegesis play a more pronounced role in settling matters that divided evangelicals. Broaching the topic of hermeneutics, Stonehouse counselled 'It should become increasingly obvious that the suggested rule, as literal as possible, is not particularly helpful.' p 37 He proceeded to suggest a better way: 'But in the mind of the evangelical there will be in the foreground the recognition that his view of Scripture carries with it the implication that 'the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself', whereby he placed a higher expectation on its members to scriptural elucidation. This led to Stonehouse's insistence for the recognition of a more christocentric gospel, one which would faithfully incorporate the whole counsel of God.
Moises A Silva thought it wise to remind his hearers 'of Stonehouse and his legacy'. p 110 In his address in 1997 to the JETS, Silva emphasized his appreciation of the careful scholarship displayed by Stonehouse in his writings, stating that he certainly had been influenced by his teacher, J Gresham Machen. Silva's concern was that critical theories be ignored or minimized, when it was apparent that in the 40 years since Stonehouse had delivered his address to the ETS, they had gained substantial ground. Instead of burying their heads in the sand, Silva proposed that evangelical scholarship face the challengers who sought to reduce their distinctive attachment to inerrancy. Silva's critique on Barr's
Beyond Fundamentalism successfully questioned the methods of critical scholars, and in doing so, Silva took the lead in showing his eagerness to oppose and minimize the effects of modern theology which did not hold to the historical view of inspiration. Silva judiciously cited Gresham Machen, whom Barr considered to be a fundamentalist:
'It must be admitted that there are many Christians who do not accept the doctrine of plenary inspiration. That doctrine is denied not only by liberal opponents of Christianity, but also by many true Christian men.'
Not much has changed. Barr was, in fact, attempting to lay the charge at the door of specific conservative individuals that 'they have abandoned distinctive evangelical principles and are simply not very honest about it'. p 119 Silva's justified address set the record straight and upset critical scholarship, unsurprisingly.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
