Conservative theology, of course, adapted and embraced secular values, too. Fundamentalist embracing of segregation, along with fundamentalist indifference to economic exploitation and injustice were a wholesale rejection of the calls to justice of the OT prophets and of Christ's call to love of neighbor.

Fundamentalists didn't merely label homosexuality a sin, they attributed AIDS as God's divine retribution and often opposed the use of church funds to combat AIDS.

Fundamentalists' war with science seriously undermined any attempt to re-claim a more orthodox faith. I think Dr. Jackson makes that point himself.

As I am neither orthodox nor fundamentalist, I wasn't surprised that on one "test" I heavily identified with the emergent/emerging church -- scoring in the same range as both Wesleyan and Catholic identification.

I don't anticipate Christianity ever speaking in a wholly united voice, but it will have to find more in common if it is to transform society in positive ways.

Speaking as one who (probably not surprisingly) graduated from two "fundamentalist" style post-secondary schools, I can say from experience that the doctrinal issues that characterized what we've always called the "hyper-fundy" side of the movement were not part of the educational program at either school.

Liberty University was not one of those places, and neither was Word of Life Bible Institute, in terms of how they taught their students to function in the real world. They had (and enforced) conduct rules for students and faculty, but those rules existed to maintain a certain atmosphere at the schools themselves - kind of like "Bob Jones Light." :)

That being said, there is something to be said for maintaining doctrinal standards, particularly with respect to core beliefs: in other words, what do you have to agree with or adhere to in order to properly call yourself a Christian (as opposed to distinguishing yourself from a jew or muslim or atheist or agnostic or whatever).

What I was taught, and what I have since examined and reaffirmed, is that there are certain fundamental core beliefs, the exclusion of any one of which leads to legitimate questions about the nature of someone's faith. Those would be: the inerrancy of the Scripture (old and new testaments not including the Apocrypha or extra-canonical texts); the deity of Jesus Christ; the historical fact of the virgin birth; Jesus' literal/physical death/burial/resurrection; Jesus' substitutionary atonement (i.e., His death, burial and resurrection were the substitutionary payment accepted and ratified by God the Father that atoned for sin once and for all); justification by faith; and, the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Those are "fundamentals" because they determine whether or not you can maintain fellowship with a body of believers (i.e., be a member of the same church, worship togther, etc.). The distinctions are fairly straightforward: how can you honestly agree with someone in prayer if the other person doesn't acknowledge the deity of Jesus Christ and you do?

The other (really valuable) thing we were taught was that there are absolutes, convictions and preferences. If you look at what the Bible has to say, you will find absolutes - issues on which the Bible is clear and explicit. In such instances, disregard of those commands/statements is clearly against Scripture and would be considered disobedience. The best example that comes to mind is "thou shalt not commit adultery." Not a lot of room for interpretation there. Either you obey or you don't.

You will also find issues in which what the Bible says can be interpreted in more than one way, consistent with the rest of Scripture, and people reach different conclusions about what they should do in response. Those would be convictions that each person is entitled to hold for himself or herself.

By way of example, some people choose to not drink alcohol based on their convictions about how they are to act - I'm not one of them, but that's me. It's not a sin, but it's a matter of personal choice and adherence to the principle of self-control: if you can drink without getting out of control, fine. Just remember that the Bible says to not get drunk but to be controlled by the Spirit (the implication is that in the way that a drunk is controlled by alcohol, be controlled by the Spirit).

Then there are issues on which the Bible is either silent or what it has to say is not a direct command or admonition. In those instances, people who claim to be followers of Christ need to act and treat each other in love.

Frankly, I don't see how putting those principles into action is a problem, nor do I see how adhering to those principles makes a fundamentalist subject to internal implausibility. It's a perfectly coherent, inherently consistent and cohesive system of theology and behavior.

I most certainly don't ascribe to the idea that Scripture is inerrant. I do believe it "contains all things necessary for salvation" and that it is the "inspired Word of God." I also believe in the primacy of Scripture, but only as brought to life by reason, tradition and experience.

I also believe that Jesus Christ is the "Savior of the World and the Lord of all Creation." On the other hand, I find orthodox and/or fundamentalist theology too limiting in its understanding of how people are saved through Christ. I am not a univeralist on the one hand. On the other hand, I don't rule out God's saving grace in Christ working through other religions according to the knowledge of faith imparted by God. One of my seminary professors lectured a lot about "finding Christ in the culture" and I think there is much truth to that. I think it is more important to believe in, live and accept the essence of Christ (a spiritual confession) than to legalistically confess Christ. On the other hand, I reject the idea of one being saved by works.

I guess I would place my views as neo-orthodox. I do believe in the incarnation/virgin birth, in miracles and healings, in the physical resurrection and in Christ's return. I believe in the atonement, but reject any legalistic theories of substitutionary atonement that pretend to be all-inclusive statements of excatly how Christ's death on the cross specifically saves. I also reject any substitutionary theory that assumes an "elect" because instead, Christ suffered for all that those who repent and freely accept Christ are saved. I think there is a "mystery of faith" that is awesome but not providing or understanding of all the workings of God's grace in that we "see as through a glass darkly" until we shall see face to face.

"On the other hand, I find orthodox and/or fundamentalist theology too limiting in its understanding of how people are saved through Christ."

In what way?

I have many close Jewish friends. Traditional Christianity teaches that they will perish and/or be condemned to hell. I don't have the wisdom to make such a pronunciation. Jesus Christ is the Savior of the World, but God will save whom he will save.

So strong was the anti-Semitism where I grew up that many adult Christians suggested that I not associate with Jews.

Traditional Christianity teaches that anyone who dies without Christ is condemned to hell - how is it any more offensive if it's applied to one's friends or to people on the other side of the world that we've never met?

The point isn't that people are in some neutral "safe" zone, and God pointedly singles them out for eternal damnation. It's that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God - the miracle is that He provided a means of reconciliation to Himself and allows us to share it.

I heard an interesting discussion of this subject on the radio today. There are verses in the Bible that talk about degrees of punishment in the hereafter that were interpreted as providing a lesser degree of punishment for those who have never heard the Gospel specifically, and a greater punishment for those who have been inundated with the Gospel and expressly rejected it. The same speaker talked about babies (born and unborn) who die before reaching an age of understanding.

It was a good discussion, consistent with the Bible's teaching, and the point to be drawn from that is that creation shows the existence of God, so that people are without excuse when it comes to condemnation for not believing in Jesus. Cf. Romans 1.

The difficulty is that many people don't want to change their own beliefs, even when confronted with what the Bible says. Instead of changing their beliefs, they decide that God couldn't really mean what He says, and so they reject His word.

I think I made this point in another post: if you choose to believe a plane is going to Chicago when it's really going to L.A., all the sincerity and logic in the world isn't going to change the ultimate destination.

Here's a better question: What if God's word is 100% right, just like it says it is?

"So strong was the anti-Semitism where I grew up that many adult Christians suggested that I not associate with Jews."

I've always wondered whether a Christian suggesting something like that is even in conformance with Christ. Is there a command for Christians to not associate with sinners or non-Christians? I thought actually that it is quite the opposite; I believe to some there is almost a duty to evangelize, let alone to forgive what you might believe to be sinful in that person. I see similar sentiments by some about not associating with homosexuals. It's not as if homosexuality or being Jewish is contagious and that you could somehow do something sinful yourself because of the influence.

Everyone has a different perception of Jesus, but one characteristic that comes through prominently to me is his patient understanding, especially if he was actually divine. I can't imagine him trying to convince a Jewish person that his gospel is the truth and that they risk damnation not believing it, that Jewish person ultimately refusing, and then Jesus ostracizing that person or condemning them.

My problem with Biblical inerrancy is that I can't see how it can be reconciled with the known history of how the Bible became the book it is today. The idea that every single person who has influenced the editing and translation of the Bible has been guided by God to be incapable of error just doesn't seem very likely.

Joel,

It seems to me you may ascribing some things to orthodoxy unfairly. In particular, the notion that one must be a Christian to be saved. Peter Kreeft has written in "Fundamentals of the Faith" that God doesn't send you to hell for failing his theology exam. And I have heard sermons in a very orthodox Roman Catholic Church making the same point. Kreeft's somewhat simplified view, in line with Catholic teaching, is that the key is to accept God - not necessarily cognizant of Christianity. Christ will do the rest.

While that (salvation only for Christians) may be a traditional view and a fundamentalist view, I don't think it's fair to call it an orthodox view.

Jacob,

Because Dr. Jackson seemed to be addressing only the Protestant faith, that is all I was addressing when I referred to orthodoxy.

I might point out, however, that in 2000, the Vatican put out a statement that non-Catholic Christians have a "gravely deficient chance at salvation." In that instance, the Catholic Church wasn't even addressing the possibility of salvation for non-Christians (Muslims, Jews, etc.). I think it is fair to say that Catholics are not entirely of one mind on who can be saved, but that the Catholic church has greatly qualified the church fathers's statement that "there is no salvation outside the Church." I would agree, however, that in general, the modern Catholic church has a broader views of God's saving grace in Christ than do orthodox Protestants as a whole and without a doubt moreso than Protestant fundamentalists or even most conservative evangelicals.

I also recognize there are great distinctions between fundamentalism and orthodoxy. I would describe myself as neo-orthodox.

"My problem with Biblical inerrancy is that I can't see how it can be reconciled with the known history of how the Bible became the book it is today. The idea that every single person who has influenced the editing and translation of the Bible has been guided by God to be incapable of error just doesn't seem very likely."

First, if by "the known history of how the Bible became the book it is today" you're referring to what has been taught as the JEDP theory, the theory itself is fundamentally and fatally flawed, and no serious Bible student believes the theory anymore.

Second, if God is God as described in the Old Testament, the premise that "very single person who has influenced the editing and translation of the Bible has been guided by God to be incapable of error" is not only likely but logical.

The trouble with positions like that is that those holding them begin from a premise that the Bible can't be true, and that it is impossible for God to protect the accuracy of His word - both of which are presuppositions that wrongly influence the conclusions usually drawn from them.

"Here's a better question: What if God's word is 100% right, just like it says it is?"

It certainly gives the omnipotence paradox a new meaning.

Foltz, it wasn't intended to raise any paradox at all. It's just that discussions on this topic generally start from a presupposition that the Bible is riddled with errors (whether many or few depends on the participants), so it's necessary to reevaluate that presupposition to have a meaningful discussion about what the Bible has to say.

lawyerchik1,

Those Bible students who agree that the Bible must be inerrant and therefore share your beliefs thinks the theory is correct. But they by definition are incapable of objectively considering the issue. The JEDP theory is still actually strongly believed outside of those circles. And it is far from the only serious question as to what should and shouldn't be in the Bible, how accurate translations have been and what simple copying errors crept in over the centuries before the printing press.

The point, Jim, is that the two positions are mutually exclusive. Those who hold either will never agree with the other, and so you end up either agreeing to disagree or everybody takes their marbles and goes home.

For someone who has bought into the JEDP theory, and possibly never examined the Bible in any other context, it's a valid question to ask him to consider the possibility that he is wrong. I've already considered the JEDP theory, and it's deficient on so many levels - revisiting it again will add nothing to the discussion. Your point, though perhaps an accurate assessment of the intellectual stalemate, is not persuasive.

Joel Thomas wrote:

I most certainly don't ascribe to the idea that Scripture is inerrant. I do believe it ... is the "inspired Word of God."

Without getting into too deep of a discussion, I'm wondering how you reconcile these two statements. Did God inspire Paul to write his epistles, but Paul wrote some of it down wrong? Or do you mean "inspired" more in the sense that a beautiful sunset might inspire an artist? Or do you believe that (as Jim S supposes) copying errors have introduced errancy into Scripture?

It seems to me to be more than copying errors. Some of the "history" contained in the Bible as to when kings ruled or events happened doesn't match historical records; there are also inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts as to certain events; such are not copying errors, in my opinion. Also, the creation story(ies) in Genesis contradicts itself as to the order of creation. The creation story also clearly envisions a flat earth, which isn't supported by science. As well, the writings of Paul and James on the question of faith are not entirely consistent, in my view. I don't think these are copying errors, I think they are a result of two oral traditions handed down and placed side-by-side in the case of the creation story and a slightly different understanding of faith and works as between Paul and James, for instance.

Some of the "history" contained in the Bible as to when kings ruled or events happened doesn't match historical records; there are also inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts as to certain events; such are not copying errors, in my opinion."

Your statements presume that "historical records" are complete and accurate, which they aren't.

"Also, the creation story(ies) in Genesis contradicts itself as to the order of creation. The creation story also clearly envisions a flat earth, which isn't supported by science."

Not true - the distinctions between chapters 1 & 2 are not irreconcilable, any more than a summary of events is not a "contradiction" but simply a summary, followed by a more detailed accounting. There is absolutely nothing in Genesis that "envisions" a flat earth; where do you get that conclusion?

"As well, the writings of Paul and James on the question of faith are not entirely consistent, in my view."

In what sense?

Not to skip out on or to dodge questions raised, but I'm on my way out of town for an overnight trip, so I've run out of time, even as this is my day off.

Eric, one way to have the Bible be more directly God-inspired than the sunset/artist model, but still avoid a commitment to the Bible's being literally true, is to hold that (i) we have exactly the text(s) God wants us to have, but (ii) God does not intend for us to take it as literally true. It's not hard, after all, to make a case for the plausibility of the non-literalness of the Bible (the sorts of tensions & apparent contradictions just discussed; Jesus' choosing to speak in parables; etc.)

Now, depending on what one means by "inerrancy", this position may still validate an inerrancy thesis -- if (some of) the Bible is not to be understood literally, then it is not to be understood as making literal errors, either.

If I'm not mistaken, the Orthodox Jews believe the first five came directly from God to Moses. If you look at all the old testament prophets, they say something like "the word of the Lord came to". The word translated by "given by the inspiration of God" literally means "God breathed". For the Christian, Peter and Paul validate each others writings as scripture and Jesus quotes from many old testament passages.
Add to that the fact that the copy of Isaaih found in 1948 is almost identical to the Hebrew texts used and translated from today. Doesn't prove God dictated the Bible letter for letter but He might have.
LC; You lost me at inspiration from God on translators.

Sorry, Mike - didn't mean to confuse things. I don't see an inconsistency in the position that God, being God, can control circumstances relating to translations, etc., but I will agree that inerrancy goes to the original manuscripts.

I'm a little confused with Philosopher's aversion to "a commitment to the Bible's being literally true." Is it a problem with passages that are described or identified as being prophecy, visions and/or parables that creates the objection to the Bible's inerrancy, or is it the historical events recorded in the Bible like the world-wide flood, Jonah's being swallowed by a great fish, or creation?

LC: What confuses me is Christians who by definition have put all their eggs in one basket, and that one woven of the promises of God found in the Bible, can put this much trust in promises made in a book they don't believe entirely reliable.

"can put this much trust in promises made in a book they don't believe entirely reliable" -

I'm not sure I understand. Inerrancy in the original texts is not inconsistent with the hand of God on the translation process, because God promised to preserve His word (Psa. 12:6-7; Mat. 24:35).

There are those, for example, who think that the King James Version is the only inspired version, and I don't agree - not because I believe that God did not have His hand on the translators, or that it isn't a reliable text, but because I know how translation works, and I know that there are documented transcription errors in the King James Bible that, while amusing to someone who knows the Bible, make it a difficult argument to say that the translation itself is consistently reliable and therefore truly inerrant.

