Posted on 04/07/2015 11:01:38 AM PDT by NYer
A lot of that has been addressed here for the ECCLESIA. There is only one Word of God, and it is inerrant and infallible ...
— — —
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition
Background
The “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
The ICBI disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986. The following text, containing the “Preface” by the ICBI draft committee, plus the “Short Statement,” “Articles of Affirmation and Denial,” and an accompanying “Exposition,” was published in toto by Carl F. H. Henry in God, Revelation And Authority, vol. 4 (Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1979), on pp. 211-219. The nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, with a brief introduction, also appear in A General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, rev. 1986), at pp. 181-185. An official commentary on these articles was written by R. C. Sproul in Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary (Oakland, Calif.: ICBI, 1980), and Norman Geisler edited the major addresses from the 1978 conference, in Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).
Clarification of some of the language used in this Statement may be found in the 1982 Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.
—
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Preface
The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God’s written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.
The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God’s own Word which marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstandings of this doctrine in the world at large.
This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition. It has been prepared in the course of a three-day consultation in Chicago. Those who have signed the Summary Statement and the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and to encourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and we pray that the Statement we have signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a new reformation of the Church in its faith, life, and mission.
We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we purpose by God’s grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.
We invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help which enables us to strengthen this testimony to God’s Word we shall be grateful.
— The Draft Committee
A Short Statement
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
AND THEN ... the ACTUAL DOCUMENT itself follows at this link ...
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
I can understand the reluctance of nonCatholics to use the English word "church" to identify themselves. In general, Jews despise that charade as duplicitous and dishonest. Jewish Community Centers, on the other hand, are actual assemblies of Jews and Gentiles without that deception.
It would be better for Christians to use the Biblical word of ECCLESIA, to avoid the confusion with the word “church” ... which is not used to describe Christians.
One could say that I am a member of the ECCLESIA of the New Testament, and I happen to go to a “building” that is called a church in secular terms, and that this building was built or is occupied by an “organization” ... neither of which (”church” or “organization”) has anything to do with being a member of the ECCLESIA.
Excellent question and lots of theories, but the one I tend to give credence to is that since Jesus was the elder son, He needed to ensure Mary was cared for after His death. John was (presumably) the youngest of the Apostles and was the one that Jesus loved (John 13:23) so the lot fell to him, not to mention that Jesus' brothers were not there to witness His execution (or at least, not recorded to have been there).
Just curious here...let’s assume that Mary and Joseph had children after the birth of Jesus, and I understand that Jesus perhaps had as many as four half-brothers and two half-sisters, right? All of these would have been younger than Jesus.
Actually, the confusion originates in Hebrew and Aramaic, the languages of most of the original Old Testament texts and of Christ. In these languages, no special word existed for cousin, nephew, half-brother, or step-brother; so they used the word brother or a circumlocution, such as in the case of a cousin, "the son of the brother of my father." When the Old Testament was translated into Greek and the New Testament written in Greek, the word adelphos was used to capture all of these meanings. So in each instance, we must examine the context in which the title is used. In all, the confusion arises in English because of the lack of distinct terms for relatives in the Hebrew and Aramaic, and the usage of the Greek adelphos to signify all of these relations.
Nevertheless, other Gospel passages clarify these relationships. James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Clophas (Mk 15:40). Judas was the son of James (not either of the Apostles) (Lk 6:16). James the Lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Lk 6:15). James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee with a mother other than our Blessed Mother Mary (Mt 20:20).
All of these would have been younger than Jesus.
The Gospels are also very clear that Mary was a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit (cf. Mt 1:18-25, Lk 1:26-38). Remember when the Archangel Gabriel announced to Mary God's plan, she responded, "How can this be, since I do not know man?"
After the birth of our Lord, although the Gospels do not give us many details of His childhood, no mention is made of Mary and Joseph ever having other children. Never does it refer to the "sons of Mary" or "a son of Mary," but only the son of Mary.
Assuming that they didn’t all die before Jesus died on the cross, why should Jesus have John take Mary into his home?
