John Hobbins has written a post in response to Joseph Kelly’s three part (so far?) series on inerrancy. Frankly, it seems to me a bit like John is sitting (quite perturbed I might add) on an invisible fence. I certainly get the point, and agree, that in/errancy should not be in the forefront of our minds when reading a text. Rather we should be wrestling with the more substantial questions raised by the text. But, at the same time I don’t know that it’s possible to be neither an inerrantist or errantist if those terms are used generally. Ultimately, this will play some role into how one answers questions that scripture raises. Perhaps he’s trying to use them in more of a technical sense for people for whom in/errancy is the issue of primary importance … You be the judge …
Related:
Joseph Kelly Continues His Series on Inerrancy
A Couple of Posts on Inerrancy and Infallibility
Ezra 9-10 – The Context of Today’s Reading Makes it a Tough One