Pilgrim

I think I understand your point and agree with you.
Yet the author indicated that he does agree with verbal plenary inspiration (please correct me if I am wrong). Isn’t saying that the Scripture’s are inerrant, agreeing with verbal plenary inspiration?
If that is the case, I think he doesn't understand all the ramifications of the doctrine. Which is why he could say the things he did.
I just reread the article and there is a section in the article which I must strongly disagree with.
Quote
Most of you know that I hold to the doctrine of inerrancy. I call my view “reasoned” inerrancy which does not suppose a particular wooden hermeneutic to be tied to it. (You can read more about it here).
Having said this, I believe that this doctrine, while important, is not the article upon which Christianity stands or falls. I believe that the Scriptures could contain error and the Christian faith remain essentially in tact. Why? Because Christianity is not built upon the inerrancy of Scripture, but the historical Advent of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Christ became man, lived a perfect life, died an atoning death, and rose on the third day not because the Scriptures inerrantly say that these events occurred, but because they did, in fact, occur. The truth is in the objectivity of the event, not the accuracy of the record of the event. The cause and effect must be put into proper place here. The historical event of the incarnation caused the recording of Scripture, Scripture was not the cause of the events. Again, Christianity is founded upon the Advent, not the inerrant record of the Advent.
The problem with his reasoning is although he has it correct these event indeed did occur. If indeed the Scriptures contain error, seeing how the Scriptures are God’s Word and God is perfect and seeing how the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture through human authors. If there was error in them, it would be saying that the Holy Spirit made mistakes.
Therefore, despite his claim that the accuracy of the recorded event isn’t what is important. It certainly is because it is God not man that wrote the recorded event.
It does puzzle me that he doesn’t see this, especially after saying that he believes in the doctrine of inerrancy.
Reading the article a little further on, he makes his argument to support Scripture the same way historians would support the writing of Josephus and Polybius. He says everyone agrees with their writings as “generally reliable, but not inerrant”. So error, in Scripture would prove the same thing.
My question is, how can someone who says they believe the Scriptures are inerrant, which has the connotation that the author is perfect; use this kind of reasoning? He is comparing apples to oranges.
Am I missing something here?

Tom