The conflict within Christianity in the late 19^th century rose on the intellectual battleground, sparking a clash between groups that would come to be known as the fundamentalists and liberals. As people had new ideas about the world, science, and religion the authenticity and completeness of the bible came into question. Darwin’s theory of evolution seemed to throw a wrench into the creation story found in Genesis, which caused a stir within Christianity. The historical authenticity of most books of the bible was brought into question as well, and the supernatural miracles in the bible became less and less popular. People began to realize the capabilities of human beings, and found great satisfaction in solving problems and gaining knowledge. Protestant Liberalism arose in the elite class of U.S. citizens to accommodate these new ideas while still holding to Christian beliefs. Liberals could think as freely as they wanted, as long as they never crossed over into the realm of superstition. A few number of radicals emerged as modernists, who renounced the bible and Christianity as merely another religion and book. The majority of Protestant Liberals didn’t go too far, however, and just saw an opportunity to wrestle with the new intellectual ideas of the time, and fit them into their Christian beliefs. Opposition slowly arose as people saw liberalism as a threat to the very essence of Christianity. The main debate had to do with the theory of evolution, a debate that is relevant today in public schools. This group of people against the liberals were known as the fundamentalists, and stuck to the fundamentals of Christianity. These fundamentals were the inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus, the Virgin birth, Jesus’ death on the cross as a substitute for sins, and his physical resurrection and impending return. This debate between fundamentalists and liberals went on for years as new intellectual ideas have come up. The fundamentalists hold true to the bible and the core of Christian doctrine while the liberals think more freely about biblical truths.

In the Princeton Doctrine, the ideas of Inspiration and Revelation are discussed. Inspiration is defined as the constant attribute of all the thoughts and statements of Scripture, while revelation is defined as frequent. The authors believe there was a mixture of both human and divine agency in the creation of scripture. The people who wrote it were humans in history, but God inspired them. The authors of the bible experienced facts in reality that turned into ideas inspired by God. The Holy Spirit was at work the whole time, “causing His energies to flow into the spontaneous exercises of the writer’s faculties, elevating and directing where need be, and everywhere securing the errorless expression in language of the though designed by God.” (144) In other words, the Holy Spirit was intricately involved in the entire authorship of the bible.

Laws talks about the difference between the fundamentalists and modernists, classifying them as the new and old theologies. The main issue he addresses is the question of authority. People abiding by new theology didn’t think the Scripture was the final authority, but that God’s speaking into their life was. They thought that scripture was being made into a kind of pope, which is what the Protestants were trying to escape from. The old view of the bible was that it was divinely inspired by God, and should absolutely speak authority into the Christian’s life. The Bible is still spiritual and inspired by God, so it isn’t like another pope that one has to slavishly obey. It contains the words of God revealed to man that are relevant to life in any context or culture.

It is hard to believe that the arguments made by the people at Princeton are dispassionate. There is definitely emotion and passion involved in the ideas they are talking about. They are talking about what they believe to be ultimate truth and reality, while holding to traditional ideas and views that they have known probably their whole life. It is extremely difficult to be unbiased when talking about religion, because it is often so ingrained within the lives of the people in conversation. That being said, they have a decent argument for why the old theology is superior to the new. If God divinely inspired the authors of the bible to write down what he wanted them to, and everything in the bible came from a perfect God, then it absolutely should be authoritative. If one questions the authority of the bible, it would seem they have to question the authority of God, or the truth of the bible. Their view of God probably comes from the bible though, and it isn’t logical to believe some of it to be true and divinely inspired by God and not all of it. From a logical standpoint, if Christians believe God to be all knowing, all perfect, and all-powerful, then what he says is authoritative. If some of the bible is true and inspired by this God, then all of it has to be, or the God they believe in is something different than the one described above.