Is belief in demons/Satan a prerequisite for inerrancy?

[RamistThomist]

I realize this is somewhat old, but it caught me by surprise. The esteemed Hughes Oliphint Old, whose books I have on my shelf, said he doesn't believe in Satan and demons.

I really do not believe in Satan, demonic spirits, and demon possession. Maybe I ought to, but I don’t.

I want to give him a charitable reading and think he might be saying something like,

"I don't understand how that phenomenon works, having never experienced it."

That would be fine, except that's not what he is saying.

If someone held to this view, and let's say he was in the Evangelical Theological Society, would this compromise a belief in inerrancy and therefore such a person would have to cancel his membership?

 

[Parakaleo]

I think it at minimum compromises a belief in inerrancy. To me, it's on the same level as questions like "Did the axe head float?" or "Did the sun stand still?" If you tell me "No," I will take a very dim view of your claim to inerrancy.

 

[TheOldCourse]

I realize this is somewhat old, but it caught me by surprise. The esteemed Hughes Oliphint Old, whose books I have on my shelf, said he doesn't believe in Satan and demons.

I really do not believe in Satan, demonic spirits, and demon possession. Maybe I ought to, but I don’t.

I want to give him a charitable reading and think he might be saying something like,

"I don't understand how that phenomenon works, having never experienced it."

That would be fine, except that's not what he is saying.

If someone held to this view, and let's say he was in the Evangelical Theological Society, would this compromise a belief in inerrancy and therefore such a person would have to cancel his membership?

This has been brought up a time or two. Glen Clary, his student at Erskine and an OPC pastor, wrote 5 or 6 years ago that he does not believe this accurately represents Dr. Old's current beliefs:

Brothers,

I’ve talked to Dr. Old about that comment at length, and it doesn’t accurately represent his view. First, it is something he wrote about 10 years ago (despite the recent publishing date). He has increasingly become more conservative over the years. When he graduated from PTS in 58, he was a liberal. When he took his first church in 59, he started preaching through the gospel of John. By the time he got to chapter 5, he was convinced of the miracles of Scripture (actually, it is an exhilerating story the way he tells it). When he returned to America after receiving his doctorate, he wanted to worship at the most conservative Presbyterian church around, so he started going to 10th Presbyterian. At the time, inerrancy was the big issue, and Dr. Boice was a leading figure among those defending it.

In an unpublished manuscript that will soon be published as The Ministry of Praise and Prayer, Dr. Old firmly defends the doctrine of innerancy and says something to the effect that over the years, he has struggled with whether or not he is a fundy or a lib, but at the end of the day, he is an old school presbyterian fundy.

The piece in volume 7 (if one reads it closely) is actually a confession of the failure of liberalism to do justice to the text of Scripture. What Dr. Old is saying is that he had a very difficult time preaching Matthew 8 because he was always trying to demythologize the text. He is commending the practice of John MacArthur who had no difficulty preaching that text because he took it at face value. So, Dr. Old is saying to the reader, “Don’t follow my example; follow the example of MacArthur.” That’s the point that Dr. Old is making. It is unfortunate that the comment about the existence of Satan was not removed from the manuscript before publication because it doesn’t accurately describe the view that he now holds.

Glen also has stated that Dr. Old has come to hold to the Westminster Standards without exceptions.

 

[earl40]

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/81357-Mental-illness-vs-Demonization

 

[RamistThomist]

I realize this is somewhat old, but it caught me by surprise. The esteemed Hughes Oliphint Old, whose books I have on my shelf, said he doesn't believe in Satan and demons.

I really do not believe in Satan, demonic spirits, and demon possession. Maybe I ought to, but I don’t.

I want to give him a charitable reading and think he might be saying something like,

"I don't understand how that phenomenon works, having never experienced it."

That would be fine, except that's not what he is saying.

If someone held to this view, and let's say he was in the Evangelical Theological Society, would this compromise a belief in inerrancy and therefore such a person would have to cancel his membership?

This has been brought up a time or two. Glen Clary, his student at Erskine and an OPC pastor, wrote 5 or 6 years ago that he does not believe this accurately represents Dr. Old's current beliefs:

Brothers,

I’ve talked to Dr. Old about that comment at length, and it doesn’t accurately represent his view. First, it is something he wrote about 10 years ago (despite the recent publishing date). He has increasingly become more conservative over the years. When he graduated from PTS in 58, he was a liberal. When he took his first church in 59, he started preaching through the gospel of John. By the time he got to chapter 5, he was convinced of the miracles of Scripture (actually, it is an exhilerating story the way he tells it). When he returned to America after receiving his doctorate, he wanted to worship at the most conservative Presbyterian church around, so he started going to 10th Presbyterian. At the time, inerrancy was the big issue, and Dr. Boice was a leading figure among those defending it.

In an unpublished manuscript that will soon be published as The Ministry of Praise and Prayer, Dr. Old firmly defends the doctrine of innerancy and says something to the effect that over the years, he has struggled with whether or not he is a fundy or a lib, but at the end of the day, he is an old school presbyterian fundy.

The piece in volume 7 (if one reads it closely) is actually a confession of the failure of liberalism to do justice to the text of Scripture. What Dr. Old is saying is that he had a very difficult time preaching Matthew 8 because he was always trying to demythologize the text. He is commending the practice of John MacArthur who had no difficulty preaching that text because he took it at face value. So, Dr. Old is saying to the reader, “Don’t follow my example; follow the example of MacArthur.” That’s the point that Dr. Old is making. It is unfortunate that the comment about the existence of Satan was not removed from the manuscript before publication because it doesn’t accurately describe the view that he now holds.

Glen also has stated that Dr. Old has come to hold to the Westminster Standards without exceptions.

That sounds great. It just seemed that the article was relatively recent.

 

[TheOldCourse]

The article was recent but it's the same comment that Rev. Clary is speaking of, from Dr. Old's The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, Vol 7. I wish Dr. Old himself would clarify--it doesn't appear the manuscript Rev. Clary mentions has yet been published--but he has written very little publicly the past few years and it seems to have received very little attention aside from a couple of isolated blog posts.