An inerrant gospel?

No Inerrant Scriptures,
No Inerrant Gospel

"The world is on fire and we are putting it out with the gasoline of inerrancy. It's time we focused on dousing the fire with the water of the gospel," according to Pastor Wade Burleson in his May 20, 2009 blog.

Brother Wade seems to be smitten with finding fault with those in the Southern Baptist Convention with whom he disagrees. Now he is harping against those who apparently are viewed by Wade as allegedly being close to "making an idol of the Bible" like unto the Muslims' attitude toward their Koran. Be that as it may [whoever these strange "inerrantists" are], Wade's nit-picking leaves us with a very serious dilemma.

While Wade says we need to be "focused on dousing the fire with the water of the gospel," the fact is, the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation and is capable of dousing the fire is derived from the Bible -- not from sources who downgrade the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Modernists, Liberals, Neo-orthodoxists, and their kind never contributed very much -- if anything -- to the Gospel and its accomplishments such as we find in the case of the inerrantists -- men such as Spurgeon, D. L. Moody, George Whitefield, and other notable men of Christian history.

The question is, if the SOURCE of the Gospel is not inerrant, on what basis may we accept what is affirmed about the Gospel in that source?

Wade's idea reminds me of those who claim they accept Jesus, but they do not accept the views which maintain His virgin birth, deity, substitutionary death, and resurrection.

The Gospel is rooted in the Scriptures, and if the Scriptures are not inerrant, on what basis can we have confidence that the Gospel is everything the Scriptures affirm of the Gospel?