We have to be clear on how we're going to use the word fundamentalist. These guys are calling theselves fundamentalists; the term is frequently just a term of abuse applied to people whose religious views are more conservative than one's own, as Alvin Plantinga famously and hilariously points out in Warranted Christian Belief:
"I fully realize that the dreaded f-word will be trotted out to stigmatize [my view]. Before responding, however, we must first look into the use of this term 'fundamentalist'. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like 'son of a bitch', more exactly 'sonovabitch', or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) 'sumbitch'...
"In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like 'stupid sumbitch' (or maybe 'fascist sumbitch'?) than 'sumbitch' simpliciter. It isn't exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God...[The term's] cognitive content is given by the phrase 'considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.' The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like 'stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine'" (Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 244-245).
However, Fundamentalism was originally the defense of five fundamental claims which were defended in a set of pamphlets called The Fundamentals. The Five Fundamentals were initially:
1. The Verbal Inspiration of Scripture
2. The Virgin Birth of Christ
3. The Substitutionary Atonement of Christ
4. The Bodily Resurrection of Christ
5. The Second Coming of Christ.
Lewis staunchly defended 2, 4, and 5. He did not defend 1 or 3. So I guess Lewis is a three-point fundamentalist.
Interestingly there is nothing about denying evolution in the fundamentals, and some of the Fundamentals pamphlets were actually evolution-friendly. So initially, you didn't have to oppose evolution in order to be a fundamentalist!
13 comments:
Well, he accepted maybe .5 of point 1 of the Fundamentals (i.e., _some_ of Scripture makes clear claim to being verbally inspired, and he accepted that. He accepted the authority of the rest of it, too, but not in that way.)
Lewis' most specific comment on his relationship to the Fundamentalist view of scripture, can be found in his 1958 book _Reflections on the Psalms_, in the late chapter aptly title "Scripture". (A slightly expanded version of the first part of this chapter can also be found, in 1960, in his first footnote to his 15th chapter of MaPS 2nd edition. Don't know if it was in his 1st edition.)
Maybe relatedly, "Scripture" also contains a brief parenthetical statement from him: "what difficulties I have about evolution are not religious".
That's technically quite precise. Lewis had problems with common philosophical uses of evolutionary theory; but made frequent reference to the biology in a friendly and acceptive manner throughout his writings (including the famous Chp 3 of MaPS).
At the same time, he had no religious problem with special instantaneous creation, either. {g} (Notably it's present in the Narnian novel _The Magician's Nephew_.)
Is belief in the inerrancy of scripture not part of fundamentalist belief - ie you can still legitimately be called a fundamentalist even if you agree that there are errors in scripture?
It is a measure of Plantinga's skill with words, that he can write a very big book on 'Warranted Christian Belief' without ever giving a clear list of warranted Christian beliefs.
{{Is belief in the inerrancy of scripture not part of fundamentalist belief - ie you can still legitimately be called a fundamentalist even if you agree that there are errors in scripture?}}
Actually, that isn't as clear (historically) as it may seem to be today. The popular total inerrancy stance (which isn't actually altogether popular but is disproportionately _vocal_ {g}) tends to disappear (sometimes without a frank acknowledgement that the hard position has been abandoned) at higher levels of scholarship, even among fundamentalists.
'Soft' inerrancy stances range the field pretty far--not so far as back in the days of Origen (who interpreted everything that looked even remotely historical in the OT primarily as allegorical, but allegories which held no error about the principles of truth being communicated thereby), but I've seen late 19th/early 20th century positions (still mirrored today) to the effect that only spiritual truths were received inerrantly. I'm pretty sure that such positions had precedents in 18th and 17th century theologians, too.
That being said, yes typically the notion of verbal inspiration of scripture goes along with hard (or strong) inerrancy, to whatever extent the verbal inspiration is carried.
And in any case, the general agreement today _among Christians_ (not counting oppositional or hostile classification), is that fundamentalism entails holding to verbal plenary inspiration (i.e. of every word of Scripture) with strong inerrancy as a consequent position.
It will surprise some that "verbal plenary inspiration" is not what it sounds like. This view (when carefully stated contrasted to uninformed popular statements)
1) is applied only to the original autographs which admits errors in transmission and translation
2) allows intended meanings to be figurative but rejects allegorical meanings to be imposed
3) rejects verbal dictation from God except when indicated and embraces the influence of the authors experience vocabulary and agenda
4) leaves open the issue of whether Scripture is authoritative to faith and practice alone or all areas it speaks to
5) recognizes that language is phenominological so that when it says "the sun stood still" means "it appeared the sun stood still" from the viewpoint of the observers.
