Okay, looks like I’ve gone and kicked myslef up a hornet’s nest.

For all of my readers (the both of you), to bring y’all up-to-date:

  1. I put up a blogpost commenting on one of the more amusing ongoing discussions over on the super-increasingly-aptly-titled open source theology blog.
  2. Andrew Perriman, moderator of said blog and author extraordinaire, responded here.
  3. I responded back.
  4. He responded to my response.
  5. I responded back.
  6. He responded to my response to his response.
  7. After a few rounds of the same, John Doyle responded…
  8. I responded…
  9. Andrew responded…
  10. …and after several more rounds, John posted his summary of the discussion thus far…
  11. and on it goes.


Now all my readers (you both, over there) are up-to-speed on the fracas thus far.

To summarize my summary above: The issue really boils down to a question of authority.

In other words, what is the basis for truth? If you jettison inerrancy, you are left with… well, nothing.

Andrew is maintaining that his “trust is not in the supposed perfection of a text but in the God who is revealed through the testimony of the text, through the historical experience of the community.” My contention is… no, he’s not. If that was in fact true, he’d agree with the doctrine of the supposed perfection of a text, since the Church Universal has always believed that (to varying degrees, it is to be admitted) – the point of contention really being a matter of whether or not that Perfect (read: “Inerrant”) Text is self-illuminating, or whether there must also be magisterial authority vested in a separate entity (i.e., the Church). But the perfection of the Text itself is not in question, within the context of the “historical experience of the community.”

Either way, sola scriptura or sola ecclesia, the (liberal wing of) the ECM evaporates. What the (liberal wing of) the ECM really believes is solo mio.

But that’s just my opinion. Which along with $.50… oh, nevermind…

Anybody else care to weigh in…?