[winstonchurchill]

My point is that the desire to retain inerrancy keeps some Arminians from walking down the OT path.

First, thanks to dittojed2 for posting the interesting article.

As to your specific comment above, I would appreciate your fleshing out how you see open theism as negating or diminishing a commitment to inerrancy.

I have thought that one of the OT proponents' strongest cases is the OT ability to accept the 'plain meaning' of many important Old Testament passages on God relenting and changing His mind, i.e. interacting with mankind. So, at least in the respect of accepting the plain meaning of Scripture, OT seems to make a pretty strong case for inerrancy.

[drstevej]

***I would appreciate your fleshing out how you see open theism as negating or diminishing a commitment to inerrancy.***

If I find a good article I'll post it and comment. No time now to do justice to this.

Plain meaning does not rule out figurative (anthropopathic speech)and phenomenological language, drj said as the sun set slowly in the west.

[xzins]

I have thought that one of the OT proponents' strongest cases is the OT ability to accept the 'plain meaning' of many important Old Testament passages on God relenting and changing His mind, i.e. interacting with mankind. So, at least in the respect of accepting the plain meaning of Scripture, OT seems to make a pretty strong case for inerrancy.

Accepting at face value the stories of God changing plan, regarding both Hezekiah's death and starting over in Moses, seems to me to better support an inerrant position.

It is a presupposed theology that requires these things be explained away rather than any necessity in the stories themselves.