Debating Biblical Inerrancy: The Lausanne Covenant & The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- In this video, I discuss the Lausanne Covenant on Biblical Inspiration and the Chicago Statement. I discuss Michael Licona's views on the matter and demonstrate why they are incorrect.
Here are the works cited:
defendinginerr...
normangeisler....
"The Lausanne Covenant adopted at the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization stated in its final draft that the Bible is “without error in all that it affirms.” Some have contended that this wording provides an escape hatch for those who exclude a historical Adam and Eve (Richard N. Ostling, “A Message from Lausanne,” p. 24); members of the drafting committee disowned this intention, however, declaring that they emphasized only that biblical inerrancy relates to the range, purpose and genre of the content."--Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, 4:175.
Francis Schaeffer in his book titled, No Final Conflict, makes the following comments on people who try to use the Lausanne Covenant as a loophole to bypass affirming Biblical Inerrancy.
Schaeffer writes:
"Another quote. This is a translation from another language and a country far off from the United States.
More problematic in my estimation is the fundamentalist extension of the principle of noncontradictory Scripture to include the historic, geographic, statistical and other biblical statements, which do not touch in every case on the questions of salvation and which belong to the human element of Scripture.
Both of these statements do the same thing. They make a dichotomy. They make a division. They say that there are mistakes in the Bible, but nevertheless we are to keep hold of the religious evangelical circles.
Now look with me at what the Lausanne Covenant says about Scripture.
We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written Word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
I ought to say that the little phrase, “without error in all that it affirms” was not part of my own contribution to the Lausanne Congress. I didn’t know that phrase was going to be included in the Covenant until I saw it in its final printed form. But let me speak about why historically it is a proper statement, if the words are dealt with fairly. We are not saying the Bible is without error in the things it does not affirm. And one of the clearest examples, of course, is where the Bible says, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” The Bible does not teach there is no God. The Bible does not affirm that. Furthermore, we are not saying the Bible is without error in all the projections which people have made on the basis of the Bible. So that statement, as it appeared in the Lausanne Covenant, is a perfectly proper statement in itself. However, as soon as I saw it in its printed form I knew it was going to be abused. In August 1975, Dr. Billy Graham wrote me as follows: “I was thinking of writing a brief booklet on ‘in all that it affirms’ which I took to mean the entire Bible. Unfortunately, this statement is being made a loophole by many.”
Unhappily, this statement, “in all that it affirms,’ has indeed been made a loophole by many. How has it been made a loophole? It has been made a loophole through the existential methodology which would say that the Bible affirms the value system certain religious things set forth in the Bible. But on the basis of the existential methodology these men say in the back of their minds, even as they sign the Covenant, “But the Bible does not affirm without error that which it teaches in the area of history and the cosmos.”
Because of the widely accepted existential methodology in certain parts of the evangelical community, the old words infallibility, inerrancy and without error are meaningless today unless some phrase is added such as: the Bible is without error not only when it speaks of values, the meaning system and religious things, but it is also without error when it speaks of history and the cosmos. If some such phrase is not added, these words today are meaningless. Infallibility is used today by men who do not apply it to the whole of Scripture, but only to the meaning system, to the value system and certain religious things, leaving out any place where the Bible speaks of history and the things which would interest science.
Thank you for continuing to defend the doctrine of inerrancy, Dr.
Thank you for the support!
Thank you!
@@vladimirsylenok789 you’re welcome
You know what would really be a problem when considering the bible inerrant? The fact that it's a translation, of a translation, of multiple different manuscripts from several different oral traditions... And for some versions of the book that's just the tip of the iceberg of issues...
I'd also consider it quite an issue that several things described in the book are scientifically wildly innacurate. And that the book contradicts itself a multitude of times... And that authorship of most of the chapters is unknown or contested.
But yea except for those minor issues I can see why someone might consider the book inerrant. If they just choose to disgregard every error that'd be quite easy in fact.