To some extent the rise of Dispensationalism in the early 20th century can be understood as an expression of this same reaction-to-liberalism dynamic, even though the theological system it spawned (despite its claims) was actually proven to be an inaccurate and unfaithful interpretation of the Scripture itself. It's hyper-literalism proved to be selective and driven by certain commitments. Once these were undermined by more solid exegesis, the entire system collapsed like a great house of cards.
Contemporary hyper-literalism lends itself to the extreme - making the anti-science reaction of Fundamentalism after the Scopes Trial seem mild. This hyper-literalism also tends to run parallel to cultural narratives regarding the Civil War and the theologically conservative and agrarian South versus the liberal industrial North - at least in some circles. In other cases there's a distrust of government that (though few realize it) emerged in the 1970's after the wave of assassinations, revelations of CIA activities, Watergate, and the often misunderstood and misinterpreted end of the Vietnam War.
Some in their reaction to both Scientific Materialism and Postmodern Sociology (which they erroneously see as operating in concert) have fallen back on Common Sense Realism or other Aristotelian-rooted forms of Empiricism. The resulting propositionalist approach to knowledge and doctrine has led to oversimplification, reductionism, and often rationalism. When combined with a Fundamentalist-style approach to Common Sense Realism and hermeneutics, the end result is positions that are both absurd and unfaithful to the Holy Text.
It can be argued that a consistent hyper-literalist reading of Scripture results not only in a re-assertion of geocentricity but even Flat Earth cosmologies - both of which have emerged in recent years. These are fringe positions of course and there are few within either the Evangelical or Confessional sphere that would advocate for them, but it demonstrates a real epistemological crisis. Again, I'm reminded of some well-meaning but misguided Fundamentalists who adopted not a dogmatic historical text position but rather a King James Only position which though completely incoherent proved easy to understand and adopt - all the more as (conveniently) the new autograph or preserved text emerges in the English language.
These types of extreme hyper-literalism push the very concept to the breaking point and while the people inhabiting those circles are zealous and quite vocal in their advocacy, it also seems clear that the large numbers of people leaving suggest that despite outward indications to the contrary there are nevertheless a lot of people in those circles who harbour serious doubts.
At
this point we should note there's some overlap between the
positions.
The Evangelical Academic model for all its faults is
more rooted in the context of the times in which the Scriptures were
actually written. Though even this must be qualified as the academic
dating of books is often at odds with the Scriptural data and there's
also a great deal of confusion regarding the development of
Hebrew-Jewish doctrine, the influence of events like the Babylonian
Exile, and the many claims made about just what emerged during the
Second Temple period.
That said, there is a willingness under this model to take the text seriously in so far as its complexity of allusions and passing thoughts - things which are often glossed over and flattened out by dogmaticians and systematic theologians who wish to create tight and coherent doctrinal grids.
The truth is the Scriptures are replete with references to spiritual concepts that present untidy dynamics in the realms of theology proper, soteriology, and cosmology. It is this latter point in which I have noted some overlap. The Academics pick up the larger question of cosmology when it comes to references to the Divine Council. This is not the same as a pantheon and though some unbelieving academics will argue that the Jews moved from polytheism to henotheism and ultimately to monotheism - and thus muddy the waters. The Scriptures reveal an unapologetic absolute monotheism that exists alongside a Divine Council view - which is not quite the same as either a henotheistic or polytheistic model. These dynamics are also seen when it comes to other topics. I immediately think of the opening chapters of Ephesians and Paul's teachings regarding predestination and grace even while over and over again there are appeals to means, contingency, and works. These are dynamics, not contradictions. So it is when it comes to cosmology.
God is still the one true Deity and yet the Scriptures (if taken literally) reveal a picture of cosmic governance far more complex than your average Evangelical or Confessionalist is willing to admit. Ironically it's some of the older style Fundamentalists in their literalism that pick up on these points but they often go down wayward paths exhibiting a tendency to multiply epochs and entities when in fact the same things are being referred to metaphorically, from different vantage points, or simply by different descriptions.
This is why some Confessionalists, Evangelicals, and otherwise more Biblically conservative people are (in their frustration and yearning) drawn to teachers like Heiser and Godawa. They are touching on these issues but given their commitments, they're a bit off - just as are the few Fundamentalists who engage these teachings in our day. It's something I've written about in the past - see the links at the end of this series.
These same people have often (sometimes to their bewilderment) come into conflict with fellow Confessionalists or denominationalists who refuse to extend or widen their theological understanding as they remain committed to a tradition or in other cases (while somewhat compelled by the discussion), the broad concepts introduce too many new data into their theological reckoning and would result in antinomies and the need to not just expand their theological systems, but to re-cast them. Once again, the problems emerge at the level of prolegomena where the foundations of theological method are established.
Both models which admirably embrace a wider cosmological understanding and expanded supernaturalism are at this point nevertheless frustrating to the student of Scripture. One camp seems to view this as an academic exercise in order to understand the document as it was written in its context - without necessarily endorsing these views as authoritative or applicable to today.
