"In short, our tendency has been to fight our fiercest battles at the theological periphery of evangelicalism, where we believe the limits of tolerance have been exceeded [i.e., where data no longer fit our theological model]. We rarely ask who in our midst may be equally misguided (and possibly even more dangerous) because they have drawn the boundaries too narrowly rather than too broadly [i.e., fit the theological model too well]. As Arland Hultgren's survey of the earliest eras of church history reminds us, one can become heretical by being either too broad-minded or too narrow-minded. It would be a salutary exercise to survey the history of the Evangelical Theological Society to see if we have ever addressed the second of these categories [too narrow, i.e., theological overfit], having obviously addressed the first numerous times [too broad, i.e., theological underfit]. It would be even more salutary as we currently wrestle with definitions of orthodoxy more generally to make sure that we address both extremes."
Craig L. Blomberg, The New Testament Definition of Heresy.
Arland J. Hultgren (1994) The Rise of Normative Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press
Model overfit in theology, Blomberg C. … Rasch Measurement Transactions, 2004, 18:3 p. 989
The URL of this page is www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt183g.htm
Website: www.rasch.org/rmt/contents.htm