Crawford Toy a "heretic" not a hero - Mohler

[T. D. Webb]

I've been watching you and Bruce play this theological ping pong for a while. And I've not been responding because what you are asking for makes no sense. There is no "theory of errancy" because no one creates a theory or an argument about a theory that doesn't yet exist. No one creates a counter argument to an as yet uncreated theory. Inerrancy is a technical theological theory of the inspiration of scripture that was created in the 19th century. It doesn't mean what you are implying it means. Errancy and inerrancy aren't opposites. In fact modern inerrancy has been highly qualified by Biblical scholars not to mean a whole host of errors including math errors and discrepancies, grammar errors, and errors that relate to the science that Biblical writers wouldn't have known about. In fact some inerrency statements have so many qualifications that the term inerrency almost has no relationship to the common man on the street understanding of the word. In most cases technically the inerrancy theory almost means qualified errancy. The theory is full of holes, requires more theological gymnastics than the olympics to make it work, and worst of all the theory is not found in scripture, it is not found in early church history, and it is not found to be the theory of early Christians much less early Baptist, period. That conservative and fundamentalists Christians buy into the theory of inerrency is almost flabbergasting given that it is the most modernist technical and recent theory of inspiration in existence. The theory comes very close to lifting up the Bible to the level of deity. To do so verges on a form of idolatry. And the fact that it is treated that way is attested to by Southern Baptists removing Jesus as the criteria from the interpretation of scriptures in the BFM. And worse is that theory makes no difference anyway given that we are talking about the inerrancy of Biblical documents we don't have. Until you find the original manuscripts TD, how does it help to believe that these manuscripts were perfect? Or, are you going to suggest next that our modern English Biblical translations are perfect as well?

There are so many red herrings in your remarks, Tim, you should open a fish market. By the way, you could set up a strawman booth right next to it. Your screed (as William put it on spot) against inerrancy of Scripture is, I believe, an afront to the One who inspired it. From the time Jesus was in the desert being tempted by Satan to the time he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus did nothing but affirm the Scriptures. There in the Garden, He prayed, "While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled." (John 17:12)

Notwithstanding your distorted indictments, Tim, this Christian does not deify anyone or anything. Jesus Christ does not need me, you, or anyone to deify Him. He is Deity, whether we recognise Him as such, or not. Unitarians do not recognise Christ as the Son of God, yet you seem to have more empathy with them than you do Baptists who don't share your mod views about His inspired Word, the Scriptures which reveal Him saying, I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me. (John 14:6)


In His Grace and Peace,

[T. D. Webb]

TD you don't go to a secular dictionary for the definition of a theological word. Theologians define Biblical theories of inspiration and not the Oxford dictionary.

You are wrong on both counts, Tim. According to Etymonology.Com (See: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=inerrant ) the origin of "inerrant" was anything but theological:

inerrant
1652, in ref. to "fixed" stars (as opposed to "wandering" planets), from L. inerrantem (nom. inerrans) "not wandering," from in- "not" + errans, prp. of errare "to err" (see err).

Moreover, the word was introduced in 1652, not the 19th Century. Granted, 19th century theologians applied the word to their confidence in the veracity of Scripture in response to secular humanist scientists who doubted the origins of the Torah, etc.

As Dave said above, the Bible claims to be inspired. It does not claim for itself the 19th century doctrine of inerrancy. Now are you going to bow to Biblical authority or aren't you?

Tim, I find no difficulty in bowing to Biblical authority. However, I am not prepared to bow down to the authority of Dave. . . or you. . .

I bow to Jesus Christ when, "Jesus answered them, 'Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said you are gods'? "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)," (John 10:34-35) (emphasis mine)

I bow to Jesus Christ when, "And He said to them, 'O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?' "Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures." (Luke 24:25-26)

My human heroes are those who lived their lives as a testament to the Jesus Christ of Scripture, not the heretics who deny Jesus Christ and the Scripture, the only God inspired written record of His ministry and gospel here on earth. Of course, one man's hero is another's heretic . . .


In His Grace and Peace,

[Greg Wills]

Toy's story is fascinating for many reasons, and the story has not all been told.

