Hi Neo
Just as a small point re "the literal inerrancy of the Bible" It is true that Fundamentalists believe the Bible to be inerrant, in all that it affirms, and that the Bible is to be taken "literally". It is common misrepresentation to portray interpreting the Bible literally, as being a wooden, narrow system that makes no allowance for literary devices such as metaphor, simile, parables, or poetic language, just to name a few. There are also, countless other negative connotations to the term Fundamentalist, (some of them deserved, others not) that have caused most believing Christians to move away from using the term to describe themselves. I myself don't mind the term as long as it's not used simply as a pejorative to dismiss me before a discussion has even begun.
Perhaps these two links will highlight the difference between theological liberalism vs a Biblical/conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist view of God and the Bible. While not all Liberals are as honest as Funk, nevertheless his, is a logical conclusion to reach given the naturalistic presuppositions that undergird so much of Liberal Christianity.
reformed.org
westarinstitute.org
To me the essential difference is the basic belief that, to quote Francis Schaeffer "He is there, and He is not silent.", as opposed to, it is impossible to here from someone who does not exist.
Have a good day
Greg |
