Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Poll: The word of God is inerrant.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    I believe there is. He mentions the Statement throughout the website, and specifically in the top border with a link to "The Statement".
    Further, Norman Geisler was part of the original committees that drafted both ICBI statements, and he published his own explanation of the hermeneutics statement. Geisler is also heavily involved with ETS (Evangelical Theological Society--wasn't he a past president?), and ETS requires affirmation of both ICBI statements for membership. It's impossible to separate Geisler's views on inerrancy from the ICBI's; they seem to be one and the same.
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Ubergenius View Post
      Whoops,did you miss something?
      Unwitting irony.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
        As soon as we talk about ICBI, Geisler becomes central to the issue of this thread.
        Why? Is the 1978 statement wrong? Did Geisler make changes? The topic of this thread is whether or not one believes in Biblical inerrency.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
          Don't you think the latter definition puts us in a rather unfortunate position with skeptics?
          I cannot blame a skeptic for reading that definition as: "We believe the Bible is immune to fallacy or liability to error in all matters that cannot be tested via the scientific method."
          I believe all versions of inerrant beliefs and infallibility concerning the text of the Bible will fail as far as skeptics go including myself. The history of the text of the Bible does not warrant these claims.

          One problem obvious here is that there are too many different versions of inerrancy and infallibility for there to be any unity of vision among Christians.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-02-2016, 03:47 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            Why? Is the 1978 statement wrong? Did Geisler make changes? The topic of this thread is whether or not one believes in Biblical inerrency.
            I can no longer support ICBI. It has been used too long to bludgeon good evangelicals like Mike Licona and I think it has built in a bias towards dispensationalism and such. It's reputation has been tarnished by Geisler. I think we need a new statement and this time with more actual scholars than before. Many on the list of ICBI signers aren't scholars at all.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
              If you'd like to know what really makes Meh Gerbil angry it is the tendency of humanity to constantly attempt to place people/objects between the believer and Jesus Christ. From one branch of Christianity with its ridiculous icons and religious sites....
              I appreciate the shout out, but next time, say "intercessory prayers to Mary and the saints" instead of "icons." Icons of Christ draw my attention TO him, not away.

              You're welcome.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                I can no longer support ICBI. It has been used too long to bludgeon good evangelicals like Mike Licona and I think it has built in a bias towards dispensationalism and such. It's reputation has been tarnished by Geisler. I think we need a new statement and this time with more actual scholars than before. Many on the list of ICBI signers aren't scholars at all.
                What was the disagreement over between Geisler and Licona?

                The accusation of bludgeoning. That is harsh. If some or any of the content of that statement is not true or is not right that is what needs to be addressed.

                That statement of inerrancy was framed and written by Dr. R. C. Sproul, Geisler was an editor.
                The following is link to a commentary written by Sproul and Geisler: http://www.isca-apologetics.org/site...0Inerrancy.pdf
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  What was the disagreement over between Geisler and Licona?
                  Mike thinks the raising of the saints in Matthew 27 isn't literal but is an apocalyptic symbol of Matthew. Geisler immediately said he was denying Inerrancy. Mike ended up before it was all over losing his teaching position at SES, losing his position at NAMB, and being disinvited from conferences he was scheduled to speak at.

                  The accusation of bludgeoning. That is harsh. If some or any of the content of that statement is not true or is not right that is what needs to be addressed.
                  The accusation is also true entirely. ICBI has become a weapon and if someone disagrees with an interpretation, they are said to deny Inerrancy.

                  That statement of inerrancy was framed and written by Dr. R. C. Sproul, Geisler was an editor.
                  The following is link to a commentary written by Sproul and Geisler: http://www.isca-apologetics.org/site...0Inerrancy.pdf
                  I know about this already. I'm just saying what I've already said. I've seen the damage that has been done because of the misuse of ICBI. I really think we can do better and now that we have new information on the NT, we need a new statement.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    I appreciate the shout out, but next time, say "intercessory prayers to Mary and the saints" instead of "icons." Icons of Christ draw my attention TO him, not away.
                    I respect you Pig, I really do; however, I'll forever oppose the baggage Christianity has picked up over the centuries.
                    That said, your walk is your own and may the Lord bless you in it.
                    Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      I believe all versions of inerrant beliefs and infallibility concerning the text of the Bible will fail as far as skeptics go including myself. The history of the text of the Bible does not warrant these claims.

                      One problem obvious here is that there are too many different versions of inerrancy and infallibility for there to be any unity of vision among Christians.
                      All complaints against inerrancy of the Bible can be show to be matters of interpretation and/or translation and/or known textual matters. Do you know an exception?
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I think the use of the term "bludgeoning" is entirely appropriate when people's jobs and academic reputations have been destroyed over such wrangling.

                        I also think "inerrancy" as a concept dies a death of a thousand qualifications.
                        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                          I respect you Pig, I really do; however, I'll forever oppose the baggage Christianity has picked up over the centuries.
                          YMMV YBMV.
                          That said, your walk is your own and may the Lord bless you in it.
                          Thanks. I don't expect people to believe as I do based on my say-so.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            YMMV YBMV.
                            Thanks. I don't expect people to believe as I do based on my say-so.
                            So you're not Norman Geisler, posting incognito?

                            ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                              So you're not Norman Geisler, posting incognito?

                              The only person I know who's met Norman Geisler face to face is .
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                I believe there is. He mentions the Statement throughout the website, and specifically in the top border with a link to "The Statement".
                                Ok.


                                Unless I'm missing something I think by "affirm" Dr. Geisler is simply using the standard definition of the word: "to state or assert positively; maintain as true:" "to express agreement with or commitment to; uphold; support:". It doesn't occur to me while reading the word "affirm" in context that Geisler is defining it more broadly in the sense you're asking about. I'm not even really sure how that would work exactly.
                                On reflection, I was reading "affirm," but mentally seeing "assert." However, in the Geislerian Chicago Statements context, I believe my understanding of the term is justified. All three Statements present lists of explicit "affirmations" and "denials." Unless he explicitly stipulates otherwise, I believe we should apply the same sense when claiming Scripture "affirms" certain things.


                                It looks like the Defending Inerrancy website is mainly directed to Evangelical Protestants, and since the issue is between Evangelical Protestants, it's probably a safe bet that a Protestant position is what's in mind. But specifically, Article I of the Chicago Statement reads:

                                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.


                                While recognizing the potential for irony in the above, the DENY section is something the RCC and the EO are unlikely to agree with.
                                So it is specialized usage, not standard "U.S. English" usage.

                                I think what he's getting at is that the statement in the petition doesn't have anything to do with the inerrancy of the hermeneutical method, but in the inerrancy of the Bible.
                                Right. And my point is that ultimately inerrancy of the autographs is effectively moot. I happen to *like* the concept, but without concurrent inerrancy in works chosen as canonical, inerrancy of transmission, inerrancy of translation, inerrancy of interpretation, and inerrancy of application, it really doesn't matter. I don't happen to *like* that conclusion, but I don't see a way around it.
                                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                                Beige Federalist.

                                Nationalist Christian.

                                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                                Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                                Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                                Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                                Justice for Matthew Perna!

                                Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                2 responses
                                28 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                62 responses
                                296 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                299 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 02-15-2024, 11:52 AM
                                74 responses
                                319 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 02-06-2024, 12:46 PM
                                60 responses
                                337 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X