KeithE wrote:Try the word "re-enforced” or “strengthened” in one’s opinion even if wrong.
If one feels so led, one should discuss/argue the facts out with those whom one disagrees. Not just label them “biased” and therefore not worthy of further consideration - that is the easy way out that leads to hardening of one’s opinions. If not so led, then try the word “tolerate”.
I did call inerrantists “not credible” and that may be viewed as “intolerant”. But note that I entered into discussion/argumentation when I linked supporting sources that:
1) showed the contradictions- see
Short List of Biblical Contradictions2) discussed the matter more philosophically and historically for those so inclined - See long time Baptist Dennis Bratcher’s
inerrancy is not crediblein the Spirit of 1 Peter 3:15:
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
Neery a comment back wrt the links.
Many people herein are largely here to make proclamations (without supporting reason) and do not even engage others when challenged.
Oh well I’ll keep on trying.
Been through the short list, the longer list, Clayton Sullivan's book
Toward a Mature Faith: Does Biblical Inerrancy Make Sense?, and some atheist websites. Most of those objections are dealt with in a more scholarly way than a message board instruction in Jimmy Draper's work,
Authority: The Critical Issue for Southern Baptists, and in W. A. Criswell's
Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True, among others.
Aside from the details of the subject of volumes, inerrancy has a very practical, working definition for those who are outside the realm of theological schools, Bible colleges and the ins and outs of training preachers, pastors, theologians and Bible scholars. It is the old Reformation idea that human beings are not required to have a theology degree or be endorsed by the church's standard of ordination with clergy status in order to intelligently, practically, and correctly divide the word of truth, but that a believer, indwelled by the Holy Spirit and with an illuminated mind, can interpret and understand the meaning of scripture without the assistance of a theology professor or clergy. For those people, who make up the bulk of the membership of most churches, all they want to know is that the Bible they are reading is accurate, represents God's revelation of himself to humanity, and as such, carries the weight of his authority in its teaching. That's what they mean by use of the terms "inerrant" and "infallible," and it is a principle you yourself have demonstrated here by citing 1 Peter 3:15.
It is that point, regarding the spiritual nature of inspiration and illumination, where I say Worthen is biased, and as a result, cannot make an accurate analysis of conservative, evangelical Christianity, and in particular, the SBC.