 |
| 
BADGERVOL
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 27
| Posted 12/1/2004 1:10 AM (GMT -6) |   | from a kid in my youth group, that there is a bill trying to be started called the "Chicago Statement" that will ban Pastor's from being Open Theists. Has anyone heard anything about this? What denomination is it for? Who does it include? Is it just talk or is there something to it? Who is behind it?
Just curious.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
God_Is_Truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 33
| Posted 12/1/2004 9:24 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BADGERVOL
from a kid in my youth group, that there is a bill trying to be started called the "Chicago Statement" that will ban Pastor's from being Open Theists. Has anyone heard anything about this? What denomination is it for? Who does it include? Is it just talk or is there something to it? Who is behind it?
Just curious.
never heard of it | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/1/2004 10:09 AM (GMT -6) | | A bill? As in bill to be passed into law? Can't be.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 12/1/2004 10:31 AM (GMT -6) | | I did a quick search on the Internet. The "Chicago Statement" is nothing new. Basically, back in 1978, a group of evangelical leaders got together and drew up a statement on biblical inerrancy. You can read the statement here:
www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
The same group subsequently drew up statements on biblical hermeneutics (www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html) and on biblical application.
From a quick scan of the materials I gather that the Chicago Statement reflects what might be called a hard-line conservative position. Norm Geisler seems to be a driving figure behind these statements.
With respect to what Badgervol heard, perhaps a new Chicago Statement on open theism or on the nature of God is in the works, or perhaps some denominations are now requiring their pastors to sign off on the Chicago Statements already developed.
For myself, I think the Chicago Statement(s) take too much of a hard-line approach and don't allow enough room for legitimate disagreement.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/1/2004 11:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's the first Article of the CSI (How 'bout THAT for an accrostic? -- Chicago Statement on Inerrancy):
quote:
Article I
We affirm that the Holy Spcriptures 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.
Now, I find this interesting. I want to agree with this affirmation and denial. Heck, I DO! But I feel it's a little empty. What sense does it make to affirm the unique authority of Scripture independent of human authority and tradition if a) it was fallible human authority that historically determined what even constituted "Scipture" and b) the doctrine of inerrancy does NOT extend to the fallible human authorities and church councils that determined what was and what was not Scipture? So in the end you've got admittedly fallible human authorities determining WHAT was infallibly authoritative and what wasn't. Does anybody else see the problem here?
So I don't know HOW to agree with what's denied in the first article, for even if it's the case that the authority of Sciptures "derives" from God alone, what Scripture is so divinely authoritative is "determined" by the Church and tradition. And nobody attributes the same inerrancy to church councils they do to the Sciptures themselves. So you've got fallible, human, and (judging from the behavior of leaders at church councils) not always godly and prayerful leaders deciding what speaks with an authority that is derived from God alone.
It's just a vicious regress. I don't know of any way around it. My hunch is we recognize CHRIST as infallibly authoritative and only secondly recognize the Bible as authoritative because it confirms and conforms to our experience of Christ. Experience really does figure in more than we like to admit. We may not like to think of it as running in this direction, but that's in fact what happens historically. I heard the VERY simple gospel, believed in Christ, and experienced him. Jesus changed my life. I only THEN began to relate to "the Bible" and therein found the Christ of experience confirmed (and explained and taught, yes). So it seems that Ramm was right: The authority of Scipture resides in its ability to produce life and change wherever its message is proclaimed. That's important to affirm. But inerrancy?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:40 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|