DOCSLIB.ORG

THS 571 Theology of the Believers Church Tradition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THS 571 Theology of the Believers Church Tradition 1 THS 571 Theology of the Believers Church Tradition Class notes for Fall, 2010 – Spring, 2011 Compiled and arranged by Dr. Archie J. Spencer © Do not Copy without permission These notes are provided as a favor to students to help them follow the lectures and engage in discussion. They are a work in progress still needing some editing and correction. All suggestions for improvement and lists of errata welcomed. Hope you find them helpful nevertheless. They are required reading for the course. 2 THS 571 Theology of the Believers Church Tradition Session I Toward a Working Definition of the Believers Church Tradition Introductory Comments a) What do we mean by Believers Church Tradition - When I was first informed that I would be teaching a course called “Believers Church Theology” I was initially amused at the strange title. After some consideration, realizing that I myself stood in a “Believers Church Tradition” of sorts, I wondered what such a course would and should look like. You are probably wondering as well. What follows is an extended definition that draws on the history of theology, systematic theology and applied ecclesiology, which can be found, in various ways and shapes in the traditions represented here at ACTS. - Such a course, however, will always be taught from the differing perspectives within the ACTS consortium, and, while I will do my level best to be comprehensive across these traditions, it is a given that my perspective will often reflect the Baptist tradition in which I now stand. I make no apologies for this, but do wish to encourage the class to engage in dialogue with myself and other colleagues, from their own perspectives. As you will see, depending on your ecclesial background, you may find this entity, which I shall refer to as the BCT, difficult to define, but nevertheless necessary to come to grips with. b) Defining Believers Church Theology (Tradition) - To some it would seem paradoxical to suggest that a “Believers Church Tradition” exists, but at the same time say that it is notoriously difficult to define. However, this is precisely the case. It is so for a number of reasons. The first, and most obvious reason, is its representation across many different denominations. Where those who hold to a similar tradition agree on the essentials, they often disagree on the lesser doctrines. Thus we will need to demonstrate considerable patience with one another as we discuss our various traditions. - The second reason relates to the first in that all members of the Believers Church Tradition claim for themselves the name “Evangelical”, though not all who call themselves Evangelical would agree to being called a member of the Believers Church Tradition. On the face of it, the word Evangelical, taken from the Greek, euangellion, simply means the good news of the gospel. But agreement as to what is meant by the derivative word "evangelical" ends there. Bernard Ramm, 3 who stands in the Believers Church Tradition, was right to suggest, that “it is impossible to give one, neat, precise definition of an evangelical.” He suggests, correctly I think, that the place to begin in defining Evangelicalism, and therefore the Believers Church Tradition, is with the Vincentian rule (developed by Vincent of Lariens AD 450), which defines orthodoxy as “what has been believed everywhere (ecumenicity), always (antiquity), and by all (constancy).”(Ramm – Evangelical Heritage, p 13). “In the most general sense, evangelical Christianity, refers to that version of Christianity which places the priority of the Word and Act of God over the faith, response, or experiences of humanity.” (Ramm, p 13). - Thirdly, the Believers Church Tradition is also difficult to define because of the lacuna in historical rooted-ness that is endemic among many Christians in the Believers Church Tradition. Some Evangelicals in the Believers Church Tradition have a good grasp of the history of their theological heritage, but most do not. As a result, theology in the Believers Church Tradition tends to be “ahistorical” in that its believers lack a “sense of the course of theological history which is their heritage.” - Thus, while we will be working with a preliminary definition to get us started, we shall have to wait until late in the course to fully appreciate and claim a comprehensive understanding of the theology of the Believers Church Tradition. Ramm suggest that “an evangelical who holds an ahistorical faith has no real sense of the theological and spiritual continuity of his/her faith.” I. The Believers Church Tradition is defined by its Emphasis on the Primacy (sole authority) of Scripture. a) The Centrality of the Scriptures – The Protestant Principle. - The question of Scripture, for those in the Believers Church Tradition, is the question of the