Inerrancy as an Issue in the Fundamental Movement: 1900 to the Present

                                              by Philip Ayers

 

Thesis Statement:

    Scriptural inerrancy and Fundamentalism cannot be separated. Throughout history the inerrancy of Scripture has been the basic foundation of the Fundamental movement. This movement has and continues to defend, promote and love the divine Word of God.

An Overview of Inerrancy within Fundamentalism:

     "Inerrancy of the Scripture" means that the Scripture, as written, is without error. The Scriptures were inspired by God which means God breathed out the words of Scriptures. Human authors wrote the words of the Bible as the Holy Spirit gave them out. The Bible states, "All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God" (II Timothy 3:16). It says, "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (II Peter 1:21). [1]Since God breathed the Scripture upon men, the Scripture is authoritative. "God used a variety of ways to give us His Word (poetry, history, testimony, law, epistles, or biography), yet every word is His Word, complete and inerrant as a result of inspiration of the Holy Spirit."[2]

    "Fundamentalism" is generally used by and applied to the followers of a movement within United States Evangelicalism that developed toward the end of the 19th century. The movement developed in reaction to the replacement of what were believed to be the inerrant words of God with scientific hypotheses and a non-authoritative approach to the truth of all Scripture. Science was perceived as ignoring divine revelation by replacing the truth about creation by God in six literal days as articulated in the first eleven chapters of the Genesis with Darwin's theory of evolution.[3]. Christian Fundamentalism is a movement within conservative Christianity that transcends national boundaries and involves various denominational groups. The majority of its representation is in the U.S. Christian Fundamentalists. They place strong emphasis on the inspiration and authority of the Bible and insist that it be accepted in total and without internal error. This belief is commonly referred to as the belief in inerrancy.

    Although people have held to some of Fundamentalism's basic principles since early biblical history, the actual name was unknown to people before 1900. Curtis Lee Laws, a Baptist man, is believed to have coined the term "fundamentalist" in 1920. He referred to anyone who strongly defended the "Fundamentals" as being a "fundamentalist." Another source claims that Harry Fosdick, a liberal theologian, popularized the term in an article criticizing the movement. The modern movement was birthed out of a series of Conferences organized by evangelicals in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The expression "fundamentalism" has its starting point in a succession of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," they were written by leading evangelical churchmen, and contained five points. These early fundamentalists adopted five points: (1) the verbal inerrancy of the Bible; (2) the divinity of Jesus Christ; (3) the Virgin Birth; (4) the substitutionary theory of the Atonement (i.e., that Jesus Christ died for us as a sacrifice for the sins of the world); and (5) the physical resurrection of Christ and his bodily return to earth on the Last Day. [4]As one would expect, fundamentalism has evolved with its own "schools of thought" and various emphases. People who identify themselves today as fundamentalists need to clarify their respective uses of the term.

    Additionally, the movement opposed a growing secularism and the emergence of "liberal" or "modernist" theologies which respected science as well as biblical studies not confined to literalism. At the heart of early fundamentalism was the principle of "biblical inerrancy," which meant that the Bible, as written, was true in all respects. A true Fundamentalist interprets everything in the Bible literally and seeks to be completely obedient to its content, regardless of the implications. It is a movement born out of a reaction against liberalism in the Church. Seeking to preserve the core of religion and its influence upon society, Fundamentalists separate themselves from societal trends that appear to be against morality and conservatism. It strongly opposed the subtle acceptance of Darwinian theories of evolution. A problem for Bible-believing conservatives was how to reconcile biological evolution with the literal interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis.[5]

    The battle over inerrancy would become a vital role in the political arena. The Word of God is the guide for all affairs including government. Political Fundamentalists use conservative theological conviction and personal commitment to engage in combating worldly systems and vices using the political realm of society. One of the most widely known representations of Political Fundamentalism is the Moral Majority movement of the 1980's. "The Moral Majority arose in this situation in 1970's, capitalizing on the unfocused but conservative political sentiments of many evangelicals and some others. From the viewpoint of evangelicalism, a striking feature of Moral Majority was its leadership proudly called itself "fundamentalists." [6]

 

Defining the Terms of Inerrancy:

    Fundamentalism began in the later nineteenth century as a concerned response to the rise of higher criticism and doctrinal deviation and also as a response to the worldly drift among God's people. Fundamentalism dates from 1909, with the publication of "The Fundamentals" and the first edition of "The Scofield Reference Bible".[7]Surely it dates no later than the 1920 Northern Baptist Convention, when Curtis Lee Laws coined the term Fundamentalist.[8] Nevertheless, the movement was a departure from the drifting attitude expressed by main-stream Protestant orthodoxy. "Indeed, avowed "fundamentalists" today are almost all strict millenarians who also insist on Biblical inerrancy."[9]  A look at the beliefs of the movement will identify its convictions.

Biblicism

     The Fundamentalists took a more rigorous view of the Bible. Much earlier, in the 19th century, the believers held a strong view of inspiration. The Princeton men get credit for their strong view, but it was not the most important issue for them. However, the 20th Century brought a strong view of inspiration and an equally strong view of inerrancy focusing on literal interpretation. Through the term "Fundamentalists" was offensive to many, it remains the key descriptive word for those who defend the inerrancy of Scripture.[10]

    Part of the reason for this rigorous Biblicism was the rising concern for prophecy. Literally-interpreting the Bible damaged both postmillennialism and amillennialism. The rising Biblicism forced many to make a choice between either a literal Bible or the old Confession of Faith. The old confessions had a wrong view of prophecy. The main interest focused on the Lord's return. The hope of the Lord's return began cutting people off from their denominational ties.

