You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Inerrancy' tag.
While I can agree with most of the <a href=”http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy”>declarations</a> and accept that the word “inerrancy” is potentially controversial, I take real issue with these parts which I find unclear or just plain incorrect:
I: WE AFFIRM that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.
What the heck does “Word of God” mean when applied to a book?
III: WE AFFIRM that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.
What about mundane or peripheral sayings. Is revelation necessary for Paul to greet Timothy or to say that something mundane happened such as the sun rising?
VI: WE AFFIRM that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. (see also VIII “God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose,”)
Really? So it was dictated to men by God? Why the different writing styles and languages?
XII: …We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
So what we see and measure (science) cannot contradict what we think the Bible teaches (Theology)? What if it does? Who do we ignore? In truth the Bible is just not clear enough on matters of creation and the flood to compare it with scientific evidence and we should be adapting our interpretations.
WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible XV: about inspiration.
How do we get from “inspired portions” (2 Peter 1:20-21) to “inerrant whole”?
XVI: WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history.
OK, when did it arise? It’s not in the NT – see above (XV) and here.
XVII: WE AFFIRM that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God’s written Word.
OK, but how do truthfulness and inerrancy relate? Why don’t we just say “it’s truthful”?
XVIII: WE DENY the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.
So women should be silent in church and cover their heads or else be shaved? It’s not about relativising or rejecting so much as contextualising!
XIX: WE AFFIRM that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.
How does the actual person of Christ come into all this? I would have thought Christ and the Holy Spirit in us is vital and that the good book is helpful for teaching, reproving etc. (2 Tim 3:16). How does the belief in the inerrancy of the Bible help one conform to Christ’s image?
