Read the chicago statement of biblical inerrancy 1978. You should be familiar with it. We are called to go on to "maturity" and we are one in christ and we should speak the same things. The chicago staement of 1978 is what i believe. The answered is in black and white. And with biblical confirmation. "I believe GOD is GOD. Outside of that, all things comes up short and lacking.
“We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight.” So I don’t understand why you’re referring to this document like it’s some kind of authority. The document doesn’t even see itself as any sort of authority, but let’s continue.
“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.” I yet again fail to see how this disproves my point that scripture refers to god as all powerful, knowing, and loving. If GOD HIMSELF said that he is these things through scripture.
Article one reaffirms this by saying “We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.”
Article 2 doesn’t make sense to me because the Bible itself was compiled by the church. Fun fact: the book of revelation almost didn’t make it into the biblical canon. Another fun fact: the concept of the Trinity was created by the church. In fact, the Trinity was heavily debated by the early church as Christians weren’t sure if Jesus was literally God or just a part of God.
I have no comment on article 3.
Article 4, however, I can see a few issues on this.
“We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.” This is wrong on so many levels. Take Exodus 22:18 (or 22:17 if you’re reading it in the original Hebrew) “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” The original word for “witch” in the Hebrew was “
mekhashepha” and what that word actually means has been lost in translation, only leaving modern Christians to modern interpretations. This is fine, right? Words are bound to be mistranslated and misinterpreted. But it’s because of this misinterpretation that led to the mass murder of thousands of alleged witches in Europe. This is just one example of the horrors of misinterpreting the Bible. And this is supposed to be the work of God’s divine inspiration?
I see a few issues with article 5 as well. Article 5 states,”We affirm that God' s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.” It’s not. It’s really, really not. History and society has proved time and time again that it’s not. First example off the top of my head would be tattoos. For a long time, and even today, tattoos and piercings were considered to be unchristian, and pastors would quote Leviticus 19:28 to reaffirm their beliefs. But now society has changed, and people, Christians included, are beginning to see tattoos and piercings as art and not a sign of delinquency. But what about Leviticus? Well, pastors are changing their tune. Instead of Leviticus banning all tattoos and piercings, it turns out Leviticus only bans tattoos and piercings that are practiced as idol worship (which is actually correct). Another, more extreme example would be slavery. Pastors used to use the Bible to condone and justify slavery because the Bible does, in fact, condone slavery. But if you bring this fact up today, modern Christians would either deny that those verses exist or try and explain away their existence in a manner similar to tattoos. The Bible is not progressive. People are progressive, and people will change the Bible to adapt to their changing views.
Article 6 says, “We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.” So with this in mind I ask you again. If the Bible says that god is all powerful, knowing, and loving, do you believe God to be all powerful, knowing, and loving? I provided scripture to back up these claims in my initial response, and yet you dismiss them with inappropriate jargon. Why can’t you honestly agree that God, according to His Word, exhibits all 3 of these attributes?
I feel like you’re hesitant to deny God’s omniscience because of article 9, which states, “We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.” But this article is saying how the authors themselves were not omniscient, but were simply inspired but God, who is omniscient.
Article 10 is actually pretty dishonest from a historical perspective. The truth of the matter is that we don’t know who a lot of the authors are in these books, (or have autographs, as the article puts it) so we have no way of confirming the actual events that happened in the Bible. In fact, this article is circular in its reasoning. If we have no way of affirming certain books in the Bible with outside sources. So in the end, you need to use the Bible to reaffirm the Bible.
I actually agree with article 11. The Bible is either fallible or infallible. It can’t be both.
I don’t agree with article 12. If science, actual science disproves something like the flood with proper evidence, then that evidence shouldn’t be dismissed. That’s just wrong. People should follow the evidence where it leads. If the evidence leads to God, then cool. If not, then you need to reevaluate some things.
Article 13, admittedly, confuses me.
“We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose.”
What is the standard of truth? And what is the usage and purpose that they’re talking about? “We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.” I feel like I need to take this apart one by one.
First off, modern technical precision makes absolutely no sense. Second, nitpicking grammar is a completely valid point, especially when we’re talking about Hebrew translations. If something is off or misspelled, it’s probably important to look into it. Third, if the nature doesn’t add up to the geography, then it it doesn’t add up. I don’t know or care how the material is arranged, since that’s irrelevant to biblical inherency, and materiel from parallel accounts is also a valid point (but not in the same way you’re thinking). For example, how many women visited Jesus’ tomb? Mark says 3, Matthew says 2, Luke says at least 5, and John says 1. If all of these men are experiencing the same event at the same time, then why the heck are their accounts on basic information, ie. The number of women who visited Jesus, so vastly different? Another example would be what the tomb looked like when the women got there. Mark, Luke, and John say that the Boulder had miraculously rolled away. But Matthew says that the Boulder was still there? Or, what do the women do after they receive the good news? Mark says that they kept quiet, Matthew says that the women told the disciples, Luke writes that the women told the disciples and the rest of the city, and John writes that Mary stayed and cried while two of the disciples went home. These are very valid points that should be discussed, not tossed to the side just because a council in 1978 said so.
I can agree with article 14 to an extent. If there is an alleged error, it doesn’t automatically mean anything until it becomes a proven error.
I feel like Article 18 is the reason why you refuse to answer my question. But the thing is, I’m using *scripture* as evidence in my initial arguments. Therefore, I’m using scripture to interpret scripture. Scripture says that god is all powerful. Scripture also says that he is all knowing and all loving. But the problem of evil illustrates how it’s impossible for god to be all three and still allow evil in the world. Do you see what I’m getting at?
Article 19:
“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.”
In other words, even if there is sufficient evidence that says otherwise, you should ignore it because the ultimate goal is to become more like Christ.
“We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church.”
In other words, if you reject the inerrancy doctrine, there will be consequences, which is pretty dumb.
So there. I read it. I agreed with some points, but not a lot of them. The articles repeated over and over how the Bible is inerrant, yet failed to tackle any of the claims that said otherwise, which I did not appreciate. So if you could please stop this nonsensical appeal to authority and answer my question, please.
Do you believe that God is all powerful according to His scriptures?
Do you believe that Jesus was wrong when he said
“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Or do you agree with
"For nothing will be impossible with God.”
Or what about
Psalms 147:5? Do you agree with that as well?
What about Jeremiah 32:17? "‘Ah, Lord God! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you." Do you agree with that? Do you believe that God is the most powerful being? You're bible says that He is, multiple times, and the Bible is supposedly inherent.
Job 42:2 says "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted."
Revelations 19:6 says that
God is all mighty.
Isaiah 40:28 says, "Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable."
In fact, here's a whole
link of verses that talk about God's unimaginable power and strength.
So I ask, once again, do you believe that God is all powerful?
If you don't, then you're going against the Holy Bible itself.