The faculty and trustees did not charge Toy with heresy. They moved to dismiss him because they believed that his view of the Bible was unsound, which rendered him unfit as a teacher in a theological seminary. They held that an erroneous view of inspiration was among the most dangerous of errors. They held also that to retain Toy would betray the trust of Southern Baptists who had given money to the seminary upon its pledge of orthodoxy, and it would undermine their trust and support in the future.

By 1880 Toy recognized that his new view of the Bible had disturbing ramifications for traditional views of New Testament interpretation. It meant that the New Testament writers interpreted the Old Testament badly when they sought to establish a basis for Jesus' message and ministry in the Old Testament. He held that they repeatedly misconceived and miscontrued the meaning of the passages they cited.

The faculty believed also that Toy's view of inspiration would lead him to embrace other serious errors. They were right. Toy finally concluded, as he told William James in 1907, that persons create their own "truth" and that his own faith was utilitarian and hedonistic.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I honestly have never heard of "inerrancy" described as "modernism" before...

If inerrancy is modernism, what exactly is modernism? I know how William Hutchison defines modernism in his classic, The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism. This is not that.

Granted, this particular theory of inspiration known as inerrancy may be a "modern invention" in that it was only articulated as a systematic theory in the last 50 years or so.

But, it's not like the concept of "inerrancy" came out of nowhere. It didn't drop from the sky. Christians have been interpreting the bible literally in some form or fashion for hundreds of years. Of course, people interpret the Bible "literally" in different ways. But concepts of "literalism" and "inerrancy" are surely related. The interpretations that the theory of inerrancy essentially mandates are definitely not unique to modern-day proponents of inerrancy...

On the whole, conservative Christians in the Protestant tradition may not agree with every jot and tittle of this one particular view of biblical inspiration. However, it would be a mistake to assert that Southern Baptists are the only group or one of the only groups here in America to read and interpret their bible in a manner that is largely compatible with "inerrancy" as described in the Chicago Statement, etc.

Southern Baptist leaders have been supportive of the definition of "inerrancy" put forth by the Chicago Statement in 1978. Southern Seminary professors have spearheaded the effort to get Evangelical Theological Society to adopt this statement. I think it would be safe to say that Southern Baptist leaders are largely supportive of this basic working definition of inerrancy found in the Chicago Statement.

That said, it should be pointed out that the Chicago Statement was a document signed by evangelical leaders from around the world. It's definitely international. Signatories included R.C. Sproul, Francis Schaeffer, J.I. Packer and Mohler's hero Carl F. Henry. The Chicago Statement is a pretty significant document for conservative evangelicals. Inerrancy is surely not peculiar to Southern Baptists. In fact, while there were some SBC signatories to the Chicago Statement, Southern Baptists did not play a leading role in drafting this statement. It was an "evangelical" document and Southern Baptists were still trying to determine their place (or if they had a place?) in the evangelical world back in 1978.

[Stephen Fox]

Bdidd while you are on a roll. please give us your view of the sig of the LC; while Billy Graham signed it and Schaefer did not.
Though Graham has been a cad to some degree in his Nixon like non endorsement endorsements of both Charles Stanley and later one of the other fellows, he seems to have a different tact from Mohler and Richard Land, the latter two more Schaeferites than Bily Graham.
Billy seems to be friendly to BWA with Anne, while Franklin drifts toward a Mohler/Land view of the world.
Marsh explores the difference in Onward Christian Soldiers.

Would be interested to see your response to Greg Willis above.

Also please send me an email response to the note I sent you a couple days ago.

sfox

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Well, Schaeffer did not like the phrase in the Lausanne Covenant that the Bible was "without error in ALL THAT IT AFFIRMS."

He saw this as a loop-hole of sorts for those who believed that the Bible was not inerrant in matters of history and science.

Schaeffer argued that the word "inerrant" or "infallible" was not sufficient UNLESS it was accompanied by a phrase that indicated that the Bible was inerrant/infallible "NOT ONLY where it speaks of religious matters but where it speaks of history and the cosmos."

The Chicago Statement which came after the Lausanne Covenant stated: "We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science"

The Chicago Statement gave Schaeffer more of what he wanted - so he was a signatory.

Schaeffer was also a theologian. Graham was not. Theologians tend to be more concerned about matters that are less important to evangelists. Billy's primary fight was to save souls. Schaeffer's primary fight was against unorthodox theology.

