Comments on "the Chicago Statement"
Michael W. Fisher mwfisher@cts.com
Sat, 31 Jan 1998 09:59:11 -0800 (00886291151, 34D3666F.9CCC1A40@cts.com)
Here are some excerpts followed by comments.
> Article I.
>
> We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the
> authoritative Word of God.
>
> We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church,
> tradition, or any other human source.
>
Which begs the question of just who then gets to decide what
qualifies as Scripture in the first place.
The same problem exists for Ariticle II, not here reproduced.
> Article V.
>
> We affirm that God's revelation in the Holy Scriptures was
> progressive.
>
> We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation,
> ever corrects o[r] contradicts it. We further deny that any normative
> revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament
> writings.
>
Which begs the question of whether or not there is any such thing
as "progressive revelation".
If one is determined to find faces in the clouds, one can always
find faces in the clouds.
> Article VI.
>
> We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the
> very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.
>
> 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.
>
and
> Article X.
>
> We affirm 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.
>
> We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected
> by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence
> renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
>
A typical Christian catch 22, or actually two of them.
Only the mysterious "originals" were actually inspired, ergo if
any problems are found in scripture, why, they are the result of
copying errors.
Further, without logical justification, the entire text is used to
justify any part of the text, without any prior demonstration that
they in fact have anything to do with each other, see
also the comment under #1.
> Article VIII.
>
> We affirm that God in His work of inspiration utilized the
> distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had
> chosen and prepared.
>
> We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that
> He chose, overrode their personalities.
>
> Article IX.
>
> We affirm that inspiration, through not conferring omniscience,
> guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the
> Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
>
> We deny that the finitude or falseness of these writers, by necessity
> or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.
>
An attempt to squirm around the JPED interpritations of the older
texts, and to fudge discrepancies between each of the various
synoptics and John.
I.e., the scriptures don't "contradict", its only the differeing
emphasis of different personalities.
Couple this catch-22 with the one above, and its possible to
reconcile anything.
> Article XIV.
>
> We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.
>
> We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been
> resolved violate the truth claims of the Bible.
>
Why, if perchance we do get cornered by a sophicticated critique,
why we won't change our minds anyway.
Another catch-22.
> Article XVIII.
>
> We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by
> grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and
> devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
>
> We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for
> sources lying behind it that leads or relativizing, dehistoricizing, or
> discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims of authorship.
>
A restatement of the question begging Catch-22 of article X. Here
it is expanded to include yet an additioinal Catch-22. This one is to
a priora reject any external information that might discredit any
already held interpritations.i.e., the "I've made up my mind don't
confuse me with facts" dodge.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll leave the rest of the confession to someone with more time to
dissect, but it appears to be nothing but garden variety inerrancy in
all its fallacious glory set out in detail.
Ciao.
--
Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., law student
>>NEW->http://www.infidels.org/library/humor/lioaca.html
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
http://home.aol.com/Mfish6994
* * *
". . . a very LONG discussion is one of the most
effective veils of Fallacy: . . . A Fallacy which
when stated barely . . . would not deceive a child,
may deceive half the world if diluted in a quarto
volume"
Richard Whately, "Elements of Logic", p. 151