DOCSLIB.ORG

An Examination and Evaluation of A. H. Strong's Doctrine of Holy Scripture Myron Houghton Concordia Seminary, St

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Concordia Seminary - Saint Louis Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary Doctor of Theology Dissertation Concordia Seminary Scholarship 5-1-1986 An Examination and Evaluation of A. H. Strong's Doctrine of Holy Scripture Myron Houghton Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.csl.edu/thd Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Houghton, Myron, "An Examination and Evaluation of A. H. Strong's Doctrine of Holy Scripture" (1986). Doctor of Theology Dissertation. 4. https://scholar.csl.edu/thd/4 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Concordia Seminary Scholarship at Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctor of Theology Dissertation by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. THE IMPORTANCE OF A. H. STRONG FOR TODAY . • 1 The Paucity of Baptist Theology Texts . • 2 Strong's Influence 3 Strong's Students 4 Conservative Theologians 6 Liberal Theologians 7 Renewal of Interest in Strong 9 Openness to Truth 10 Acceptance of Major Christian Doctrines 10 Conclusion 11 II. THE LIFE OF A. H. STRONG 13 Chronology 13 Childhood 13 Pastorates 16 Seminary President 18 Theology 20 The Depth and Enormity of Sin 20 Man's Need of God's Regenerating Grace . • 23 Only the Objective Atonement of Jesus Christ, Only Christ's Sufferings Upon the Cross, Can Furnish the Ground of Our Acceptance with God 23 The Doctrine of the Church 25 The Union of the Believer with Christ . ▪ 26 Christ is the Life of the Universe . • 31 Prayer is an Entering into the Mind and Will of Christ 32 Christ's Union with the Human Race Gave Him a Human Nature with Liabilities . 34 Christ, Who is the Life of the World Must Bear the Sins of the World 37 Christ is the Omnipresent and Immanent God 38 Inspiration is Christ's Gradual Enlightenment from Within 43 Christ's Spirit Works Outwardly to the Reform of Human Society 45 ii III. THE THEOLOGY OF A. H. STRONG 47 Strong's Earlier Theology 47 God 48 The Bible 51 The Works of God 52 Man and Sin 5/1 Salvation 57 Church 60 Future Events 61 Strong's Later Theology 62 God 62 The Bible 66 The Works of God 68 Man and Sin 70 Salvation 72 Church 76 Future Events 76 IV. REVELATION AND MIRACLES 78 Strong's Argumentation 78 Reasons A Priori for Expecting a Revelation from God 78 Marks of the Revelation Man May Expect 80 Miracles as Attesting a Divine Revelation 82 Prophecy as Attesting a Divine Revelation 89 Principles of Historical Evidence Applicable to the Proof of a Divine Revelation 91 An Evaluation of Strong's Argumentation 92 Reasons A Priori for Expecting a Revelation from God 92 Marks of the Revelation Man May Expect 96 Miracles as Attesting a Divine Revelation 97 Prophecy as Attesting a Divine Revelation 113 Principles of Historical Evidence Applicable to the Proof of a Divine Revelation 114 V. THE PROOFS FOR HOLY SCRIPTURE AS REVELATION . 115 Strong's Argumentation 115 Genuineness of the Christian Documents 115 Credibility of the Scripture Writers . 117 The Supernatural Character of Biblical Teaching 120 Historical Results 123 iii An Evaluation of Strong's Argumentation . • 124 Genuineness of the Christian Documents125• . Credibility of the Scripture Writers • • 132 The Supernatural Character of Biblical Teaching 135 Historical Results 137 VI. THE INSPIRATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 139 Strong's Presentation 139 The Definition of Inspiration 140 The Proof of Inspiration 142 The Union of the Divine and Human Elements in Inspiration 151 Objections to Inspiration 163 An Evaluation of Strong's Presentation . • 170 The Definition of Inspiration 170 The Proof of Inspiration 171 The Theories of Inspiration 177 New Testament Teaching on Inspiration and Inerrancy 180 The Union of the Divine and Human Elements in Inspiration 195 Objections to Inspiration 205 VII. ETHICAL MONISM: THE HIDDEN AGENDA 207 An Explanation of Ethical Monism 208 Found in Systematic Theology 210 Found in Christ in Creation 217 An Explanation of Factors Influencing Strong 221 The Influence of E. G. Robinson 222 Disappointment in the University of Chicago 223 His Wife's Deteriorating Health 224 Charles Strong's Rejection of Christianity 224 The Influence of Lotze and Bowne 230 The Influence of the Pundit Club 233 The Influence of Henry A. Ward 235 The Influence of the Baptist Congresses. • 236 The Influence of Robert Browning 239 Strong's Personal Study 240 VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 242 Summary 242 Conclusion 244 BIBLIOGRAPHY 246 iv CHAPTER I THE IMPORTANCE OF A. H. STRONG FOR TODAY Augustus Hopkins Strong was president and professor of theology at the Rochester Theological Seminary (now Colgate Rochester Divinity School) for forty years (1872- 1912). During that period he wrote a textbook on theology that went through eight revisions.' Initially, Strong taught the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of Holy Scripture.2 In the last two editions, however, he changed his view, rejecting verbal inspiration and stating that the inspiration of the Bible "did not guarantee inerrancy in things not essential to the main purpose of Scripture."3 In light of these facts, it is appropriate to raise the ques- tion of Strong's importance for today. 