9 Comments


  1. FTR: Wasn’t grinding an ax with Mark Driscoll. I added that footnote in quoting Driscoll long after I wrote that section on 1 Tim 2.

    Reply

    1. Gotcha! I still rather enjoy the book and I don’t enjoy Mark Driscoll.

      Reply
  2. Doug

    Joel, I am not at all certain I understood everything you wrote, but I am somewhat certain that there are many pastors who subscribe to the Chicago Statement would say that they are literalists, but when questions about the interpretation of a book or passage of the Bible would not be so literal. That is my experience.

    Reply

    1. Right. I made a case in my preface for the continuing relevance of the Chicago Statement in contemporary Evangelicalism, and I know plenty of literalist-inerrantists too. The object of my critique in the book is primarily the Chicago Statement and that brand of inerrancy; it’s a limited but I think necessary project.

      Reply

    2. Doug, I cannot say anything else about Thom’s point than he has. I do think that he is showing that to hold to such an exclusive view which the Chicago Statement has is to do real damage to Scripture and history. Further, especially in this last chapter he shows wells the corner that they are in. I mean, reading the earliest writers and theologians, they weren’t concerned with inerrancy of scripture, only really with authority of Scripture. Plus, if we interpreted Scripture according to Chicago, we would be left without Christ.

      Reply

  3. Let me add, that this is not really a review – yet – but a sorta interaction with the text. You know, an argument.

    I would recommend this book, however, has it does address the fallacy in the notion of inerrancy as an interpretation method.

    Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!