Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

The term “Semi-Conservative Bible Scholars” serves as a less confrontational yet descriptive label. It implies that these scholars uphold some conservative viewpoints while deviating from others, such as the principle of absolute inerrancy. This term acknowledges the partial alignment with conservative values and doctrine but also signals that there are significant departures worthy of scrutiny. So, “Semi-Conservative” maintains the nuance that these scholars are not entirely in line with traditional conservative stances, inviting the reader or listener to investigate what specific views diverge from the conservative orthodoxy.

While liberal-moderate scholars present one set of challenges to the biblical inerrancy and orthodox Christian teaching, another threat lurks closer to home—so-called conservative scholars who, upon close examination, do not truly align with conservative values, especially concerning biblical inerrancy. These scholars frequently disguise their true positions with a veneer of orthodoxy. It’s crucial for the Church to discern between genuine and semi-conservativism in scholarship for the preservation of doctrinal purity.

Identification and Categorization of the Top Ten Prominent Liberal-Moderate Bible Scholars

Peter Enns

Peter Enns, a professor and prolific author, often questions the historicity of biblical accounts, such as the story of Adam and Eve. By doing this, he undermines the foundational premise of sin and salvation. This approach erodes the concept of biblical inerrancy from within what claims to be a conservative framework.

Peter Enns is often cited as a scholar who identifies with conservative evangelical traditions but has voiced reservations about the concept of Biblical inerrancy in the way it is commonly understood. He has expressed views that challenge traditional evangelical notions of inerrancy, especially in his book “Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament.”

In the book, Enns proposes an “incarnational” model of biblical inspiration, arguing that just as Jesus is both divine and human, so too is the Bible. For Enns, this means that while the Bible is divinely inspired, it also reflects the cultural and historical contexts in which it was written. This position has been viewed as controversial by some within conservative circles, and it led to his departure from Westminster Theological Seminary, a conservative institution where he was formerly employed.

It’s important to note that Enns does not reject inerrancy outright but redefines it in a way that is not in line with more conservative positions that see the Bible as without error in all matters, including history and science. Therefore, while he may still identify with conservative traditions in some respects, his views on inerrancy place him at odds with scholars who hold to a more rigid form of biblical inerrancy.

Michael Licona

Michael Licona is well-known for his defense of the resurrection of Jesus Christ but raises eyebrows when he interprets certain biblical passages, like Matthew 27:52-53, as apocalyptic symbolism rather than historical events. This selective skepticism toward Scriptural accounts undermines the principle of inerrancy.

He is generally considered a conservative apologist and is respected in evangelical circles. However, Licona has faced criticism from more conservative scholars due to his interpretation of certain New Testament passages, particularly Matthew 27:52-53, which describes saints rising from their graves at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. Licona has suggested that this might be apocalyptic imagery rather than literal history, a view that has led some to question his commitment to absolute inerrancy.

John H. Walton

A supposed Old Testament conservative scholar, John H. Walton proposes that the Genesis creation account is merely a functional description rather than an account of material origins. This view allows for evolution to be integrated into biblical theology, which conflicts with a literal, six-day creation model and thereby challenges biblical inerrancy. Walton is known for his “Lost World” series, where he delves into the Ancient Near Eastern context of the Bible. While he affirms the Bible’s authority, he challenges traditional views on subjects like the creation account in Genesis. Walton argues that the text should be understood within its ancient cultural context, which might not align with a strict, modern, scientific understanding of inerrancy.

Tremper Longman III

Although a respected Old Testament scholar, Tremper Longman III adopts a loose framework when it comes to Genesis, particularly concerning the historicity of Adam and Eve. His concession on this point has severe implications for the doctrine of original sin and thus compromises the inerrancy of the Bible. A widely published Old Testament scholar, Longman would generally fall under the conservative umbrella, particularly earlier in his career. However, his views on subjects like the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the interpretation of the Song of Solomon as a non-allegorical text, have caused some to question his commitment to a strict doctrine of inerrancy.

William Lane Craig

A philosopher and theologian, William Lane Craig is often hailed as a conservative apologist. However, his openness to theistic evolution and willingness to allegorize certain biblical passages makes his stance on inerrancy questionable at best.

William Lane Craig is a notable figure within the field of Christian apologetics and is generally considered conservative on many doctrinal matters. However, when it comes to the subject of biblical inerrancy, his position is more nuanced. While Craig affirms that the Bible is inspired and authoritative, he has expressed reservations about strict inerrancy, particularly when it comes to matters of history and science.

For example, Craig has also shown willingness to entertain the idea that certain biblical accounts, like the story of Adam and Eve, might be allegorical or symbolic rather than strictly historical. This has led him to take positions on issues like the historicity of certain events in the Old Testament that are not in line with a strict view of inerrancy.

Craig tends to emphasize the core truths of the Christian faith, such as the Resurrection, over the inerrancy of each and every detail in the Bible. In his work, he often distinguishes between what he sees as essential matters of faith and peripheral issues where there may be room for disagreement among Christians.

Darrell L. Bock

A New Testament scholar, Darrell L. Bock is open to the idea that the Gospel writers rearranged events for thematic reasons. While this may seem harmless, it raises questions about the literal truth of the Gospel narratives, thereby challenging the inerrancy of Scripture.

Craig A. Evans

Known for his work on the historical Jesus, Craig A. Evans sometimes employs criteria for authenticity that could undermine the veracity of the Gospel accounts. His methodology can give the impression that the Gospels are not entirely reliable, which contradicts the notion of inerrancy.

Craig Keener

While an accomplished New Testament scholar, Craig Keener has been known to delve into socio-rhetorical criticism, sometimes prioritizing it over the text’s literal meaning. This method can dilute the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture.

Mark L. Strauss

Strauss is noted for his work on biblical hermeneutics and translation. However, his support for dynamic equivalence in Bible translation introduces the possibility of human error and bias into the very Word of God, which is incompatible with the doctrine of inerrancy.

Bruce Waltke

An Old Testament scholar, Bruce Waltke is open to theistic evolution. His stance suggests that the early chapters of Genesis are not historical accounts, undermining the biblical narrative of creation and thus questioning its inerrancy.

Exercising Caution with Semi-Conservative Scholarship

Each of these scholars holds to a high view of Scripture and its authority but diverges from a strict interpretation of inerrancy as understood by some in the conservative evangelical community. Their works show the diversity of thought on this subject even within generally conservative or evangelical circles. It’s crucial to note that not everything these scholars say is incorrect or unhelpful. Many have made substantial contributions to theology and biblical understanding. However, their lapses in upholding the complete inerrancy of Scripture should serve as a warning. Believers must exercise discernment and caution when consuming their works to ensure alignment with truly conservative biblical values. Always remember that even a slight deviation from the principle of inerrancy can lead to significant theological errors. Therefore, maintaining a firm grip on this foundational doctrine is not just a matter of academic integrity but of spiritual fidelity.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).