Previously, within this year alone, there are Peter Enns and A.T.B. McGowan constructive works which are deem controversial by a group that is affiliated with the Westminster Theological Seminary.
And when I got to know about Sparks' work earlier this year, I already anticipate to read some potshots from that group on Sparks'. And true enough, it's someone from WTS. But no matter how Baugh and his Westminsterians tried to defend doctrine of inerrancy, this idea is just too irredeemable.
"The Bible is completely accurate in matters of faith, history, and science." That's the tenet of inerrancy. Don't believe me? Check out Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, 'Short Statement', Article 4; and 'Article of Affirmation and Denial', Article 12. Believe now?
Do you think that tenet is right? If yes, ask yourself why.
THE reason some Christians uphold this dogma is because they are damn afraid that once they accept that one part of the Bible is in error, the entire Bible became erroneous. (One part has error equates the entire whole being erroneous is of course flimsy logic.) Even if not, that is enough to make one confused and not knowing which part of the Bible is without error and which is. And it is precisely this ambiguity that they are afraid of. And this is the reason. The one and only, and no other. And inerrantists must admit this. They have to confess it.
But they have to realize that their fear is unfounded. They can't set up a dogma just because they are afraid of otherwise. Such self-centered approach spawns bad theologies. Why?
Theology as an enterprise was never meant to buttress Self's petty cowardice.