The other (the Fundamentalist) view is perhaps better but gets lost in the weeds (so to speak) and is unable to step back and look at the wider context which can help with understanding, without being authoritative in the way such information is utilized by the academy. Failing to do so, they (in their literalist zeal) often get pulled down odd and idiosyncratic pathways, resulting in sui generis interpretations that have no basis in either the text or historical precedent. Or in other cases they fail to realize how subjective and culturally formed their thinking is - one thinks of the constantly shifting views regarding the symbolism in Revelation as well as the endless (and misguided) debates over the Mark of the Beast.
And to add yet another wrinkle, the popular authors JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis certainly embraced this expanded cosmological view. As both students of Scripture and the larger classical tradition, these concepts (which were once well known) were familiar to them and incorporated in both the cosmologies of Middle Earth and Narnia. This has added what might be called an emotional element to the debate and for others these are seminal figures connected to larger Culture War and while not above criticism, their works are considered part of the Literature Canon of Western Civilisation/Christendom.
This brings us to some other manifestations and aberrations when it comes to the question of Scriptural Authority and how concepts such as Sola Scriptura are manipulated and misused.
We have the Right-wing fringe political groups within Confessionalism, Evangelicalism, and Fundamentalism who also appeal to Scripture to justify their views. Their employment of the Old Testament is often ad hoc, tearing verses from their immediate and redemptive-historical context. They will argue they're 'just following the Bible', but it's just as clear that large sections of the New Testament are problematic and functionally explained away.
For some who have strayed into race-driven nationalist narratives, there are additional New Testament difficulties as its teaching does not harmonize with their views or their framing of civilization. We see a lot of recent attempts to impose nationalist readings on the text and to argue (unconvincingly) that God sanctions nations (and thus nationalism) and calls on them to thus defend their borders. The arguments are further confused by debates over the nature of a nation. Is it a shared culture and set of ideals (as per Enlightenment Liberalism) or is it some expression of Tribalism?
Though the Evangelical Left is less likely to argue for a robust expressions of Scriptural authority, there are some who will make passionate (if selective) appeals to Scripture. In their case they often make ad hoc use of the New Testament. And in most cases there are serious issues with their general theology as their humanism overshadows Biblical concepts. Many take issue with the Scripture's concepts of atonement and punishment. The God of the Old Testament especially clashes with their humanistic presuppositions and absolutized commitments to the accompanying concepts - such as rights, democracy, autonomous freedom and the like.
Most hold to ambiguous views of Scripture but some in recent years have come out swinging arguing against the Christian Right and Christo-Trumpism on the basis of Scripture. They hold a low-view of Scripture in theory but hold the New Testament high in terms of ethics - some embracing a reductionist and self-serving view of Sola Scriptura known as Jesusism or Red-letter Christianity as some would have it. It's completely unscriptural but no more so than the attempts made by Right-wing elements and Neo-fascists to do the same.
Both of these approaches miss the mark and their claims of Sola Scriptura or Scriptural Authority cannot be taken seriously.
There is another strain of Sola Scriptura which upon examination is also found wanting but it's subtle and disputed. Those I would categorize as examples of this subversive tendency would reject my claims and insist they are in fact the true exponents of Sola Scriptura. I refer to the camp that understands Sola Scriptura through a Rationalist lens. They impose a set of criteria on the text, forcing it to conform with their temporal (and thus limited) and (I would argue) fallen sensibilities and limitations. Hostile to unresolved tensions, dynamics, mystery, paradox, and anything that might seem or have the potential to be viewed as contradiction, their theological method is driven to prioritize, synthesize, and deduce all revealed truths - boiling them down into an airtight coherent package that I would argue is but a paper castle, impressive in one sense and yet lacking substance and a less than accurate or faithful representation of Biblical doctrine.
Such tendencies lead to the various expressions of Hyper-Calvinism, problems with Trinitarianism or Christology - driving these concepts to be interpreted in a narrow sense or re-defined. Soteriology is flattened and understood in a reductionist framework with all the focus on conversion experience, justification, or election. The sacraments are often left as empty forms - or in a few rare cases absolutized. Most of these thinkers are baptistic or are on that path. Some are restrained only by Confessional affiliation, but read these documents through this narrow lens.
In some contexts this doctrinal tendency can produce a kind of Fundamentalist style - minimalist framing and a kind of sardonic contempt for those who might differ or argue for a more broad understanding. I am well aware that even though I am hostile to such rationalist tendencies I might be accused of sharing something of this cynical or derisive Fundamentalist style. I would hope that it would be interpreted not as arrogance or haughty contempt but rather as impassioned fervour or in some cases righteous umbrage.
This tendency can also appear in some non-Reformed circles. Thus far I've been primarily thinking of certain Calvinistic Baptists, Herman Hoeksema's Protestant Reformed Church, and the followers of Gordon Clark.