1Lectures on Theology was printed by E. R. Andrews in 1876. Ten years later the same material, only greatly expanded, appeared under the title Systematic Theology. There were eight editions of Systematic Theology, incorpor- ating the changes in Strong's views. The eighth edition (1907) is still in print today and widely used in many Baptist seminaries. 2While Strong rejected the dictation theory of inspiration, he said that "inspiration is therefore verbal as to its result, but not verbal as to its method." cf. Systematic Theology, rev. and enlarged 6th ed., (New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1899), p. 103. 3p. 104a in Systematic Theology, rev. and enlarged 7th ed., 1902, (New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son), and in Systematic Theology, (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1907), p. 215. 1 2 The Paucity of Baptist Theology Texts No textbook in theology written from a Baptist perspective can compare to Strong's Systematic Theology, and this is not an exaggerated statement. Strong's awareness of and familiarity with the wide range of knowledge available in his day is overwhelming. His Systematic Theology con- tains 1056 pages of text with two sizes of print: small and very small. It is a compendium of quotations from the natural and social sciences, literature and history, as well as a treasury of exegetical, theological and homiletical insights.4 Among modern Baptist theologians, two writers stand 4 Reviewing the first (that is, 1886) edition of Strong's Systematic Theology, Willis A. Anderson remarks: "Dr. Strong has availed himself of the advantages of his method, which enables him to compress into a single volume an unusually full discussion. Large use is made of histori- cal theology, and this element makes it a very valuable compendium for the student and pastor. A striking excel- lence is the full bibliography of theological science here presented. Authorities and writers of all shades of opinion are cited freely, the most important by page references. Especially valuable are the abundant references to English and American periodicals. In short, the student is put in possession of all the instruments of theological learning. And to attract him to seek these treasures, copious quota- tions are made from the best writers, not to mention the gems--brief, sententious expressions culled from general literature--which meet one on every page. This feature testifies to a remarkable range of reading, and to the tribute under which the author has laid all department of thought to serve his purpose. Another characteristic is the large place given to the Scriptures. Every position taken is fortified by Biblical evidence, and the citations are printed in full in the subordinate text. The discussion is carried forth in a direct, logical manner, and characterized by breadth and scholarly attainment." Willis A. Anderson, in a book review of A. H. Strong's Systematic Theology, which appeared in The Andover Review, Vol. 8 (July-December, 1887):96. 3 out as authors in the field of systematic theology. Carl Henry's massive six-volume work God, Revelation and Authority displays an awareness of many of the important current philosophical and theological issues but is more suitable for use in apologetics or contemporary theology than for use in systematic theology.5 Dale Moody recently published a textbook in theology.6 However, his systematic use of historical-critical methodology in his exegesis of the Bible, together with his rejection of and attack upon doctrine traditionally held by the majority of Baptists in America (for example, the perseverance of the saints) will greatly inhibit its wide-spread use in Baptist seminaries. Therefore, A. H. Strong's Systematic Theology will continue to play an important role in shaping the thinking of many Baptist seminarians in the future. Strong's Influence In his book Theology in America: The Major Protestant Voices From Puritanism to Neo-Orthodoxy, Sydney Ahlstrom lists Strong as ". among the eminently worthy thinkers whose works have long been considered for inclusion in this volume. ."7 In the Dictionary of American 5Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, 6 vols., (Waco: Word Publications, 1976-1983). 6Dale Moody, The Word of Truth (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981). 7Sydney, E. Ahlstrom, Theology in American: The Major Protestant Voice from Puritanism to Neo-Orthodoxy (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1967), p. 15.
Recommended publications
  • Inerrancy and Church History: Is Inerrancy a Modern Invention?

