From: Glen Riddle (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Sep 24 1997 - 18:54:46 EDT
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> 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
> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Amen and Amen...what an inerrant response.
Keep hard at the language, for it is the sheath in which the sword of
the Spirit rests. (Wonder what that looks like in the Aramaic original
from which Martisimus Luther translated.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:30 EDT