Henry posted something the other day which is a continuing conversation which I have not only with others, but with the Scriptures.
Obviously I don’t think so, but I must now add C. Michael Patton to the list of those who do accept the doctrine of inerrancy themselves, yet don’t believe it is an essential of the Christian faith, which he does in his humorous “AND OTHER STUPID STATEMENTS” series, If the Bible is not Inerrant, then Christianity is False.
Dr. Patton lists many of the reasons I have listed as to why the doctrine of inerrancy tends to breed other problems, such as a Christianity that is bibliocentric but not Christocentric. Now let me be clear that one can actually be both, provided one always is more Christo- then biblio-centric. One can also lose sight of Christ because one puts too low a value on scripture that points to Him.
I have to say, that as I see it, one of the issues with ‘inerrancy’ is to what level and how it is applied. Some, namely those who falsely believe that the King James Version is the ONLY bible (not counting the fact that the Apostles didn’t write the KJV and no one uses the KJV-1611), believe that one version is inerrant, regardless of the changing nature of textual criticism, or even verbage which changes according to the generation. Others believe that the bible is inspired in its original autographs.
Then, there is the level of inerrancy. Somehow, people insist on taking Genesis 1 as literal science but other statements are not so literal. They view the bible as a science text-book instead of the history of interaction between God and Humanity. Further, they fail to grasp the beauty of Hebrew thought in the poetic passages in the Jewish Scriptures.
Then, of course, one has to take the fact that for centuries, millenia, the idea of Scriptural inerrancy (not authority) is not found as a doctrine fully expressed in the Church.
Finally, there is a very annoying person who has given me an idea of a Christocentric view over that of a Bibliocentric view as found in John. I wish he would go ahead and write his book or at the very least, a blog post.
For myself, I believe that the original autographs were inspired and inerrant in the matters which they touch and were intended; however, Christ is the Revelation of God, and we must not forget that.
You might be interested in this post as well.