    Inerrancy and Church History: Is Inerrancy a Modern Invention?

    MSJ 27/1 (Spring 2016) 75–90 INERRANCY AND CHURCH HISTORY: IS INERRANCY A MODERN INVENTION? Jonathan Moorhead Instructor, The Master’s Academy International, Czech Republic The claim that the church has always believed in the inerrancy of Scripture has been challenged for over a century. In particular, it has been charged that the doc- trine of inerrancy was invented by Princetonian theologians and proto-fundamental- ists. This article will show from primary resources that this claim is without warrant. ***** In 1970, Ernest Sandeen (Macalester College) claimed that nineteenth-century Princeton theologians A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield created the doctrine of iner- rancy to combat the burgeoning threat of liberalism.1 In particular, Sandeen posited that the doctrine of inerrancy in the original autographs “did not exist in either Europe or America prior to its formulation in the last half of the nineteenth century.”2 In 1979, Jack Rogers (Fuller Seminary) and Donald McKim (Dubuque Theological Seminary) wrote, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Ap- proach, which popularized this theory on a broad scale. Over the past forty years, the conclusions of Sandeen, Rogers and McKim have affected how many Christians think about the doctrine of inerrancy. Namely, if the doctrine of inerrancy was not promoted throughout church history, why should the church fight for it now? 1 Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800– 1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). Sandeen did not originate this charge. As early as 1893 Philip Schaff claimed, “the theory of a literal inspiration and inerrancy was not held by the Re- formers” (quoted by B.B.
  • A Complete Course

    A Complete Course

    A Complete Course Forum Theological Midwest Author: Rev.© Peter V. Armenio Publisher:www.theologicalforum.org Rev. James Socias Copyright MIDWEST THEOLOGICAL FORUM Downers Grove, Illinois iii CONTENTS xiv Abbreviations Used for 43 Sidebar: The Sanhedrin the Books of the Bible 44 St. Paul xiv Abbreviations Used for 44 The Conversion of St. Paul Documents of the Magisterium 46 An Interlude—the Conversion of Cornelius and the Commencement of the Mission xv Foreword by Francis Cardinal George, to the Gentiles Archbishop of Chicago 47 St. Paul, “Apostle of the Gentiles” xvi Introduction 48 Sidebar and Maps: The Travels of St. Paul 50 The Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 49– 50) 1 Background to Church History: 51 Missionary Activities of the Apostles The Roman World 54 Sidebar: Magicians and Imposter Apostles 3 Part I: The Hellenistic Worldview 54 Conclusion 4 Map: Alexander’s Empire 55 Study Guide 5 Part II: The Romans 6 Map: The Roman Empire 59 Chapter 2: The Early Christians 8 Roman Expansion and the Rise of the Empire 62 Part I: Beliefs and Practices: The Spiritual 9 Sidebar: Spartacus, Leader of a Slave Revolt Life of the Early Christians 10 The Roman Empire: The Reign of Augustus 63 Baptism 11 Sidebar: All Roads Lead to Rome 65 Agape and the Eucharist 12 Cultural Impact of the Romans 66 Churches 13 Religion in the Roman Republic and 67 Sidebar: The Catacombs Roman Empire 68 Maps: The Early Growth of Christianity 14 Foreign Cults 70 Holy Days 15 Stoicism 70 Sidebar: Christian Symbols 15 Economic and Social Stratification of 71 The Papacy Roman
  • The Inerrancy of Scripture, Kevin Vanhoozer

