Inerrancy: Rocky Mountain Presbytery’s Statement on Scripture

Been trying to find time to make a couple of other posts on inerrancy (e.g., necessity of historic Adam, inerrancy bibliography.) Yet seems that the busy-ness in Lane’s September has spilled over and rolled down hill to Alabama ;-)

In the meantime, here is a recent statement on the nature of Scripture, adopted by our brothers in Rocky Mountain Presbytery, PCA. Without any particular comments at this time, I post it here for a moment of reflection and consideration (as reported at The Aquila Report). It does appear to touch on all the hot button issues we’ve discussed.

Rocky Mountain Presbytery Adopts Pastoral Letter on Affirmations and Denial on Scripture

Reed De Pace



  1. Tim Vaughan said,

    October 7, 2009 at 5:58 am

    “We affirm that biblical theology (attention to the text in its redemptive-historical context) is the indispensable servant of systematic theology–indispensable because it is essential for the sound exegesis on which systematic theology depends, a servant because it contributes to the presentation, under appropriate topics, of the teaching of Scripture as a whole and in its overall unity that systematic theology is concerned to provide for the life of the church and its mission in the world.”

    Isn’t there some sort of law saying the more complicated something is the harder it is to maintain it?

  2. rfwhite said,

    October 7, 2009 at 10:49 am

    1 Tim Vaughan: Could you say some more about how your question relates to the paragraph that you quoted? I’m wondering, for example, if you have in mind the words after “a servant because ….” The punctuation and wording makes the sentence, arguably, a bit more unwieldy than seems best.

  3. Tim Vaughan said,

    October 8, 2009 at 5:48 am

    In our church there’s an old retired TE who fills our pulpit occasionally and the term Historical Redemptive to him is like Gay Marriage. From a big fight back in the day, and he’s probably more suspicious than he should be. Why insert what many people feel a party phrase into something that should be the lowest common denominator of our belief system? And yes, the grammar and syntax of the whole paragraph makes one’s head spin as well as guaranteeing that the whole won’t paper won’t ever get approved. Please take this as constructive criticism, as I thought the paper on the whole was great.

  4. Reed Here said,

    October 8, 2009 at 8:34 am

    Tim: understand your criticism. In a world full of knee-jerk reactions though, this one seems minor.

    I’m aware of the “problems” often associated with the term (two come to mind, one from liberal roots, another home grown.) Yet neither seem to have much traction amongst us.

    Do you have reason to think otherwise? Even more importantly, what phrasing would you substitute that gets across the same point? (Asuming you think: a) the point is biblically valid, and b) therefore needs to be said.)

  5. Tim Vaughan said,

    October 15, 2009 at 7:53 am

    There’s a principle I learned about church court cases. KISS, or Keep It Simple, Stupid. As yourself a basic question. “Do you want the paper to get passed?” and if the answer is yes, don’t try to correct 38 different problems you see, especially when one of them is complicated and not really necessary to the main war. Pick your battles.

    I’ll say it again, that paper will never get passed the way it stands. Make it half as long, and use common denominator rules that will be quickly agreed on by 80 percent of Reformed elders that read it, or get prepared for frustration and probably even losing ground.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: