The Battle For The Bible [Harold Lindsell, Calvary Chapel Publishing] on Amazon .com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Is the Bible inerrant or not? Author. Harold Lindsell (December 22, – January 15, ) was an evangelical Christian author and scholar, and one of the founding members of Fuller Theological Seminary. He is best known for his book The Battle for the Bible. LAGUNA HILLS, Calif. (BP)–Harold Lindsell, a former. editor of Christianity Today magazine whose book, “The. Battle for the Bible,” told.
|Country:||Central African Republic|
|Published (Last):||2 October 2007|
|PDF File Size:||3.85 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.39 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This article is printed here from the Discerner by permission.
One of the doctrines most precious to Bible-believing Christians is the doctrine batgle inerrancy. Essentially this means that we accept the Bible as the very tge of God, and therefore trustworthy in all that it affirms and teaches 2 Timothy 3: Now the terms infallible and inerrant are sometimes used synonoumously and at other times they are gor. But as times moved on, some scholars began to distinguish the terms infallibility and inerrancy. When they are distinguished, usually inerrancy is the stronger term.
That is, sometimes infallibility is meant to mean that the Bible is true and without error when it speaks to spiritual matters, but may contain mistakes in other matters such as geology, history, or science. On the other hand, inerrancy usually means that the Bible is true or without error in all that it affirms including not only spiritual matters, but geological, historical, or scientific.
Kevin Vanhoozer notes that:. Because of the variation in usage, one must be careful when studying this issue in how the terms are being used and defined being aware that sometimes infallibility is used with essentially the same meaning as inerrancy and at other times it is used for a more limited sense of infallibility that applies only to spiritual matters addressed in the Bible.
However limited may have been their knowledge, and however much they erred when they were not writing sacred Scripture, the authors of Scripture, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, were preserved from making factual, historical, scientific, or other errors.
Harold Lindsell dies at 84; authored ‘Battle for the Bible’
God the Holy Spirit by nature cannot lie or be the author of untruth. If the Scripture is inspired at all it must be infallible. Biblical inerrancy means the Bible contains no error. It is without error in faith and fact. If we have the self-disclosure of the holy God, it cannot be mixed with error. Error and truth cannot be contained in the same document which claims to be a self-disclosure of a holy, righteous God. If error is mixed with truth, then that is deception which violates the character of God.
There are at least two obvious problems with this analogy. First, it is difficult to accept that God allows fallible truth to be contained in his word along with His truth. How can this be a trustworthy guide for His saints? More importantly, there is the question of how the Christian is to determine which parts of the Bible are inspired truths from God and which parts are the fallible errors of men. If in the Scripture God is not always speaking The Scriptures are partly of God and partly the ideas of mere menthen the reader himself is required to determine where God speaks and where He does not.
This makes an idol out of the human mind. It should be clear from the outset that Religion Analysis Service affirms belief in the full inerrancy of Scripture. Of course, this inerrancy is true of the original auto graphs and to our Bibles today as they faithfully represent the original autographs.
The inspiration and authority of the Bible is the foundation upon with the entire edifice of Christian truth is standing. If this foundation falters the whole Christian faith goes with it. Thus it is against this foundation, the reliability of Scripture, that Satan launches his most vicious attacks. There can be no question that this has been the view of the historic Christian Church all down through the centuries, even if the modern term of inerrancy was not itself used.
Southern Baptist leader R. But in the modern period, many Christians in the mainline protestant traditions have abandoned the inerrancy of Scripture in reaction to the many false claims of higher criticism and evolutionary science. What is even more troubling is when those in fundamentalist and evangelical circles begin to make the same compromises on Scripture that their counterparts in the mainline liberal churches have done.
While desiring to still be identified as conservative and Bible believing, yet they find ways to interpret the Scriptures tbe are a hattle to the claims of Scripture itself. It seems that each generation of conservative Bible believing Christians will have to fight the fight anew to defend the authority, reliability, and inerrancy of the Scriptures.
Heated costly battles over biblical inerrancy marked evangelicalism in the s and thereafter. The thhe warning issued in the s by Harold Lindsell, a former editor of Christianity Todayin The Battle for the Bible presaged the battle lines that continue today.
Though Lindsell was often criticized as alarmist at the time, developments within the evangelical world vindicated his warnings in short order.
Follow the Author
On October, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy held a summit meeting near the Chicago airport. At that time it issued a statement on biblical inerrancy which included a Preamble, a Short Statement, Nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and more ample Exposition.
A draft committee of Drs. Their efforts led to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which has become a standard guide for many in the evangelical movement. It is essential for our hafold and leaders to study this document and materials that flowed from it such as Explaining Inerrancy  by R. Sadly, these attacks on scriptural inerrancy are increasingly being taught by professors in our conservative seminaries.
Such professors have essentially capitulated batyle evolutionary science linrsell hence have rejected a literal interpretation of Genesis.
In addition to the acceptance of evolution, another common idea among these teachers is that the creation and flood stories of Genesis are simply reflections of the cultural environment in which they were written, fo product of their time, in short myths. It must be repeated that we are not concerned that evangelical students are informed about these theories, but what is troubling tye that these attacks on the veracity of Genesis are being taught as truth in Evangelical linfsell.
