Comments on "the Chicago Statement"
Ian & Pam Dorion dorioni@ipa.net
Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:11:38 -0600 (00886291898, 199801311813.MAA08463@thunder.ipa.net)
IAN
And now I see the errors of your weays. Your turn to hail Jesus.
MICHAEL
> 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
>