Okay that worked, thanks for the tip.
But after downloading and reading the article I still don't get the point of the op. It appears from the article that the author is rejecting the precepts of "higher criticism" due to it incompatibility with the inerrancy of Scripture.
"These techniques employed by the historicalcritical scholar make the Bible a book of doubts and uncertainties filled at best with likelihoods and probabilities. There is no room in this line of thinking for inerrancy. That would be ridiculously out of place among what are believed to be oral accounts reinterpreted and revised at numerous times and preserved in written sources which were periodically transformed by redactors. Miracles, eyewitness accounts, specific prophecy, scientific data, and the history recorded in Scripture are radically revised or denied. Higher criticism leaves us with the question whether there is anything at all that we can know with any certainty, including facts about the person, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth."
This leaves me more confused about the point of the op.
charles
the universal or Catholic church consists of all believers in Jesus merits alone.
so each PERSON is a part of the church. part of the church is rejecting Gods word as inerrant that whats wrong WITH THE CHURCH and part of the church is rejecting that the bible is wrong in anything it says . thats whats Right with the church.
also isnt this happening amoung whole denominations the American national baptist convention has rejected God bible as inerrant The southern baptist convention has accepted Gods word as inerrant.
same can be said amoung lutheran denominations. one rejects the others accept Gods word as inerrant .
Author