tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7143395511928869444.post1161778712137511476..comments2024-01-02T13:37:26.563-06:00Comments on גֵּר־וְתוֹשָׁב: Is Darrell Bock a fundamentalist?d. millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16844676267073730959noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7143395511928869444.post-22519295117838437922007-12-16T09:58:00.001-06:002007-12-16T09:58:00.001-06:00things = think with a stuffed-up nose.things = think with a stuffed-up nose.d. millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16844676267073730959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7143395511928869444.post-84795056840054433332007-12-16T09:58:00.000-06:002007-12-16T09:58:00.000-06:00Howdy Jim! Nice to see you here! Thanks for the co...Howdy Jim! Nice to see you here! Thanks for the comment.<BR/><BR/>I'll leave it to others more qualified than I to judge Hobbins' reading of the Reformers. It seems obvious, however, that both Hobbins and the Reformers can use the language of inerrancy from time to time, but neither understand the term from a post-Enlightenment or Scottish common sense rationalist perspective. It follows that not all who use the language of inerrancy or infallibility are fundamentalists. The point at issue seems to be whether or not we should continue to use the term. Hobbins thinks we should, Chris and Doug and, obviously, you things we shouldn't.d. millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16844676267073730959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7143395511928869444.post-72407185385412277292007-12-15T15:58:00.000-06:002007-12-15T15:58:00.000-06:00Howdy-Hobbins misrepresents the Reformers (and eve...Howdy-<BR/>Hobbins misrepresents the Reformers (and everyone else, as Doug has shown quite clearly).<BR/><BR/>(Nice blog you have here by the way- first time visitor).Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16698562143972216357noreply@blogger.com