There are many other points like these that sometimes surprise the average critic. There realy are some thoughtful fundamentalists.
The Chicago statement on verbal inpsiration says 'We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.'
And continues 'We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.
We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.'
The writers used the very words that God chose for them...
And for good measure the statement continued 'We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.'
The statement was signed by Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J.I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R.C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
Quite true; but Geisler and Sproul are just as likely as anyone to go to 'soft' inerrancy as a practical matter, and I'd be very surprised if the others didn't, too.
I agree that some of the Chicago statement would seem to preclude this. (Which is one reason I wouldn't have signed it, and wouldn't sign it now.) But Mike D is correct about how fundamentalist scholars (even the ones doing the signing) actually _apply_ their understandings of inerrancy.
Their applications usually make some sense (which is why they do it). But I agree, it doesn't look in practice much like the official statements they make (especially during preaching).
And no, I don't like it, either.
Steven,
You are not reading the Chicago Statement carefully enough:
You quote,
"The Chicago statement on verbal inspiration says 'We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.'
And continues 'We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.
We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.'
The writers used the very words that God chose for them...”
That last statement is yours, not theirs. This is exactly the wrong conclusion from the statements you cited. The statements deny a verbal dictation. The statements affirm writings that include the personalities of the authors under divine guidance but not divine dictation. Inspiration is not the same as dictation in the Chicago declaration. None of the signers would agree that God chose the words for the authors. These are much more thoughtful theologians than you give them credit. Your misunderstanding is a straw man.
It is insulting to atheists when Christians attempt to deny what we can read in black and white
'We deny that God, in causing these writers to *use the very words that He chose*, overrode their personalities.
This clearly states that the person who chose the words the writers used was God. The writers did not choose the words. God chose the words.
How on earth can you expect atheists to take Christians seriously when you say 'None of the signers would agree that God chose the words for the authors.'?
What does 'the very words that HE chose' means if not that HE chose those words?
Welcome to the world of theological code words, shorthand and pregnant phrases. I read article eight of the Chicago Declaration to exclude the Dictation and Dynamic theories of inspiration. The Dynamic theory is that the thoughts, not necessarily the words of Scripture are inspired by God. This is why article eight refers to "words" rather than ideas. Most of article eight opposes the Dic
tation theory of God telling the writers what to write. This would require that God "overrode their personalities" which it denies.
II Peter 1:21
For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
It is almost safe to say that no biblical scholar supports a verbal dictation theory (there may be one). The personalities, opinions, and literary style of bilical authors are too obvious. However, it is easy to accuse others of this position.
I think the selection of the word "chose" was unfortunate in Article 8. The context of the statement makes it clear that it does not mean "dictated." The usual code word is "superintended." I can't think of a synonym that would have worked better. Maybe they had the same problem.
You are quite right that the signatories did not believe in verbal dictation. I never said they did.
However they still want to believe God chose the very words of the Bible. That is why they said that God chose the very words, and why they said 'Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching.....
How God can choose the very words used by the writers without some sort of verbal dictation is so baffling that they decided not to think about it could have happened.
Hence their statement ' The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.'
They only know that the like the idea that every word was chosen by God, and they dislike the idea that God verbally dictated what to write down - hence their statement that nobody has to think too much about how you can believe both of those things at the same time.
Their beliefs made no sense, so they called it a mystery.
If their belief made sense, they would not call it a mystery.
You are doing an excellent job of evaluating the issues as stake. The mystery is how you can have a book of human authors accurately communicate a message from God. Many Christian theology issues balance on how the divine and human can combine. This is the key issue about the nature of Jesus, free will vs. sovereignty, as well as the nature of the Bible. Good theology tends to feel like walking a tight rope down the middle of human and divine.
We assume that the more we understand and make sense of our world, the less mystery there is. My experience is the more I know, the more questions I discover.
Steven, re. Plantinga, if you read that long book you might be enlightened as to the difference between theory and practice; and how one can sketch out a notion, without actually engaging in the practice at the time, much like one can write a book on surgery without holding a scalpel. I haven't read the book myself, but discussing warranted belief itself does not require one to produce a "list."
One needs to have patience and not suddenly wish to jump to the "list" - unless one is a bit fundy one's self and does not wish to engage in the thought process.
Regarding inspiration, it is not simply a matter of "who picked the words, God or the authors?" You should look up the difference between necessary and sufficient causes here. Events can have multiple causes. Causality is never simple, and these authors are not ascribing to the texts the simple notion of causality it seems that you would prefer.
Post a Comment