Church and ministry leadership resources to better equip, train and provide ideas for today's church and ministry leaders, like you.
Get updates from Religion Prof: The Blog of James F. McGrath delivered straight to your inbox
Would you personally describe N.T. Wright as being a kind, nice fundamentalist?
I believe that he is not a bad scholar and that many of his theories about the historical Jesus are not worse than those of liberal scholars such as yourself.
The problem is that he too often gets carried away by his belief in Biblical inerrancy.
By the way, he seems to have pretty good relationships with professor Dunn, doesn’t he?
I would say he is a good example of being conservative without being a fundamentalist.
Fundamentalism is a work of the twentieth century. You can read all about it from “The Fundamentals: The Famous Sourcebook of Foundational Biblical Truths”
The movement actually started earlier than this book when a Biblical teacher at a Christian university (if I remember correctly a Presbyterian teacher) was saying that a translation in an English Bible was unfaithful to the Greek language.
Evangelical Christians are not fundamentalists. They have more of a narrower goal and often times their theology is lumped together with fundamentalist thought which is actually a categorical mistake.
Having established that the fundamentalists are entirely an American movement, then N.T. Wright, as an Anglican (Church of England), is hardly a fundamentalist.
FYI – Biblical inerrancy is not the same as fundamentalism. And Biblical inerrancy, in non-fundamentalist circles is actually more related to the divine truth of the Bible as opposed to the historic or scientific truth of the Bible.
In defence of Sproul and Mohler, I do think science generally is incompatible with Christianity, inasfar as they define Christianity.
Of course there are plenty of models of Christianity that are compatible, but I’m quite sure they would say those aren’t “real” Christianity.
I increasingly think that these kinds of debate are really just naive foils for arguments about definition. These folks aren’t discussing whether evolution is compatible with Christianity at all, they’re arguing whose definition of Christianity is the right one.
ty – fixed.
One of the first things that I think of when I hear an argument against evolution is whether it applies with at least as much force against reproduction. For example, the complaint heard in this video about the scientific/naturalistic/materialistic account of the origins of the body from a single cell: It is reproductive biology that tells us that we start from a single cell.
love it. thanks