«Even those who claim the Bible's
inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages — the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity — are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.»
Not exact matches
Though people here have
made some very good points about the supremacy of love and being «living epistles», I think it would be a mistake to dismiss the apologetics of
inerrancy entirely.
Holding to 6 - day creationism
makes good philosophical sense if you believe, as you insist, on Scriptural
inerrancy.
In light of my recent series on the the inspiration and
inerrancy of Scripture, someone wondered if I had read The Bible
Made Impossible by Christian Smith.
To critics of biblical
inerrancy, it sounds like we Christians are
making the same argument as this man uses: Is this what we do with Scripture?
Even such spokesmen for Biblical
inerrancy as Bernard Ramm, Carl Henry, and Clark Pinnock (i. e., those willing to
make that inference) recognize that this is an unwise theological reduction.13 For it is to confuse one of several possible tests of evangelical consistency with the test of evangelical authenticity.
To
make «
inerrancy» the watershed of evangelicalism is to reverse the order of priority of authority, inspiration, and
inerrancy.
Yet it is this very process of rational justification that
makes fundamentalism a very modern phenomenon, one that sets it at odds with the more ancient tradition of
inerrancy found within the Church.»
Its as if the modern Church has decided that what
makes the Bible sacred is its
inerrancy, that what qualifies it as the Word of God is its historical and scientific accuracy.