Bingo! This point is again corroborated at the crucifixion scene: Before He dies, our Lord says to Mary, "Woman, there is your son," and then to St. John, who is definitely not a blood brother, "There is your mother."
According to Jewish law, the oldest son had the responsibility of caring for the widowed mother, and that responsibility would pass to the next oldest if anything happened to the first-born son. By this time, St. Joseph has died. Since Jesus, the first born, had no "blood brother," He entrusted Mary to the care of St. John, the Beloved Disciple.
Through critical thinking, you have just arrived at historical truth.
You may find the following article, interesting. Bad Aramaic Made Easy
Again .... Welcome to Free Republic!
And yet you just claimed the KJV was deficient for using the word " church," not to mention other errors. How can you have it if your translations are erroneous ? How can you believe it if you don't have it ? I suspect it is quite a bit like the Ecclesia you mentioned, there and not there.
For one thing, Jesus’ brothers and sisters rejected him as the Savior, the Messiah of Israel. John didn’t.
And in answer to the thought that one of Jesus’ brothers or sisters must have written something ... I would say that most likely not the sisters of Jesus. They didn’t have women’s lib in those days ... :-) ...
In regards to the brothers of Jesus, they very well might have written something, but since it wasn’t SCRIPTURE that they wrote, it probably wasn’t preserved, in the way the inerrant and infallible Scriptures were. It might have been written and lost in history like most of the other human writings of the day would have been!
Translations are not the inspired Word of God ... the original Hebrew and Greek are the inspired Word of God.
The King James Version wasn’t around in the days of Jesus and thereafter ... but ... the Hebrew and Greek that God had the writers of His Word write it in ... is here TODAY!
That’s why those of us who are not skilled in the “ins and outs” of those original languages that God chose to use ... have to “do a little work” in understanding what those languages that God uses ... really says.
It is widely considered that the Epistles of James and Jude were written by brothers of Jesus. Well, half-brothers.
So you write, yet you do not have those either, hence your quandary. Catholics, who believe in the holy catholic apostolic church founded on the Jewish apostles and prophets, with Messiah himself the chief cornerstone, and relying on his promises to said apostles, are not dependent on Sola Scriptura doctrine that does not have the original inerrant scriptures, for Messiah promised to build a church against which the gates of hell would prevail, not original manuscripts of a Bible, nor a translation thereof.
That’s my doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture dictating how I view the writings. I see them as what God specifically wanted written, so that even down to the very words themselves God inspired the writer put down EXACTLY what God wanted to include in Scripture.
On the other hand, I know that just “writings” in general could be written by anyone, including these writers and not be inspired.
What I’m trying to say is that, although a book of the Bible is “penned” by a particular “writer” ... it is NOT HIM who is doing the writing. Therefore whatever “is written by him” (being not inspired by God) was not saved or kept by anyone, and this not surviving to the present day.
To put it in even shorter form, per the doctrine of Inerrancy and Inspiration ... those books of the Bible were not written by anyone except God Himself.
I’m just explaining why I don’t consider those books as written “by them” ... :-) ...
Yeah we do have what the original writings were ... according to the textual criticism ... except for a few isolated and insignificant points, here and there ... and nothing that affects any teachings.
Keep in mind that all the translations, themselves (the very translation work, itself) is subject to “textual criticism” as to whether we do have those originals (that is, “original translations”), or whether they are fakes or in error (for what we have in hand) ... again ... the “translation” and not talking about the “originals”.
Going further, those “translations” ... they even depended upon the copies of copies, so had to contend with textual criticism, as to what they had was a faithful copy of what God originally wrote in the original languages, plus they also went off of some “translations” themselves.
Just because any translation you choose to refer to or use, no matter where it is from, you’re going to deal with textual criticism of the translation itself, and then of the documents that the translators used, many of which don’t even exist today.
But, all in all, we can affirm that we do have the original Word of God, as God wrote it in the original languages. And from that, we can study it and see what he is telling us.
