Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by ~JM~, May 12, 2009.

  1. ~JM~

    ~JM~
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Article X. that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

    To quote Ed:
    The problem and/or 'sticking point' I find is that of "ONLY" in any form (and with any person or group, FTR). And "ONLY" = "Only" = "only" ad infinitum, 'add nausea.'​

    AND

    Any "ONLY-ism" doctrine amounts to a complete mishandling of Scripture.

    One of the definite reasons that any sort of Biblical text "ONLY-ism" is a dangerous, diverting, denigrating, 'deifying', disrespectful, denying and damnable doctrine is that the teaching actually effectively serves to deny as opposed to affirm 'Trinitarianism', Deity, and Scripture, in that it actually simultaneously denigrates the written Word of God, along with the incarnate Word of God. And it does this while simultaneously 'deifying' this written Word. How much more dangerous and/or disrespectful can one possibly get?? A second is that it diverts the emphases from the Triune God and a Word "forever settled in heaven", where they belong, onto a false doctrine of specific written words (in whatever language is under consideration at that time) 'forever settled on the earth', by diverting the message from what and from where God intended, namely that of salvation and discipleship, and all His declarations about Himself, and His other proclamations, and the message directed to and for His people, plus everything else else God, and Him alone, has chosen to be Scripture.

    Some of this mishandling of Scripture, contained in this teaching, goes even beyond anything even the Devil ever attempted, for even he never attempted to 'Deify' Scripture, that I'm aware of.

    If all the above combined and collectively do not constitute a doctrine that is damnable, then I have no clue as to what would or could ever qualify as such.​

    :tonofbricks:
     
  2. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Considering that my post from which you are selectively lifting parts, was in reference to the 'doctrine' of "KJVOnly" or "TR-Only, and I also mentioned VUL-Only, GEN-Only and D-R-Only as well as some '"what ever version anyone wishes"-Only' exactly what are you driving at? I never said (nor have I implied) that I do not agree with the assessment that the Biblical doctrine/concept of 'revelation' and 'inspiration' are not applicable to the autographa, for in fact, I believe that they are only strictly applicable to this, just as worded in the Chicago Statements.

    So what exactly are you driving at? Oh wait! [​IMG]

    By James, I think I've got it!

    Let's see!
    And again - [referring to a post by another who mentioned "TNIV, HCSB, NLT-se, ISV, and many others. (versions)"]
    Again, "So What?" What does whether or not the TR or MT lies behind the versions he cited have to do with anything? I don't recall either being the Autographs. And, FTR,"MT" is properly designation for the Majority Text of the NT, not the Masoretic text of the OT, to which is what I believe you are referring. Also, all the versions mentioned, are in fact, primarily based on the Masoretic text for the OT.
    For the fourth time, - "SO WHAT?"As far as I was able to determine, the 1689 Confession mentions no specific version or text, as far as I read, although it does proclaim that the Apocrypha is not a psrt of inspired Scripture - viz. - "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings."

    Why attempt to 'change' the Confession to attempt to make it say something it doesn't? It says nothing about any particular translated version, that I read, although it does speak to the autographs.

    And contrary to what some may imply, there were still many users of and many who preferred the GEN to the KJV at the time of the 1689 Confession. :BangHead:

    Ed
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    Yeah, what EdSutton is saying. JM, you're losing your argument. Shall I actually put that in the past tense? You've lost the argument.
     
  4. ~JM~

    ~JM~
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Rippon,

    “Of late the sheep had taken to bleating ‘Four legs good, two legs bad’ both in and out of season, and they often interrupted the Meeting with this.” Ed writes enough without the extra cheerleading needed...and after all, it is about "winning," right!

    To quote Ed:

    The problem and/or 'sticking point' I find is that of "ONLY" in any form (and with any person or group, FTR). And "ONLY" = "Only" = "only" ad infinitum, 'add nausea.'

    AND

    Any "ONLY-ism" doctrine amounts to a complete mishandling of Scripture.

    One of the definite reasons that any sort of Biblical text "ONLY-ism" is a dangerous, diverting, denigrating, 'deifying', disrespectful, denying and damnable doctrine is that the teaching actually effectively serves to deny as opposed to affirm 'Trinitarianism', Deity, and Scripture, in that it actually simultaneously denigrates the written Word of God, along with the incarnate Word of God. And it does this while simultaneously 'deifying' this written Word. How much more dangerous and/or disrespectful can one possibly get?? A second is that it diverts the emphases from the Triune God and a Word "forever settled in heaven", where they belong, onto a false doctrine of specific written words (in whatever language is under consideration at that time) 'forever settled on the earth', by diverting the message from what and from where God intended, namely that of salvation and discipleship, and all His declarations about Himself, and His other proclamations, and the message directed to and for His people, plus everything else else God, and Him alone, has chosen to be Scripture.