    The Inerrancy of Scripture, Kevin Vanhoozer

    The Inerrancy of Scripture: By Kevin Vanhoozer, Senior Lecturer in Theology and Religious Studies at New College, University of Edinburgh – Republished with permission from Latimer House 131 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7AJ Whereas inspiration concerns the origin of the bible's authority, inerrancy describes its nature. By inerrancy we refer not only to the Bible's being 'without error' but also to its inability to err (we might helpfully illustrate this point by comparing it to the distinction between Jesus' sinlessness or being without sin, on the one hand, and his impeccability or inability to sin on the other). Inerrancy, positively defined, refers to a central and crucial property of the Bible, namely, its utter truthfulness. The basis for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is located both in the nature of God and in the Bible's teaching about itself. First, if God is perfect – all knowing, all wise, all-good – it follows that God speaks the truth. God does not tell lies; God is not ignorant. God's Word is thus free from all error arising either from conscious deceit or unconscious ignorance. Such is the unanimous confession of the Psalmist, the prophets, the Lord Jesus and the apostles. Second, the Bible presents itself as the Word of God written. Thus, in addition to its humanity (which is never denied), the Bible also enjoys the privileges and prerogatives of its status as God's Word. God's Word is thus wholly reliable, a trustworthy guide to reality, a light unto our path. If the biblical and theological basis of the doctrine is so obvious, however, why have some in our day suggested that the inerrancy of the Bible is a relatively recent concept? It is true, as some have suggested that the inerrancy of the Bible is a relatively recent concept? Is it true, as some have argued, that the doctrine of inerrancy was 'invented' in the nineteenth century at Princeton by B B Warfield and Charles Hodge and is therefore a novelty in the history of theology? In answer to this question, it is important to remember that doctrines arise only when there is a need for them.
  • Statement of the Problem 1

    Statement of the Problem 1

    Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF OPEN THEISM WITH THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY A Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Theology by Stuart M. Mattfield 29 December 2014 Copyright © 2015 by Stuart M. Mattfield All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with all things, the first-fruits of my praise goes to God: Father, Son and Spirit. I pray this work brings Him glory and honor. To my love and wife, Heidi Ann: You have been my calm, my sanity, my helpful critic, and my biggest support. Thank you and I love you. To my kids: Madison, Samantha, and Nick: Thank you for your patience, your humor, and your love. Thank you to Dr. Kevin King and Dr. Dan Mitchell. I greatly appreciate your mentorship and patience through this process. iii ABSTRACT The primary purpose of this thesis is to show that the doctrine of open theism denies the doctrine of inerrancy. Specifically open theism falsely interprets Scriptural references to God’s Divine omniscience and sovereignty, and conversely ignores the weighty Scriptural references to those two attributes which attribute perfection and completeness in a manner which open theism explicitly denies. While the doctrine of inerrancy has been hotly debated since the Enlightenment, and mostly so through the modern and postmodern eras, it may be argued that there has been a traditional understanding of the Bible’s inerrancy that is drawn from Scripture, and has been held since the early church fathers up to today’s conservative theologians. This view was codified in October, 1978 in the form of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.
  • Monenergism Monothelitism Versus Dyenergism