Thus by putting one's faith in "textual criticism", although it might inspire more confidence if capitalized like Sola Scriptura, one can boldly proclaim he has the original writings.
I submit instead, a more scriptural argument. We have inerrancy because the LORD Jesus Christ built his church upon Peter, gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven, gave him the power of binding and loosing, and the gates of hell have not prevailed against this holy catholic apostolic church, which certifies to us the scriptures are inerrant.
Exactly where in the Old Testament does this Jewish law appear? Jesus would not have been bound to follow Jewish custom or tradition unless it is encoded in Jewish Scripture.
There are a lot of possible reasons for why Jesus might have wanted John to care for His mother rather than His brothers. Why Jesus did what He did is pure speculation.
Through critical thinking, you have just arrived at historical truth.
Nice try. Other than Mary being a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, almost every point you present is highly debatable to say the least.
The only problem with that is that Jesus didn’t do that ... :-) ... (with Peter).
Jesus was building the “ECCLESIA” upon the rock of “Jesus being the Messiah of Israel” (the “promised one” of God that all looked forward to, prior to that time).
— — —
What did Jesus mean when he said, “Upon this rock I will build my church”?
The name Peter (Gk., Petros) means “rock” or “rock-man.” In the next phrase Christ used petra (upon this rock), a feminine form for “rock,” not a name. Christ used a play on words. He does not say “upon you, Peter” or “upon your successors,” but “upon this rock”—upon this divine revelation and profession of faith in Christ.
The following comment on this verse from The Bible Knowledge Commentary sums up the issue:
16:17-20. Peter’s words brought a word of commendation from the Lord. Peter was blessed because he had come to a correct conclusion about the person of Christ and because great blessing would be brought into his life. The Lord added, however, this was not a conclusion Peter had determined by his own or others’ ability. God, the Father in heaven, had revealed it to him. Peter was living up to his name (it means “rock”) for he was demonstrating himself to be a rock. When the Lord and Peter first met, Jesus had said Simon would be named Cephas (Aram. for “rock”) or Peter (Gr. for “rock”; John 1:41-42).
But his declaration about Messiah’s person led to a declaration of Messiah’s program. Peter (Petros, masc.) was strong like a rock, but Jesus added that on this rock (petra, fem.) He would build His church. Because of this change in Greek words, many conservative scholars believe that Jesus is now building His church on Himself. Others hold that the church is built on Peter and the other apostles as the building’s foundation stones (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). Still other scholars say that the church is built on Peter’s testimony. It seems best to understand that Jesus was praising Peter for his accurate statement about Him, and was introducing His work of building the church on Himself (1 Cor. 3:11).
https://bible.org/question/what-did-jesus-mean-when-he-said-“upon-rock-i-will-build-my-church”;
You would think with all the evidence that Jesus had half brothers and sisters that the Catholic church would pick up on the fact that Blessed Mary was quite an excellent example of Catholic teaching. The Catholic church preaches “be fruitful and multiply” and she and Joseph it appears did so.
I agree with your post. We have this to support your comments:
Hebrews 13:4King James Version (KJV)
4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
According to the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible ... "An adult woman in the family was legally considered to be under the authority of the male head of the household - first her father, then her husband after marriage. If her husband died, she could hope to be cared for by her adult children or, if there were none, she could return to her father or be taken in by the next of kin. The Book of Ruth deals with some of these complexities".
I didn't realize that was part of the Old Testament canon.
If her husband died, she could hope to be cared for by her adult children
Doesn't sound like a very stringent law to me.
I'm waiting for a chapter and verse on this requirement. Those who keep asserting this "fact" should be prepared to provide some documentation. A vague reference to the Book of Ruth doesn't suffice.
I call the Apostle to the Gentiles as a witness.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Ephesians, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses nineteen to twenty two,
as authorized, but not authored, by King Janes,
and easily abandoned by Evangelicals.
Peter was an apostle and the Gentiles are included in the church that the Messiah built. Peter is part of the foundation of the holy catholic apostolic church, with the other Jewish apostles and prophets, Messiah himself being the chief cornerstone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.