Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 7:27 PM
350 online now:
kbertsche, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin) (3 members, 347 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,103 Year: 28,709/21,208 Month: 775/1,847 Week: 150/475 Day: 43/17 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Author Topic:   Because The Bible Tells Me So
jar
Member
Posts: 29763
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 91 of 111 (824571)
11-30-2017 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by LamarkNewAge
11-30-2017 12:12 PM


Re: Jar said this on another thread.
Nothing in your quotes shows any claim of inerrancy or the Roman Government declaring any scripture as inerrant.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-30-2017 12:12 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1424
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 92 of 111 (824582)
11-30-2017 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Phat
11-30-2017 11:27 AM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
Phat writes:


I think I already understand your position on it. I'm more interested in their position and how they arrived at it.
Let me get my ducks in a row and then I'll make a post here in a day or so.


Here is a copy with explanation by Norman Geisler, which may help explain how they arrive at some of their positions.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Phat, posted 11-30-2017 11:27 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 3:11 AM kbertsche has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 93 of 111 (824598)
12-01-2017 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by kbertsche
11-30-2017 5:36 PM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
This part jumped out at me:
quote:
We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is a misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.
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, nonchronological 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.


In a way, they have collectively pardoned scripture itself from criticism.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by kbertsche, posted 11-30-2017 5:36 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 3:22 AM Phat has responded
 Message 95 by kbertsche, posted 12-01-2017 7:47 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13368
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 94 of 111 (824599)
12-01-2017 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Phat
12-01-2017 3:11 AM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
Oh, its more than that. They have declared that they have authority over and above scripture. Its a fundamental contradiction in their claims and one which points to intellectual dishonesty, at the least.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 3:11 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by kbertsche, posted 12-01-2017 7:58 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 97 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 8:08 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 99 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 8:09 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1424
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 95 of 111 (824607)
12-01-2017 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Phat
12-01-2017 3:11 AM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
Phat writes:


In a way, they have collectively pardoned scripture itself from criticism.


I don't think so. Your quote basically says that we should try to interpret the writings as the original authors and audience would have understood them. It seems to me that this is the only honest way to do it. Otherwise we are reading ancient writings anachronistically and making the authors say things that they never meant.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 3:11 AM Phat has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1424
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 96 of 111 (824608)
12-01-2017 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by PaulK
12-01-2017 3:22 AM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
PaulK writes:

They have declared that they have authority over and above scripture.


How so? It seems the opposite to me. Inerrantists accept the authority of all of Scripture, whereas non-inerrantists set themselves up as an authority over Scripture, deciding which parts are true and which are not.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 3:22 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 8:08 AM kbertsche has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 97 of 111 (824610)
12-01-2017 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by PaulK
12-01-2017 3:22 AM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
delete broken link

Edited by Phat, : delete broken post


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 3:22 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13368
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 98 of 111 (824611)
12-01-2017 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by kbertsche
12-01-2017 7:58 AM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
quote:

How so? It seems the opposite to me.

Its right there in the first sentence. Interpretation is subject to their assumed inerrancy. Which means twisting the text to cover up contradictions and errors which cant be explained away.

quote:

whereas non-inerrantists set themselves up as an authority over Scripture, deciding which parts are true and which are not.

That is hardly fair. If there is a contradiction it is honest to the text to point out the contradiction - without any need to decide which is true.

And if scripture contradicts established fact - that isnt something non-inerrantists just arbitrarily make up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by kbertsche, posted 12-01-2017 7:58 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 8:13 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 105 by kbertsche, posted 12-01-2017 3:20 PM PaulK has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 99 of 111 (824612)
12-01-2017 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by PaulK
12-01-2017 3:22 AM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
PaulK writes:

They have declared that they have authority over and above scripture.

Really? Where does it say that?

Lets gather these links together for reference as we discuss this Inerrancy conference.

The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
The ICBI disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition Or #1
Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneuticsor #2
Chicago Statement on Biblical Application or #3.

I'm reading this stuff right now as I gather material to present on this topic. And basically, the issue is whether humans have a right and/or responsibility to interpret scripture as it was written or whether the authority of the scriptures and Canons is untouchable. Mind you, I'm not in unanimous agreement with these Chicago Statements, but I wanted to bring the discussion of Chicago to this thread rather than getting distracted in my Sproul thread.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 3:22 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 100 of 111 (824613)
12-01-2017 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
12-01-2017 8:08 AM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
PaulK writes:

That is hardly fair. If there is a contradiction it is honest to the text to point out the contradiction - without any need to decide which is true.