    Monenergism Monothelitism Versus Dyenergism

    CHAPTER THREE ‘IMPERIAL’ MONENERGISMMONOTHELITISM VERSUS DYENERGISMDYOTHELITISM In this section, I shall explore simultaneously (to the degree that existing sources allow) the ‘imperial’ or ‘Chalcedonian’ Monenergism- Monothelitism and Dyenergism-Dyothelitism, with the objective of clarifying the similarities and diff erences between the two oposing doctrines. 3.1. Key notions 3.1.1. Th e oneness of Christ Owing to a common neo-Chalcedonian background, adherents of both Monenergite-Monothelite and Dyenergite-Dyothelite doctrines accepted the oneness of Christ as a fundamental starting point. Monenergists- Monothelites, however, placed more emphasis on this oneness. In the relatively brief Alexandrian pact, for example, the oneness of Christ is referred to more than twenty times. All statements about the single energeia and will were normally preceded by a confession of Christ’s oneness.1 Dyenergists-Dyothelites also began their commentaries on energeia and will by postulating the oneness, though not as frequently or as insistently as their opponents. In one of the earliest Dyenergist- Dyothelite texts, the encyclical of Sophronius, a statement of faith on the two energeiai and wills begins with a reference to Christ’s oneness .2 In these and many other ways, both parties demonstrated their adherence to the Christological language of Cyril of Alexandria. 1 2 5–6 See the Pact of the Alexandrian union (ACO2 II 598 ), Sergius ’ letter to Pope 2 6–7 29–31 Honorius (ACO2 II 542 ), Ecthesis (ACO2 I 158 ). 2 1 17–18 ACO2 II 440 . 104 chapter three 3.1.2. One hypostasis and two natures Th e followers of the Monenergist-Monothelite doctrine as it emerged in the seventh century, were Chalcedonians who felt it necessary to make a clear distinction between Christ’s hypostasis and his nature.
  • The Development of Marian Doctrine As

    The Development of Marian Doctrine As

    INTERNATIONAL MARIAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON, OHIO in affiliation with the PONTIFICAL THEOLOGICAL FACULTY MARIANUM ROME, ITALY By: Elizabeth Marie Farley The Development of Marian Doctrine as Reflected in the Commentaries on the Wedding at Cana (John 2:1-5) by the Latin Fathers and Pastoral Theologians of the Church From the Fourth to the Seventeenth Century A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate in Sacred Theology with specialization in Marian Studies Director: Rev. Bertrand Buby, S.M. Marian Library/International Marian Research Institute University of Dayton 300 College Park Dayton, OH 45469-1390 2013 i Copyright © 2013 by Elizabeth M. Farley All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Nihil obstat: François Rossier, S.M., STD Vidimus et approbamus: Bertrand A. Buby S.M., STD – Director François Rossier, S.M., STD – Examinator Johann G. Roten S.M., PhD, STD – Examinator Thomas A. Thompson S.M., PhD – Examinator Elio M. Peretto, O.S.M. – Revisor Aristide M. Serra, O.S.M. – Revisor Daytonesis (USA), ex aedibus International Marian Research Institute, et Romae, ex aedibus Pontificiae Facultatis Theologicae Marianum, die 22 Augusti 2013. ii Dedication This Dissertation is Dedicated to: Father Bertrand Buby, S.M., The Faculty and Staff at The International Marian Research Institute, Father Jerome Young, O.S.B., Father Rory Pitstick, Joseph Sprug, Jerome Farley, my beloved husband, and All my family and friends iii Table of Contents Prėcis.................................................................................. xvii Guidelines........................................................................... xxiii Abbreviations...................................................................... xxv Chapter One: Purpose, Scope, Structure and Method 1.1 Introduction...................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose............................................................
  • The Inerrancy and Authority of Scripture in Christian Apologetics

