Sentences with phrase «inerrancy more»

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

«Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages — the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity — are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.»

With your rabid claims of inerrancy I would think you would handle the scriptures with more respect than that.

Such behavior does more to refute Scripture than any logical argument against inerrancy ever could.

Note that it is not certain that there were six denials, but if we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, there had to have been more than three for it is nearly impossible to get all the references to fit into only three denials.

So, is the concept of biblical inerrancy nothing more than a byproduct of modern rationalism?

I believe in the inerrancy of the autographs (original documents), many people and denominations may hold up only the words in red, or only the Pauline letters and even more hold up the OT law as for Christians today.

The idea that males and females are equal in being was promoted by the early evangelicals until the 20th century, when Enlightenment intellectuals challenged the miracles of Scripture, and more importantly, the inerrancy and authority of Scripture.

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.

There is a discernible tendency among such groups to affirm a more developmental, historically conditioned and «Arminian» doctrine of Scripture that avoids the characteristic vocabulary of the absolutistic and ahistorical «inerrancy» formulation.

Recent revisions of the Wesleyan Theological Society's doctrinal statement reveal a «purifying» process that avoids the characteristic expressions of the «inerrancy» position for vocabulary more at home in its prefundamentalist tradition.

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.»

«11» Non-inerrantist Jack Rogers countered more candidly that he resented the Council's use of the term «historic» to refer to what is in reality a «modern» notion of inerrancy.12

But the issue of «error» (and thus of «inerrancy») follows, rather than precedes, the more primary issue of interpretation.

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.

«Inerrancy,» understood in this way, is «a good deal more flexible than is supposed,» according to Pinnock, «and does not suspend the truth of the gospel upon a single detail, as is so often charged.

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.

Yet it is this very process of rational justification that makes fundamentalism a very modern phenomenon, one that sets it at odds with the more ancient tradition of inerrancy found within the Church.»

In the process, Barr exposes other foibles of more recent efforts to maintain that tradition of interpretation: a tendency toward specialization in historical and linguistic cognate fields that avoids theological issues and ironically reduces them to matters archaeological and historical; a style of «maximal conservativism» that approximates earlier positions taken on dogmatic grounds by a current process of selectively appropriating the most conservative elements of a variety of more critical positions; a surprising (and again ironic) tendency to offer «naturalistic» reinterpretations of the miraculous within the highly supernaturalistic inerrancy framework; and so on.

Words like «inerrancy» and «authority» and «inspiration» will drop out of use, and we will instead begin to hear more about «redemption» and «reconciliation.»

While I still hold to a basic idea of inerrancy and inspiration, I suspect that where I might be headed with this view will lead to a lot more flexibility on the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy, which many fundamentalist Christians will not like one bit...

My fancy 100,000 word answer turned out to be little more than a long way of saying, «I have no idea how to reconcile the violence of God in the Old Testament with the self - sacrificial love of Jesus Christ in the New while still maintaining a conservative view of inspiration and inerrancy.»

This eventually led me to become a more liberal Christian who didn't hold to the inerrancy of the Bible.»

I discuss some of these things more in other blog posts on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

I personally believe in inerrancy, but my view is a bit more nuanced than others who also hold to it...

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.

Then, at the very time national newsmagazines spoke of «the year of the evangelical,» Christianity Today turned more inward than outward by channeling all theological issues into the inerrancy debate.

I struggled with questions about religious pluralism, the destiny of the un-evangelized, the Problem of Evil, the inerrancy of the Bible, and much more.

Infallibility at the core of the institution or inerrancy at the core if not in the entire text — the psychological gains of these claims are more or less the same.