And if scripture contradicts established fact - that isnt something non-inerrantists just arbitrarily make up.

I see your point but do you see theirs? If there is no consensus on what is and is not authoritative, one may as well throw the book away and start from scratch...which is kinda what we do here.

Basically what they are doing is establishing scripture as the authority over themselves just as Rome established a Pope. Scripture is their Pope. Declaring this stuff gives them authority to thus extrapolate on what has been written.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 8:08 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 8:19 AM Phat has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13368
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 101 of 111 (824614)
12-01-2017 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Phat
12-01-2017 8:13 AM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
quote:

I see your point but do you see theirs? If there is no consensus on what is and is not authoritive, one may as well throw the book away and start from scratch...which is kinda what we do here.

Authority doesnt require inerrancy. You dont have to insist that the creation stories are literally true for the Bible to be authoritative on what matters. Nor do you have to paper over the cracks in the nativity stories or the accounts of Judas death. But they wouldnt allow you to accept the contradictions with reality nor between different stories.

And what worth is authority based on a lie ? Because that is what they are selling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 8:13 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 8:32 AM PaulK has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 102 of 111 (824615)
12-01-2017 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by PaulK
12-01-2017 8:19 AM


The Impact Of The Chicago Statements
I can see that they are all selling something. I went to Geislers website and was solicited. Sproul sells a lot of stuff too, but he also has a lot of free stuff that is easily accessible.

One thing that has been revealed is that this group from Chicago that affirmed these positions is the heart and soul of Biblical Christianity.

Would you say that all of them are Calvinists or can be defined as such?

What are some scholarly groups who steer around Calvinism without digressing into Universalism or feel good positive affirmations, such as Joel Osteen teaches?


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 8:19 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 9:38 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 104 by jar, posted 12-01-2017 9:44 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13368
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 103 of 111 (824618)
12-01-2017 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Phat
12-01-2017 8:32 AM


Re: The Impact Of The Chicago Statements
quote:

One thing that has been revealed is that this group from Chicago that affirmed these positions is the heart and soul of Biblical Christianity.

I think you should use scare quotes because it isnt as Biblical or as Christian as they would have you believe.

quote:

Would you say that all of them are Calvinists or can be defined as such?

Its certainly possible, but it isnt a matter Ive investigated or found especially important.

quote:

What are some scholarly groups who steer around Calvinism without digressing into Universalism or feel good positive affirmations, such as Joel Osteen teaches?

Again, its not a matter Ive considered important to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 8:32 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29763
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 104 of 111 (824619)
12-01-2017 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Phat
12-01-2017 8:32 AM


Re: The Impact Of The Chicago Statements
I have presented this to you before but maybe it is worth reading again. Here is a Pastoral Letter (a Pastoral Letter is one sent by the Bishop of a Diocese to be read to EVERY congregation) written over thirty years ago. It presents a different view of the authority of the Bible.

Note it points out that the Bible does contain two mutually exclusive and contradictory creation stories, that belief in the historical actuality or factual nature of the stories is NOT an article of the faith and that reality must override the stories.

It's interesting to note that this Pastoral Letter was just three years after the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was issued and so for practical purposes the two were contemporary positions. Also note that it is not a decree but rather a consensus showing 100% support from all the congregations represented in the annual meeting.

While it affirms religious beliefs it also says that reality is the final authority, not stories written by humans and even coming from different religious cultures as is the case with both the Creation stories and the two Flood tales.

Phat writes:

Would you say that all of them are Calvinists or can be defined as such?

Most are certainly Calvinist in the messages they market. But the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy does not address any of the basics of Calvinism as summed up by TULIP.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 8:32 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1424
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 105 of 111 (824646)
12-01-2017 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
12-01-2017 8:08 AM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
PaulK writes:


And if scripture contradicts established fact - that isnt something non-inerrantists just arbitrarily make up.


Sometimes it IS something that they make up.

Scripture must be interpreted. It says nothing on its own, apart from interpretation. Often biblical critics interpret Scripture very naively and anachronistically (Richard Dawkins is a prime example), making it say things that the original authors never intended.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 8:08 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 3:29 PM kbertsche has responded

    
Prev123456
7
8Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017