Do Fundamentalists/Evangelicals Agree on bible Inerrancy/Infallibility?

Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by Yeshua1, Apr 16, 2012.

  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,114
    Likes Received:
    52
    As doctrines of the bible?
     
  2. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good for you, well done! :thumbs:
     
  3. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,219
    Likes Received:
    194
    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.
     
  4. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    True, John. And then you have to define the terms "inerrancy" and "infallibility" since they are defined and delineated differently by different groups.
     
  5. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,219
    Likes Received:
    194
    You're exactly right. They are not synonyms in theology-speak. :thumbs:
     
  6. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    Becasue evangelicals can't fully agree about these terms among themselves :tongue3:

    Rob
     
  7. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,219
    Likes Received:
    194
    So true! Volumes have been written. :laugh:
     
  8. seekingthetruth

    seekingthetruth
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    i agree with you guys

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

    John
     
  9. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,653
    Likes Received:
    158
    Two questions.

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

    seekingthetruth
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    0

    Not a liberals interpretation, thats for sure


    You guys twist the truth to make it fit you

    John
     
  11. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    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.
     
  12. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMHO inerrancy and infallibility in their purest form could only apply to the original mss.
     
  13. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,219
    Likes Received:
    194
    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.
     
  14. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,114
    Likes Received:
    52
    Are you stating here that Fundy tend to hold to a "higher' view on both doctrines then Evangelicals?
     
  15. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,653
    Likes Received:
    158
    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.
     
  16. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    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?
     
  17. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    212
    Not much, if any....
     
  18. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    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.
     
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,114
    Likes Received:
    52
    Think that a reason why Fundy is looked down upon so much is that it is supernatural in its beliefs as regarding the composition of the Bible, and critical thought requires us to make it more "natura" in origin!
     
  20. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    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.
     

Share This Page

Loading...