Robert Denham - 21 April 2008 11:23 PM

& Gordo, no I am not wrestling with that one.

Sorry Robert, didn’t mean you, meant me. Clearly my statement was not inerrant, or if it was, it was somewhat lacking in the syntax dept.

Robert Denham - 21 April 2008 11:23 PM

Gordo, instead of inerrancy as the absolute way that God gets his messge across to us, He has given us His Spirit who convinces of the truth. He is probably why we don’t need the originals, for He accomplishes all He desires through His word, actively in us, not just by the printed page (if it was only the written page, then we absolutely need the originals).

I have to assume that the Spirit is part of this process, of course. I don’t think anyone believes that the quality of inerrancy inheres in ink on a page, or electrons on a screen. Inerrancy is a quality of the God who is doing the speaking.

Who knows, we may agree?

See we agree Gordo,
God is inerrant. When he speaks, we are to listen. He has spoken in many & various ways in the past, but lately in his Son. He is the excat representation of the divine. Raised from the dead, descended from David…
See we agree.
We both implicitly trust God as revealed through His Word, meaning not only the Son, but also the written Word of God.
See we agree.
We both accept the authority of the Bible as it contains everything necessary for salvation, & anything that can’t be read therein, nor proved by it, is not to be believed as an article of Faith nor requisite or necessary to salvation.
See we agree.

No need to fret.

Cool.

Phew.