WHEW! I dropped out of this long blog near the end because I can stand just so much of this kind of talk about "inerrancy, etc., etc., etc." And I tend to doze off in sleep when forced to read the esoteric reasoning for unnecessary rationalizations about Scripture, whether historic or still being written today. Is it that some theologians simply have to have something to write about, some way of getting their names into print? So much of this feels like the 21st-century parallel to those old arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. God's Word has changed the direction of my life and feeds my soul daily. Please don't ruin that for me with arguments that go far beyond a necessary understanding of the worth of Scripture. Thanks, Scot, for putting this issue on the table on Tuesday. I'm with you all the way.
I'm curious to think about how the concept of inerrancy intersects with the process of cannon formation. We believers all wish to believe in an inerrant Scripture. How then do we account for the process of determining Scripture in our doctrine of inerrancy?
WHEW! I dropped out of this long blog near the end because I can stand just so much of this kind of talk about "inerrancy, etc., etc., etc." And I tend to doze off in sleep when forced to read the esoteric reasoning for unnecessary rationalizations about Scripture, whether historic or still being written today. Is it that some theologians simply have to have something to write about, some way of getting their names into print? So much of this feels like the 21st-century parallel to those old arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. God's Word has changed the direction of my life and feeds my soul daily. Please don't ruin that for me with arguments that go far beyond a necessary understanding of the worth of Scripture. Thanks, Scot, for putting this issue on the table on Tuesday. I'm with you all the way.
I'm curious to think about how the concept of inerrancy intersects with the process of cannon formation. We believers all wish to believe in an inerrant Scripture. How then do we account for the process of determining Scripture in our doctrine of inerrancy?
One big problem also is that the meaning of "autographs" and "originals" is just as foggy and undefined as "inerrancy." Adherents to the Chicago statement waffle back and forth in their own publications without even knowing it - something I discuss in my book "Deconstructing Evangelicalism" (https://www.amazon.com/dp/099059436X/ref=cm_sw_r_as_gl_apa_glt_fabc_7E6TWGAY9FK827VF5PBS?linkCode=ml2&tag=onlthepenmanw-20)