Sentences with phrase «as biblical inerrancy»

Yet they largely agreed with the fundamentalists on such questions as biblical inerrancy, the Virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Jesus.

Not exact matches

Missouri Synod theologians had traditionally affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible, and, although such a term can mean many things, in practice it meant certain rather specific things: harmonizing of the various biblical narratives; a somewhat ahistorical reading of the Bible in which there was little room for growth or development of theological understanding; a tendency to hold that God would not have used within the Bible literary forms such as myth, legend, or saga; an unwillingness to reckon with possible creativity on the part of the evangelists who tell the story of Jesus in the Gospels or to consider what it might mean that they write that story from a post-Easter perspective; a general reluctance to consider that the canons of historical exactitude which we take as givens might have been different for the biblical authors.

Biblical Inerrancy is loosely defined as the idea that the Bible is without error.

As we learned in the discussion on Inerrancy, the process of copying the Greek and Hebrew texts caused errors to creep into the biblical manuscripts over time.

But such an understanding can not serve as a basis for Biblical inerrancy.

During the debate over «biblical inerrancy» that raged among evangelicalism for several years in the late 1970s, I remember someone observing that Harold Lindsell's 1976 book, The Battle for the Bible, which pretty much got that debate going, was more a theory of institutional change than it was about theology as such.

Evangelicals have not always noted the complexity of the hermeneutical task; indeed, sometimes they have let themselves speak as if everything immediately becomes plain and obvious for believers in biblical inerrancy, to such an extent that uncertainties about interpretation never arise for them.

New loyalties are emerging as such insights are combined with the values young evangelicals find in the biblical interpretations of William Stringfellow, Jacques Ellul, John Howard Yoder, Dale Brown and others who do not share the «inerrancy» assumption.

To critics of biblical inerrancy, it sounds like we Christians are making the same argument as this man uses: Is this what we do with Scripture?

(7) I contend for biblical inerrancy because acknowledgment of Scripture as totally true and trustworthy is integral to biblical authority as I understand it.

Conflating Biblical authority, inspiration, and inerrancy, they have turned «inerrancy» into evangelicalism's dogmatic bench mark.12 «I But to view «inerrancy» as the ground for judging evangelicalism is to reverse Biblical priorities.

So prominent has been this debate that outsiders have often regarded evangelicals as holding, not to a distinct view of the sole authority of Scripture (as was argued in the previous chapter), but to a belief in Biblical inerrancy.2

Even such spokesmen for Biblical inerrancy as Bernard Ramm, Carl Henry, and Clark Pinnock (i. e., those willing to make that inference) recognize that this is an unwise theological reduction.13 For it is to confuse one of several possible tests of evangelical consistency with the test of evangelical authenticity.

I have a hunch that one explanation accounts for the silence of evangelical biblical scholars more than any other: the basic fear that their findings, as they deal with the text of Scripture, will conflict with the popular understanding of what inerrancy entails.

«Complete Infallibilists» reject «inerrancy» as a helpful term for describing the total trustworthiness of the Biblical writers» witness, substituting the word «infallible» in its place.

From Enns: «As a biblical scholar who deals with the messy parts of the Bible (i.e., the Old Testament), I came away with one recurring impression, a confirmation of my experience in these matters: mainstream American evangelicalism, as codified in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, doesn't really know what to do with the Bible as a historical text.&raquAs a biblical scholar who deals with the messy parts of the Bible (i.e., the Old Testament), I came away with one recurring impression, a confirmation of my experience in these matters: mainstream American evangelicalism, as codified in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, doesn't really know what to do with the Bible as a historical textbiblical scholar who deals with the messy parts of the Bible (i.e., the Old Testament), I came away with one recurring impression, a confirmation of my experience in these matters: mainstream American evangelicalism, as codified in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, doesn't really know what to do with the Bible as a historical text.&raquas codified in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, doesn't really know what to do with the Bible as a historical textBiblical Inerrancy, doesn't really know what to do with the Bible as a historical text.&raquas a historical text.»

As one might expect, however, Barr is at his best when he returns again and again to his central theme — a critique of the style of biblical interpretation that follows from the fundamentalist commitment to a doctrine of the «inerrancy of Scripture.»

It will continue as long as those without the Spirit of Christ speak as though they speak the oracles of God maybe what we need is not a different view if Biblical inerrancy but better discernment of man's errancy.

The vocal insistence of the religious right on biblical «creationism» and such doctrines as the inerrancy of the Bible is likely to create a one - sided impression of the Christian faith and to turn away people who are not aware of other Christian views.

Fundamentalism has been characterized by (1) vigorous resistance to developments in the world of science that appeared to contradict the Biblical text; (2) Biblical literalism; (3) individualism; (4) moralism; and (5) insistence on belief in certain «fundamentals» such as the inerrancy of the Scriptures, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, and his second coming.

Balmer recognized, though, that the Dallas commitment to dispensationalism reflected a more basic commitment to a «high» view of scriptural authority and a clearcut view of biblical inspiration, so he had set out as well a few of the writings of noted «inerrancy» crusader and Dallas professor Norman Geisler.