A stock objection to biblical inerrancy is that inerrantists supposedly operate with a deductive, a priori theory of inspiration rather than an inductive approach that takes its cue from the phenomena.
Although that's a straw man, I'd point out that in many cases the situation is just the reverse. There are roughly two kinds of biblical fallibilists. Some reject inerrancy because they think Scripture is demonstrably wrong in a factual sense (e.g. history, science, contradictions).
However, there are other biblical fallibilists who reject inerrancy on philosophical grounds. Their objections are ethical. They think Scripture depicts God in ways unfitting for a morally perfect being. It may be "abhorrent" divine commands, the doctrine of hell, "homophobia", &c.
For them, Scripture is erroneous because it runs counter to their moral intuitions. Ironically, their opposition to plenary inspiration is deductive and a priori. The mirror image of what some critics impute to inerrantists.
No comments:
Post a Comment