status

The Historical Santa and the Historical Jesus Pt 1 – The Santa of Faith

As we approach the most joyous time of the year when we, goodly Christians, celebrate the birth of Jesus. During this annual celebration, our malls and much of popular culture also bring in Santa Claus among other secular icons. It is an opportunity to see two historical figures who have had their pasts differently developed.

When we think of our present day incarnation of Santa Claus, there is a historical figure who stands behind our current picture. Along the same lines, when we think of our present day evolution of Jesus Christ, there is also a historical figure who stands behind our current picture.

So how much of the historical Santa relates to he historical Jesus?

In considering the origins of Santa Claus we must go back the fourth century and a young bishop named Nicholas who, having inherited his parents’ estate after their death early in his life, became known for acts of mercy and charity in his parish of Myra. Following his death, many stories about his ministry became known throughout Christianity, to the point that Nicholas was venerated as a saint and given a feast day on December 6th. Nicholas became a famous sainted figure in Christianity and his name, acts, and feast carried across many cultures. For instance, when Columbus was exploring the New World, one of the first ports he discovered was promptly named St Nicholas. Nicholas’ story of giving and charity embodied the idea of Christianity (James 1:29) and his feast is a time for thoughtful reflection of these themes.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Even in the massive whitewashing of relics and statuary during the Reformation, Nicholas remained a favorite figure in Christianity. His feast day was still merrily celebrated by Catholics and Protestants alike. From the medieval period through the early reformation time the stories and character of Nicholas transitioned from his Middle Eastern roots to a more Scandavian representation and the name Sinterklaas. Being fused with German paganism (through the celebration of Yule) also moved Nicholas out of the purely Christian arena and into the secular one as well. His attire and mode of transportation also shifted to reflect the cultures in which Nicholas was moved into and his story was told. He was given new names, Kris Kringle and Father Christmas. St. Nicholas remained part of the idea of Sinterklaas, but became almost unrecognizable in light of the growing mythos around this changing figure.

Yet Nicholas remained, mostly, in the representations as a charitable bishop of the Catholic Church. Only in the early 1800s, mostly through the works of Washington Irving, Sinterklaas was brought to America and given a new name: Santa Claus. Not long after this an anonymous poem, later attributed to Clement Clarke Moore, titled “A Visit from St Nicholas” (later retitled “The Night Before Christmas“) captured the cultural lore in America and propelled this version of Santa Claus forward. Soon, the patron saint of travelers and merchants became the saint of the poor and needy in America. Thomas Nast, a popular cartoonist with Harper’s Weekly, soon took Santa Claus and began giving him the form which we know today. His drawing of a pipe smoking saint of giving in 1881 gave Santa much of his present day form.

Once the 20th century came, Santa was firmly embedded into the America identity for the Winter Solstice festivals. The famed American artist, Norman Rockwell, added to the growing lore around Santa with his famous covers for The Saturday Evening Post. Santa identified in numerous publications and even appropriated for military interests. Santa suddenly had a wife, though oddly no children, and plenty of other parts of the story began to evolve. Yet nothing had quite the cultural ramifications of what happened in the post World-War II era when Coca-Cola crafted a version of Santa that has lasted until today. With the massive cultural exportation the followed, Santa became a worldwide phenomenon. Soon enough, Santa Claus became as much part of the Christmas celebrations as Jesus Christ’s infancy narratives.

Children await the arrival of the Christmas season and write notes of faith, strategically given to their parents, to Santa Claus about the hope they have in his impending arrival with gifts galore. These same children are made aware that Santa is a benevolent soul who monitors their faithfulness throughout the year. We take our kids to the mall to see Santa and tell him about their hopes and dreams. Indeed, for most under the age of 12, Santa is the reason for the season.

Yet this version of Santa is much different than the Historical Santa of the fourth century. Indeed, the origins of the present day Santa-myth, though rooted in a historical figure, are much different than the actual figure they represent. So much different is this present day Santa, that one must wonder if it matches up with the historical figure who began all of this, the Bishop Nicholas in the fourth century?

The present day, popular Santa (the Santa of faith) is indeed mightily different than the Santa of history. If for no other reason, the historical Santa (St. Nicholas) is Middle Eastern and the Santa of faith (Santa Claus) is Scandinavian. Other major issues abound.

