The Earnest Contender

Thursday, August 24, 2006

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

This is an excellent statement of faith click on to it, then let me know what you think.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Earl, does this answer your question?

5 Comments:

Yes it does, thanks!
When I interview prospective pastors, I will ask them about their views of inerrancy with the categories and thoughts from the Chicago Statement.

By Earl Flask, at 24/8/06 8:57 AM
Excellent!! Wonderful!! Outstanding!!!

I could go on as to what I think about it but I think you get my point.

Doug

By Doug E., at 24/8/06 9:59 PM
Mr. Flask…
That's interesting. I would like to hear more about that.

Doug
thanks for the visit.

Sandra White-
please do come back, but please do not spam here.

Thanks.

Thanks.

By J. Wendell, at 26/8/06 5:49 AM
It used to be that the word infallability would describe what we would typically think of the Scripture being without error. Then the word got hijacked by more theologically liberal people. This meant that the word infallable no longer meant infallable. Personally, I think those who hijacked the word were tying to pass themselves off to the average church going person as holding to a high view of Scripture, but the "insider theologians" were winking at each other, understanding that they were limiting Scriptures infallability.

I saw this happen in my old denomination, where many pastors did not hold to "infallability" in the old sense. When I got on pastoral seach committees, I made a point to ask pointed questions on infallability to flush out the wolves from the sheep. Then the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy came out, which helped me in asking pastors these kind of questions. When I was exploring which church to go to when we moved to Georgia, I wold ask pastors what they thought of the Chicago Statement in Inerrancy. If they heard of it, subscribed to it, I would ask a few things from the document to see if they agreed with each area, or a sampling of areas. When I found that the particular church I was visiting then, that the elders and pastor upheld the ideas contained in the Chicago Statement, I decided to make that church my home (until I discovered the Calvinistic slant of that church, which at the time disturbed me considerably, but that is another story).

Since joining the church, and serving on pastoral search committees, I want to make sure we don't get a pastor whose a "wolf" in sheep's clothing. Even in the best of churches and denominations, we need to keep our guard up. I cannot assume that because a pastor is a member of a conservative denomination, or served in conservative churches, that the pastor fully subscribes to inerrancy. This is where the Chicago Statement is very helpful.

Here is an example of what I do. I'll look in the "We Deny" sections, such as article IV, "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."

I'll then ask, do you think that human language has limited God's ability to reveal his thoughts to us? I'll see how the pastor responds. Sure, there can be limits, but not to render his revelation as inadequate. I'll ask my questions sometimes in a stealth way, using "gender neutral" language and other politically correct (because I was once theologically liberal at one time) to see if I can "sucker" a pastor who doesn't really believe in inerrancy to open up. I do this because I want to get a solid pastor who will defend the Word of God and protect the flock.

Does that give you a picture of what I meant?

By Earl Flask, at 26/8/06 12:09 PM
That is too cool, I like the way you think. Thanks for sharing that.

By J. Wendell, at 26/8/06 9:48 PM