I said that in my experience, it's generally the people who do NOT hold to inerrancy that don't get upset about those of us who do.
Even though I consider myself an inerrantist, I have to say that inerrancy is to some extent a theoretical concept, in that it applies only to the original mss., which no longer exist.The scriptures are under unrelenting attack and I for one, will defend inerrancy with everything I have. If a person doesn't hold to inerrancy, then they haven't a thing to say to me that is worth a hill of beans.
Besides that, there is IMO a tendency for inerrantists to gravitate toward the idea that particular hermeneutical methods and practical applications are also virtually inerrant. That's a problem I have with the "Chicago Statements." I find the Inerrancy statement quite acceptable. I find the Hermeneutics and Application statements generally ok, but I'm not entirely satisfied with all areas. But since all three Statements were crafted by pretty much the same team of scholars, and the later ones derived from the former, that implies they may intend things in their Inerrancy Statement that I would not accept; IOW, if the later Statements shed additional light on what they "really mean" in the Inerrancy Statement, I may be less inclined to accept it.
The Joint Statement PDF put out by some FV advocates specifically affirms salvation by grace through faith alone.What do you mean Federal Vision "doesn't bother me?" It denies Justification by Faith and is more in line with the Catholic Church. It is absolute heresy and is a cancer infecting the church. It, for now, is infecting mostly Reformed Churches, but it is spreading.
Thank God I'm not in a Reformed Church and that nonsense wouldn't get through the door at my church. Praise God!!
Personally, I have as much problem with some of the explicitly Calvinist language of that Statement as with anything else in it.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." -- Mythbuster Adam Savage
"Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence." -- ComputerGear T-Shirt
"Well THAT was a slap and a tickle!" -- William the Bloody
I apologize that I misread your statement about inerrancy. However, I don't accept the silly statement by those that say "the bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts." That would mean that no bible we have today is inerrant because no one alive has, for centuries, seen the so-called "original manuscripts."
I tend to go along with those that say God has preserved His Word and we do have an inerrant bible. That is another whole discussion which is covered on another thread.
Actually I too have problems with some of the statements of "Calvinists." Especially in this day and age. Like any other branch of theology, just because someone says they are a Calvinist or an Arminian, you have to make them define what they mean by that because there are so many variations.