In much the same way, scholars in the field of the historical Jesus often make statements that make the historical Jesus to be as far from the Christ of faith as we see in the Santa demonstration above.

So, does the historical Santa represent a parallel narrative to the historical Jesus? Are there sufficient parallels between St Nicholas’ story and Jesus’ story in our present day churches and broader cultural narratives?

Check in tomorrow for the second, and final, part of our inquiry.

status

It Really is Hard to Reconstruct Aspects of the Biblical Times

Last evening, well early this morning, I was reading James Burtchaell’s From Synagogue to Church and came across his discussion about the challenge of reconstructing the underlying forms or pre-existing offices that would have informed the earliest Christian communities. He points out that there well could be a number of traditional patterns and social attitudes that are simply unrecoverable to present day historians. He then provides this excellent illustration:

Imagine the impossible task of any future scholar trying to reconstruct the internal political history of almost any institution in America in ignorance of Robert’s Rules of Order, the format by which virtually all meetings are conducted. The wardens of a Congregationalist church in Newport, a teamsters union in Chicago, a chapter of the Disabled American Veterans in Dubuque: all of the them run their meetings pretty much the same way, Robert’s way. The book is a traditional item of community organization, entirely familiar to the nation, and for that very reason it is so taken for granted that it is rarely mentioned. By the same token, any familiarity which we can gain with similarly familiar antecedents of the earliest Christians will help us to construe better the way that they were following – because they were the only ways they knew of forming a community. (pg 199)

He goes on to note how the earliest Christians would have certainly looked to their common heritage and cultural milieu, specifically the synagogue.

Now, this really does capture the challenge of reconstructing the picture of the first century environment. After numerous generations of critical historical inquiry the picture is becoming increasingly clear. However, it still is missing pieces and a haze of uncertainty persists.

The underlying cultural forms that helped craft and structure authority in the earliest Christian communities are better known today than one hundred years when Sohm and Harnack (et al) were discussing the nature of charism in these early communities. Leaders in the scholarly communities that have pushed away the heavy stones of history have cleared the path and drawn on our growing knowledge of archeology and ancient understanding. Of course, the path is still clouded.

treaty-westSo to frame the continued challenge we think of the historical scholar in 1,000 years that looks back at the United States of America (or whatever country you might think of) and is attempting to work through a pile of yellowed manuscripts of official documents (since out data architecture long vanished because of its delicate state) from the wide ranging organizations as listed above. Perhaps she even has some official files from Congress. Yet Robert’s Rules does not exist in any written form. Imagine the frustration and limited horizons. If any of us could leap into her time we might be able to explain (once we learned the languages) these things better, yet we know we cannot do this.

This same problem vexes historians and biblical scholars.

We have a good picture of these times of antiquity and, perhaps more than any other people of the turn of the age (from BCE to CE) we understand Christians well. The development of the earliest Christianity wasn’t a static venture, but certainly an organic one that has many warts and scars. Yet here the Church still stands in this day (rather different I suggest) and still proclaims a Gospel so similar to the earliest Christian creed “Jesus Christ is Lord.”

The picture of these earliest believers might not be in full color or complete, but it is there and increasingly made clear through the efforts of legitimate, critical scholarship. For those of us looking to add to that picture, or at least learn how to add, a robust and competent historiography (historical method) is necessary for moving forward. It isn’t something that is easily spoken of in small groups or sermons, but it is absolutely necessary for helping finish the picture to which so many have already contributed. And yet, in 500 years, the painting might be just as unfinished.

status

A Few Thoughts on Bible Secrets Revealed

Last night, the History Channel aired the first of six episodes in a series titled “Bible Secrets Revealed.” So what might some preliminary thoughts about the series, and some of the points that were made, look like to an evangelical (and Baptist! – *gasp*) minister?

You can find out more about the series at the History Channel website and also see the list of confirmed scholars who will have air time. Also, the venerable Dr Jim West has posted a liveblog of the episode from last night, go check it out. Here’s a YouTube trailer:

Couple of preliminary thoughts and then we’ll be moving along:

1. The scholars they consulted were some of the top in their field. You just can’t find many series that dig as deep into the scholarly pool to bring out some (relatively young and articulate) scholars who can make sense of their dense fields of work. For their contributions, each of the scholars last night did an excellent job.