I suspect that many "moderate Baptists" could have affirmed Lausanne back in the 70s. I'd have to read it more closely.

[T. D. Webb]

TD you quote the scriptures but you've yet to quote anything in the scriptures that proves the modern theory of inerrancy. Jesus took the Bible seriously. Jesus fulfilled the Bible. Jesus never mentioned a theory of inspiration for the Bible.

Tim, you either did not read, or otherwise understand my post of ten days ago. Jesus not only took the Bible seriously and fulfilled its promises, Tim. He believed it to be the standard by which all "theories" concerning theological doctrine are measured. I refer you again to John 10:34-35 and Luke 24:25-26. (See Below)

"Jesus answered them, 'Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said you are gods'? "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)," (John 10:34-35) (emphasis mine)

"And He said to them, 'O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?' "Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures." (Luke 24:25-26) (previously quoted by T. D. Webb » Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:23 pm)

Tim, I challenge you to demonstrate where Jesus ever asserted or theorized that any specific Scripture was in error.

I am an orthodox Trinitarian Christian who has nothing theologically in common with Unitarianism. But that is just more of your black and white double speak.

In your view it appears that If someone isn't a far right fundamentalist then they must be a far left liberal. But I can see how you come to that view. When you veer so far right that you almost go off the road then even the center line of the road is off to the left.

In the two remarks above, Tim, you clearly couldn't directly address what I did say. Therefore, you distorted my words or fabricated views that I don't hold so that you could attack strawman arguments, Tim. The result is that both of your concluding statements in the quotes above are utterly nonsensical.

What I did say was, "Unitarians do not recognise Christ as the Son of God, yet you seem to have more empathy with them than you do Baptists who don't share your mod views about His inspired Word, the Scriptures which reveal Him saying, I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me. (John 14:6)" (See post by T. D. Webb » Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:46 pm) The essence of my comment, Tim, was that you seem to be more tolerant of Unitarians (in spite of their lack of belief in Christ as the Son of God) than you are of Southern Baptists who trust Christ as their Lord and Savior.

In His Grace and Peace,

[Bruce Gourley]

I honestly have never heard of "inerrancy" described as "modernism" before...

If inerrancy is modernism, what exactly is modernism? I know how William Hutchison defines modernism in his classic, The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism. This is not that.

Granted, this particular theory of inspiration known as inerrancy may be a "modern invention" in that it was only articulated as a systematic theory in the last 50 years or so.

But, it's not like the concept of "inerrancy" came out of nowhere. It didn't drop from the sky. Christians have been interpreting the bible literally in some form or fashion for hundreds of years. Of course, people interpret the Bible "literally" in different ways. But concepts of "literalism" and "inerrancy" are surely related. The interpretations that the theory of inerrancy essentially mandates are definitely not unique to modern-day proponents of inerrancy...

On the whole, conservative Christians in the Protestant tradition may not agree with every jot and tittle of this one particular view of biblical inspiration. However, it would be a mistake to assert that Southern Baptists are the only group or one of the only groups here in America to read and interpret their bible in a manner that is largely compatible with "inerrancy" as described in the Chicago Statement, etc.

Southern Baptist leaders have been supportive of the definition of "inerrancy" put forth by the Chicago Statement in 1978. Southern Seminary professors have spearheaded the effort to get Evangelical Theological Society to adopt this statement. I think it would be safe to say that Southern Baptist leaders are largely supportive of this basic working definition of inerrancy found in the Chicago Statement.

That said, it should be pointed out that the Chicago Statement was a document signed by evangelical leaders from around the world. It's definitely international. Signatories included R.C. Sproul, Francis Schaeffer, J.I. Packer and Mohler's hero Carl F. Henry. The Chicago Statement is a pretty significant document for conservative evangelicals. Inerrancy is surely not peculiar to Southern Baptists. In fact, while there were some SBC signatories to the Chicago Statement, Southern Baptists did not play a leading role in drafting this statement. It was an "evangelical" document and Southern Baptists were still trying to determine their place (or if they had a place?) in the evangelical world back in 1978.

Both fundamentalism and its corollary inerrancy were birthed in response to the pressures 19th century science placed upon long-perceived biblical authority. While biblical (interpretive) literalism soon became a new norm thanks to the Protestant Reformation, fundamentalism and inerrancy took biblical literalism to new heights. In short, fundamentalists/inerrantists forced the biblical text to conform to a modernist interpretation of truth as empirically factual, quantifiable, precise, etc.

Here's a journal article that provides an introduction to the modernist basis/foundation of inerrancy.

[Dave Roberts]

Both fundamentalism and its corollary inerrancy were birthed in response to the pressures 19th century science placed upon long-perceived biblical authority. While biblical (interpretive) literalism soon became a new norm thanks to the Protestant Reformation, fundamentalism and inerrancy took biblical literalism to new heights. In short, fundamentalists/inerrantists forced the biblical text to conform to a modernist interpretation of truth as empirically factual, quantifiable, precise, etc.

Here's a journal article that provides an introduction to the modernist basis/foundation of inerrancy.

Bruce, I suspect that the article does definitive work as did the one by David Dockery some years ago that, as best I recall, found nine working definitions of "inerrancy" in the SBC. What is fascinating is that anyone can win an argument if he or she is allowed to define their own terms. T. D. wants to define everything that doesn't agree to "inerrancy" and a "doctrine of errancy." "Inerrancy is a form of the old plenary-verbal inspiration theory dressed up in 20th century clothing. There have always been multiple theories of and understandings of inspiration among mainline Christians, none of which assumed the Bible to be "errant." T. D.'s Hegelian dialtectic assumes everything that has a thesis also has an antithesis. It doesn't always work.

[Stephen Fox]

Bruce:

Thanks for that link and I have enjoyed, been enlightened, reminded and brought up to speed a little by the exchange between you and Bdidd.
My question is when will you and Bdidd engage the thought of literary critic James Wood.
Toy in wikipedia at least is on the record saying Lottie Moon mastery of the English language was the greatest he'd ever come across in a female. Greg Willis above claims a conversation between Toy and William James.
To that end seems to me Cartledge, Mercer President Underwood, Shurden et. al would feel a conviction to engage James Wood and his Broken Estate. I think Harold Bloom would be proud of you for the exercise. Seems to me that's where Crawford Toy was going.
At a minimum Lottie Moon's legacy was incarnated in the witness of Delanna Obrien as she stood Strong with her staff in 93 against the Paige Patterson/Mohler Inquisition of their lackeys then on the IMB Board. It was videoed and I have a copy and I'm sure the Baptist Center for STudies I imagine has one as well, and should be one around Baylor for Bdidd Weaver to see.
Whatever Lottie was about, she was not the forerunner of Paige Patterson and the Texas Regulars, nor Mohler and DJ Kennedy's Hour of Power as Hankins has revealed to us.
In the meantime, a Samford Proff whose name escapes me at the moment had a grand piece about six months ago in Baptists Today that satisfies me about the Pilgrimage yearnings of Crawford Toy,though it never mentions his name.
Maybe Johnny Pierce can give us more specifics on this article.
Cartledge's blog continues to attract some interesting comments.
There are some emails out there seeking Kat Allen's input on this latest round.
I hope she rises to the occasion, as well as the WMU current staff.

[Stephen Fox]

I am trying to cross pollinate comments here with the ongoing comments at Tony Cartledge blog on Lottie and Toy.
There a Gene S had this grand reply to Greg Willis on the subject of William James, Toy, and utility.

Gene S said...
"Toy finally concluded, as he told William James in 1907, that persons create their own 'truth' and that his own faith was utilitarian and hedonistic."

As I read this comment, it seems to describe some of the redaction going on with the Conservative Resurgence group. Some of them are:

* We are Calvinists in theology.
* State Conventions and the SBC are Autonomous and may evict any church they choose.
* All Moderates were "liberal."
* The SBC was on a road to hell before 1979.
* Baptist Colleges are corrupting their students.
* BF&M 2000 is not a Creed

All things are personal when it comes to Faith since, by its definition "faith" cannot be proved to the point of "fact." When it becomes a "fact" it is no longer "faith," again by definition of the position!

[Jonathan]

Looking at this from a different perspective, I've been looking into when it became common for Christians to reject the historicity of Genesis 1-11, to reject the supernatural events/miracles of the OT, rejection of the virgin birth, speculation that led to teachings like the swoon theory and other rejections of the physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, etc...

