From a netfriend:

I am not much of one to throw around labels – because there is a spectrum of positions concerning 1) the veracity of the scriptures; 2)

the authority of the scriptures; and 3) the place and role of the scriptures in faith and practice.

IOW, we cannot bake all liberals (for example) into one big pie on their take concerning the scriptures. on one end there’s some who question the veracity of the scriptures – but not the authority and hold to the teachings of orthodox theology and practice. on the other end, there are those who hold what appears to be nothing more than the name “christian” and little of the shared values, theology, ideals, and ideas of anything close to church at large. there are many shades inbetween.

The same for chrisians who believe the bible (fundies in mark’s vocabulary) – one of my professors identified about 9 different positions on the issue of innerancy alone. on one end of the spectrum there is very little difference between the low end liberal and those who believe the veracity scriptures – but do not consider the text to be without error (possibly with the exception of it’s talk on matters of faith and principles). on the other – typically we find what bible believing christians (i don’t know a proper designation or term to use other than this – which may be inadequate) tend to call legalists. more often than not, at least in america, we tend to think legalist when we hear the term, “fundamentalist,” used in a pejorative sense. typically, those who are uncritical (in the scholastic sense of the word) in their thinking, intolerant and staid in their dogma, and repressive in their ignorance and pro letter of the law vs. spirit of the law mentalities and practices. they’d be a step above (and not too far either) snake handlers. again, there are many shades in between.

[I am aware of the orthodox and rcc positions on the Church as interpreter of scripture vs. protestantisms preisthood of the believer and sola scriptura – but, that is not the issue i am presenting at this moment. Instead, merely how one views the veracity of the scriptures themselves. the other might be a good conversation at some time – though it plays on usenet regularly.]

Maybe Dr. Dockery’s 9 positions on innerancy would be of help here:

1. Na ¯ve inerrancy (mechanical dictation). 2. Absolute inerrancy. 3. Critical or balanced inerrancy 4. Limited inerrancy 5. Qualified inerrancy. 6. Nuanced inerrancy (or focused inerrancy)

7. Functional inerrancy. 8. Errant yet authoritative 9. Biblical authority

(taken from an article – link below)

1. Na ¯ve inerrancy (mechanical dictation). In this view, God actually dictated the Bible to the human writers. There was “little or no involvement of the human writers in the process.”[xvii] According to this view, there are passages that indicate the Spirit of God told the author precisely what to write; these “are regarded as typical of the entire Bible. The strength of this position is that it gives proper credit to God as the author of the Bible. However, it seemingly ignores style differences, as well as historical and cultural contexts.”[xviii]

2. Absolute inerrancy. This position “allows for more human involvement.”[xix] The Bible is accurate and true in all matters, and the writers intended to give a considerable amount of data on such matters as history, science, and geography. This view tries to avoid mechanical dictation, but it affirms instead a verbal-plenary view of inspiration instead. It tries to affirm that the Bible is the written Word of God but also to account for human authorship. Sometimes, however, this view also seems to fail to take seriously the human aspect of Scripture and its historical contexts.[xx]

3. Critical or balanced inerrancy.[xxi] The Bible is true in all that it affirms, to the degree of precision intended by the biblical author. This view does not try to harmonize every detail of Scripture. It realizes that the authors had different purposes-Matthew and Luke, for example, or the authors of Kings and Chronicles. This view uses, cautiously, critical methodologies such as form criticism and redaction criticism. This position usually regards scientific matters as phenomenal-spoken of in popular language which describes things as they appear, without overly precise or technical language. Historical matters are faithful representations of the way the events described took place. However, this was accuracy in general, not precise, terms.[xxii] This is Dockery’s personal position.[xxiii]

4. Limited inerrancy.[xxiv] The Bible is inerrant in all matters of salvation and ethics. The old Baptist phrase which I grew up on was “matters of faith and practice.” Divine inspiration did not raise the writers to an intellectual level above that of their contemporaries. It did not give them scientific knowledge unavailable to the people of their day. Therefore, it is possible that the Bible may contain “errors” of science or history in the sense that it expresses the common understandings of that ancient day.[xxv] The problem with this view is that it makes the human writer responsible for recent developments in scientific and historical methods. However, the point of the view is that the Bible is fully truthful and inerrant in matters for which it was given.[xxvi]

5. Qualified inerrancy. “This position is . . . similar to the one identified above, except in matters of philosophical starting points. The previous position is more closely identified with empiricism, while this one begins with a strong viewpoint of faith.” It is qualified inerrancy in that “inerrancy can be maintained if we qualify it as a faith statement.” We are looking through the eyes of faith. “It is possible that errors could be identified through an inductive study, but beginning with the presupposition of faith, a position of inerrancy . . . can be maintained in a ‘qualified’ sense.” This position is obviously somewhat difficult to articulate.[xxvii]

6. Nuanced inerrancy (or focused inerrancy). This view says that “how one understands inerrancy depends on the type of biblical literature under consideration.”[xxviii]

It is quite acceptable to talk about the Bible as mechanically dictated at certain points like the Ten Commandments, places where human authorship seemingly does not enter in. It is acceptable to talk about verbal inspiration in epistolary or historical literature. In matters where the human author has greater freedom for creativity such as poetry, proverbs or stories, we must allow for a dynamic inspiration. In other words, one position of inspiration . . . is not adequate to deal with the various types of literature represented in the Bible.[xxix]

This position takes seriously the human authorship of Scripture. It maintains divine inspiration throughout. However, its obvious difficulty is in correctly identifying the genre that the author uses to communicate the message.[xxx] We would identify this view with John Goldingay.

7. Functional inerrancy. This popular position “maintains that the Bible inerrantly accomplishes its purpose. It sees the purpose of scripture as one of function.” We read the Bible to learn how to be rightly related to the Lord in salvation. We read it to learn how to grow in godliness.[xxxi] One scholar observed that “Jesus never turned to holy scriptures for history or geography but rather for a religious insight into the meaning of life and mission.”[xxxii] If I read Augustine correctly-perhaps a big if-this was his position.[xxxiii]

E. Y. Mullins, Southern Baptists’ greatest theologian, could perhaps be classified under this category. He spoke of an infallibility of purpose rather than a verbal infallibility (inerrancy).[xxxiv] (Dockery, however, associates Mullins with the limited view.) This position generally refuses to relate inerrancy to matters of factuality. The Bible is inerrant in that “it is faithful in revealing God and bringing people into fellowship with him.”[xxxv]

I came across this illustration, which I think will helps clarify this view:

Suppose you and I were lost in the wilderness. We have no food, and snow will be coming soon. We stumble into a cabin. While wondering what to do, we notice a faded old map on the table. It is torn and dirty, and part of it seems to be missing, but it shows a path from the cabin to a main road where we could find help. You ask, “I wonder if this map is correct? Will it lead us to safety?” We will not know until we follow it. As we follow the map, we discover that indeed it does bring us to safety and help. We know that whether it is faded or holey, it is reliable because it has led us and others to safety.

The Bible has been that kind of map for many persons for centuries. It does not have to be a perfect map to guide us in our spiritual pilgrimage.

Does one variation affect the whole? A small difference between one book and another does not change the central truth being proclaimed. To change the author of one of the biblical books, or to discover mistakes in quotations, chronology, history or the scientific view of the writer does not affect the fundamental theological truths they are addressing.[xxxvi]

8. Errant yet authoritative. Inerrancy is irrelevant. This view neither affirms nor denies a position. It rather considers the whole argument irrelevant, distracting, and concerned with theological minutia that inhibits serious biblical research. This view charges that the debate creates disunity among those who have the main things in common. The major charge against this view is that it fails to see that issues relating to the nature of the Bible and biblical authority are foundational in our faith.[xxxvii]

9. Biblical authority. This last view does not see the Bible as inerrant, nor as a revelation from God. Rather, the Bible “is a pointer to a personal encounter with God. Questions of truth or falsity are of little concern.” This view assumes that the Bible contains errors because it was written by sinful humans. But “the presence of errors in no way militates against the functional purpose or authority of the Bible when God is encountered through reading it.” This view obviously has been influenced by Neo-Orthodoxy. It includes an existential or encounter view of truth. It obviously recognizes the situation of the human author, but it does not recognize the divine character of the Scriptures.[xxxviii]

Dockery concluded his immensely helpful article by suggesting that we can learn from several, if not all, of these positions. http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/034/Can%20You%20Believe%20in%20Inerrancy%20AND%20Equality%20By%20Dan%20Gentry%20Kent_034_13_.htm#What%20is%20Inerrancy?

I think the author of that article probably holds #7. Functional inerrancy – and he is correct dockery holds #3. Critical or balanced inerrancy. i myself tend to be a mix of several of these positions which maybe what dockery was aiming at in #3. we tend to see “fundamentalists” as being laregly in group #1 on this issue – or if they are in group #2 – they tend to be of a sort that uses the idea to labor for the insurance that their interpretation is the one that everyone holds in all matters of faith.

We also tend to see fundamentalists (again i am using the prejorative usage of the term here) as being people who hold up secondary issues of faith, doctrine, and or practice as being unquestionable and damning if one disagrees with them.

For example: i am a high inerrantist (in many ways) – but i do not think a person has to be an inerrantist to be a christian. Ii would consider their position to be a weakening one (not in a good sense) and counter productive towards their faith walk – but i would not make it a litmus test to the kingdom – because such is not required by the bible. but, all matters of importance are not known or marked by what is required to become a babe in Christ or an adopted heir – but some matters are important concerning one’s growth and the matters which one teaches to the flock.