encouraged by Michael and Mark I read further...
***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.*** http://www.jpusa.org/jpusa/documents/biblical.htm The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy International Council on Biblical Inerrancy 1978 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 http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/biblio/inspdoct.htm Inspiration & Inerrancy by M. James Sawyer, Ph.D. http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/position.html THE POSITION OF MAJOR CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS ON CREATION AND INERRANCY http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=74 Presuppositionalism and Metaphysics by Larry Hamelin Formal Systems Formal systems are about sentences. A sentence is a string, a collection of symbols. "God exists" is a sentence; it consists of symbols. We have simple syntactic and grammatical rules that determine which sentences are well-formed statements; these rules are trivial, and we can (for the purposes of this article) ignore non-well-formed sentences. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1990/PSCF12-90Cottingham.html Rosen, Moltmann, and the Anticipatory Paradigm DAVID C. COTTINGHAM 3517 D 18th St., S.W. Calgary, Alberta Canada T2T 4T9 From: PSCF 42 (December 1990): 239-245. This article begins with discussion of Robert Rosen's Anticipatory Systems, outlines the concept of biological modeling processes, and connects the notion of anticipatory model with the notion of psychological archetype. The Great Mother is given as example. Rosen is cited on the distinction between teleonomy and teleology. Jurgen Moltmann's theology is referred to, in particular his idea that the universe is an anticipatory system. Telos is proposed as a unifying term. The paradigm is then applied to biblical hermeneutics, with typology seen as anticipatory progression; the raising of archetypes into succession of new contexts. The conclusion ties the three approaches together. Models, Archetypes, Teleonomy http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1995/1/1lost95.html Religion and How I Lost It Bob Hypes http://www.philosophy-religion.org/thought/fundamentalism.htm The expression "fundamentalism" has its starting point in a succession of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," they were written by leading evangelical churchmen. Early fundamentalists adopted five points: (1) the verbal inerrancy of the Bible; (2) the divinity of Jesus Christ; (3) the Virgin Birth; (4) the substitutionary theory of the Atonement (i.e., that Jesus Christ died for us as a sacrifice for the sins of the world); and (5) the physical resurrection of Christ and his bodily return to earth on the Last Day. As one would expect, fundamentalism has evolved with its own "schools of thought" and various emphases. People who identify themselves today as fundamentalists need to clarify their respective uses of the term. http://www.jpusa.org/jpusa/documents/biblical.htm The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1.) 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 faithfull y 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. ...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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- (3.) Articles of Affirmation and Denial 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. Article II. We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture. We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible. Article III. We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity. Article IV. We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation. 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. Article V. We affirm that God's revelation within the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings. 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. Article VII. We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us. We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind. 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. ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Baha'i Studies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 03 October 2003 05:48 Subject: Re: Literalism > Hello Mark, > > I wrote: > > > >>What I do doubt is that there is for Literalists an assumption of > >isomorphism between words and reality. (Do any of them actually say > >this, 'We base our interpretive practice on an isomorphism between > >words and reality'?)<< > > You responded: > > >I doubt in those precise terms. However, the dogma of verbal > >inerrancy, which is confessed by most fundamentalists (and accepted, > >often in a watered-down form, by many neo-evangelicals) is basically > >a God-text isomophism. The premise is that God dictated His ideas, > >word by word, directly to the biblical authors. Although God may > >have chosen to make this dictation in the personality of each writer > >(channel?), it is still God's exact words. > > So, the story goes, God dictates to the favoured few. I am a bit > confused because this is God-text isomorphism, but not a text-reality > isomorphism (not isomorphism between words and reality), which I > though was the subject. Does the Literalist think that because God > dictated this text the words in it are isomorphic with reality? That > seems clearly mistaken. God, for all we know if all we know is that > He dictates to some favoured few, dictates words that have to be > understood in their context. Or that should not be taken at their > face value. Or God may love irony and metaphor. > > However, my argument against the implication of God-dictation may > support your view. Literalists' interpretive practices really spring > not from believing God-dictation but from believing isomorphism. As > you say, "It *is* that a belief in isomorphism, or what I once called > scriptural materialism, leads to reading all prose according to its > apparent meaning." Maybe, In any case it is not the belief in > God-dictation that is doing the work. > > > > To continue, I wrote: > > >>One reason I think this is that, as I conveyed in my last post, > >>reading explicit prose as explicit prose is an everyday thing, and > >>does not - or so I claim - assume isomorphism.