2. There are no actual “secrets” in this (or likely any) of the episodes. Maybe they’ll be secrets for somebody who hasn’t ever actually thought about this stuff or ventured into even the most elementary discussions, but these are pretty well acknowledged topics.

3. The selection of scholars was, generally good, however, I would have like to see a couple leading evangelical voices. As I mentioned in a twitter exchange, there are legitimate evangelical scholarly voices. The producers saw fit to include a creative writing professor who has only published a (bad) book about Jesus based on discredited 19th century historical Jesus work. Why not dial up Dan Wallace and talk about his perspective on textual transmission? Or Craig Evans about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Or Tim Keller? Or some others?

4. Along these lines, there are legitimate, evangelical responses to each of the discussion points about the nature of the biblical text that present accurately a viewpoint that leaves the Bible as an inspired set of texts that were accurately transmitted and faithfully preserved to reflect the authentic words of their authors. I wish we had heard some of them.

5. Critical scholarship is hard business, but this was a good production of some realistic challenges with dealing with the biblical text. Some texts are more challenging than others, and certainly the producers have found a good starting point. I’ll look forward to some stimulating conversations with a few of my atheist and other religions friends based on this series.

6. I’ll look forward to seeing the subsequent “Qu’ran Secrets Revealed” that surely is being worked on. (wink, wink)

I’m looking forward to the other episodes. From the list posted by Dr Bob Cargill it looks like we’ll be seeing some Historical Jesus stuff, Gnostic and hetrodoxical testaments, eschatology vs. apocalytpicism, and sex (well you gotta keep folks attention some how.)

Perhaps we’ll also see some evangelical voices. The challenge for the History Channel and the producers of this series (not that they care) is many Christians in the United States are already expecting to see a series that “goes after” the authority and inspiration of the Bible. If you want to lessen the cries of “heresy” and “liberal theology” it might be best to include a few faces and voices they’ve heard and trust. Just putting out a series that recapitulates an argument against the Bible, perceived or not, which seeks to undermine it is no longer surprising to so many faithful Christians. Since the History Channel and other networks won’t ever touch on my sixth point, there is a definite imbalance that is hurting the credibility of good, scholarly based series like Bible Secrets Revealed.

So, what did you think?

13
Nov 2013
POSTED BY Garet
POSTED IN

Apologetics

DISCUSSION No Comments
status

What Happened to the Apostles?

One of the vexing issues left when you read the post-Pentecost accounts in Acts and other New Testament literature is that most of the 12 Apostles disappear. Though some major figures continue, the rest of the twelve are outside the view of the New Testament.

As I was doing some more (as if it ends) dissertation reading in Streeter’s  The Primitive ChurchI noticed that he points out a third century pseudipigraphal document, The Acts of Thomas, that makes a curious note concerning what happened to the 12 Apostles following Pentecost. Here’s the passage from the Acts of Thomas:

1 At that time all we the apostles were at Jerusalem, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Cananean, and Judas the brother of James: and we divided the regions of the world, that every one of us should go to the region that fell to him and to the nation to which the Lord sent him.  2 According to the lot, therefore, India fell to Judas Thomas, which is also the twin: but he would not go, saying that by reason of the weakness of the flesh he could not travel, and: I am a Hebrew; how can I go among the Indians and preach the truth?

Streeter, after appropriately noting the specious nature of the reference, does make a note about how it is helpful in framing a possible picture of the dispersion that existed following Pentecost. The 12 Apostles, representative of the 12 tribes of Old Testament Israel, went into dispersion to accomplish the Great Commission and charge in Acts 1:8.

The idea that the Apostles remained consolidated in Jerusalem for the next several years is certainly reasonable. Acts 9, perhaps occurring within two years of the resurrection, details Saul’s conversion and entrance into ministry (before being sent off in Acts 9:30.) The dispersion of the earliest Christians into regions beyond Jerusalem and Judea becomes more clear as it seems Saul, who later became Paul, had someone to go to in this distant place.

In the rest of the New Testament, there is a growing sense that the earliest Christian communities are indeed growing outside of Jerusalem as the Apostles, or at least early adherents, are moving away to capture the commission of Christ. While they seem to be around for the Jerusalem in Acts 15:6-21, though it isn’t immediately obvious if this means the original 12 Apostles, there is also the issue that Paul had to, at point after his return from ministry abroad, submitted himself to a council of Apostles per Galatians 1:11-24.

