Hi Paul
Do you (or anybody else) know the reasons why the two statements are so diverent
in content?
Jon
PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
> << All these problems lead to most thought out statements of Biblical
> inerrancy being convoluted and even contradictory. It s several years
> since I have read them, but I recall that the shorter and longer versions
> of the Chicago statement actually say quite different things. At that
> time I could have signed off on one (the longer, I think, which is more
> qualified), but not the other. >>
>
> I agree. The longer statement gives at least a little room for the kind of
> nuancing that Terry mentions; but the actual articles adopted by the
> International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, which were signed by just about
> every evangelical group in the country, are something else. And, I think it
> is these articles which are the "high view of Scripture" to most people and
> especially Article XII:
>
> "We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from
> falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and
> inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes,
> exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny
> that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to
> overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood."
>
> Although some may affirm this article and then go to the interpretations of
> concordism to avoid such contextual historical-grammatical meanings as the
> sun being created on the fourth day and a universal Flood that killed every
> human on earth except the eight on the ark, the most natural course of action
> for a believer in this article would be to go directly to creation science.
>
> Either way, light is suppressed, so, I do not believe this is a view of
> Scripture which Christians should hold.
>
> Paul
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 08 2002 - 17:41:19 EDT