Perhaps ground one for this battle between those who espouse inerrancy, and those compromising evangelicals is how they interpret the early chapters of Genesis. It is amazing to me that self-identified evangelicals are debating whether Adam bkble Eve were literal, real, and historical persons or not. About Peter Enns, tthe say:. Inerrancy should be amended accordingly or, in my view, scrapped altogether. Lamoureux, agrees with Enns and Collins in rejecting a historical Adam.
Like many other evangelical theologians, I view Genesis as a unique type of literature literary genre that is distinct from the rest of the Bible. I do not believe that Adam was historical. Various interpretations are given of Adam and Eve. Typically, they are seen as a group of people or as names symbols used to refer to humanity as a whole, but not as a single pair from whom all humanity originates. The denial that Adam and Eve were literal historical founders bibld the human race is incredible in light of the clear teaching of the Bible.
Peter Enns suggests that Paul was just plain wrong, though his writings were inspired by God, or God-breathed if you will. We cannot fathom that God would allow Paul to write and teach falsehood under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
We can either choose to follow the uninspired teachings of Peter Enns or the God inspired teachings of the apostle Paul.
We can bow with Enns at the altar of modern naturalism or bow before our holy God. The choice should be clear. Thankfully, there are many in our current generation dedicated to the truth of the inerrancy of Scripture. A great place to become informed on this movement is the Defending Inerrancy website http: This website agrees that one of the major battlegrounds over the question of Biblical reliability is the proper interpretation of the biblical book of Genesis.
Scholars claim research indicates humanity is merely the byproduct of evolution or that Adam is merely a hominoid representative for the rest of humanity. Others will claim Jesus was merely reflecting the cultural customs of his day, or Paul was merely a pre-literate man saturated in the false views of his day; therefore, he was not really qualified to speak about the historical Adam or the truthfulness of gender roles.
That ideas like these are penetrating evangelical institutions of higher learning should be raising great alarm. Let me give you a personal example from my own experience. While working on my Master of Divinity degree, one of my professors was teaching a view of Genesis that rejected the literal view of Adam and Eve as actual historical persons.
In a private conversation, I asked what I thought was the obvious question. He said that Jesus was merely accommodating to the beliefs of his first century or 2 nd Temple period Jewish audience. Since they believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis, it was simply practical or prudent to go along with their mistaken beliefs in order to teach his views concerning the sacredness of marriage Matthew In other words, rather than correcting what he knew was their false understanding or interpretation of Genesis, Jesus not only left them in their ignorance, but used their wrong understanding as a basis for his teaching.
Yes, such things are actually being taught in our evangelical colleges and seminaries.
Thus some Christians have maintained that moral understanding can grow, mature, and become more refined, through years of thoughtful lindselo on moral philosophy.
So presumably, we should realize that we may well be more enlightened with respect to many contemporary issues than were the New Testament authors. It might well be that Jesus and indeed the Holy Spiritinspiring the authors of the thr of the Bible, accommodated his teachings to popular belief. Parents often accommodate beliefs of their children whether to Santa Batle, or where babies come from, or Uncle Dave being as strong as a Superherowithout thereby endorsing them as true.
So too, the claim goes, Jesus sometimes accommodated the false beliefs of his audience in his teachings. And the same would go for the inspired writers of Scripture. He is either asserting what he knows to be false and thus a lieor using an unsound argument and thus sophistry. It is simply incredible that in order to seem more acceptable and sophisticated to academia, these so-called evangelical teachers actually suggest Jesus the God-man was a liar and deceiver. I asked the same professor about the prophet Jonah since Jesus refers to him and uses his example as a prophetic illustration of His own coming death, burial, and resurrection:.
But none will bble given it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. My professor suggested that Jesus was again merely accommodating to the beliefs of haro,d culture though He knew full well that the story of Jonah was nothing but a big fish story for pious teaching, but not ever meant to be taken as literal history. Batgle is an amazing hermeneutical tool for those Bible scholars who had been formally embarrassed by the miraculous narratives in the Bible.
No longer need they rhe ridiculed by their fellow biblical scholars in academia. Just wave the genre wand and presto, history becomes mere fot.
Oh, but Genesis sure seems like history. But our compromising professors tell us that it is a different kind of history written from the point of view of ignorant men unaware of modern science, much less of modern standards of history.
In other words, much of early Genesis was simply lifted from the cultural environment of the ancient Near Battel and modified by the editors of the Torah. Since the author s of Genesis were writing from their pre-scientific ignorance, their narrative of origins cannot be taken seriously, most especially because they collide head on with the one source of truth they accept without exception.
And so evolutionary scenarios for origins are enshrined as inerrant while the Biblical account of Origins is set aside as nothing more than ancient tales from ignorant men.
What does all this mean for inerrancy? Everything, for it assumes that Genesis was not the product of a man writing under the inspiration of God, writing just what God wanted him to reveal to mankind, but is instead just a good ilndsell story with some kernel of truth that can lindssell gleamed from the errant shell.
I do not at all object to being taught about these views of Genesis. But what I object to is that these views are being taught as truth in evangelical institutions.