I'm not finding much prior to the later half of the 19th century...and even then it was not widespread.

I also note E.Y. Mullins' involvement in Torrey's "The Fundamentals" as a response to the rise of modernism in theology.

[T. D. Webb]

T. D. wants to define everything that doesn't agree to "inerrancy" and a "doctrine of errancy." "Inerrancy is a form of the old plenary-verbal inspiration theory dressed up in 20th century clothing. There have always been multiple theories of and understandings of inspiration among mainline Christians, none of which assumed the Bible to be "errant." T. D.'s Hegelian dialtectic assumes everything that has a thesis also has an antithesis. It doesn't always work.

Respectfully, you made a false assumption of the "assumption" you attributed to me, Dave. It is curious that the position that "inerrancy" was an "invention" of "Fundamentalists" in the 19th Century is now morphed to, according to you, "Inerrancy is a form of the old plenary-verbal inspiration theory dressed up in 20th century clothing. There have always been multiple theories of and understandings of inspiration among mainline Christians, none of which assumed the Bible to be 'errant'." . . . So much for the theory that "inerrancy" is a modernist concept. The word, "inerrancy", may have been initially applied in the 19th century, but the concept it represents goes back to Jesus and earlier.

My question to you, Dave, is do you believe the Genesis account of Noah, the account of the ax floating on water, the account of the talking donkey, the account of the sun standing still, or the account of Jonah being swallowed by a fish? Are any or all of these accounts found in the Old Testament in error? No, Dave. . .this Okie does NOT assume ". . .everything that has a thesis also has an antithesis." However, it is inconsistent, in my view, to make the claim of belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture on one hand, yet stand in denial of specific accounts in the Bible, which were explicitly verified or left unrefuted by Jesus, Himself, who for example said, "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (John 5:46-47)

In His Grace and Peace,

[Jonathan]

Looking at this from a different perspective, I've been looking into when it became common for Christians to reject the historicity of Genesis 1-11, to reject the supernatural events/miracles of the OT, rejection of the virgin birth, speculation that led to teachings like the swoon theory and other rejections of the physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, etc...

I'm not finding much prior to the later half of the 19th century...and even then it was not widespread.

I also note E.Y. Mullins' involvement in Torrey's "The Fundamentals" as a response to the rise of modernism in theology.

I guess I don't follow you Jonathan. I don't find the theory of inerrency essential to believing in miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc. Given that most denominations that affirm, for example, the Apostle's Creed don't affirm Biblical inerrency, I just don't see the connection between Christian orthodoxy and inerrency.

I wasn't referring directly to inerrancy. A point that is often attempted here is how recent is the view that all Scripture is without error (inerrant) or incapable of error (infallible). My question had to do with how recent these other views were. The point should be obvious: if one is going to argue against the credibility of inerrancy (or, more accurately, the use of the term rather than the underlying concepts) by pointing to when the term first appeared, one will, sooner or later, need to answer the same question regarding the type of teachings that I referred to.

[Dave Roberts]

Respectfully, you made a false assumption of the "assumption" you attributed to me, Dave. It is curious that the position that "inerrancy" was an "invention" of "Fundamentalists" in the 19th Century is now morphed to, according to you, "Inerrancy is a form of the old plenary-verbal inspiration theory dressed up in 20th century clothing. There have always been multiple theories of and understandings of inspiration among mainline Christians, none of which assumed the Bible to be 'errant'." . . . So much for the theory that "inerrancy" is a modernist concept. The word, "inerrancy", may have been initially applied in the 19th century, but the concept it represents goes back to Jesus and earlier.

My question to you, Dave, is do you believe the Genesis account of Noah, the account of the ax floating on water, the account of the talking donkey, the account of the sun standing still, or the account of Jonah being swallowed by a fish? Are any or all of these accounts found in the Old Testament in error? No, Dave. . .this Okie does NOT assume ". . .everything that has a thesis also has an antithesis." However, it is inconsistent, in my view, to make the claim of belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture on one hand, yet stand in denial of specific accounts in the Bible, which were explicitly verified or left unrefuted by Jesus, Himself, who for example said, "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (John 5:46-47)

In His Grace and Peace,

Two responses--I never said that there were not people who believed about the scriptures what some "inerrants" present. The technical use of the term is what I was addressing. If you can find its use before the late 19th century, I'm all ears.

