Book Reviews -- By: Anonymous
CenQ 22:3 (Fall 1979) p. 37
The Bible In The Balance by Harold Lindsell. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979, cloth, $9.95. Reviewed by Dr. Rolland D. McCune.
This book is a sequel to the author’s previous book, The Battle For the Bible, which came out in 1976. The present work is basically an interaction with the negative criticism of the former book.
The Battle For the Bible caused considerable reaction, especially in the centrist and leftist wings of the new evangelical community. Lindsell himself could probably be considered a right wing new evangelical; he believed the fundamentals of the faith but rejected the Biblical doctrine of separation. That stance is not improved in The Bible In The Balance.
One thrust of The Battle For the Bible was to expose the heresy and hypocrisy of those who had come to repudiate verbal inerrancy but who were trying to parade as evangelicals. Such an unmasking was extremely embarrassing for many evangelicals, to say the least. Typically, as in the tale of “The Emperor’s Clothes,” they chose to castigate the truth-teller rather than admit their duplicity. But in so doing, they tipped their hands even more. Some, such as Clark Pinnock, Paul Rees, David Hubbard and the Faculty of the Fuller Theological Seminary, Bernard Ramm and others, openly exposed their unbelief toward verbal inerrancy, and their sloppy theological track record became known in some cases for the first time. Others, such as Carl Henry, who claim personally to believe in verbal inerrancy, revealed how flaccid they really are in the front lines of battle, far removed from the ivory tower. Such people criticized Lindsell for raising the issue and disturbing the tranquility of evangelicalism and its supposed united front against liberalism. Still others were moved by the Battle to shore up and strengthen doctrinal statements and to press the
CenQ 22:3 (Fall 1979) p. 38
case for verbal inerrancy even more vigorously. The formation of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy is one such evidence.
Thus the negative reactions to the Battle only confirmed the truthfulness of its expose. The statements, position papers and caustic (if not bitter) remarks that came out of Fuller Seminary should convince even the most skeptical that today it is in the neo-orthodox camp and bears little resemblance to the faith of Charles E. Fuller and the Old Fashioned Revival Hour. David Allan Hubbard, president of Fuller, said that inerrancy was “unbiblical.” Daniel P. Fuller, son of Charles E. Fuller, has repudiated the inerrancy of the whole Bible and holds that only “doctrinal” verses are infallible. If Southern Baptists can still believe ...
Click here to subscribe