locus of religious and theological authority. Where can we locate God’s unequivocal voice? For those in the Believers Church Tradition, such authority cannot be located in the institutional church, human religious/philosophical systems or individual experience, but exclusively in the scriptures. According to the Westminster Confession the Protestant Principle states that God’s authority is to be identified with “the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures.” (WCF 1.x.) Elwell’s Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT hereafter) defines the principle of sola scriptura as follows: “The freedom of Scripture to rule as God’s Word in the Church, disentangled from the Catholic Pope, its ecclesiastical Magisterium (authoritative teaching office) and the Tradition. Scripture is the sole access to Christian revelation. Although tradition may aid its interpretation, its true (i.e. spiritual) meaning is its natural (i.e. literal-plain) sense, not an allegorical one.” (963) 4 - This aspect of the Believers Church Tradition is often abbreviated in our time to simply “the Bible”, without the Spirit or the spiritual aspect included, as it was for the Reformers. Fundamentalists, in their zeal to protect the authority of scripture from liberal encroachment, omitted the role of the Spirit in illumination, interpretation and application. b) The New Testament bears witness to this Protestant Principle. - That the Scriptures are inspired is well attested to by the Scriptures themselves, the locus classicus being II Timothy 3:16 and II Pet. 1:20-21, but including a host of other passages, which we shall consider later. However, Evangelical theologians often overlook the illuminating role of the Spirit emphasized in John 16:13f. We could also add the Luke/Acts emphasis on the illuminating power of the Spirit as well. By illumination we mean first the general enlightening of God’s being and action regarding the salvation we received through the incarnation of the Word, Jesus Christ, as witnessed to in the Scriptures. (Jn 1:9; Tim 1:10). - Paul also laid great stress on the need to be open to the Spirit’s instruction especially in relation to the gift of prophecy. Cf. his writing on the Spiritual gifts in I Cor. 12-14. For Paul the litmus test of this gift is whether or not the Spirit confirms the prophet in the light of the Scripture, (I Cor.14). Indeed, the whole of the Scriptures themselves are a product of the Spirit’s inspiration. Here Bernard Ramm adopts the Reformation idea that the Spirit never contradicts himself; on the contrary, the Spirit seals the written word on the hearts and the mind of the reader. This was precisely what Deuteronomy, Jeremiah and other Old Testament texts foresaw as the role of the Spirit. (Jer. 31:31f; Deut. 6:9) c) The Protestant Principle of Scripture is bequeathed to us by the Reformation. - Contemporary evangelical theologians who stand in the Believers Church Tradition, like W. Grudem, B. Demarest, and D. Wells, all tend to reject the subjective aspect of revelation that comes with an emphasis on the Holy Spirit in favor of the objective meaning of the literal text.. This leads them to down-play the role of the Spirit in interpretation. But this stance is often taken in a desire to protect the erosion of Scriptural authority in the “subjective theology” of modernity. - Thus, when theologians like Bernard Ramm seem to place the emphasis on the subjective aspect of the Spirit’s illumination, he is charged with “a shift toward a more ambiguous relationship between revelation and the words of Scripture.” (Erickson, The Evangelical Left, p. 78). 5 - For the Reformers, what made the Scriptures the Word of God was precisely the Spirit’s internal witness to its infallibility and authority. They saw the Scriptures as more than cognitive and/or informative propositions. It was more than just words on parchment. I would suggest that, only when our doctrine of Scripture is grounded in that tradition have we in the Believers Church Tradition been clear about our insistence on the authority and infallibility of Scripture as God’s word and act. - Christians in the BCT hold such a high view of Scripture because for them it contains the words of salvation that require intellectual and spiritual assent. But this faith can only be achieved through the leading of the Holy Spirit. This leads us to the second defining feature of the BCT. II. The Believers Church Tradition is defined by its Insistence on Individual Salvation, Achieved by Faith in the Finished Work of Christ Alone. a) Salvation in the Believers Church Tradition - The BCT affirms that our salvation was established only through Jesus Christ, in His life, atoning death, and resurrection, and that Christ’s work must be personally appropriated by faith alone, on the basis of Scripture alone. This is the one absolutely non-negotiable doctrine in our tradition. It under girds much of our ecclesial and missional efforts. We come to this knowledge of salvation as the Holy Spirit impresses upon our hearts and minds the truthfulness of the Gospel contained in the Scriptures.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding Biblical Inspiration, Infallibility and Inerrancy Shawn Nelson
    January 14, 2018 Understanding Biblical Inspiration, Infallibility and Inerrancy Shawn Nelson When Christians say, "The Bible is from God" what do we really mean? …we’re really talking about 3 things: 1. Inspiration: • This concerns the origin of the Bible. • We’re saying it is from God or “God-breathed.” • “From God” 2. Infallibility: • This speaks to Bible’s authority & enduring nature. • Means incapable of failing; cannot be broken; permanently binding. • “Cannot fail” 3. Inerrancy: • The Bible is without error. • It’s a belief the total truthfulness of God’s Word. • “Without error” Evidence for (1) biblical inspiration – “From God” The source of the Bible is God • It is called “God’s Word” (Lk. 11:28) and “the Lord’s Word” (Psa. 18:30). • 2 Tim. 3:16—“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God….” • 2 Sam. 23:2—“The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue.” • Zech. 7:12—“They made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets.” • 2 Peter 1:21—“For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” Prophets were mouthpieces for God • Heb. 1:1—“God who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets.” 1 • Deut. 18:18—“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth.
    [Show full text]
  • The Root Cause of the Continuous Defection from Biblical Infallibility and Consequent Objective Authority Wilbur N
    The Root Cause of the Continuous Defection from Biblical Infallibility and Consequent Objective Authority Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM PhD That part of the academic world that deals with the biblical Text, including those who call themselves ‘evangelical’, is dominated by the notion that the original wording is lost, in the sense that no one knows for sure what it is, or was (if indeed it ever existed as an Autograph). 1 That notion is basic to all that is taught in the area of New Testament (NT) textual criticism in most schools. In an attempt to understand where that notion came from, I will sketch a bit of relevant history. A Bit of Relevant History The discipline of NT textual criticism, as we know it, is basically a 'child' of Western Europe and its colonies; the Eastern Orthodox Churches have generally not been involved. (They have always known that the true NT Text lies within the Byzantine tradition.) In the year 1500 the Christianity of Western Europe was dominated by the Roman Catholic Church, whose pope claimed the exclusive right to interpret Scripture. That Scripture was the Latin Vulgate, which the laity was not allowed to read. Martin Luther's ninety-five theses were posted in 1517. Was it mere chance that the first printed Greek Text of the NT was published the year before? As the Protestant Reformation advanced, it was declared that the authority of Scripture exceeded that of the pope, and that every believer had the right to read and interpret the Scriptures for himself. The authority of the Latin Vulgate was also challenged, since the NT was written in Greek.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Bible Infallible?
    THE FRIDAY NIGHT SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE BIBLE INTRODUCTION A. An assumption in historic Protestant Evangelicalism has been that the Bible is the word of God. 1. The emergence of neo-orthodoxy earlier in this century side-stepped the issue, claiming: a. The Bible ‘contains’ the word of God. b. The problem: no-one knew for sure which part of the Bible was meant. (1) There was a feeling that God ‘spoke’ through the Bible. (2) But the question ‘which part of the Bible actually is the word of God?’ could never be answered. c. Neo-orthodoxy (def.): ‘new’ orthodoxy, championed by men such as Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. (1) It came so close to orthodoxy at times that some felt it was sufficiently ‘sound’. (2) But it allowed for the critical appraisal of the Bible, so that one was free to be selective with the Scriptures (e.g. Brunner did not believe in Christ’s virgin birth). 2. There have been a number of people who are in the historic Protestant Evangelical tradition who do not want to be neo-orthodox, but who nonetheless will not affirm the infallibility of the Bible. a. Historical Protestant Evangelicalism: (1) Protestant, as opposed to being Roman Catholic. (2) Evangelical, as opposed to being liberal, believing that Jesus is the God-man; we are saved by his substitutionary death on the cross; he rose physically from the dead; people need to be saved by personal faith in Christ. (3) Historic, as opposed to less known bodies of believers; e.g., Church of England, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist and reformed church.
