Featured Do Fundamentalists/Evangelicals Agree on bible Inerrancy/Infallibility?

Good for you, well done! :thumbs:

 

This is a very general question. What particular denomination of evangelicals? What group of fundamentalists?

Furthermore, this brings us to note that fundamentalism is historically a subset of evangelicalism. In the 1920's when fundamentalism originated, "evangelicalism" and "fundamentalism" were virtually synonyms.

So you'll have to elaborate.

 

True, John. And then you have to define the terms "inerrancy" and "infallibility" since they are defined and delineated differently by different groups.

 

You're exactly right. They are not synonyms in theology-speak. :thumbs:

 

Becasue evangelicals can't fully agree about these terms among themselves :tongue3:

Rob

 

So true! Volumes have been written. :laugh:

 

i agree with you guys

But that doenst make the Bible wrong, it makes man wrong.

John

 

Two questions.

1. Infallible by whose interpretation?
2. Inerrant, which version?

 

Not a liberals interpretation, thats for sure


You guys twist the truth to make it fit you

John

 

I'll answer the question not needing everything defined for me.

In my opinion, there is a difference (how big or small I'm not sure, but I have my opinions on that as well) between the evangelical understanding of inerrancy/infallibility and the fundamentalist view.

So... the answer is NO.

 

IMHO inerrancy and infallibility in their purest form could only apply to the original mss.

 

Please explain which fundamentalist view you mean. Fundamentalists are by no means monolithic in their bibliology in 2012. If you consider the BJU/Maranatha BBC/Central Seminary/Detroit Baptist Seminary (etc.) faction, their views will be identical the the majority of evangelicalism. (See Does Inspiration Demand Innerrancy? by BJU prof Stewart Custer.) If you mean the Pensacola CC crowd, they are likely to demand the traditional texts, though they also will stand for verbal-plenary inspiration and inerrancy.

The evangelical view and the fundamentalist view began identically, with the doctrines of the J. Gresham Machen, B. B. Warfield and company--verbal plenary inspiration, to be precise. Machen was influenced by Louis Gaussen, maybe Turretin and others. With verbal plenary inspiration as the presupposition, inerrancy was the next logical step, though the major battle for that did not occur until the 1970s.

 

I believe that is what most people mean. Thus, both are simply articles of a person's faith and totally unprovable either way. This is a topic the devil has used well to divide Christians.

We have what we have and we have to live with what we have.

 

No need to avoid the question

As with all things theological, we can say some Fundamentalists and some Evangelicals agree that God inspired the very words written down by the original authors or their scribes, of which we have reliable and trustworthy copies in the original languages today. And certainly we have folks who would draw distinctions and quibble over nuance.

If you compare the statements of faith concerning the Bible of self professed independent fundamentalist baptists and self professed evangelical baptists what differences do you find?

 

Not much, if any....

 

At the risk of probably offending someone here... I don't think it is that they hold a higher view of Scripture. I think they hold a less realistic and less academic view of Scripture. Or to say it another but different way. I think they hold a much too narrow view of Scripture that does not allow for even the possibility of certain things and studies (composition theory of the OT comes to my mind first). Their view of inspiration spills over into inerrancy as the guiding supposition. I'm just not sure that it can hold up to the facts.

This is my opinion. Much of it I realize is a reaction to fundamentalism which I am coming out of and have a bad taste in my mouth. But since I was in the trenches of that segment, I feel like I have a decent grasp on the mentality and theology of the movement.

 

I am referring to academic in the sense of evangelical academia. The fundie view in my estimation is much too simplistic and doesn't account for the facts that are clearly present in the text.

Again, to say it another way, it is simplistic (chalking up everything to supernatural) and does not account for the presence of the human origin of the Bible. I'm not denying the supernatural origin. I believe Scripture should be interpreted with that in mind above all else (TIS). But as to its composition (inspiration) and that leading to inerrancy, they are too afraid to go liberal to allow certain views b/c there is a tension between the natural and supernatural origin of the Bible. They pick the supernatural extreme and go with it. That leads to their view of inerrancy which doesn't hold water in certain cases.