tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post3255474639733811044..comments2024-03-03T21:51:46.662-05:00Comments on stylos: Inerrancy and the 2LBCF (1689)Jeffrey T. Riddlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-86637674506057571322023-04-20T18:54:42.859-04:002023-04-20T18:54:42.859-04:00Owen: Given by God free from ways as were capable ...Owen: Given by God free from ways as were capable of giving change or alteration to the least iota or syllable<br />CSBI: 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.<br /><br />Owen: so by his good and merciful providential dispensation, in his love to his word and church, his whole word as first given out by him, is preserved unto us entire in the original languages… “John Owen was a Reformed scholastic theologian…” https://credomag.com/article/john-owen/<br />CSBI: We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.<br /><br />Owen: where, shining in its own beauty and lustre (as also in all translations, so far as they faithfully represent the originals) it manifests and evidences unto the consciences of men, without other foreign help or assistance, its divine original and authority.<br />CSBI: We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word. We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.<br /><br />Owen’s trusted the Bible’s infallibility not for scientific reasons, but for theological ones.<br />CSBI: We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture. We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-52654519575650745702014-02-22T16:16:45.002-05:002014-02-22T16:16:45.002-05:00The problem with confessions and the efforts at pr...The problem with confessions and the efforts at preservation of the Faith lies in the failure in the intellectual realm. In '99 our son invited me to preach the first revival for him in the church which had called him earlier that year. During that series of five services, a member of the church gave me two volumes on logic, written by Isaac Watts. I had made mention of the Puritans use of logic in their approach to the Bible, something that is so scriptural that a term for logic could could be transliterated, logical, cf reasonable service in Roms.12:1.<br /><br />This is not to say that being logical in our approach will alone suffice to grasp all that the Bible says. We actually need what I call a synthetical approach, due to the perspicuity of Scripture as a Puritan called it. In other words, the clarity of the Bible is a problem for us, because we lack depth perception.<br /><br />The spiritual need, I believe, is the need for the synthetical. The Spirit enables us to gain a perspective on the depth of the clear teachings, their dimensional fathoms. Such approach which begins with our Lord's call for one to use his or her mind and to think and reason through what He is saying and come to an enlightened conclusion and so turn from sin to the Savior and Lord. Metanous, repentance, means to change one's mind based upon reflection. This idea of simply turning does do justice to the biblical teachings, and the writers in the 1700s and even into the 1800s did a better job at interpreting our Lord's command to the sinners they won to Christ.dr. james willinghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01864251742704954632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-14486651910369644922014-02-22T13:12:38.326-05:002014-02-22T13:12:38.326-05:00Jeff,
1. Yes, his series just that.
2. Great; you...Jeff, <br />1. Yes, his series just that.<br />2. Great; you're welcome.<br />3. OK.<br />RB/RG: Got it. Thanks!<br />HughHugh McCannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03267834741936303800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-83817607844958386672014-02-22T13:11:06.469-05:002014-02-22T13:11:06.469-05:00Thanks Pastor Jeff.
Our friend recently linked yo...Thanks Pastor Jeff.<br /><br />Our friend recently linked your piece on his blof, SovereignLogos.<br /><br />Replies to responses:<br />1. Yes. His series reveals exactly that.<br />2. Great. You're welcome.<br />3. OK.<br />RB/ RG: Aha!<br />Thanks,<br />HughHugh McCannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03267834741936303800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-37988999022864805892014-02-22T11:37:22.284-05:002014-02-22T11:37:22.284-05:00Correction:
In my comment, I should have said &qu...Correction:<br /><br />In my comment, I should have said "RG's blog" (i.e., Robert Gonzales blog) rather than "RB's blog."Jeffrey T. Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-24787329297595706232014-02-22T11:35:25.641-05:002014-02-22T11:35:25.641-05:00Hugh,
Responses:
1. I took a brief look at some...Hugh,<br /><br />Responses:<br /><br />1. I took a brief look at some of the material on the teachingword.org site. Am I right in saying that the site is dedicated to affirming "inerrancy" in the confessional sense ("infallibility") rather than in the modern evangelical (Chicago Statement) sense?<br /><br />2. Yes, "litmus" test--corrected.<br /><br />3. I did the post in 2011 but the link to the original article is broken. As I have now noted in the corrected article, I went to RB's blog but could not find this article in his archives. Either it is somewhere else or he deleted it. If anyone finds it please let me know and I'll update the link accordingly. The article you cite is from 2013, but the one I was responding to was from 2011.<br /><br />JTR<br /><br />Jeffrey T. Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-63611041196076655072014-02-22T00:28:23.023-05:002014-02-22T00:28:23.023-05:00Pastor Jeff,
Is this the right link?
http://drbob...Pastor Jeff, <br />Is this the right link?<br />http://drbobgonzales.com/2013/11/09/the-baptist-confession-on-the-preservation-of-scripture/Hugh McCannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03267834741936303800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-30796741796465271742014-02-22T00:26:04.480-05:002014-02-22T00:26:04.480-05:00Pastor Jeff,
Do you mean litmus test, and not &qu...Pastor Jeff, <br />Do you mean litmus test, and not "limit test"?<br />Yours,<br />HughHugh McCannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03267834741936303800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-72836493680770054412014-02-22T00:16:12.762-05:002014-02-22T00:16:12.762-05:00Is inerrancy a thing of the past?
http://www.teac...Is inerrancy a thing of the past?<br /><br />http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/articles/default.asp?blogid=6433&view=post&articleid=78049&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0Hugh McCannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03267834741936303800noreply@blogger.com