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Inspiration and Inerrancy a Book Without Error
    6. Inspiration and inerrancy A book without error On 2 April 1792 William Pitt presented the House of Commons with a passionate speech against the slave trade, and among those in the House was William Wilberforce, who was the acknowledged leader of the crusade to end slavery. Wilberforce commented on that speech in his own diary and concluded: ‘For the last twenty minutes he [Pitt] really seemed to be inspired.’ Did Wilberforce, who himself believed in the total trustworthiness of the Bible, mean by that phrase that Pitt was speaking with infallible accuracy? Of course not. He was using the word ‘inspired’ in a more general way, without any conscious reference to the intervention of God. In answering the question, ‘What was God’s method of inspiration?’, we must be aware of two extremes. Two errors to be avoided General inspiration This is the most widely held view by critics of the Bible. Admitting that the Bible is a very special book with a unique message, they claim that the writers were merely prompted by God to a deeper spiritual understanding than most men. But then, so the argument Inspiration and inerrancy 117 runs, the English poet Shakespeare and the French philosopher Voltaire were similarly ‘inspired’ — though perhaps not by God. Many of their ideas were good, but we must not say that their words were infallible. In a similar way, it is suggested that the Bible writers were spiritual and pious men but, like Shakespeare or Voltaire, they were capable of error and at times were either too extreme or too loose in their statements.
    [Show full text]
  • Luther and Biblical Infallibility I Robert D
    Inerrancy and the Church Edited by Joint D. Hannah b3b18 MOODY PRESS CHICAGO CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. LlBRt>.RY FORT WAYNE, INDIANA © 1984 by The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy All rights reserved. No part of this book may be repro­ duced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. All Scripture quotations in this book are from the New American Standard Bible, © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, and 1977 by The Lockman Foundation, and are used by permission. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Inerrancy and the church. Includes bibliographical references. Contents: The doctrine of Scripture in the early church I John D. Hannah - Augustine's doctrine of biblical infallibility I Wayne R. Spear - Biblical authority and scholastic theology I John F. Johnson - Luther and biblical infallibility I Robert D. Preus - [etc.] 1. Bible - Evidences, authority, etc.-History of doctrines-Addresses, essays, lectures. I. Hannah, John D. BS480.1424 1984 220.1'3 84-6671 ISBN 0-8024-0327-1 1234567 Printing/GB/Year 89 88 87868584 Pnnted in the United States of America Contents CHAPTER PAGE Series Editor's Introduction v Introduction Vll Part 1: The Tradition of the Infallibility .of Scripture in European Christianity 1. The Doctrine of Scripture in the Early Church- John D. Hannah 3 2. Augustine's Doctrine of Biblical Infallibility- Wqyne R. Spear 37 3. Biblical Authority and Scholastic Theology- John F.Johnson 67 4. Luther and Biblical Infallibility-Robert D.
    [Show full text]
  • DEFINING and REFINING INERRANCY: REVISITING the DOCTRINE for the 21St CENTURY
    DEFINING AND REFINING INERRANCY: REVISITING THE DOCTRINE FOR THE 21st CENTURY By MATTHEW JOHN CHURCHOUSE A Thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of Masters of Philosophy Department of Theology School of Historical Studies The University of Birmingham June 2009 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract This dissertation revisits the doctrine of inerrancy. It recognises that a new phase is being added to the inerrancy debate’s already lengthy history, but at a time where a number of those seeking to contribute appear unaware of the fundamental issue, as to what inerrancy really means. Therefore, the dissertation focuses on that key issue, and defines inerrancy for the new phase of debate. To do so, it looks back to the previous phase of debate between 1978 and 1987 - drawing upon the strong scholarly work of that era – re-establishing a solid definition of inerrancy. This is attained by identifying, in part 1, that the appropriate method for reaching a definition is the retroductive method, a method which is applied to Scripture’s teaching in parts 2 and 3 to propose a clear definition of inerrancy in the preliminary conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Adam, Anthropology and the Genesis Record: Taking Genesis Seriously in the Light of Contemporary Science1
