Inerrancy? Final post.

Finally, the concluding post in my series on inerrancy.

And I decided to finish off with a podcast (this is my second, my first, can be found here). It took a little longer than I thought it would, so apologies for the length (just over 20 mins), but I've managed to keep the size of the file down (just over 5MB).

In it, I give a bit of personal background to these posts, respond to some (evil, morally corrupt) critics by clarifying what my purpose was in writing them, and then turn to deal with the question of how to formulate our understanding of Scripture in regard to truth.

I hope you enjoy it, and, as always, your comments are most welcome.

The file (inerrancy.mp3) can be downloaded here.

----------

Two of the texts I discuss:

Millard Erickson: ‘The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time of writing, in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms.’

The Second Vatican Council: ‘The books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures’

And the quote with which I end the series:

‘Is not every doctrine of Holy Scripture as such a superfluous saying of “Lord, Lord”?’
(K. Barth, Church Dogmatics I/2, 461)