Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy 15

What do Christians mean when they say the Bible is inerrant? The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy tells us what leading inerrantist mean by inerrancy. I’ll be posting a section of this statement each week until I’ve posted the whole thing.

You can read previously posted sections of this statement in by clicking here. After a preface and a short statement, the Chicago Statement contains a section called Articles of Affirmation and Denial.

---

Article XIII.

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Round the Sphere Again: Thinking About Worship

Two Things
D. A. Carson: “[T]here are two elements expressed in the praise of Psalm 66 that are almost never heard today, and that badly need to be reincorporated both into our praise and into our thinking.” Read what they are. (For the Love of God)

The Old Hymns
James Grant: “Learning hymns is a way to participate in the church universal and the communion of the saints.” so there’s good reason to introduce hymns to a congregation that does not sing them. (The Gospel Coalition Blog)

Ten Arguments
for the Regulative Principle of Worship. There are a few arguments here that are new to me. You? (Underdog Theology)

HT: The Thirsty Theologian.

Culpable Ignorance

Quoting from Greg Bahsen’s Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, Chapter 18, Summary On Apologetics Method: Chapters 13-17:

The unbeliever’s way of thinking is characterized as follows:

• a. By nature the unbeliever is the image of God and, therefore, inescapably religious; his heart testifies continually, as does also the clear revelation of God around him, to God’s existence and character.
• b. But the unbeliever exchanges the truth for a lie. He is a fool who refuses to begin his thinking with reverence for the Lord; he will not build upon Christ’s self-evidencing words and suppresses the unavoidable revelation of God in nature.
• c. Because he delights not in understanding but chooses to serve the creature rather than the Creator, the unbeliever is self-confidently committed to his own ways of thought; being convinced that he could not be fundamentally wrong, he flaunts perverse thinking and challenges the self-attesting word of God.
• d. Consequently, the unbeliever’s thinking results in ignorance; in his darkened futile mind he actually hates knowledge and and can gain only a “knowledge” falsely so-called.
• e. To the extent that he actually knows anything, it is due to his unacknowledged dependence upon the suppressed truth about God within him. This renders the unbeliever intellectually schizophrenic: by his espoused way of thinking he actually “opposes himself’ and shows a need for a radical “change of mind” (repentance) unto a genuine knowledge of the truth.
• f. The unbeliever’s ignorance is culpable because he is without excuse for his rebellion against God’s revelation; hence he is “without an apologetic” for his thoughts.
• g. His unbelief does not stem from a lack of factual evidence, but from his refusal to submit to the authoritative word of God from the beginning of his thinking.