3.5 Stars Out Of 5
3.5 out of 5
(0)
(1)
(1)
(0)
(0)
Quality:
4.5 out Of 5
(4.5 out of 5)
Value:
4 out Of 5
(4 out of 5)
Meets Expectations:
4.5 out Of 5
(4.5 out of 5)
100%
of customers would recommend this product to a friend.
SORT BY:
SEE:
Displaying items 1-2 of 2
Page 1 of 1
  1. Lee The Layman
    4 Stars Out Of 5
    The Question
    July 16, 2018
    Lee The Layman
    Quality: 5
    Value: 5
    Meets Expectations: 5
    This book is important in the questions that it asks so openly and it asks several.

    The main question is how the church can produce profound and sophisticated arguments for inerrancy and not agree on what it (inerrancy OR the Bible) means.

    A large part of the church swears to the infallibility of the Bible and then divides (many thousands of times) over what it means. And has for centuries. The Catholics warned us.

    This book will likely provoke an open mind to rethink its whole approach to scripture. Those "and why do I believe this exactly" questions are so important. The question of why we swear solemnly to the truth of the Bible and then interpret a thousand different ways is pretty important. That a layman like Smith would take on the subject with sincerity and skill is brave and useful. Good on him.
  2. Jonathan Becker
    Blue Springs, MO
    Age: 18-24
    Gender: Male
    3 Stars Out Of 5
    Can be a useful tool...
    June 10, 2013
    Jonathan Becker
    Blue Springs, MO
    Age: 18-24
    Gender: Male
    Quality: 4
    Value: 3
    Meets Expectations: 4
    Pros:

    1) Smith treats those who hold to a biblicist model with considerable respect (at least compared to the way they would treat him).

    2) A number of good objections are raised against biblicism.

    Cons:

    1) Smith seems to rely too much on pervasive interpretative pluralism as an argument against biblicism. Not that this fails completely, it's just that his case may be overstated AT TIMES.

    2) Smith is not a theologian. Thus, his comments are purely sociological and do not fully appreciate the biblical text (not saying that one has to be a theologian to do this, only that Smith doesn't do it fully.

    3) Smith can reduce his argument to mere assertion at times.

    All that being said, I want to state that I accept (with only minor qualifications) the argument proposed in the book. Biblicism is not the best way to read scripture. However, this kind of book could have been more powerful if the above cons were avoided. Unfortunately, one must balance argumentative force with size, something I think this book does well.
Displaying items 1-2 of 2
Page 1 of 1