From an unpublished book I wrote
Just how trustworthy is the Bible? This has been one of me great issues of this century. Is the Bible
inerrant (meaning no errors), or is it merely an
infallible (perfect) guide in matters of faith and practice? (meaning that what it says about spiritual truths is true, but there may be errors in science, geography, and history) While there are unbiblical views that reject the authority of the Word altogether or say that it becomes God’s Word as you experience it, the above stated views are the center of the debate.
On the left side is the neo evangelical position, and on the right is the evangelical position
NEO-EVANGELICAL............................ EVANGELICAL
[FONT="]True in whole, but not all parts.[/FONT]........................ [FONT="]True in whole parts.[/FONT]
[FONT="]True spiritually, but not always historically..............................[/FONT] [FONT="]True spiritually and historically[/FONT]
[FONT="]True morally, but not always scientifically.......................................[/FONT] [FONT="]True morally and Scientifically[/FONT]
[FONT="]True in intention, but not in all affirmation[/FONT]........................ [FONT="]True in intention and all affirmations[/FONT]
[FONT="]Bible is infallible, not inerrant...................................[/FONT] [FONT="]Bible is infallible and inerrant[/FONT]
[FONT="]Bible is God’s instrument of revelation.[/FONT]........................... [FONT="]Bible is intrinsically a revelation.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Bible is God’s record of revelation.[/FONT] .............................. [FONT="]Bible is intrinsically a revelation.[/FONT]
[FONT="]God speaks through the words of the Bible.[/FONT].................................... [FONT="]God speaks in the words of the Bible.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Human language is inadequate to communicate God....................................................[/FONT] [FONT="]Human language is adequate but not exhaustive.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Much of higher criticism may be accepted...........................................[/FONT] [FONT="]None of higher criticism is accepted.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Faith is opposed to reason.[/FONT] [FONT="]...................................................Faith is not opposed to reason.[/FONT]
[FONT="][1][/FONT]
NOTE: The term “higher criticism†refers to a school of thought begun in the late 1800’s in Germany that has evolved into a theology stating that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, and that there are two (or three) different people who write the book of Isaiah. Essentially the term “higher†refers to the degree of complexity one uses to look at Scriptures. Granted, there are some Scriptural difficulties in the original texts that have differing interpretations, but acknowledging them, and trying to explain them in such a way to not take away the divine authorship of Scripture is the function of lower criticism.
Why is this chart an important part of apologetics? It demonstrates that one view is an appeasement policy, and the other is an apologetic policy. That is, one position gives up ground to accommodate the human mind, making it superior to God, while the other position takes God at His word, and begins from there.
[FONT="][1][/FONT]Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990).
When skeptics ask (Page 146). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.
My apologies for not having the chart come out well