| |

Inerrancy: Nuance or Discard?

Byhenry

Through a Glass Darkly has a good note titled Nuancing Inerrancy as a follow-up to this post on Ancient Hebrew Poetry. I’m not sure what order to read them in; just read them. (There are more links to follow!)

I would add only that I have a hard time using the term “inerrancy” in this way, because it only means what these gentlemen say it does to a relatively small group of people. Now the small group includes generally those most expert on the topic, but if you go to just about any church and say “inerrancy” this is not what the people will understand you to be saying.

That’s the problem with words–people use them, and they change. Thus while I applaud the definition, and will jump on the bandwagon if any signs of movement occur, that doesn’t seem likely at least where I work.

Similar Posts

| | |

Evolution of a Moral Sense

Byhenry

One of the interesting things I’ve noticed over the years is that scientists who are also believers often tend to resolve theological issues in ways that make the theologians uncomfortable. I can’t call myself a professional theologian, because contrary to what most church members seem to think, theology and Biblical studies are different fields, and…

| | | | |

Is Intelligent Design Religious?

Byhenry

David Opderbeck has an excellent post on the question of whether intelligent design (ID) is religious and how this relates to our view of natural theology. (HT: Through a Glass Darkly) In the post, he gets into an issue that I have raised before, which is the question of whether we really want to advocate…

5 Comments

  1. I understand what you mean – it’s difficult to use inerrancy in a useful way that doesn’t betray the public meaning, and so many people are so thoroughly entrenched in the common public meaning that it’s almost impossible to ‘take back’ the word for a more appropriate definition. (I almost feel this way with ‘faith’ sometimes because it has been accepted that it means ‘belief without evidence.’)

  2. Apropos of the immediately preceding post, one is reminded of the misuse of the term “theory” in the Florida hoorah.

    1. There’s something I’m directly involved with, and yes, “theory” is so badly abused it’s almost impossible to use in public discourse. One legislator said that all that the opponents of the current science standards want is that we admit that evolution is a theory. And that character writes laws. It is to shudder!

  3. Another example is the phrase “born-again.” It’s right there in John 3 and I can think of a fabulous sermon on the topic by Luther. But most of the time, when I hear someone say they are a born-again Christian and explain why, the Bible scholar and theologian in me winces. Not to mention my spiritual BS meter.

    Still, I’m not going to allow victims of sentimental slop to own the beautiful phrase “born-again.”

    1. “Born again” is one I still fight for by trying to explain it. I do object to “born again Christian,” however, as a redundancy.

      “Inerrancy” is too directly involved in my work for me to live with hours and hours of reteaching the meaning of the word.

      Still, I liked your comments on it and your definition.

Comments are closed.