Comments on Elizaphanian
I haven't had a chance to read all your comments through yet but I've been "away" from your blog for a few days. Now I come back and realise you're actually engaging with important texts that I suggested you engage with!
Apologies for not commenting sooner about this. Thanks for taking the time to read the Chicago statement...
Interesting article, thanks. I remember reading that Statement a while back and being unimpressed, quite profoundly so in places.
"We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.
[...Happy with the second sentence."
This clashes somewhat with your statemet above this that Nicea (homoousios) is the normative description of how we interpret Scripture.
"We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word...
[No, this is profoundly wrong. The INCARNATION “was the work in which God by His Spirit… gave us His Word”."
Amen and amen.
pax et bonum
Ha! Well spotted. I'll have to think further about that.
Just came across your blog - thanks for the intro to Chicago - it is just what I expected - too many syllables! Your responses are helpful. These was my responses a few weeks ago to another thread in inerrancy from Michael Bird: http://stenagmois.blogspot.com/2.../06/
errant.html and http://stenagmois.blogspot.com/2...n-
judgment.html
I really appreciated your comments on the Chicago Statement. I stepped down from leadership in my church a few years ago when I realized I couldn't affirm it, but haven't taken the time to go through point for point and state what the problems are. Actually, when I go to read it for that purpose it makes me so angry I can hardly see straight, so I have to just stop and let it go. So thanks for your critique, it's pretty much sums up what I've been wanting to say about the whole darn thing.
Commenting by HaloScan
