For those wanting to explore the issue of
biblical inerrancy more deeply, the following article by Mark Mattison of Auburn University is an excellent starting point.
Not exact matches
So, is the concept of
biblical inerrancy nothing
more than a byproduct of modern rationalism?
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.
All of this blue - chip evangelical clout is brought to bear in support of the doctrine of
biblical «
inerrancy» against a growing party of theological compatriots inclined to speak
more of the «authority» of Scripture with regard to «faith and practice.»
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.
It will be interesting to observe whether Pinnock's move from Regent College, which required its faculty to sign an «
inerrancy» statement, to McMaster Divinity College, which has no such stipulation, causes Pinnock to drop the term «inerrant» for something he feels is
more appropriate to the
Biblical record.
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.