However, one can find similar tendencies within some Fundamentalist circles, within some sectors of Evangelical thought, and among Stone-Campbell Restorationists who elevate Common Sense thinking to an absolute level. That said, they still have a tendency to stick to the text and if the text is multi-form they will insist on the same - and yet in practice they retain a rationalist understanding and interpretation. In other words, consistency is often absent even though strong Common-sense rationalist tendencies are present. Scripture is elevated but often in competition with other epistemic commitments.
This brings us to the very edge of the Sola Scriptura spectrum. Thus far we've seen how the position can interact with academic commitment, different confessional traditions, and various forms of reason and logic which are often rooted in a cultural milieu or consensus. In other cases the commitment to logic is rooted in (or overlaps with) one's doctrine of God (almost equating God with logic) which in turn determines how Scripture must be read and understood. But given that theology proper must itself be determined by revelation, we need to start there before we work towards a doctrine of God properly speaking. We shall revisit this anon.
At this time we should acknowledge the Prima Scriptura (Scripture First) position which certainly acknowledges the divine nature and authority of Scripture, but insists that it must be read within a framework of reason and tradition. This is the position of Anglicanism and certainly Methodism. Scripture is granted ultimate authority but with certain caveats, and critics will point out that all too often the caveats win the day.
I would argue that the Confessional position associated with the Reformed tradition is in fact (or in practice) a Prima Scriptura position - the Oberman-Mathison T-paradigm is simply wrong. And I think an even stronger argument can be made that this Prima position is (in reality) the Lutheran Confessional position as well.
While the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox certainly acknowledge the divine nature of Scripture and its inspiration, their views are quite different and do not even qualify as Prima Scriptura. For them Scripture is but an element in a larger body of tradition - and for Rome, a living tradition that continues to evolve as per the magisterium - the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. Scripture plays a part in their thinking and teaching, but it is not authoritative in itself.
Thus as far removed from Scriptural Authority as this Prima position is, it remains above the Theological Modernism (or Liberalism) which now dominates the Mainline denominations. That said, there are plenty of theological modernists operating within the fold of Roman Catholicism - holding very low and revisionist views of Scripture that exist alongside the authority found within the larger tradition.
For the modernists (who are Enlightenment Humanists in Christian garb) revelation (if valid at all) as a supernatural event is subjugated to human reason and experience - man is the measure of all things, the chief reference point in epistemology. Scripture is redefined as something akin to a community consensus.
For some, the Scriptures are myths (about which they remain agnostic in terms of historicity) that are important to culture as symbols, as ways of grounding and identifying social narratives and ethics. God might speak through them, or for some 'God' is simply a term used as a catch-all for transcendent concepts, or a means of grounding thought and existence. For some God is an impersonal force - perhaps in a deistic or pantheist framework.
Even though these same modernists often inhabit buildings and institutions that were once associated with Confessionalism or Biblical authority, they view the Bible as purely (or at best mostly) human. It's only real importance is in terms of social dynamics and struggle. For many of these 'teachers' and 'theologians' Christianity is reduced to being (primarily) a set of ethics. There's often an emphasis on public vs. private theology and piety. Many of these teachers honestly believe that by using the tools of the academy, they are articulating the 'right' understanding and application of Scripture. As such they are often scornful of the uneducated Fundamentalists or the biased educational commitments of Confessionalists who insist on stopping time and progress as they see it.
The various modernist camps seem to agree that forms are important to connect and ground the modern church to a longstanding tradition as well as historical patterns of belief and worship. Others (seeing themselves) as continuing the Reformation's inevitable path toward humanism, are willing to employ iconoclasm - calling for Enlightenment individualism and rights to triumph over tradition in the realm of ethics and the like. This challenge will often include radical changes to the liturgy.
Even if the supernatural is acknowledged and transcendence granted some standing, the practical outworking of this way of thinking leads to a Materialist default - ethics and epistemology may pay lip service to God, but there is a strong tendency to rely on materialist categories and thinkers when it comes to all questions. If they are not outright agnostics, at best we find deism or Open Theism denying omnipotence and omniscience. Any kind of commitment to traditional theism is shattered by the challenge of theodicy, notions of Providence, let alone Divine Judgment and/or eternal punishment. And first and foremost for these people, the Bible is untrustworthy, anachronistic, and unauthoritative.
I contend that such materialism leaves the world wide open to spiritual influence and indeed one sees (at times) New Age and occult practice entering such circles. All tools of spiritual discernment are not only removed but invalidated. Since these people are (by definition) unregenerate, such realities should not surprise us.
The great irony is that many 'scholars' who operate within this sphere or those who straddle it and the Evangelical realm have gained standing in Evangelical circles and educational institutions. Likewise with post-war Evangelicalism's determination to gain standing within society, many erstwhile Evangelicals have gained positions in the secular academy and in order to retain their standing are willing to bend to scholastic norms and concepts - often imbibing and embracing them along the way. At some point they functionally abandon Scriptural authority though retain the claim by redefining it. These are the same Academic Evangelicals we've already encountered. Even many Confessionalist theologians will pursue doctoral degrees from secular universities in order to gain standing.