We have discussed Hall on this Forum before. Hall died in 1932, and wrote his dogmatic works long before the 1928 Prayer Book was adopted. Thus, his work predated the major 20th and 21st controversies within Anglicanism in the U.S. He cannot simply be dismissed because he was Episcopalian at the turn of the previous century. He is still highly regarded and taught among Continuing Anglicans, whose approach to theology and liturgy is far more conservative (and orthodox) than anything I've seen come out of the ACNA. It should be clear to anyone familiar with Hall's work that I was citing him as a hostile witness, in the sense that Hall's perspective was high Anglo-Catholic, and he very likely would not have agreed with the changes that came about in the Episcopal Church after 1960s. C.S. Lewis and Francis Hall were both committed, educated, mainstream Anglicans writing in the first half of the 20th century on different continents, and neither of them thought Anglicanism was committed to the theory of plenary verbal inspiration. That's a very big problem if you're trying to present your view as somehow preserving (or harking back to) pre-1960s Anglicanism, and mine as somehow opposed to it.
Neither of them advocated for the choose-your-own-adventure hermeneutic the Episcopalians use these days either. Lewis' view of Scripture is far closer to mine than to yours. As to Hall...eh. My complaint about him was not his Anglo-Catholic take on Anglican theology; obviously I, an Evangelical, will hold a different view of lots of things, but I don't hold it against him. I mainly objected to his weak reasoning and presentation. His "systematic" theology isn't particularly systematic. Hall is just an extremely mediocre theologian, even in an age that produced mediocre theologians by the bucket-load. His approximate contemporary J. C. Ryle did better theology, and Ryle was writing popular devotionals rather than academic treatises. That being said and with your agreement, @Invictus, I'd like to leave the argument there and let it rest. Here's a link to Martin Davie's take on GAFCON IV to pull things at least partially back on-topic for the thread. I wanted to break out this quote: I don't see it happening. Backtracking now would bring a level of rage from the left that Welby and his confreres are no wise strong enough to withstand, and would lay waste to any credibility CofE leadership has remaining with either the orthodox or liberals. And frankly it wouldn't have any effect on GAFCON or GSFA at this point anyway -- that die has been cast. About all such a reversal would do is give certain orthodox CofE priests and bishops a fig-leaf to cover themselves with, and everybody understands that such a reversal would be a temporary holding action at best.
No, it's not. Lewis (and Hall) both explicitly denied plenary verbal inspiration. You have asserted repeatedly throughout this thread that Scripture is literally "the word of God," and this is precisely what Lewis denied. The contrast between your view and Lewis' couldn't be more stark. Also, please drop the petty insults and personal attacks, such as: and Really? Grow up. We're adults here. We're discussing theological issues that don't enter the minds of 90% of laypeople. As far as they're concerned, such debates are academic, and not in a positive sense. The truth matters; it's a shame to discredit the subject matter of what we discuss here for the sake of cheap polemics. These discussions are supposed to be conversations, and the exchange of ideas and perspectives. Neither Lewis, nor Hall, nor I have ever said that people couldn't or shouldn't hold to plenary verbal inspiration, only that there are cogent reasons why it shouldn't be taken as equivalent to the doctrine of inspiration itself. I know plenty of Episcopalians with quite conservative views about the Bible, and we have no problem belonging to the same church and worshiping together. That is a crucial part of Lewis' insight that is being overlooked, viz., he didn't seek to alienate those who disagreed with him in good faith.