    With the literal Bible, especially after 1920, the key issues became the Virgin Birth and Creation. The Modernist, with its higher criticism, evolution philosophy and rationalism, had infiltrated the denominations. The literature of the time is full of these, and both of them reveal how faith in the Bible and Modernism are mutually exclusive.[11]

Premillennialism

    The second belief of the movement is the hope of the rapture and of the bodily return of Christ to set up His kingdom. The literature suggests that the early leaders had read Darby and then put his writing out of their minds, so as to form their own view of prophecy. [12]By the end of the nineteenth century many came to recognize that God has dealt with Israel, the church and others in different ways. Christ's redemptive work remains the same through each period of dispensation; saved by grace through faith. This understanding soon led to dispensationalism, and during the 1920's the Scofield Reference Bible became a standard of the movement. Before this the dispensationalist premillennialist had promoted their coalition through prophecy conferences, Bible campaigns and evangelistic campaigns.[13]  The Scofield Bible was the leading device that the Spirit of God used to protect the faithful from the grip of Modernism.[14]

Separatism

     Modernism threatened the standing of the Word of God among believers throughout the denominations. The Modernist movement was slow moving and crept up on many of the faithful. By 1910 it had become a formidable movement. That year W. B. Riley attempted to mount a pre-convention conference before the Northern Baptist Convention met. He wrote that from the chairman on down, the whole program was in the hands of the higher critics. Again in 1918, he addressed the threat of Modernism and the controversy surrounding liberalism. By that time Northern Baptist Modernists held key pulpits, most of the schools, and many of the mission boards. This controversy displayed itself in the confrontations between Harry Fosdick and Clarence Macartney, and that between William Bryan and Clarence Darrow. The Scopes trial in 1925 brought the Fundamentalist Movement to an abrupt halt. Still it was not until about 1927-29 was there any real despair over the head offices or any willingness to pull out.[15]

    Apostasy had become grounded in the main denominations and it was apparent that it was there to stay. By 1930's it was clear that the Fundamentalists had no place in their old denominations. Many of its leaders advocated withdrawing from these denominations. Thus the Separatist were born and would become a permanent force within Fundamentalism.

    Separatism added an extra dimension to Fundamentalism. It required a separation from all worldliness, sin and the appearance of it. [16]The Modernist called them legalists and declared that the movement would not last.  However, the Separatists stood upon the Word of God and its authority to sustain them, which it has done.

Militancy

    Fundamentalists are sometimes described as being militant believers.  "When the battles against modernism arose, fundamentalism always retained a tension between exclusivist militancy and an irenic spirit concerned with holiness and saving souls. These latter elements in the tradition of Moody gave the movement its largest appeal."[17] The Modernist attacked the inerrancy and authority of the Scripture as well as embracing the evolution doctrine. The Fundamentalists responded in an angry and combative way.

"Two factors help to explain this remarkable shift from moderation to militancy. One is that more aggressive and radical forms of theological liberalism had developed. Fundamentalists themselves occasionally explained the phenomenon thus, and their claim had some basis. Clearly, however, fundamentalism was more than a reaction to theological change. After 1920 fundamentalism became conspicuously associated with a major component of social and political alarm?most evident in the effort to save American civilization from the dangers of evolutionism. This perception of cultural crisis, in turn, appears to have created a greater sense of theological urgency. Thus, fundamentalist theological militancy appears intimately related to a second factor, the American social experience connected with World War I." [18]

The strong non-tolerant stance against liberalism was viewed as being hateful and militant against any who stood in opposition. Fundamentalist felt they had no option. This almost fanaticism has aided in the historical development of the separatism. It has helped keep them from being spotted by the world. [19]It has given them the commitment to stay devoted to the inerrancy of Scripture. However, in recent years they are realizing the need to approach spiritual revival through less offensive means.

    Fundamentalist stress evangelism and foreign missions, but lately with decreasing success. Even of those who can report numbers, many have to use the methods of show business rather than the preaching that would have worked a generation ago. The movement used to be rather interdenominational, but the last two decades have seen almost the end of that. Fundamentalism has had its problems and inconsistencies; the position, however, still happens to be right.

The Conclusion:

    Fundamentalism and inerrancy of Scripture go together like apple pie and ice cream. Throughout the history of Fundamentalism the Scripture has taken the ultimate position in the movement. From the very beginning, in 1895, the Fundamentalists formulated its famous "five points of fundamentalism or necessary standards of belief." They were the inerrancy of Scripture, the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, the physical resurrection of Christ, and his imminent bodily return to earth, the first of which is inerrancy of Scripture. The inerrancy of Scripture is the foundation of Fundamentalism. The Scripture is the well from which Fundamentals draw the principles of successful ministry. It governs our relationships with follow believers and the world. This has been the pattern throughout the history of Fundamentalism and will continue to be. The Bible best summarizes our stance, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction into righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (II Timothy 3:16-17).

Clifton Olmstead summarizes the union of fundamentalism and inerrancy of Scripture.

     He says, "Unable to halt the alarming trend toward secularism, fundamentalism turned away from a "sinful" society and proceeded to create its own world. In that world the center of life was the church, which preached the "whole Bible," and the Bible institute where the faithful could study doctrine untainted by the inroads of modernism. Though rigidly authoritarian, it was a comfortable world blessed by the assurance that it knew the full truth and that its salvation was secure. There was no consistent pattern in fundamentalist organization. In many cases persons of that persuasion remained in the larger denominations while at the same time grouping themselves into congregations with a fundamentalist character. In some instances conflict within a communion led to the withdrawal of the conservative wing to found a new denomination."[20]