Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'inerrancy'.
Found 1 result
-
Just curious if anyone has followed the controversy surrounding inerrancy after the publication of Michael Licona's book "The resurrection of Jesus, a new histographical appoach"? The book is absolutely fantastic. I do not think the chicago statement on inerrancy stretched far enough to warrant considering the resurrection of the saints in Matt 28 to be allegorical, which is where most of the criticism lies. It did get me thinking long and hard on inerrancy. I affirm the chicago statement but I wish they had made more clear the genre of literature that scripture is. Am I wrong that it seems to shift the burden from affirming inerrancy to affirming literal-historicity as the default genre of all scripture? I was surprised at how many other things were said that attracted no where near the attention that the comments on Matt 28 attracted, that also did not seem it affirm a historical literal genre where most evangelicals do assume this. (Please don't flame Licona, He is a fellow minister and apologist and his writing intentionally did not assume inerrancy so that his book would appeal to non theists as well. I merely want to discuss inerrancy.)