    The Inerrancy and Authority of Scripture in Christian Apologetics

    The Journal of Ministry & Theology 50 The Inerrancy and Authority of Scripture in Christian Apologetics Lee Allen Anderson Jr. INTRODUCTION Scripture’s call to Christians to engage in the apologetic task is markedly obvious. For example, 1 Peter 3:15 instructs believers to always be “ready to make a defense (ἀπολογίαν) to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.” Similarly, Jude 3 exhorts Christians to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” Here, the “faith” refers not to the subjective element of personal trust in the Lord God, but instead to that “body of truth that very early in the church’s history took on a definite form,” that is, the content of Christian faith—doctrinal truth (cf. Gal 1:23; 1 Tim 4:1).1 Implicit in this verse, therefore, is the acknowledgment of the fact that a certain body of doctrinal truth exists, which in turn implies a source or origin for that doctrinal truth. For the Christian, the principle, authoritative source of doctrinal truth is the “God-breathed” holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16). The reliability of Scripture as a standard for Christian doctrine hinges on the fact that, as the inspired word of the true God who does not lie (Num 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18), it is wholly true (Ps 119:160; John 17:17). To echo the words of the longstanding affirmation of the Evangelical Theological Society, “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”2 This affirmation is not a peripheral issue to Christian theology; it is germane to the life of the church and, of logical consequence, the upholding of the Christian faith.
  • The Concept of “Sister Churches” in Catholic-Orthodox Relations Since

    The Concept of “Sister Churches” in Catholic-Orthodox Relations Since

    THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA The Concept of “Sister Churches” In Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Theology and Religious Studies Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy © Copyright All Rights Reserved By Will T. Cohen Washington, D.C. 2010 The Concept of “Sister Churches” In Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II Will T. Cohen, Ph.D. Director: Paul McPartlan, D.Phil. Closely associated with Catholic-Orthodox rapprochement in the latter half of the 20 th century was the emergence of the expression “sister churches” used in various ways across the confessional division. Patriarch Athenagoras first employed it in this context in a letter in 1962 to Cardinal Bea of the Vatican Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, and soon it had become standard currency in the bilateral dialogue. Yet today the expression is rarely invoked by Catholic or Orthodox officials in their ecclesial communications. As the Polish Catholic theologian Waclaw Hryniewicz was led to say in 2002, “This term…has now fallen into disgrace.” This dissertation traces the rise and fall of the expression “sister churches” in modern Catholic-Orthodox relations and argues for its rehabilitation as a means by which both Catholic West and Orthodox East may avoid certain ecclesiological imbalances toward which each respectively tends in its separation from the other. Catholics who oppose saying that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are sisters, or that the church of Rome is one among several patriarchal sister churches, generally fear that if either of those things were true, the unicity of the Church would be compromised and the Roman primacy rendered ineffective.
  • Infallible?" (Hans Küng, 1970)

    Infallible?" (Hans Küng, 1970)

    On "Infallible?" (Hans Küng, 1970) First published (in German) as "Unfehlbar?", 1970; transl. E.Mosbacher, Collins, 1971 © C.Jeynes, Guildford, 2nd June 2012 (revised 24th August 2012 and 17th February 2014) Infallibility: a question for all Christians Küng is a prominent German theologian of the Roman Church. He is notorious for attacking Roman doctrines, and, in particular in this book, Infallible?, he attacks the Roman doctrine of Papal infallibility. It was for this book that his licence to teach Roman theology was revoked by the Roman authorities. He remains as emeritus Professor of ecumenical theology at the University of Tübingen. Let me parenthetically comment here that in this review I systematically refer to the "Roman" Church, not the "Roman Catholic" Church, since the question of what is really "catholic" ("universal") is at the heart of this book.1 For example, I would say that Luther was the catholic where the then Pope was the heretic. I would say that any Christian with acceptable doctrine is "catholic" since he or she thereby belongs to the body of believers, the "cloud of witnesses" (Heb.12:1). But is the Roman Church "catholic"? But why should we be interested in such apparently arcane matters of Roman theology? It turns out that we2 have a similar doctrine, of inerrancy: We believe the Bible to be the only inspired, infallible, authoritative Word of God, inerrant in its original manuscripts. http://epsomcf.org.uk/about-us/what-we-believe/ (downloaded 14th May 2012) This statement follows recent conservative theological positions, and in particular the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy"3 (1978) which was signed by nearly 300 scholars including J.I.
  • The Mandate of Biblical Inerrancy: 1 Expository Preaching

