Here’s an overview of what’s at stake for the next generation. History has repeated itself. We’re once again seeing a departure from the traditional view of inerrancy. Will we recognize how important this battle is and stand up before it’s too late?
A group of scholars are now denying the historic evangelical statement of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy in favor of a Neoevangelical view of limited inerrancy which limits inerrancy to redemptive matters and denies inerrancy of historical and scientific issues. This is what the new “Battle for the Bible” is all about. There are some serious problems with this view.
Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, discusses the role inerrancy played in the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention, with Defending Inerrancy contributing editor William Roach.
The Neoevangelicals are attempting to dehistoricize the resurrection of the saints narrative in Mt 27. However, even though they differ on details, the Fathers surveyed here are unanimous as to the historical nature of this event. Not a single example was found of any Church Father who believed this was a legend.
Licona and his supporters, whom he lists as Darrel Bock, Dan Wallace, Craig Blomberg, Michael Bird, William Lane Craig, Jeremy Evans, Craig Keener, Lee McDonald, Kevin Vanhoozer, Robert Yarborough, and Gary Habermas, embrace a new kind of evangelicalism–a Neoevangelicalism–with regard to Scripture. It’s definitely not the biblical or traditional view.
Dr. Joseph Holden reviews Dr. Craig Blomberg’s new book and concludes that Blomberg’s views concerning inerrancy are contrary to the historical definition.
