A while back I wrote a blog post pointing out that I don’t hold to an inerrantist view of the Bible. I do not accept that beloved doctrine held by many other evangelicals, biblical inerrancy. It isn’t biblical, it isn’t required, and it is, at times, just implausible.
Bnonn over at Thinking Matters doesn’t think much of the position I expressed. Apparently my comments are “theologically inept” and “culturally prejudiced.” I think Bnonn is simply wrong about this, and I also think that it might have been prudent to ask me what my case against inerrancy was before railing against it (as I said at the time, I offered only scant comments, and had I actually been trying o make the case against inerrancy I would have said more), but do head over to check his post out, where you’ll see my comments on it as well.
Unfortunately he actually oversteps the mark and misrepresents me, saying that I personally believe that the Bible may contain “fraud” or “deceit,” but I realise that it’s hard for those with a strong committment to inerrancy to imagine a Bible that is neither inerrant nor fraudulent and worthless. The fact is, I do not countenance a fraudulent or deceitful Bible at all. All I postulate is that the message of God was delivered by imperfect people (not fraudsters or liars). It’s nothing shocking, really.
- No, I am not an inerrantist.
- Laidlaw College: Mark Strom is moving on
- A genuine question on the inspiration of Scripture
- Bloesch on Holy Scripture
- The Bible, abortion, and extra-biblical knowledge