    The Mandate of Biblical Inerrancy: 1 Expository Preaching

    THE MANDATE OF BIBLICAL INERRANCY: 1 EXPOSITORY PREACHING John F. MacArthur, Jr. President and Professor of Pastoral Ministries The Master's Seminary The special attention of evangelicalism given to the inerrancy of Scripture in recent years carries with it a mandate to emphasize the expository method of preaching the Scriptures. The existence of God and His nature requires the conclusion that He has communicated accurately and that an adequate exegetical process to determine His meaning is required. The Christian commission to preach God's Word involves the transmitting of that meaning to an audience, a weighty responsibility. A belief in inerrancy thus requires, most important of all, exegetical preaching, and does not have to do primarily with the homiletical form of the message. In this regard it differs from a view of limited inerrancy. * * * * * The theological highlight of recent years has without question been evangelicalism's intense focus on biblical innerrancy.2 Much of what has been written defending inerrancy3 represents the most acute theological reasoning our generation has produced. Yet, it seems our commitment to inerrancy is somewhat lacking in the 1This essay was initially given as a response at the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, Summit II (Nov 1982). It was subsequently published under the title "Inerrancy and Preaching: Where Exposition and Exegesis Come Together" in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible (ed. by Earl Radmacher and Robert Preus; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 801-831. It has been updated to serve as the foundational article for this inaugural issue of The Master's Seminary Journal. 2 Over a ten-year period (1977-1987), the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy held three summits for scholars (1978, 1982, 1986) and two congresses for the Christian community-at-large (1982, 1987) whose purposes were to formulate and disseminate the biblical truth about inerrancy.
  • Understanding Biblical Inspiration, Infallibility and Inerrancy Shawn Nelson

    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.
  • Trinitarian/Christological Heresies Heresy Description Origin Official

    Trinitarian/Christological Heresies Heresy Description Origin Official

    Trinitarian/Christological Heresies Official Heresy Description Origin Other Condemnation Adoptionism Belief that Jesus Propounded Theodotus was Alternative was born as a by Theodotus of excommunicated names: Psilanthro mere (non-divine) Byzantium , a by Pope Victor and pism and Dynamic man, was leather merchant, Paul was Monarchianism. [9] supremely in Rome c.190, condemned by the Later criticized as virtuous and that later revived Synod of Antioch presupposing he was adopted by Paul of in 268 Nestorianism (see later as "Son of Samosata below) God" by the descent of the Spirit on him. Apollinarism Belief proposed Declared to be . that Jesus had by Apollinaris of a heresy in 381 by a human body Laodicea (died the First Council of and lower soul 390) Constantinople (the seat of the emotions) but a divine mind. Apollinaris further taught that the souls of men were propagated by other souls, as well as their bodies. Arianism Denial of the true The doctrine is Arius was first All forms denied divinity of Jesus associated pronounced that Jesus Christ Christ taking with Arius (ca. AD a heretic at is "consubstantial various specific 250––336) who the First Council of with the Father" forms, but all lived and taught Nicea , he was but proposed agreed that Jesus in Alexandria, later exonerated either "similar in Christ was Egypt . as a result of substance", or created by the imperial pressure "similar", or Father, that he and finally "dissimilar" as the had a beginning declared a heretic correct alternative. in time, and that after his death. the title "Son of The heresy was God" was a finally resolved in courtesy one.