Comments on: the source of theology https://oxgoad.ca/2009/04/11/the-source-of-theology/ fundamentalism by blunt instrument Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:30:39 +0000 hourly 1 By: ox https://oxgoad.ca/2009/04/11/the-source-of-theology/comment-page-1/#comment-3295 Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:30:39 +0000 http://oxgoad.ca/2009/04/11/the-source-of-theology/#comment-3295 Good point, Dan.

I am getting to the next point of his essay (I’m reading it slowly, when I have time). I have a suspicion I might start disagreeing with him a bit here, but even so he still makes me think, and has some very important things to say.

I recall some professors saying he was hard to read (I think referencing his Inspiration and Authority book). I think he is a bit wordy, but that seems to be 19th century style more than anything. He seems to be a very clear thinker to me. I have always enjoyed the things I have read from him.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

]]> By: Dan S https://oxgoad.ca/2009/04/11/the-source-of-theology/comment-page-1/#comment-3292 Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:12:39 +0000 http://oxgoad.ca/2009/04/11/the-source-of-theology/#comment-3292 Warfield is a pleasure to read. And I appreciate his hold on the Bible’s authority. But I’m not sure I like Warfield’s analogy of muddy stream and pure fountain. While I absolutely agree that Scripture is the infallible, inerrant authority for faith and practice, I would have difficulty stating that the Spirit testifying to my spirit that I am a child of God (Rom 8:16) is a “muddy run.” We need to keep a distinction between authority as existing in levels for our faith and practice and revelation from God (always pure truth). We need the authority of Scripture because we can confuse (misinterpret, misunderstand, misidentify) revelation from God. But any revelation proceeding from God is just as pure as the revelation that created his Word.
And I think Warfield means that as well. He is just looking at it from our perspective.

]]>