Several problems here:

1) I can only see the "reply" post by griggs. The original Peter Duce post is missing.

2) On the basis of the title of the thread and the content of the one post that I can see, there are two possibilities, namely neither of the posters read the sticky at the top of the page or they both decided to ignore it. There are guidelines for posting and it is simply a matter of courtesy to observe them.

3) I looked up the people cited by Griggs on Wikipedia, and they are not exactly what we progressives would consider fellow progressives. It is unfortunate when folks ignore the guidelines, but even more unfortunate when they don't even know who it is that they are talking about or what those folks believe.

Now I'm really confused. There is nothing in progressive Christianity that would lead one to believe that the Bible is inerrant. On the other hand, the idea of moving toward "completion or perfection, "while perhaps held by some of the regulars here, is more of a 19th century notion.

Jul 27, 2009 -- 12:15PM, grampawombat wrote:

Now I'm really confused. There is nothing in progressive Christianity that would lead one to believe that the Bible is inerrant. On the other hand, the idea of moving toward "completion or perfection, "while perhaps held by some of the regulars here, is more of a 19th century notion.

Hi; I looked up for a definition of Progressive and Traditional Christianity on this website and for both it stipulates the belief that 'the Bible is inerrant'. I suppose I can find if I look for it hard enough just that I copied it on a piece of paper as i read it..

I looked up Collins Dictionary printed 1989  for the word 'progressive' and the quoting in my post for 'progressive'  is taken from there.

I suppose the final question is, what is Progressive Christianity and what is Traditional?

Thank you Stardove for making it clearer