Two of the intellectual fathers of Christian fundamentalism, and ultimately evangelicalism, were James Orr and B. B. Warfield. Both contributed to The Fundamentals, and are well known for opposing modernism and liberalism.

But recently I learned that they differed from one another on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. John Woodbridge and Frank James, in Church History, II, 21.II.D, write:

[Orr] was unwilling to draw the circle so tightly even though he shared a deep commitment to the supernatural inspiration of the Bible, which as such requires our sincere obedience. He argued that strict inerrancy is "a most suicidal position" that had the potential for destroying the "whole edifice of belief in revealed religion."

Interestingly, Wikipedia says that James Orr believed in the "infallibility" of the Bible, which to me is normally, for practical purposes, a synonym of inerrancy.

Thus it appears that I don't have a full understanding of the debate over inerrancy and infallibility in fundamentalism and early evangelicalism. To begin to understand this better, I'd like to know, from the actual writings of these two men, where they differed on this doctrine.

  • 1
    I know infallibility and inerrancy are distinguished now, but this debate would have preceded that considerably, I would think. Unless they began a debate which would only be picked up decades later... – curiousdannii Jul 13 '17 at 14:56
  • 1
    Sorry - shouldn't use comments for this, but see Orr's sentence that begins at the bottom of p. 49 and continues on to p. 20. No time for more just now! – Dɑvïd Jul 13 '17 at 21:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.