Sunday, August 06, 2006

Discussion about inerrancy and stuff

I'm involved in an interesting (for some people) discussion with some interesting guys over here. Timothy Davis, who seems a nice and well-meaning bloke, and is a fair bit more conservative than me (yes, that is possible) seems to be asserting that infallibility and inerrancy are true and also that it's essential to believe them for salvation. He's therefore saying that Rowan Williams is apostate, etc.

I used to be strong on inerrancy and infallibility and stuff. I now think they're too weak in some ways (they don't require that the Bible is optimally worded, for example), too strong in some ways (cue some US fundamentalists taking poetry literally) and very vulnerable to postmodern criticism. I think Rowan Williams is a Christian who has swallowed a bit too much postmodernism and can't communicate clearly enough, but he says a lot of wise stuff.

Anyhow, thought I'd flag the debate up in case anyone wants to watch (or contribute).


Timothy Davis said...


Remember that when historic Evangelicals affirm the "infallibility" and "inerrancy", they do not ignore the other attibutes of Scripture, such as the perspecuity, sufficiency and authority of Scripture, etc., etc. See the standard confessions of the non-Episcoplians, e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Churches of England, Ireland and Scotland, and the verbatim statements in the Baptist and Congregationalists.

John said...


Also remember that the description with the greater explanatory power is to be preferred.