Second, do I believe all those accounts: Yes! However, I thnk you are asking a differnt question. I thiink you are not asking if I believe them but if I interpret them in the same literal way that you do. Is it ppossible that any of them are a parable? If not, then each of the parables of Jesus must meet the same standard. Ther must have been a literal father and two sons, a literal unjust judge, a literal good samaritan. If that liteary typology is not possible in the OT, it is also not possible in the NT. You cant' have it both ways, so are the parables of Jesus also literal?

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I don't disagree with the article Bruce linked to. Here's the thrust of the article:

"What this has revealed, in the case of the inerrancy debate, is that those points in the debate that seemed to matter most actually appear important only because of the shortcomings of modern philosophy. For example, modernity assumed that only those claims based directly on unquestionable foundations should be believed. This made it appear critical to evangelicals that the Bible meet this standard, that it qualify as an unquestionable foundation according to modernity's definition of "unquestionable." Yet, as will be discussed below, theologians as recent as Martin Luther and John Calvin did not hold the Bible to this standard. Despite their very high regard for Scripture, both Luther and Calvin acknowledge that, in certain places, the Bible is not entirely factual. For this reason it is not even desirable that inerrancy's advocates and opponents ever come to a common understanding because any such common understanding would be more a response to the constraints of modern philosophy than the pursuit of faithful theology."

Have 20th century evangelicals/fundamentalists been influenced by modernity, modern viewpoints? Sure. I think we all have though in different ways. Some are willing to admit the influence; others are not. Francis Schaeffer himself was heavily influenced by modern thinking in that he put a strong emphasis on objective reason, Enlightenment rationalism, etc.

I just thought the term "modernism" was awkward as I had in mind theological modernism which obviously fundamentalism is not. Broadly defined, modernism fits, I guess - a little confusing though.

What point are you trying to make by citing Mullins, Jonathan?

[Stephen Fox]

Daniel Plainview from There Will Be Blood, we're doing goodwork here.

I secondmy earliermotion that there is a good article to be done from the blogs and commentlines.

For sure Scarborough's exchange with Willis on Utility and Bdidd's recent entry in the inerrancy and Modernism mix will rate for the definitive article; then for Aplus juice an exploration for imagined conversation between Toy Caldwell and James Wood were Toy with us today.
For any honest person I think it has refuted Paige's basic assertion.

Let me say it to Paige one more time.

No Paige, Lottie Moon never joined the Texas Regulars.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

To use the word "modernism" to describe the thinking of conservatives is kinda akin to using the world "fundamentalist" to describe liberals. Modernism has a specific historical/theological context and when used in a different context loses much of its meaning.

Also reminds me of Jonah Golberg who has taken much flak in recent weeks and months for his idea of Liberal Fascism.

So, it's a "modern theological invention." But the interpretations behind this invention are not new. Perhaps the way this doctrine is used to ensure doctrinal conformity is new. I actually think Jonathan raises a valid point or two. These conservative biblical interpretations have certainly been around much longer and promoted by many more Christians than the liberal/modernist theology that begin to emerge in the latter half of the 19th century.

Is the point of tagging inerrancy with the m-word to say "Hey, you're just like us!" or is to question the credibility of inerrancy. If the former is the point, OK, fine. But if it's the latter, wouldn't that cause us - as Jonathan notes - to also question the credibility of a biblical hermeneutic of liberalism/modernism which has certainly been shaped by modernity?

[T. D. Webb]

Two responses--I never said that there were not people who believed about the scriptures what some "inerrants" present. The technical use of the term is what I was addressing. If you can find its use before the late 19th century, I'm all ears.

Shall we play some "merry-go-round" music, Dave? My point is that, historically, the Scriptures have been the standard by which many of us measure our beliefs. Our understanding of what Scripture says may be flawed, but the Scripture, itself, is not. On the other hand, there are those who understand precisely what Scripture says, but they deny its veracity and/or validity.

Second, do I believe all those accounts: Yes! However, I thnk you are asking a differnt question. I thiink you are not asking if I believe them but if I interpret them in the same literal way that you do.