<< > > You responded: > > "If that were all there was to it, no. However, your statement, IMO, > puts the cart before the horse and asserts a causal relationship. It > is *not* that, to fundamentalists, reading explicit prose as explicit > prose assumes isomorphism. Certainly, it is possible to read prose as > prose without being a fundamentalist. It *is* that a belief in > isomorphism, or what I once called scriptural materialism, leads to > reading all prose according to its apparent meaning." > > I could believe that the belief in isomorphism is, in some sense, > driving the interpretive practices associated with Literalism. But > don't think it has to. > And I may have put the cart before the horse, but I don't think I am > asserting a causal relationship, but a relationship of reasons. I > suspect that as isomorphism as a rational basis for literalist > interpretive practices is looked at by Literalists more closely, then > both, isomorphism will become less and less attractive, and it will > seem less and less the real basis of literalist interpretive > practices. They will come to see, and I think it is true, that they > may carry on their interpretive practices much as before without the > doctrine of isomorphism, since it was never actually used in making > interpretations. > > I think some distinctions will make what I mean clearer. What > believing in isomorphism explains is not so much reading all prose > according to its apparent meaning, but RESISTING other readings of a > bit of prose that, for example, make use of historical context. And > not just resisting but HOW it is resisted. Just how are these other > readings resisted? If they look at them and point out flaws in them, > then that is one thing. But if Literalists think they can dismiss all > such readings without even looking at them, then that suggests a > philosophical assumption of some sort. They think that 'in principle' > such reading is in error. From what you say Mark,that appears to be > the case. And isomorphism is a philosophical assumption. So that is > why you say 'that a belief in isomorphism leads to reading all prose > according to its apparent meaning'. This is right, but I would change > the emphasis: It is a belief in isomorphism that leads to rejecting > out of hand all but those readings that express the apparent meaning > of prose. (And let us note, they must in fact be rejected. First, > because there is all this higher criticism around, and second, > because taking into account context is after all, not so out of the > ordinary in making sense of words.) > > I want to bring out the difference I have in mind by making a > contrast. Contrast a naive Literalist with a - what? - faithful > literalist. A naive Literalist has no idea there is any other way to > read the Bible than he and other Literalists do, and so he does not > resist other ways of reading it. Our naive Literalist does not, I > think, at least not in the same way as a faithful Literalist, believe > in isomorphism. A faithful Literalist, has, however, to resist other > ways. He does that by making 'philosophical' assumptions about the > way the language of the Bible works, assumptions like isomorphism. > (An analogy is how most scientists treat astrology. They don't look > at the evidence but assume it is 'in principle' mistaken.) > > Now, if you can follow me this far, what now? Well, I am inclined to > think that isomorphism does not really do the job the faithful > Literalist thinks it does, because the whole idea falls apart as you > look at it more closely. What position is the Literalist in once he > no longer believes in isomorphism, and once he sees that the whole > idea falls apart? He can still, I think, read all prose according to > its apparent meaning. This is because isomorphism was not USED in > making any of his interpretations. (I am using the distinction > between making interpretations and resisting interpretations.) What > he cannot do is use isomorphism to resist other ways of reading > prose. He may carry on his interpretive practices as before, or he > may not. (If you include as part of interpretive practices attacking > out of hand other ways of reading the Bible, then the answer is > not.) He may carry on as before because no longer believing in > isomorphism will change nothing in the way he interprets a text - if > he wants to go on as before. He may not carry on as before because, > in the light of all these competing interpretations and ways of > interpreting, which he can no longer rule out in principle and out of > hand, he may not want to go on as before. > > I hope that is clear enough. > > Regards > > William > ---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
