[I'd like to know what members think of this. Follow the link below for some background and the 19 articles--affirmations and denials.]
A Short Statement
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
[Also posted in Christianity Unplugged]
posted by:
|
Boca Raton
|
-
Unsu...
Re: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Mon, November 12, 2007 - 12:42 PMPartly true.
I always find it interesting that Christ didn't actually write anything himself. So what does that say about the power of verbal communication of the Faith? -
-
Re: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Tue, November 13, 2007 - 8:11 AM>>>>I always find it interesting that Christ didn't actually write anything himself.<<<<<<
True, he didn't. In an oral culture, that was less a handicap than it would be in our own. If no one wrote down his deeds and sayings, what would we know of him today? Nothing! We wouldn't even know to pray to him and ask for guidance! -
-
Unsu...
Re: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Wed, November 14, 2007 - 11:35 AMWhich He knew, but still did not write anything down.
I would disagree that we would not know anything about Him today if the books of the bible had not been written. In fact, I would say that we would still know a great deal.
-
-
Re: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Thu, November 15, 2007 - 11:01 PM<Partly true.
I always find it interesting that Christ didn't actually write anything himself. So what does that say about the power of verbal communication of the Faith? >
Faith comes by hearing the word of God. You 'll note it doesn't say by reading it. It is the spoke word that carries with it the commitment of person speaking. Its like email, ever have someone email a request that you over looked or ignored, but if they ask you in person you respond imediately. A voice is more powerful then the written word. Scripture has more weight when it is spoken by one with faith and conviction. In Jesus time most people did not do much writing they memorized everything they were capable of recalling huge amounts of data word for word as it was given to them. They used songs and other memmonic devices, the art of memorizing has become a lost skill, books, and now computers have dimished the need for it.
-
-
Re: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Mon, November 12, 2007 - 4:03 PMJosh,
After looking at the link, I'm pretty much in agreement with it. They recognize that God has revealed himself through literature, and we have to read it with that in mind. From the exposition section in the link,
"So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed."
The tricky part may be knowing what kind of literature you are dealing with. For example most who accept inerrancy probably see Genesis 1 as history, but I don't. -
-
Re: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Tue, November 13, 2007 - 8:13 AM>>>>>The tricky part may be knowing what kind of literature you are dealing with. For example most who accept inerrancy probably see Genesis 1 as history, but I don't. <<<<<
Good point. Another example is Jonah. I think the book loses none of its value if it is seen as a *story.* For all the carping about this "fish tale" the most difficult suggestion in it (-for those who would take it as history) is the claim that Ninevah repented. There's no record of that. If it *did* repent, it certainly didn't take! -
-
Re: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Tue, November 13, 2007 - 9:45 AMHow is Jonah not litteral? Jesus even uses the story of Jonah as foreshadow to his own ressurection? Do you believe that Johan was not literally ressurected? -
-
Re: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Wed, November 14, 2007 - 9:02 AM>>>>>>How is Jonah not litteral? <<<<<<
Much hinges on the meaning of "literal" here. Most conservative biblical scholars believe Jonah was a real person. I'm not saying that he wasn't. I'm saying the problem of defending the reading of the book of Jonah as history rather than as a wisdom story, is that the book claims Ninevah repented and there's no (historical) suggestion, much less proof, that Ninevah *ever* became a godly city.
That's harder to pin down than the possibility that a man could survive a few days inside a whale. -
-
Re: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Wed, November 14, 2007 - 2:56 PMThat's harder to pin down than the possibility that a man could survive a few days inside a whale.
The bible doesn't say Jonah survived in the fish. Thats why Jesus said that he would leave the sign of Jonah which is ressurection.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Tue, November 13, 2007 - 8:18 AMI agree with it as it applies to my own faith
and life. -
-
Re: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Thu, November 15, 2007 - 5:53 AMYou know, the best thing about all of this is,
we are all going to find out what the real deal
is eventually.
I read all of the different versions of the bible.
Right now I'm doing a study of 4 different versions
of ACTS including the
NAB (Catholic)
King James
Amplified
New Living Translation
Just in reading those books, I find that the message
is all the same. It makes me wonder why all of us
believers need to be so divided by our religions.
Anyway, I really believe that if I live my life based on
what is written in the bible, whatever the translation
is, that is the best thing to do.
I really believe that the only reason that people
spend their lives trying to disprove scripture, is
because they don't want to change their lives.
They want to be justified in what they do, and
scripture doesn't agree with their choices.
I'm a believer and I realize daily based on scripture
just how wrong many of my choices still are.
If the whole world could live their lives based on
just the 10 commandments, we would all be better
off. There is no need for science to disprove the
10 commandments. That's just spiritual truth.
If in the end I am wrong because I lived my life based
on the bible, then let me be wrong. I'll stand by
that decision. -
-
Re: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Thu, November 15, 2007 - 10:50 PM<If in the end I am wrong because I lived my life based
on the bible, then let me be wrong. I'll stand by
that decision.
>
That is essentially what the pharisees said to Jesus, we know God from the scriptures. They, like those who vow never to question the accepted doctrined, failed to see that there understanding of scripture was flawed. They failed to accept their messiah when he was right in front of them becuase they were committed to the scriptures and the accepted interpertations. I am not saying that you err, by putting your faith in the bible, but that you err in putting your faith in anything before the spirit of God. Trust the spirit of God within your own heart, and it shall reveal all things. I am just reminding you of this, because as your friend I can see that you already know it. -
-
Re: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Fri, November 16, 2007 - 5:15 AMRicardo, the difference is that I do
have the Holy Spirit to guide me and
interpret scripture.
Without the Holy spirit, the bible is just
a bunch of words. Without the Holy spirit
the bible is just written on paper, rather than
in my heart.
You and I are in agreement about the Holy
Spirit.
With the Holy Spirit, I no longer read the bible
blindly.
That's not to say that I cannot be wrong about scripture.
The Holy Spirit has revealed many times to me when
I have not understood, so I constantly strive to search
with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I'm not so hard headed or hard hearted that I am
unwilling to learn and be corrected.
With that being said though. I do base my life on what
is written in the bible. With the guidance of the Holy
Spirit.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Fri, November 16, 2007 - 12:25 PMAs it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.
-
Re: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Sun, November 18, 2007 - 9:08 PM<With the Holy Spirit, I no longer read the bible
blindly.
That's not to say that I cannot be wrong about scripture.
The Holy Spirit has revealed many times to me when
I have not understood, so I constantly strive to search
with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I'm not so hard headed or hard hearted that I am
unwilling to learn and be corrected.
With that being said though. I do base my life on what
is written in the bible. With the guidance of the Holy
Spirit.
>
I aspire to likewise, not be hard hearted. I believe it is mans greatest weakness that we are so easily convinced that we are right and so hard for us to discover when we are wrong. Or perhap I shouldn't generalize and admit it is my greatest weakness. I agree with you, in the context of the holy spirt, there is no greater tool then the bible.
-
-
-
-