No, Dave. I was already convinced that your "interpretation" of Scripture was different from mine. In any case, Dave, what is your "interpretation" of the story of Jonah? Was Jonah actually swallowed by a fish? Did he survive a three day sojourn in the fish's belly until he was spewed out alive on dry ground?

Is it ppossible that any of them are a parable?

Which of the accounts do you have in mind, Dave? For example, is it your position that the account of Jonah was a parable?

If not, then each of the parables of Jesus must meet the same standard. Ther must have been a literal father and two sons, a literal unjust judge, a literal good samaritan. If that liteary typology is not possible in the OT, it is also not possible in the NT. You cant' have it both ways, so are the parables of Jesus also literal?

To my knowledge, Dave, Jesus explicitly identified the allegory when He presented parables to His listeners. Where is that the case in the Old Testament accounts to which I referred earlier? Unless we have specific empirical evidence that the elements in the parable were hypothetical, I am persuaded that Jesus was relating actual incidents in His comparative illustrations.

In His Grace and Peace,

[Big Daddy Weaver]

How many times are you going to say "Dave", T.D.? It's that kind of patronizing tone that kills any possibility of fruitful dialogue...

And its just annoying.

[T. D. Webb]

How many times are you going to say "Dave", T.D.? It's that kind of patronizing tone that kills any possibility of fruitful dialogue...

And its just annoying.

Perhaps, because I was addressing him, and not you, BDW. How you came to the conclusion that using a person's name in a "dialogue" is "patronizing" and "kills any possibility of fruitful dialogue. . ." is curious. In any case, my intent was not to annoy you.

In His Grace and Peace,

[Big Daddy Weaver]

You called Dave by name four times in one single comment. Whether you intended to or not, it comes across as patronizing - a condescending lecture of sorts.

Maybe it's just an extension of your old "This Okie" routine.

[Bruce Gourley]

For the record, a literal view of the Genesis creation accounts as orthodoxy did not develop until the post-Reformation era. This entry from Wikipedia provides a pretty good brief overview of how Jewish and Christian traditions have historically interpreted the Genesis creation accounts.

As to fundamentalism being an expression of modernism (or modernity, as would have been said at the turn of the 20th century), the ironies are multi-layered: not only is fundamentalism modernist, but (modern) religious liberalism actually shares much with pre-Reformation Christianity in opting to not view the Bible in a primarily literal sense.

20th-21st century fundamentalist attempts to construct inerrancy as traditional orthodoxy not only distort historical orthodoxy in forcing the biblical text to conform solely to a literal interpretation (rather than allowing the text a freedom to speak that transcends any one interpretative agenda), but in the larger context are more attacks upon social and cultural progressivism than a defense of religious orthodoxy. The same is also true for fundamentalist Islam, which ignores a broader historical handling of the Koran and instead forces one particular interpretive agenda upon the historical text. (Marty and Appleby's Fundamentalism Project is a good source for further delving into these ironies of fundamentalism).

[Stephen Fox]

I got to be careful here, cause I don't want to unnecessarily offend anyone, but I got to side with TD Webb on the Dave thing.
TD is one of the kindest, most gracious persons I have encountered anywhere on the WWW, up there with Lamar Wadsworth who I happen to know in person.
BDidd, I think you came across little as a nitpicker on this one, if not a donkey's rear end.

As a friend who has had his fun with another Okey, Flick, the man with the Golden Spurs; I think you coulda let this pass; instead of comong across as the Bdidd of the BDiddblog with all those pictures of the famous Baptists, almost all of whom I hold in high esteem aswell.
Little something of too much Baylor or something in your exchange here.

I'm going with TD Webb here and hope both of you remain my friends, even as you know Bdidd I'm 90% on your side on the intepretation of the Toy/Lottie/Paige?Mohler parable and what it means.

[T. D. Webb]

You called Dave by name four times in one single comment. Whether you intended to or not, it comes across as patronizing - a condescending lecture of sorts.

Maybe it's just an extension of your old "This Okie" routine.

BDW, your "lecture" of reprimand is duly noted. . .That said, how could a fellow with the handle, "Big Daddy", seriously take offense to the self-appellation of "this Okie"? By the way, thanks for bringing "fruitful dialogue" back to this thread. . .

In His Grace and Peace,