I did a Google search for a list of some of the more humorous errors, and provide it here:

(1) 1611, Great "He" Bible, (Ruth 3:15, "and he went into the city.")
(2) 1611, Great "She" Bible, (Ruth 3:15), "and she went into the city.")
(3) 1611, "Judas" Bible, (Mat. 26:36, "Judas" for "Jesus.")
(4) 1631, "Wicked" Bible, (Ex. 20:14, omits the "not.")
(5) 1638, "Forgotten Sins" Bible, (Luke 7:47).
(6) 1641, "More Sea" Bible, (Rev. 21:1, "There was more sea.")
(7) 1653, "Unrighteous" or Field's Bible, (1 Cor. 6:9, "unrighteous shall inherit.")
(8) 1702, "Printers" Bible, (Ps. 119:161, "Printers have persecuted.")
(9) 1711, "Profit" Bible, (Isa. 57:12, "shall profit" instead of "shall not profit.")
(10) 1716, "Sin On" Bible, (John 5:14, "sin on more" for "sin no more.")
(11) 1717, "Vinegar" Bible, (Luke 20, "parable of the Vinegar" instead of "Vineyard."
(12) 1746, "Sting" Bible, (Mark 7:37, "sting of his tongue" not "string."
(13) 1792, "Denial" Bible, (Lk. 22:34, Philip denies Jesus instead of Peter.
(14) 1801, "Murderers" Bible, (Jude 1:16, "murderers" used instead of "murmurers."
(15) 1802, "Discharge" Bible, (1 Tim. 5:21, "I discharge" instead of "I charge."
(16) 1804, "Lions" Bible, (1 Kings 7:19, "out of thy lions" instead of "loins."
(17) 1805, "To-Remain" Bible, (Gal. 4:29, "to remain" inserted instead of a comma.
(18) 1806, "Standing Fishes" Bible, (Ezek. 47:10, "the fishes shall stand" instead of "fishers."
(19) 1807, "Ears to ear" Bible, (Mat. 13:43, "ears to ear" instead of "to hear."
(20) 1810, "Wife-Hater" Bible, (Lk. 14:26, "hate not . . . and his own wife" instead of "life.")
(21) 1823, "Camels" Bible, (Gen. 24:61, "Rebekah arose, and her camels" instead of "damsels."
(22) 1829, "Large Family" Bible, (Isa. 66:9, "not cease to bring to birth" instead of "not cause to bring forth."
(23) undated, "Fool" Bible, Psalm 14:1, "The fool hath said in his heart there is a God" instead of "there is no God."

Were those errors? Yeah. Were they discovered and corrected? Yes. Is it really possible to have a "perfect" Bible? I think we're close. My personal opinion is that the New American Standard Bible is the most accurate and literal translation, and as a result of my opinion on that translation, I would say that it is fully reliable.

The 1973-era New American Standard Bible is considered by nearly all evangelical Christian scholars and translators today, to be the most accurate, word-for-word translation of the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures into the modern English language that has ever been produced. It remains the most popular version among theologians, professors, scholars, and seminary students today.

I think I addressed your question as I understood it? If I missed it, though, let me know.

lawyerchik1, my point was that you are incapable of analyzing anything concerning the Bible in anything resembling an objective manner. It's inerrant according to your faith and your interpretations and that's all there is to it in your worldview and that of those people who agree with you. Of course the JEDP theory and any other theory that doesn't come to the conclusion that it is the inerrant word of God is deficient in your view.

You take my current position as a lack of objectivity without allowing for the possibility that I actually studied the theory at Baylor University as presented by "true believers", and their teaching didn't make sense.

Just one more question, Jim: how is my adherence to biblical inerrancy is any less objective than someone who buys into JEDP theory and any other theory that doesn't come to the conclusion that it is the inerrant word of God?