Perhaps here we consider that the Apostles referenced is not always synonymous with the original twelve but that an Apostolic Council, or a collegium of Apostles, would meet regularly to consider new leaders and aid in the direction of the earliest communities. This seems a reasonable point given that Acts 15 mentions the idea of Apostles and elders in some kind of council.

As a result, it would not have been natural for the New Testament to continue to include specific references to the 12 Apostles if they weren’t in view of the authors. For instance, if Thomas did go to India (and was often referred to as Jesus since he was Jesus’ identical twin…or not) it would be outside the normal development of texts primarily written about events in Judea to include him in their narrative. Perhaps, if for no other reason, the exclusion of the Apostles from the rest of the New Testament is a helpful authenticating device to show the truthfulness of the New Testament documents. While many Gnostic and pseudepigraphal texts attempt to draw the Apostles back into the ministry of the early church, the truthful New Testament texts represent an authentic picture.

Other texts indicate that the Apostles did indeed seek out regions for their ministry in the earliest days of Christianity. This would certainly account for the spread of Christianity across the Mediterranean region, Africa and Asia. While the Acts of Thomas is not a definitive text for what actually occurred, it likely has some data to provide for shaping the earliest Christian developments.

status

Review: The Elders by R. Alastair Campbell

Though ecclesiology has been, widely, neglected in historical theological discussions, there is a growing field of research looking back to the earliest Christian communities for insights. Historical ecclesiology remains a growing field that is poised to, hopefully, receive important attention in the coming generation of scholars. If this occurs one work which will surely be included as effective for moving this field forward is R. Alastair Campbell’s The Elders: Seniority within Earliest Christianity.

Arising out of his doctoral thesis, at King’s College in London, this text seeks to evaluate the current state of ecclesiological thought on the role of elders within the earliest churches. Campbell approaches this task by considering the how contemporary scholarship reached its majority opinion on the role of elders, then looks back at the actual Sitz em Leben of elders in the New Testament environment, and then walks forward to the second century to see how the office developed. How the early churches understood elders in their structured ministry offices, or not, will be in focus for the entire text.

Campbell sets out to accomplish this work by way of eight chapters of research. One of the first priorities in the text is describing and making an initial evaluation of Rudolph Sohm’s landmark proposal at the end of the 19th century about eldership and church order. This approach has been adopted by many subsequent ecclesiologists, perhaps most notably by Hans von Campenhausen in his work Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual in the Church of the First Three Centuries (1997.) Campbell spends the first chapter covering this information and also providing some essential references for this study.

The  second chapter steps into the ancient Israelite and early Judaistic context for eldership. Following this, in the third chapter, Campbell handles the Greco-Roman context for elders. In both of these chapters the methodology lends itself to a deeper investigation of the language and concepts employed by these ancient societies. As a result, the reader is given a multi-disciplinary investigation of elders in the formative environments for early Christianity.

Chapters four through six (and an appendix to the sixth chapter) move into the literature of the New Testament for the references to elders. Chapter four spends its time looking at the critically affirmed Pauline documents for their references to elders and the fifth chapter considers the Luke-Acts usage of such references. For chapter six, and its appendix, the Pastoral Epistles, not Pauline in their attribution, is evaluated along with the rest of the New Testament.

Chapter seven moves into a post-apostolic view of eldership by helpfully considering texts from Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and a few others pertinent texts. Finally, in chapter eight, Campbell provides a summarization chapter with sections on present day applications. The author’s ending content, works cited, indexes of modern authors, texts, and topical, round out the ending material.

At the heart of Campbell’s proposal is his proposal that the role of elders should be understanding differently the majority of early Christian historians generally believe. While the majority, not consensus, view is that elders indicates an office, or at least a formal role, within the earliest churches, Campbell suggest this is incorrect. The term is a difficult one to pin down and, likely, has multiple meanings in these different contexts. As Campbell summarizes:

The main contention of this thesis is that in the ancient world the elders are those who bear a title of honor, not of office, a title that is imprecise, collective and representative, and rooted in the ancient family or household. To put it another way, we do not know who is referred to by the term ‘the elders’ unless we know the context and even then we do not know whom the term includes or excludes. (246)

Campbell’s text is an example of excellent and meticulous research that, thankfully, incorporates helpful footnotes replete with many works from antiquity and more contemporary scholarship from the 19th and 20th centuries. His handling of the sociological setting from which Christian and Jewish-Christian churches arose is particularly notable. It is not an easy thing to confront a growing body of scholarship and offer a course corrective. Campbell does his task well and presents a text worth reading for those interested in the role of elders historically and in the present churches. With the growth the neo-Reformed movements that enjoy elders over other, more traditional, offices, this is an important read to help offer corrective instruction. His engagement with a wide range of literature is admirable as is the discussions of the underlying factors of contemporary scholarship.

