…or rather: inerrant links. Following my post on Deep Dish (Chicago) Inerrancy, I have come across some links on the doctrine of inerrancy that I would like to share with you.

Chrisendom:: The inerrancy series – Chris Tilling argues against the Chicago statement on several fronts. This is actually a six part post series that concludes with a podcast. I have read the posts, they are pretty good, but I have not listened to the podcast. Perhaps his best entry is on the historical basis of the doctrine.

Parableman :: Inerrancy and Infallibility – Jeremy distinguishes inerrancy from infallibility and suggests that the doctrine of inerrancy is much weaker than the doctrine of infallibility.

Wonders of Oyarsa :: Fighting with the Bible - Wonders of Oyarsa wonders about how to deal with the troubling parts of the Bible and takes a page out of Job’s book.

blog.kennypearce.net :: Biblical Inerrancy – Roundhouse on the topic

JollyBlogger :: The Reformed View of Inerrancy; Evangelicalism and Inerrancy; and Inerrancy again – The Blogger that is Jolly defends the Chicago Position. This is a good read.

Sven’s Theology and Biblical Studies :: Inerrancy – This was an interesting post. Sven makes several interesting claims. Among them is the charge that inerrancy is a type of “scriptural Apollinarianism” and that the inerrancy debate is a function of modernistic dualisms, not a function of the texts themselves.

I would like to get some of your opinions on this important issue. Do you subscribe to inerrancy? If so, how do you formulate it? How do you deal with the issues that people bring up?