    ISCAST Online Journal Pre-2005, Vol. 0 Adam, Anthropology and the Genesis Record: taking genesis seriously in the light of contemporary science1. Allan John Day Allan John Day is Emeritus Professor (Physiology) University of Melbourne, Australia, a Senior Academic Fellow, Ridley College, Melbourne and a Fellow of ISCAST(Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology). Abstract Much of the perceived conflict between science and Christian belief is not due to any intrinsic disagreement between these two approaches to truth, but rather to the conflict of emerging science with entrenched interpretations of Scripture. The history of the science/faith interface attests to this fact from the time of Galileo and before. It is important therefore, in interpreting Gen. 1œ3, to take into account the findings of contemporary science. This approach should be made, not as an attempt to conform science to the bible or the bible to science, but rather as one in which science serves along with history, culture and language as one of many inputs into the interpretative exercise. The important message of Genesis and of the role of Scripture as the Word of God is not compromised by such an approach, but rather enhanced and its relevance in the contemporary scene emphasised. In this paper an attempt is made to assess the findings of modern anthropology in relation to the interpretation of the Genesis account of Adam and the Fall. It is maintained, that neither a strictly literal interpretation, nor one which identifies an individual historic Adam with the Biblical Adam, is consistent with the findings of cultural and physical anthropology.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ATTESTATION of SCRIPTURE by John Murray
    THE ATTESTATION OF SCRIPTURE By John Murray I. THE OBJECTIVE WITNESS CHRISTIANS of varied and diverse theological standpoints aver that the Bible is the Word of God, that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it occupies a unique place as the norm of Christian faith and life. But such general confessions or admissions do not of themselves settle for us the view entertained with respect to the origin, authority and character of Holy Scripture. A passing acquaintance with the literature on this subject will show that such propositions are made to do service in the expression of wholly diverse views of the nature of Scripture. It becomes incumbent upon us, therefore, to define and examine the statement that the Bible is the Word of God. Diversity of viewpoint with respect to this proposition has generally, if not always, taken its starting-point from the recognition that the Bible has come to us through human instrumentality. Every book of the Bible has had its human author. The Bible did not come to us directly from heaven; in its totality and in all its parts it has come to us through human agency. Since this is the case, every serious student of the Bible has to take cognisance of the human factor in the preparation, composition and completion of what we know as the canon of Holy Writ. If, then, human instruments have performed a function in producing the Bible, does it not necessarily follow that the marks of human fallibility and error must be imprinted on the Bible? Since the fall of our first parents, no perfect human being has walked upon this earth.
    [Show full text]
  • Inspired Textual Updating”
    A Brief Examination of So-Called “Inspired Textual Updating” William D. Barrick Introduction Borrowing phraseology from R. C. Sproul regarding depravity, I would say that too many professing evangelicals write and teach as though Scripture is primarily the product of human editors—a position that is a clear repudiation of the biblical view of divine authorship as the primary characteristic of Scripture. The irony here is that while we decry the baleful influence of secular humanism on our culture, we are busy adopting secular humanism’s view of Scripture. It is not so much that the secular culture has negotiated away the doctrine of biblical infallibility and inerrancy, as that the evangelical church has done so.1 New explanations of the old faith are not to be shunned or belittled. There is yet plenty of room for us to learn more from the Word of God. No generation of the Church has had a corner on the truth and no generation has possessed a complete and accurate knowledge of all divine truth revealed in the Scriptures. Any who claim otherwise are doomed to suffocate spiritually from the crushing weight of their own hubris. But, it is equally destructive to abandon the theological anchors that have kept the ship of faith on 1 R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1997), 20. Sproul’s wording was, “A majority of professing evangelicals agree with the statement that human beings are basically good, a clear repudiation of the biblical view of human fallenness. The irony here is that while we decry the baleful influence of secular humanism on the culture, we are busy adopting secular humanism’s view of man.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
    SECTION 2 The Bible: God’s Amazing Book 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 misunderstanding of this doctrine in the world at large. This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denials, 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 confirm 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
    SECTION 23 The Chicago Statements on Biblical Inerrancy and 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 misunderstanding of this doctrine in the world at large. This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denials, 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 confirm 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
    The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy 1978 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 misunderstanding 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.
    [Show full text]