All that said there are a number of points at which I disagree with Campbell. Briefly, there is an admitted pluriformity of church model in the New Testament and for the first four centuries of the growth of the Church. Campbell acknowledges this movement but finds problem with the extent of that pluriformity. Being slightly neo-Sohmian myself, I would suggest the influence of the Jewish synagogues and Temple clerical systems are more influential than Campbell necessarily grants. This is a point worth discussing and hopefully additional resources will promulgate such discussions. Also, the development of the offices of the earliest Christian communities is developmental and elders, or presbyters, do in fact appear to have official capacities in local communities by the end of the first century.

Campbell has provided a valuable text for those interested parties in academia and the church world. While the writing is not overly technical, some of the discussions require knowledge of biblical and ancient languages to be fully appreciated. Though some minor typographical errors exist, the prose of the text is engaging though not overly flowing. This is a fine historical text.

status

Evangelical Views of Inspiration

With the recent hullabaloo over a three minute clip of a twenty minute presentation by a noted evangelical pastor, perhaps it is timely to think about what is an isn’t an evangelical view of Scripture.

The truth is that the most contentious issue in defining evangelicals doesn’t have to do with worship style, Christology, or any number of important theological topics. To get evangelicals all hot and bothered just bring up their book: the Bible.

Evangelicals take the Bible seriously and believe it is inspired and authoritative.

This has been one of the more agreed upon positions within evangelicalism historically.1 There are many points to this discussion, but the one which might be worth camping out on concerns the inspiration of the biblical text. Inspiration refers to the supernatural process whereby the author(s) of Scripture were moved to compose the texts of the books which make up the canon of Scripture.

One of the statements I’ve made in the past, and continue to hold to, is that there is not a consensus view of inspiration of Scripture among evangelicals.

To get into this discussion, let’s look at a chart detailing some views of inspiration in all theological conversations:

The six views represented here have unique meanings:2

  • Intuition – the authors have a proclivity to grasping divine action but there is little no influence from an external force in the process of writing the words of Scripture. Christian Scripture is no different from other religious writings. (Bultmann, Tillich)
  • Illumination – the Holy Spirit is involved in the process of inscripturation, but only existentially and there is no communication of information to the authors. (Bruggemann, Kaufmann)
  • Dynamic – the emphasis here is on the inspiration of the authors more than the words they actually penned. The Holy Spirit inspires the authors in guiding their thoughts, focus, and concepts while allowing the personality and cultural context of the authors to be evident. (Berkouwer, Strong, Mullins)
  • Verbal plenary – as the Holy Spirit inspires the authors it moves from the concepts anddirectly to every word that is written in the Bible. The human element is not overridden, aspects of the authors’ personalities and context still are evident, but they are divinely sanctioned elements. (Warfield, Grudem, Henry)
  • Dictation – as the authors of Scripture sat to write the Holy Spirit filled them and removed all traces of personality and context and the authors became the stenographers of God’s revelation. (Rice, Dodd)
  • Multimethodological approach – this is the idea that different texts of Scripture are inspired differently, but that all of Scripture is equally inspired. Here various approaches listed above are evident in different books of the Bible. (Goldingay, Marshall)3

I have not added one or two views (the neo-orthodox and Roman Catholic views for a host of reasons4 ) but in these which are listed above, you can easily see the spectrum of theologies they represent. Several of these views are clearly outside the realm of evangelicalism. Both intuition and illumination develop a text which is bereft of divine sanction, influence, or meaningful authority. In these views the text of Scripture is not separated much from other religious texts (the Qu’ran, Bhagavad Gita, etc.)

