Do Fundamentalists/Evangelicals Agree on bible Inerrancy/Infallibility?

[Yeshua1]

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.

ANY of those cases/examples in mind?

 

[Greektim]

[/COLOR]

ANY of those cases/examples in mind?

Do the gospel accounts record the exact words of Jesus or the exact voice of Jesus?

Did they possible use the same words and put them in different contexts with different meanings?

 

[John of Japan]

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.

I don't know what type of fundamentalism you came out of, but this blanket statement is an over-generalization. The viw you delineate is true in the KJVO circles of fundamentalism but not in other circles of fundamentalism. For example, when I was at BJU (1972) I asked my Greek prof who would make the choice between synonyms in the writing of Scripture, the Holy Spirit or the human writer. He said the human writer would.

BJU (the largest fundamentalist school) typically takes this position. See the writings of BJU prof Stewart Custer for example. Maranatha BBC, Northland BBC, Central, Detroit and Calvary Baptist theological seminaries would all take the view that the human and divine writers of Scripture should be equally examined.

My grandfather's book, Our God-Breathed Book the Bible, also takes this position. He does use the word "dictation" when describing the process of inspiration, following the view of seminal bibliology author Louis Gaussen, but spends two chapters examining that term and showing why "mechanical dictation" is a term used by liberals to mock the doctrine of verbal-plenary inspiration (the fundamental view of fundamentalists).

Concerning inerrancy, this is just as much (perhaps more) a New Evangelical doctrine as it is a fundamentalist doctrine. The major battle in the SBC on inerrancy that began in the 1970s was led by men like Harold Lindsell (The Battle for the Bible, The Bible in the Balance) and W. A. Criswell (Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True). As far as I know, neither man called himself a fundamentalist.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't know what type of fundamentalism you came out of, but this blanket statement is an over-generalization. The viw you delineate is true in the KJVO circles of fundamentalism but not in other circles of fundamentalism. For example, when I was at BJU (1972) I asked my Greek prof who would make the choice between synonyms in the writing of Scripture, the Holy Spirit or the human writer. He said the human writer would.

BJU (the largest fundamentalist school) typically takes this position. See the writings of BJU prof Stewart Custer for example. Maranatha BBC, Northland BBC, Central, Detroit and Calvary Baptist theological seminaries would all take the view that the human and divine writers of Scripture should be equally examined.

My grandfather's book, Our God-Breathed Book the Bible, also takes this position. He does use the word "dictation" when describing the process of inspiration, following the view of seminal bibliology author Louis Gaussen, but spends two chapters examining that term and showing why "mechanical dictation" is a term used by liberals to mock the doctrine of verbal-plenary inspiration (the fundamental view of fundamentalists).

Concerning inerrancy, this is just as much (perhaps more) a New Evangelical doctrine as it is a fundamentalist doctrine. The major battle in the SBC on inerrancy that began in the 1970s was led by men like Harold Lindsell (The Battle for the Bible, The Bible in the Balance) and W. A. Criswell (Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True). As far as I know, neither man called himself a fundamentalist.

think that per the Bible itself, conservative Evangelical and Fundamentalists see it pretty much the same!

do see differences between Evangelicals taking "modern critical" thinking an applying it towards the scriptures!

 

[John of Japan]

think that per the Bible itself, conservative Evangelical and Fundamentalists see it pretty much the same!

do see differences between Evangelicals taking "modern critical" thinking an applying it towards the scriptures!

Yes. Fundamentalism started out as partly a protest against the higher criticism of the day. Therefore, evangelical scholars are much more likely to look favorably on the various "criticisms" such as form criticism (a fundamentalist no-no) and the like.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. Fundamentalism started out as partly a protest against the higher criticism of the day. Therefore, evangelical scholars are much more likely to look favorably on the various "criticisms" such as form criticism (a fundamentalist no-no) and the like.

seems that much of current evangelical scholarship wants to maintain the Bible as being a rebvelation from god, but NOT FULLY inerrant, which tends to open the door up to a limited infallibility for today!

 

[John of Japan]

seems that much of current evangelical scholarship wants to maintain the Bible as being a rebvelation from god, but NOT FULLY inerrant, which tends to open the door up to a limited infallibility for today!

Creeping liberalism. :tonofbricks:

 

[HankD]

seems that much of current evangelical scholarship wants to maintain the Bible as being a rebvelation from god, but NOT FULLY inerrant, which tends to open the door up to a limited infallibility for today!

There are also other ramifcations which cloud the issue of inerrancy/infallibility:

e.g. Genesis Chapter 1 - Are the "days" of Genesis 1 literal sidereal (sometimes called "solar") days or symbolic of a period of unquantified time?

