The Spectrum of Inerrancy: An Exploration of David S. Dockery’s Typological Contributions to the Inerrancy Debate in Evangelicalism

Gabriel A. Desjardins
{"title":"The Spectrum of Inerrancy: An Exploration of David S. Dockery’s Typological Contributions to the Inerrancy Debate in Evangelicalism","authors":"Gabriel A. Desjardins","doi":"10.24193/subbtref.66.1.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\"The present article explores the typological contributions to the inerrancy debate of David S. Dockery, the Chancellor of Trinity International University. Resulting from controversies in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) during the 1970s and 80s, Dockery provided a valuable typological framework for identifying a spectrum of positions in the inerrancy debate. Dockery’s frameworks provide a helpful lens for understanding the complexity of inerrancy. Some positions are more conservative and deductivist, and other positions are more liberal and inductivist. These distinctions often create a barrier, a presuppositional divide, which is difficult to cross in a debate context. Dockery’s variations provide a means of at least understanding the divide and the positions that differ from one’s own. To that aim, I present Dockery’s variations as a vital component for all attempts at dialogue in the inerrancy debate.\n\nKeywords: evangelicalism, biblical inerrancy, David S. Dockery, biblical authority, hermeneutics\n\"","PeriodicalId":36470,"journal":{"name":"Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Theologia Reformata Transylvanica","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Theologia Reformata Transylvanica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24193/subbtref.66.1.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

"The present article explores the typological contributions to the inerrancy debate of David S. Dockery, the Chancellor of Trinity International University. Resulting from controversies in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) during the 1970s and 80s, Dockery provided a valuable typological framework for identifying a spectrum of positions in the inerrancy debate. Dockery’s frameworks provide a helpful lens for understanding the complexity of inerrancy. Some positions are more conservative and deductivist, and other positions are more liberal and inductivist. These distinctions often create a barrier, a presuppositional divide, which is difficult to cross in a debate context. Dockery’s variations provide a means of at least understanding the divide and the positions that differ from one’s own. To that aim, I present Dockery’s variations as a vital component for all attempts at dialogue in the inerrancy debate. Keywords: evangelicalism, biblical inerrancy, David S. Dockery, biblical authority, hermeneutics "
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
无误谱:多克瑞对福音派无误论的类型学贡献探析
本文探讨了三一国际大学校长戴维·s·多克里对无误论的类型化贡献。由于1970年代和80年代美南浸信会(SBC)的争议,Dockery提供了一个有价值的类型学框架,用于识别无误辩论中的一系列立场。Dockery的框架为理解无误的复杂性提供了一个有用的视角。有些立场更保守和演绎主义,而另一些立场更自由和归纳主义。这些区别往往造成障碍,预设的分歧,在辩论的背景下很难跨越。多克里的变体提供了一种方法,至少可以让我们理解与自己不同的分歧和立场。为了达到这个目的,我将多克里的变体作为在无误论辩论中所有对话尝试的重要组成部分。关键词:福音主义,圣经无误,大卫·s·道克瑞,圣经权威,解释学
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Levensvreugde omdat God volhoudt (Psalm 103:8) Focus. De theologische nalatenschap van ds. G. Boer De eeuwigheidsdimensie van het heil. Een verkenning vanuit de praktijk van missionaire pioniers Waar raakt Gods heil de mens? Over fragmenten van het heil Epiloog
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1