From: Carl W. Conrad (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Sep 24 1997 - 11:24:15 EDT
At 11:46 AM -0500 9/24/97, Andrew Kulikovsky wrote:
>I get the impression, from a number of posts on this list (and other
>lists as well) that being an inerrantist is being unscholarly - it's as
>though the attitude is well, "you're an inerrantist - that speaks for
>itself - you can't be a thinking scholar and an inerrantist". In other
>words "only a complete moron would be an inerrantist."
>Is this what people think - That's the impression I get anyway.
>Of course, there have been and still are many brilliant inerrantist
I've already seen Peter Phillips' response to this question. I only want to
say two things in response to Andrew's question:
(1) I think it is neither profitable nor appropriate to discuss the
doctrine of inerrancy on this forum.
(2) I think that inerrantists and scholars and those who view themselves
either as either or neither or both inerrantists and scholars ought to feel
equally welcome to participate in list discussions, and I don't think
there's any privilege attached to any one of those categories here.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
email@example.com OR firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:30 EDT