The short answer is "Of course not!"
For the long answer see Jim West's response to Darrell Bock's CT piece, "When the Media Became a Nuisance" and the comments, where both Bock and his colleague Dan Wallace chime in. In an earlier post about the same CT article, I admitted my negative reaction to Bock's apologetic tone, but that doesn't mean he is not a fine scholar.
In a follow-up post Jim defines a fundamentalist as anyone who affirms the inerrancy or infallibility of Scripture. Fundamentalists are "guilty of bibliolatry ... because equating anything in heaven or on earth or under the earth with God, who alone is without error and not subject to fallibility, is idolatry." In the comments, Jim asserts "NONE of the Reformers would attribute to a book what can only be attributed to God." For evidence that the Reformers did precisely that, see John Hobbins on "Why I am a fundamentalist - according to Jim West's definition."
3 comments:
Howdy-
Hobbins misrepresents the Reformers (and everyone else, as Doug has shown quite clearly).
(Nice blog you have here by the way- first time visitor).
Howdy Jim! Nice to see you here! Thanks for the comment.
I'll leave it to others more qualified than I to judge Hobbins' reading of the Reformers. It seems obvious, however, that both Hobbins and the Reformers can use the language of inerrancy from time to time, but neither understand the term from a post-Enlightenment or Scottish common sense rationalist perspective. It follows that not all who use the language of inerrancy or infallibility are fundamentalists. The point at issue seems to be whether or not we should continue to use the term. Hobbins thinks we should, Chris and Doug and, obviously, you things we shouldn't.
things = think with a stuffed-up nose.
Post a Comment