More than a decade before Newsweek declared 1976 the “Year of the Evangelicals,” the coalition of conservative Protestants had already begun to break apart…Evangelicals were engaged in a Battle for the Bible.

Few periods of the last century were more destructive, realigning, reshaping, and redefining of Evangelicalism than the decade and a half beginning in the mid-1970s. The evangelical coalition was taut and threadbare, in danger of tearing asunder by scholars who disputed a fundamental of the Christian faith, Scripture’s inerrancy. Ironically, the ripping occurred the same year that Evangelicalism unexpectedly received national acclaim linked to a presidential election.
Arising from this period were two closely correlated questions: (1) Who are the Evangelicals? (2) What do Evangelicals believe concerning the authority and truthfulness of Holy Scripture? Both questions were thrust upon Evangelicalism in 1976, the year that Newsweek deemed the “Year of the Evangelical.” In what follows, I will show that 1976, while seemingly a high water mark for Evangelicalism, actually exposed serious fractures which proved beyond repair, despite valiant efforts by leading evangelical scholars. Many who abandoned the foundational evangelical belief in the inerrancy of Scripture took the evangelical label with them and expanded it to allow for their belief in “limited inerrancy.” They published numerous essays and books challenging the long-held belief that the Bible is without error in the original manuscripts. The battle was on; would Evangelicalism survive?
1976: A Pivotal Year for God’s Word
In America’s bicentennial, Jimmy Carter ran for United States president as self-professed “born again” Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher, The incumbent, Gerald Ford, a reserved Episcopalian, professed the same. At that time, Episcopalian and Southern Baptist leaders identified their denominations as distinct if not separate from America’s evangelicals. With the presidential election only a week away, these distinctions were too intricate for Newsweek’s editors to acknowledge or comprehend when they designated 1976 the “Year of the Evangelical” (October 25, 1976). For example, Carter’s praise for Paul Tillich, a Neo-Orthodox theologian from whom evangelical scholars stood aloof, did not temper Newsweek’s equating Carter, the Southern Baptist, with Evangelicals.
Harold Lindsell, also a Southern Baptist, took a vastly different posture toward the SBC leadership than Carter, who identified with them. Lindsell published The Battle for the Bible in 1976 and by June it was already in its third printing. Formerly Lindsell was a faculty member at Northern Baptist and Fuller Seminaries and Wheaton College before he succeeded Carl F. H. Henry as editor of Christianity Today (1968–78). So, when Lindsell wrote his book he did so as the editor of a major Christian magazine, not as an academic. Thus, he appealed not to scholars but to “evangelical lay people in the pews who may not be aware of the central issue that faces them, their denominations, and their institutions.”[1] What distressed him was stated at the outset, as he regards
…biblical inerrancy to be the most important theological topic of this age. A great battle rages about it among people called evangelicals. I did not start the battle and wish it were not essential to discuss it. The only way to avoid it would be to remain silent. And silence on this matter would be a grave sin.[2]
Of his own denomination, he notes, “Probably 90 percent of the people in the pews believe in biblical infallibility.”[3] His concern is with the academic institutions: “Among faculty members of Southern Baptist colleges and seminaries where do you find articulate spokesmen who come out in favor of inerrancy? The silence is deafening!”[4] He laments that as academics “retreat from inerrancy,” denominations abandon vital ministries and displace them with “socio-political-economic concerns.”[5]
Lindsell’s principal distress was over Fuller Seminary’s revising of the doctrine of inerrancy by endorsing their own coinage, “limited inerrancy.” He also called attention to an ethical issue; Fuller Seminary administrators publicly portrayed the seminary as holding to its founding doctrinal affirmation, which included Scripture’s infallibility, even after some of its faculty “ceased to believe in an infallible Bible.”[6] They contended that Scripture’s inerrancy is restricted to matters of Christian faith and practice with allowance for errors in matters concerning the observable world, geography, history, and science.[7]
It is significant, then, that Harold J. Ockenga, first President of Fuller Seminary (1947–54) and still serving on the seminary’s board, launched the initial volley from Lindsell’s arsenal by writing the foreword. Ockenga drew attention to Fuller Seminary, sharing Lindsell’s concern that Scripture’s “inerrancy is the watershed of modern theological controversy” because “those who give up an authoritative, dependable, authentic, trustworthy, and infallible Scripture must ultimately yield the right to use of the name ‘evangelical.’”
This is Lindsell’s burden when he makes his final appeal:
It is my conviction that a host of those evangelicals who no longer hold to inerrancy are still relatively evangelical. I do not for one moment concede, however, that in a technical sense anyone can claim the evangelical badge once he has abandoned inerrancy…It is true that a man can be a Christian without believing in inerrancy. But it is also true that down the road lie serious pitfalls into which such a denial leads. And even if this generation can forego inerrancy and remain more or less evangelical, history tells us that those who come after this generation will not do so…I do not look for or expect a time in history as we know it when the whole professing church will believe either in inerrancy or the major doctrines of the Christian faith. There will always be wheat and tares growing together until the angels begin their task of reaping the harvest at the end of the age.[8]
Read More
Related Posts:

Christians obviously disagree, individually or corporately, over many matters—distinctive beliefs, ministerial philosophy, practical applications, etc. But disagreement is not necessarily the same as persistent disobedience or unbelief. If possible, we should enjoy what levels of fellowship we can have and handle disagreements as charitably as possible.

We must contend for the faith. Jude commands us, “Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
But we must not be contentious. Speaking on head coverings, Paul gave a prohibition against contentiousness that applies to any situation: “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God” (1 Cor 11:16).
What does it meant to contend? What does mean to be contentious? And how can we contend while not being contentious? By reviewing the meaning of contend and considering the meaning of contentious, I’ll attempt to answer these questions below.
Defining the Term Contend
In a previous post, we examined the word contend:
The word translated “contend” has the idea of expending intense effort and energy. It comes from epagōnizomai, a relative of agōnizomai, from which we receive our English word agonize. Jude’s form of the word is used only here, but its relative refers elsewhere to fighting (John 18:36) or to participating in an athletic contest (Heb 12:1). Whether as a verb or noun, the New Testament repeatedly uses this word as a metaphor for aspects of the Christian life: salvation (Luke 13:24), perseverance (Heb 12:1), self-control (1 Cor 9:25), prayer (Col 4:12), suffering persecution (1 Thess 2:2), and the gospel ministry in general (Phil 1:30; Col 1:29; 2:1; 1 Tim 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7).
Following Christ, controlling ourselves, praying, suffering, and ministering to others—all of these activities require intense efforts on our part, a struggle made possible by the power of Christ (cf. Col 1:29). Opposing false teachers and their teaching, contending, is one of these struggles, and Jude urges us to contend for the faith.
So, here in Jude, contending is intensely opposing heretics and their heresies that have crept into God’s church.
For this post, I thought it would be helpful to add some thoughts on contending without being contentious.
Defining the Term Contentious
Paul concluded his instruction on head coverings with a prohibition against being contentious: “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God” (1 Cor 11:16).
“Contentious” stems from philoneikos, used only here in the New Testament. If broken into its parts, this word literally means “a lover of victory.” Someone who has an inordinate love for victory has to be right in every dispute. And the sad thing is this—sometimes this love for being right is so blinding that a contentious person thinks he is right in his love for being right. People like this are contrarian, quarrelsome, and contentious.
Read More
Related Posts:

Praise God for His expansive vision of the covenant of grace. Praise God there is one hope, one faith, one baptism, one Lord and Savior of all – Jesus Christ. There is one flock and one shepherd. One pasture and one Pastor. The gospel is highly offensive but broadly applicable to all people everywhere.

And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. – John 10:16
This past week we had a missionary come visit our congregation. What was amazing was the rabbit trail he sent me down. Do you know how many different types of sheep there are? There are more than 200 distinct breeds of sheep! There are skinny sheep. Fluffy sheep. Hairy sheep. Sheep with horns. Sheep with nubs. There are black sheep, white sheep, brown sheep, spotted sheep, and straight down the middle half-colored sheep. There are short-tailed sheep and there are fat-tailed sheep.
The point this missionary was making was that Jesus had other sheep. They didn’t sound like the Jewish sheep. They may not have looked like the Jewish sheep. They may not have been the same color as the Jewish sheep. But, they were Jesus’s sheep and he was bound and determined to save them. Jesus would call and they would answer.
The Great Commission
It took some time for the Apostles to understand this but eventually they got it.
Read More
Related Posts: