Talk:F. F. Bruce
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
Although Bruce believed the Bible to the "reliable," I do not think that he would have been confortable with the word "inerrant" in describing his view of the Bible. I speak as one who affirms inerrancy and also admires Bruce's writings. He never affirms the term inerrancy to my knowledge. Those who affirm inerrancy often quote Bruce, but I think they ascribe to Bruce their own view when they say he affirmed the Bible's inerrancy. Bruce while broadly conservative (though not completely!), was more moderate than many who quote him. Kind of like evangelicals at Fuller Theological Seminary I think. Bruce concentrated on what he could prove (reliablily is more testable than inerrancy which is primarily a theological construct). I am thus softening the language about his view of inerrancy.
Two things in particular suggest to me that he did not affirm inerrancy.
- One, he wrote a Forward to Dewey Beegle's book, SCRIPTURE, TRADITION, AND INFALLIBILITY -- a book that rejects inerrancy. In that Forward Bruce writes "I endorse as emphatically as I can his deprecating of a Maginot-line mentality where the doctrine of Scripture is concerned. The Word of God is something alive and active, not least when it bursts the confining bands in which our well-meant definitions try to enclose and protect it" (p. 10). In endorsing a book that denies inerrancy, Bruce did not necessarily deny it himself (he at other times endorsed books he did not completely agree with), but it suggests that at the least he was uncomfortable with the view that if we were ever to admit an error in the Bible we would have to reject it totally (the 'Maginot-line mentality"), a view often stated by strict inerrantists.
- A second reason comes from a personal correspondance between Bruce and me. In the 1970s I wrote Bruce concerning his view of women and ministry. He kindly responded by recommending to me Paul Jewett's book, MAN AS MALE AND FEMALE. Jewett (at the time a professor of theology at Fuller Theological Seminary) in that book says that Paul was right when he speaks of men and women being one in Christ (Galatians 3:28) but wrong in demanding male headship and wives to submit to their husbands. If Bruce held strongly to inerrancy, it hardly seems likely that he could have recommended Jewett's book that argues that Paul contradicted himself.
DrJ1m