    Some of this mishandling of Scripture, contained in this teaching, goes even beyond anything even the Devil ever attempted, for even he never attempted to 'Deify' Scripture, that I'm aware of.

    If all the above combined and collectively do not constitute a doctrine that is damnable, then I have no clue as to what would or could ever qualify as such.
     
  5. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I fully stand by the statement I made IN CONTEXT and in the context of when and where it was offered.

    Frankly, I suggest you full well understand the manner and context in which I was offering it, as well.

    You are the one who "set this table" so to speak, by bringing up the Trinitarian Bible Society, and with your own statement (where you identify yourself with the group) that
    I did not watch the video (What is the point??), but I did check out the Trinitarian Bible Society for the Doctrinal Statement and noted what appear to be the modus operandi of the organization's 'principles' and practices.

    You might also note that I spoke of "texts", and not the "manuscripts" of Scripture. Should you not have realized there is a difference between these two words, and the import of each, you might consider checking out a dictionary.

    FTR, I do not recall ever supporting the so-called "CT" against the MT, anywhere on this board. That would seem inconsistent, considering my own bent toward the Majority Text, for the NT. However, I am also not willing to allow any others to go unchallenged, if and when they falsely appropriate (and misrepresent) the MT tradition as 'really being almost the same' as the TR tradition (with some alleged mere handful of insignificant differences), when this is clearly not the case. There are well over 1000 translatable differences (out of some 1800 total differences, at least according to the esteemed quartet of Dr. Robinson, and the late triumvirate of Dr. Farstad, and Messers Hodges and Pierpont) between the TR and the MT.

    BTW, why is it that I usually notice when both the MT and CT do not agree with the TR (even when agreeing with each other), it seems to be the TR which is deemed the preferred reading, among those of this persuasion, which shows the inconsistency of this 'thinking', to begin with??

    Things that are different are simply not the same!

    Ed
     
    #5 EdSutton, May 13, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2009
  6. ~JM~

    ~JM~
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    The video has nothing to do with the TBS statement of faith, the two points
    are separate, the comment about TBS was made in response to a post by
    robycop3 who was unaware of the Reformed argument (aka Confessional
    Argument) by Calvinists for the use of the traditional text.

    As you wrote, "so what?"

    It's hard to make a note of anything you pour out in a posts Mr.
    Volumous...I need Cliff Notes to get the gist! (tongue in cheek of course,
    I hold no hostility to you or your opinions, I'm trying my best to make you
    smile and yes I'm failing)

    Yes, the swagger is noted. (another attempt at humour, perhaps)

    FTR: I don’t know what you’re referring to. I looked back over my posts in this forum so far and sincerely don’t know what you’re referring to. I did not claim the MT tradition was the same as the TR position.

    I would argue I did the opposite of what you are suggesting and direct you to the post I made where I quoted, “…even though there are obvious differences in the two…” positions click here.

    We could get along much better if you stop reading into my posts what isn’t there.

    To quote you, “So what?”

    FTR: There are less then 200 differences between the Scrivener and the Beza 1598 and less then 300 differences between the Scrivener text and the Stephanus 1550.

    These “FTR’s” are filler and have little to do with the subject, thanks for the idea ED.

    That’s a question for the CT’ers who rely on the TR reading for clarity.

    Ahh, the law of non-contradiction, brilliant.

    I asked these questions with an honest heart in another thread:

    "...the original autographs, are the written Word of God, divinely inspired and completely inerrant and factual."

    How do you know they were completely inerrant and factual if we don't have them? Do we receive a burning in the bosom or is it pure fideism? Are we to separate faith from reason and just believe we are reading scripture without any reason for doing so? If only the originals are inerrant how do we know they are inerrant if we do not have them now? If you quote scripture, how do you know it is scripture considering the modern view of the last section of Mark, John 8 and 1 John 5:7? How can I know if what I'm reading in the Bible is part of scripture or not? If your convictions are derived from scripture, could they be wrong since we do not have the original mss, which are the only inerrant source of faith, and be absolutely wrong? If our understanding of God and His nature comes from the scriptures and the Bible we have is a copy with errors, could our understanding of God be in error? How important is our epistemology?

    j
     
  7. ~JM~

    ~JM~
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is my last post for a while, so I just wanted to thank you Ed (and Rippon) for your patience. I wish you both the best.

    Peace,

    j
     
  8. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK!

    :wavey: for now.

    Look for you to drop in in about another 6 mos. or a year, perhaps??

    In the meantime, the best to you as well. :thumbsup:

    FTR, I never wish anyone anything but the best. :praying:

    Even when I happen to strongly disagree with a position they have taken. :BangHead:

    Ed
     
    #8 EdSutton, May 14, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 14, 2009

Share This Page

Loading...