I challenged errantists to provide an answer as to how one distinguishes between the spirits and determine which teaching in the Bible is true and which is not. I then suggested that errantism may be of another religion, since it is really the individual's cultural religion that dictates truth and it then incorporates what he views as true from the Bible according to that religion.
As I predicted, I've only gotten ad hominems from people who don't even know what my view of inerrancy is. So far, they seem to think that I have a view that believes that only the original manuscripts are inerrant (I don't believe that), that I've conflated transmission, translation, authorship, etc. as a part of inerrancy/errancy (I've done no such thing), that it is connected to my hermeneutics that is only 200 years old (it actually has zero to do with my hermeneutics, since I can have different hermeneutics and come up with the same doctrine of inerrancy), and that I must be a fundamentalist, KJV only, fellow.
Yet, in all of these absurd ad hominems and straw men, no one has ventured to answer my question. Instead, they simply want to say that you can have the Bible be the Word of God and errant at the same time (again, I'm asking about theology and ethics, not technical errors in science or history that you may believe the Bible has---I don't believe the Bible makes those errors because I largely don't think most of the Bible is attempting to communicate those things, but that's not the type of "errancy" that I'm talking about). Great. Show me how that works out. God can use error to communicate truth? Fantastic. Tell me how you take hold of that truth that is capable of bypassing deception of the spirits of antichrist, how you distinguish between the spirit of antichrist and the zeitgeist, how you distinguish between the Holy Spirit and those two. By what measuring stick do you judge a teaching true or false. Tell me, if you're so sure of yourself. I want to know.
Don't lob your typical and predictable strawmen and ad hominems from afar. Come over here and engage me. Or are you too afraid that your doctrine leads to what we all think it does if taken to its logical conclusion: an atheistic/agnostic relativism that lifts up the individual as the arbiter of truth? If not, let's see how it doesn't. Again, I would like to know. The only answers I ever get from errantists is that they're on a journey, and their letting it all soak in as they grow, and that they take everything into account like tradition (which they are usually attempting to topple in some way), community (which is often made up of people who believe as they do and are conditioned by their particular culture), reason (which is merely a tool to think out a proposition, but needs a standardized belief to reason whether another belief accords with reality), and the Bible (a work filled with ancient human misconceptions about God, Jesus, humanity, the gospel, etc.).
I can multiply your fourfold principle and say I have a million, all errant. Multiplying the amount of error-filled sources of authority does not create greater certainty of truth. In the end, you have to chip away at what you personally think is true or false in all of those sources of authority, and as such, you are the one you believe to be the source of ultimate truth, not the Bible. The Bible is simply one of many errant sources of authority. Why call it the Word of God more than the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Pseudepigrapha, or the Gnostic Gospels? Do they not all contain divine truths with error in them as well? You tell me, correct me, what is the difference? How do you decide?