theological compromise – L. J. Anderson

The Hidden Cost of Losing Inerrancy

If Scripture is not inerrant, then who gets to decide what part of it is true?

This is not a scare tactic. It’s a question of theological method. And one the modern church rarely slows down to ask.

The debate over inerrancy is often portrayed as academic, antiquated, or unnecessary. “Why fight over a word?” some say. “Let’s just focus on Jesus.” But this kind of thinking reveals a dangerous trend: we’ve grown far too comfortable placing Scripture under human evaluation rather than the other way around.

And the moment Scripture becomes suspect, everything becomes negotiable.

The Line in the Sand: Why Inerrancy Still Matters

For decades, theologians have debated whether inerrancy is a helpful term, a divisive term, or even a necessary one. Some prefer “infallibility,” others think we’ve outgrown the entire conversation. But here’s the problem: Scripture never gave us permission to step back from what it says about itself.

Is Syncretism Ever a Good Thing?

I want to explore a question I’ve been thinking about lately: What exactly is syncretism, and can it ever be good? I was prompted to reflect on this while reading Most Moved Mover by Clark Pinnock for a PhD course on the doctrine of God. On page 72, he makes an interesting statement: that not all syncretism is bad.

That made me pause. My first reaction was, “That’s just not true.” But as I kept reading, I began to realize that the issue might not be disagreement on values; it might be disagreement on definitions. So let’s dig into that. What is syncretism? Why is it typically viewed negatively in Christian theology? And is there ever a case to be made for it being helpful (or at least not harmful)?

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: