Sentences with phrase «in biblical inerrancy»

Strictly, I think you could believe in biblical inerrancy, be a staunch nationalist, and be opposed to homosexuality and abortion, and nonetheless be an enthusiastic supporter of our rights to use human enhancement technologies.

I was raised to believe in biblical inerrancy and taught and preached it myself.

He does not mention belief in Biblical inerrancy or salvation by faith.

However to say that without faith in Biblical inerrancy everything is «standing on top of shifting sand» isn't necessarily accurate.

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

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.

Not exact matches

There are MANY (snuck in another all caps... grin) great references which totally destroy the «answer» men's claims of biblical inerrancy, but I'll just give you one for now.

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.

Downing takes it a step further and says, «it is no coincidence that the concept of biblical inerrancy developed in nineteenth - century England almost simultaneously with Darwin's idea of natural selection: both were influenced by Enlightenment empiricism.»

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.

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.

The watchword for such conservatives was biblical inerrancy, and this became the dominant theme in their successful effort to transform the theological seminaries and mission agencies of the denomination.

I utterly reject Biblical inerrancy http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/on-the-inspiration-of-the-bible-and-other-books-von-der-interpretation-der-bibel-und-anderen-buchern/ but find it interesting that this view of the afterlife is the most likely interpretation of the passages, provided one consider the Old Testament imagery in its own context.

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.

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.»

The great fence of «inerrancy» that was supposed to have assured a «biblical faith» seems to have failed in this area.

Although Jewett chaired the committee which formulated Fuller's revised Statement of Faith and recognized the need to move the discussion concerning Biblical authority from the issue of inerrancy to that of interpretation, the argument in his book is inadequate at this very point.

In his earlier writing, Pinnock's Biblically derived qualifications concerning inerrancy were based on the facts that modern historiography was unknown in Biblical times, that writers use the language of simple observation (e. g., the sunrise), that figurative and mythological language is used (IsIn his earlier writing, Pinnock's Biblically derived qualifications concerning inerrancy were based on the facts that modern historiography was unknown in Biblical times, that writers use the language of simple observation (e. g., the sunrise), that figurative and mythological language is used (Isin Biblical times, that writers use the language of simple observation (e. g., the sunrise), that figurative and mythological language is used (Isa.

«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 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 textBiblical Inerrancy, doesn't really know what to do with the Bible as a historical text.»

Some of my smartest friends have given up on Christianity altogether because they were under the impression (from both secular critics and advocates of biblical inerrancy) that the Bible must be without conflict or inconsistency or error in order to be relevant.

In other news, Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy releases next week and looks like a book we'll need to discuss!

These beliefs, in reaction to evolutionary theories and Biblical criticism, included the verbal inerrancy of scripture, the virgin birth, a substitutionary theory of the atonement and the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.

A few years ago, in a moment of lonely desperation, I googled something having to do with «Christians against biblical inerrancy» (for some reason you were on the first or second page of search results...) because I was trying to find out if there was anyone else who was thinking about the Scriptures in a different way from what I had encountered.

Biblical inerrancy is debated in America's largest denomination with the same vigor, and in almost the precise terms, that it was in the 1890s Charles Briggs trial.

In other words, if biblical If inerrancy is not true, then God is not God.

Moreover, by failing to ground their assertions about scripture in a logically prior doctrine of biblical inerrancy, the narrative theologians undermine their purported desire to uphold the unity and authority of scripture.

In this conservative mood the oldline churches resurrect issues and alienations they thought they had put behind them: issues of creedal subscription, of science and evolution, biblical inerrancy, and moral casuistry.

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.