This is an interesting question that someone gave Kevin DeYoung. Personally, I think there is more of a link between Biblical Inerrancy and Complementarianism. I also don't know many Reformed people who do not hold to Biblical Inerrancy. So, I think it is a fair question.
3 comments:
I have come across other people that believe there is a link between Biblical Inerrancy and Complentarianism, but that was simply because they assumed that people who were Egalitarian were not taking the Bible seriously.
My experience suggests that Egalitarians take the Bible and what it says very seriously so I am not sure if the link is really a 'fair' question.
I think claims like this are an attempt to claim the higher scriptural ground without actually dealing with what the Bible says and working through it with those who do not agree with you.
I am Egalitarian and believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture (bearing in mind that "Inerrancy of Scripture" can be taken in a number of ways).
There is a significant number of egalitarians who believe in inerrancy. For example, Grudem's six questions for egalitarians is being reposted on this site,
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/
Cheryl, responding to Grudem, is in every way an inerrantist.
There is no disagreement with Grudem on inerrancy, but on his tenuous suggestions that certain words and phrases mean what he says they mean.
Here is an example. Grudem claims that Eph. 5:21 means that "some Christians submit to other Christians." Egalitarians believe that it means that "Christians submit to each other, mutually."
I am unaware of any exegete before Grudem who held to his view.
What is it that makes Grudem's views, unattested in the history of biblical interperetation, more valid than the views of anyone else.
No, the disagreement is not related to inerrancy, but to extra-biblical notions regarding hierarchy and authority.
Mike,
I'm aways open to blogs that take civility AND the scriptures seriously. You seem to be doing both and I'm going to be a new regular reader.
I'm one who takes the character/nature of divine revelation quite seriously and hold to Inerrancy in the original manuscripts.
Someone asked me one day why I believe that is important. My response was/is that gives us strong reason to keep going back to the older translations we have and to keep researching the historical context AND original language to get as close to the original intention of the inspired authors as possible.
It is for this reason I am exited about you and Cheryl putting your thoughts on the table for all of us to see about this comlementarian/egalitarian issue. A good civil debate/sharing of any biblical issue is good for us as Kingdom family. Thank you for our part in it.
Post a Comment