Of the remaining three primary views (I’m going to remove multimethodological for now) it is possible for an evangelical to embrace any of these three.5

It is most easily noted that the verbal plenary view established a large middle ground for evangelicals. This has been the default view since the evangelical emergence following World War II. However, because of the influence of fundamentalism6 dictation theory has remained part of evangelical views of inspiration. In that same way the dynamic view, often called the dynamic theory, of inspiration has been an effective leftward boundary for the view among evangelicals. Through the influence of several theologians and those evangelicals who are less than convinced of inerrancy, preferring infallibility, the dynamic view has maintained in evangelicalism.

Perhaps the larger challenge here is in that watchword for many evangelicals: inerrancy. When we consider the history of this  word in evangelicalism we are reminded that it has, for many, become a kind of “Maginot-line” in the fight for biblical authority and theological conservatism.7 Some authors have suggested that anyone who does not affirm inerrancy is not an evangelical.8 Others have pointed out the challenge of establishing this kind of litmus test for the category.9

If one takes the three categories for inspiration and evaluates how they influence the doctrines of inerrancy and authority, you find there are acceptable limits in these three categories. You can affirm inerrancy while holding one of these three categories of inspiration.10

So why the attempt to confine the evangelical view to verbal plenary inspiration?

Well, perhaps it is because of the theological traditions that one finds themselves within. Though many conservative evangelicals ultimately must appeal to the concept of “mystery” to explain their view of inspiration, that same appeal by other segments of evangelicalism is called out by those same individuals. The reality is, historically, that while verbal plenary inspiration has held the wide middle ground in evangelicalism, there have been others who make legitimate claims for their positions.

One of truths that we must recognize in this discussion is that if we do accept some aspect of mystery in our definition of inspiration. (Does anyone really want to claim they absolutely know how inspiration works? Well other than a dictation theorist?) We must default to the central question: where does it leave your view of biblical authority? Is the Bible authoritative in your position?

Evangelicals have a wonderful tradition of upholding an authoritative and divinely inspired text. Part of this is because the divine inspiration gives validation to the authority. However, the evangelical view takes the Bible seriously and applies a rich historic tradition that is, in fact, Scripture’s own view of itself.  As George Eldon Ladd has said, “Furthermore, the evangelical accepts the Bible’s view of itself as the inspired, normative, authoritative Word of God (I Tim. 3: 16; II Pet. 1:21).”

Our view of inspiration should leave us with a text that is divinely inspired and part of a process whereby the Holy Spirit uniquely and directly influenced the authors of Scripture to produce a series of texts that accurately tells the story of God’s redemptive plan across the actual history of mankind from creation to consummation at the end of the age.

If your view of inspiration removes the Holy Spirit from uniquely and directly inspiring the authors, you simply do not have an evangelical (and I might say biblical) view of inspiration.

Inspiration should leave us with a Bible that is clearly from God and an act of His providence.


  1. 1 See Mark Noll’s essay, “Evangelicals and the Study in the Bible” in Evangelicalism and Modern America ed. George Marsden pgs 103-121 

  2. 2. I’ve drawn from two primary sources, Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology and Steve Lemke’s chapter “The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture” in Biblical Hermeneutics 2nd Edition edited by Corley, Lemke, and Lovejoy. As a side note, both texts were written by professors at Southern Baptist seminaries. 

  3. 3. Each of these listed individuals next to a view is, to the best of research, appropriately noted. Please let me know if you think otherwise. 

  4. 4. Here is a pretty comprehensive list presented a well researched post from James Sawyer

  5. 5. Also, there are some wonderful historical treatments on views of inspiration. I’d particularly point out David Dockery and William Evan’s respective pieces. 

  6. 6. Particularly from the early set of volumes called The Fundamentals, in which there is featured James M Gray’s essay on inspiration

  7. 7.  Many times in the history of evangelicalism the greatest battles have been over this text, how to understand, and the theology around it. FF Bruce once referred to this issue as “The Maginot-line mentality where the doctrine of Scripture is concerned.” Quoted by Robert Johnston in Evangelicals at an Impasse 160, n5 

  8. 8. See Harold Lindsell Battle for the Bible, 1976 

  9. 9. Specifically Bernard Ramm After Fundamentalism. One additional, I am a happy member of the Evangelical Theological Society and sign my statement affirming my belief in biblical inerrancy every year. 

  10. 10. One test would be to take the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and consider articles VI through X as it relates to this conversation and these categories. 

UA-40705812-1