HankD

 

[Greektim]

There are also other ramifcations which cloud the issue of inerrancy/infallibility:

e.g. Genesis Chapter 1 - Are the "days" of Genesis 1 literal sidereal (sometimes called "solar") days or symbolic of a period of unquantified time?

HankD

I would say that the question of inerrancy is a result of a non-literal gen. 1 interpretation but not a cause to affect a view of inerrancy.

And to speak to Yeshua1... there are various views and definition of inerrancy (even "full inerrancy). So one can claim to be evangelical and a full-inerrantist but still hold to a different view of inerrancy than a fundamentalist.

 

[HankD]

I would say that the question of inerrancy is a result of a non-literal gen. 1 interpretation but not a cause to affect a view of inerrancy.

True, and I agree, but others might disagree with us.

If I were involved in a pastoral search or an ordination I would ask about the meaning of a creation "day" in Genesis 1 even if inerrancy/infallibility were espoused.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

But isn't the Biblical view of inerrancy afirm to us that the bible, in original manuscripts/books, were without ANY errors, and fully truthfully in ALL that was affirmed, regardless of discussing areas of history, theology, statements etc? As the main contention I have with current Evagelistic thoughts in this is NOT towards seeing multiple sources, etc, BUT that there is a tendancy to accomodatecurrent thought too much, as in ending up with a final product perhaps NOT FULLY trustworthy in all that it touches!

Also think hank hit on a valid point, as some of modern evangelical thoughts as regarding the BioBible seem to have its authority based NOT upon the basis of beingthe word of god to us, but to reinterprete its message in current culture waya!

So 2 problems here... Inerracy and spiritual authority!

 

[Greektim]

But isn't the Biblical view of inerrancy afirm to us that the bible, in original manuscripts/books, were without ANY errors, and fully truthfully in ALL that was affirmed, regardless of discussing areas of history, theology, statements etc? As the main contention I have with current Evagelistic thoughts in this is NOT towards seeing multiple sources, etc, BUT that there is a tendancy to accomodatecurrent thought too much, as in ending up with a final product perhaps NOT FULLY trustworthy in all that it touches!

Also think hank hit on a valid point, as some of modern evangelical thoughts as regarding the BioBible seem to have its authority based NOT upon the basis of beingthe word of god to us, but to reinterprete its message in current culture waya!

So 2 problems here... Inerracy and spiritual authority!

"Biblical view" is a stretch since the Bible never clarifies what you listed so neatly. Not that I disagree, but we need to realize that in this subject we are going beyond Scripture (not a bad thing, but we need to be aware). This awareness causes us not to be so hard-nosed and rigid. We should allow for possibility and even plausible scenarios for things like history and retelling accounts.

Another issue is the concept of original manuscript. What if the form we have now today took years, centuries even, to compile and compose? Which is the inspired manuscript? Just a ponder.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The word Evangelical has now become so broad as to have lost its meaning almost entirely. However, the historic Reformed confessions have the highest regard for Scripture as can be seen in the 1689 Baptist Confession:-

Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scriptures
1._____ The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
( 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, 31; Ephesians 2:20; Romans 1:19-21; Romans 2:14,15; Psalms 19:1-3; Hebrews 1:1; Proverbs 22:19-21; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 1:19,20 )

4._____ The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.
( 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 John 5:9 )

5._____We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
( John 16:13,14; 1 Corinthians 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27)

6._____The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
( 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Galatians 1:8,9; John 6:45; 1 Corinthians 2:9-12; 1 Corinthians 11:13, 14; 1 Corinthians 14:26,40)

7._____All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.
( 2 Peter 3:16; Psalms 19:7; Psalms 119:130)

8._____The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
( Romans 3:2; Isaiah 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39; 1 Corinthians 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 28; Colossians 3:16 )

9._____The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.
( 2 Peter 1:20, 21; Acts 15:15, 16)

It will be seen that the issue of texts is not approached here because there was no dissension at the time from the view that the T.R. was the word of God (tho' men knew about the Johannine Comma etc.). I personally have no problem preaching from the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV (1984); they are all the word of God to me. Introducing that issue into confession and statements of faith only causes confusion IMO.

Steve

 

[Yeshua1]

Think fundamentalist/Evangelical pretty much same way until the 20th century, when SOME Evangelicals decided to adopt the more critical theologies and "modern views" regarding scriptures brought in by the liberal side of Christianity!

 

[FundyPat]

Evangelicals don't even believe that the infallible Word of God exists.

It does, it's called the KJV. But the majority of the apostates on this board don't believe that.