Daughter of Matt Slick (CARM) speaks out against him

[Theo520]

The idea that adults come to a different, fuller understanding of the faith is fine, that’s obvious, they have to make the faith their own, so that they can hand it to their own kids. But the understanding of this study or whatever seems to be that a “literal” understanding of the faith is incompatible with mature adult reasoning but the modern skeptical zeitgeist is compatible. It seems to me that someone like G.K. Chesterton or C.S. Lewis would be considered to be a fundamentalist, or childish, or just “stuck in a theological box” in this study.

Theories related to faith or psychology are more like analogies, they are useful in advancing understanding, but they are not precise or all encompassing like our theories supporting the hard sciences.

Instead of reading a slight into what he is saying, use it to understand the spiritual path that many do seem to follow. Before reading this work, I was very dismissive of anyone whom I thought had a fundamentalist mindset. Now I’m open to appreciating the guidance and value they are receiving from their faith. That I no longer 'make them wrong’ helps me to be a better christian.

 

[PRmerger]

Faithdancer -

How do you know that the bible is the inerrant and inspired written Word of God?

PnP

Because he trusts in an infallible source: the Catholic Church.

Not to mention, unless he believes that 1 Peter and 2 Peter contains errors, he does believe that a pope was infallible–our first pope, at least, was infallible according to most Christians.

So it’s peculiar to see people reject papal infallibility, while tacitly accepting papal infallibility.