March 4, 2004

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602. Or toll free across the United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

Opening Banter and Program Setup

Only 48 degrees, what in the world is going on? It's warmer back east than it is out west, how odd. Welcome to The Dividing Line, my name is James White. We're live today here in Phoenix, Arizona where it was raining a little while ago, I think that's what they call that.

Actually, it's been raining a lot recently, which is odd for us, but it's very good for us.

We need that.

Hey man, since when does water come from the sky?

You know, who gave you a microphone is what I want to know. Especially when you're on decongestants, because that, hey man, sounds like back from your old days. Like in the 70s, when you had polyester pants and things like that.

Actually, I predate that, I go back to bellbottoms.

Well, bellbottoms were polyester, weren't they?

No, before polyester.

Before, they were cotton bellbottoms?

You bet.

Oh, that was even before Saturday Night Live, not Saturday Night Live, Stayin' Alive, no, Saturday Night Fever, there we go.

Long before that, yes, long before that.

Well, anyway.

Now that we've thoroughly grossed out the audience.

Totally, and dated ourselves very badly. I mean, there's people on our channel that are like, you know, young enough to be my kids. It's just really a sort of sad thing. But anyhow, welcome to The Dividing Line, 877 -753 -3341 is phone number.

I don't know if you saw the little blog thing I threw up, sort of almost threw up on the website yesterday. The guy who was writing the music for The Passion and how his computers would lock up like ten times a day with a picture of Satan on the screen.

And that he then invited Satan to go outside and duke it out in the parking lot. All I can say is that it must have been like really odd working on the set of that particular film. I mean, I'm starting to wonder if there wasn't some talk about this and it just sort of started.

These things take on a life of their own. They really do. They start to take on a life of their own, do their own thing. And I wonder if all the stuff about healings and miracles and getting struck by lightning and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

Late nights, working in the music studio. Obviously, if my computer locked up ten times in a day with a picture of Satan on it, I'd update Norton Antivirus. Hello! Sounds like a virus to me! There's some odd stuff going on there.

Interestingly enough, my daughter's Spirit-filled Norton. Norton is made by Christians. It will get rid of the devil. Actually, I have no idea who it's made by and I really doubt that. But anyway, my daughter's a freshman in high school.

They're going to see The Passion next week. And it's Christian high school and so they sent a notice home and you had to sign it and all the rest of it because it's R-rated. The teacher has to show all these permission slips to the people when they go to the movie theater.

And so what I decided to do is, aside from signing it and saying, yeah, it's fine because I already took her to see it. And we had discussions beforehand and afterwards and she's got Piper's book and she's been reading Piper's book.

Right now, if anybody called in and asked about the Roman Catholic book I read last week, I don't have it. You know why? She stole it from me. Yeah, my daughter has it and she's taken it to school and has been trying to explain to people, you know, this is sort of significant.

And she reported to me on Wednesday. It was just sort of like, nobody cares. I mean, I read stuff out of this book that's just absolutely freaky and nobody cares. It's just like, yes, it's amazing. Anyways, so what I did is I wrote a full page thing and I included, you know, I said, yes, certainly she can go.

I've already taken her once. We discussed the issue of the atonement, the finished work of Christ, da-da-da-da. And then I quoted that whole thing. It's still on the blog in regards to the introduction to the book and how the film is so quintessentially Catholic, Marian, Eucharistic, all the rest of that fun stuff.

And so I sent that along with, and I'll be real interested in seeing what kind of response that gets from her Bible teacher. But her Bible teacher knows sort of who I am. I mean, Summer was taking a test in there and she had debating Calvinism sitting on top of her books.

And the teacher stole it for the entire hour. It was sitting up there, reading it all during the hour, and it was sort of funny. But anyway, so yes, it goes on. And I've got somebody on channel asking me to describe PT Cruisers while I am on the air, which is a little bit difficult to do.

Are we on the air when we're doing a webcast? I mean, is that not an example of anachronism in language? On the air, I mean, isn't that a good example of where words have changed meaning depending upon cultural context?

Isn't that interesting? We are the air. Do you think that's air you're breathing? Yeah, some of you are going, hey, it's the white Morpheus. Yes, well, if you've seen pictures of me recently. Anyhow, microwave.

Yes, that's right. That's right. We do our broadcasting initially microwave-wise and stuff. So anyhow, people are picking on PT Cruisers and channel. And I'm going to tell folks right now the next person that picks on PT Cruisers and channel is going to get the five-minute sock.

I just want you to know that right now. If you're not in channel, you don't know what a five-minute sock is. You do not even need to consider what it means. However, the five-minute sock is the worst kind of sock you can get.

And so just keep that in mind. Oh, there it is. That hit. I know that there is a, you know, I said that I was going to do it. I have to do it. So there it is. So anyway, oh, oh, oh, oh, there is a general rebellion now going on in channel.

And I'm sorry for those of you who are listening live. I'll be done with it in just a minute.

There.

I just took care of it. Anyhow, today on the program, a couple of things, unless your calls drive us a different direction.

Get it?

PT Cruisers drive us a different direction. Two things in front of me right now. I shouldn't open these things right before the program starts. I really shouldn't.

But I did.

I opened the most recent edition of Viewpoint, John Armstrong's ministry letter, newsletter. I don't know what you call it. And he's been doing a whole series of how I changed my mind on. These are these are discussions of why he has, in essence, abandoned the positions that he held only eight or ten years ago.

This one was interesting because, you know, the end of the story, the end of the article wasn't all that bad. I mean, I believe at one point in time, Dr. Armstrong described himself as a Reformed Baptist.

And this particular discussion is on how I changed my mind about the sacraments. Now, Reformed Baptists tend not to utilize the term sacraments. We use the term ordinance. He talks about that in here.

But the final conclusions weren't really all that far off from what you would read in the 30th section of the London Baptist Confession of Faith. And I appreciated some things. For example, he mentions Zwingli.

And he says, Zwingli, who is often cited as the champion of the widely popular evangelical view, put the emphasis of the meal upon the pledge the believer makes when he presents himself to God in worship.

But Zwingli's view was not the mere commemoration of the modern notion floating around the broadly evangelical scene of North American Christianity. Commemoration in Zwingli's doctrine really meant contemplation in the real work of Christ.

The late John Lythe suggested rightly that, quote, the spiritual presence of Christ was not disputed by Zwingli, end quote. So even modern Zwinglians are not faithful to the view they profess to follow.

Well, obviously, in the history of development of theological terminology, Zwinglian has taken on a meaning that maybe Zwingli himself did not intend. However, it was interesting to me that the final conclusions basically were not aimed at where I thought Dr. Armstrong put himself ten years ago.

In other words, it's pretty much aimed at sort of a seeker-friendly slash fundamentalist slash I-have-no-connection-to-church-history style of viewpoint, not certainly to a Reformed Baptist perspective, because it talks about the...

Well, it just starts off in these words. The word sacrament once made me very uneasy. If you stay with me for a few moments, I will explain why this happened and what changed. I now find my whole world and life view profoundly rooted in what I would call a sacramental view of life.

When I heard the word sacrament as a young minister, I thought of hocus-pocus. I heard something like, take the elements, get the grace, which is the old ex-opera-operato idea that in taking the elements, the operation itself produces the result.

By the way, my commentary at this point, that's Rome's view. That is the perspective that was defended by the Middle Ages. That was what was defended by Augustine over against Cyprian, shall we say, and that particular situation, ex-opera-operato, over against ex-opera-operante, which has to do, of course, with the idea that the individual who is working the sacrament, his state of grace is relevant to the operation of the sacrament itself.

That whole discussion is a little bit beyond what we might be able to get into today. That certainly is worth a discussion at some point in time in the future. We may have discussed it already. How many years have we done the dividing line now?

I don't know. After a while you start wondering, did I discuss that in class last week? Did I discuss that the last time I was out on the road talking to somebody? It's hard to remember exactly what the context was.

Anyway, he goes on to say, I thus preferred the word of my Christian childhood, ordinance. It was a warm and non-offensive word. It is clearly suggested that there were things commanded by Jesus by these actions.

It clearly suggested that there were things commanded by Jesus, but these actions were not sacramental. My rationalistic world was still intact. Oh, really? I remained quite sure that the word sacrament was dangerous.

Anyone that held the idea was probably teaching salvation through some form of priestcraft or ecclesiastical good works. Somewhere along the way I realized that most Protestants used the word sacrament positively.

Positively would be the best way to put that. Then I looked it up in the dictionary. Surprise, surprise! The first line of my new, shorter Oxford dictionary says, the word is a translation of the Greek word mysterion from the New Testament.

At which point I stop and go, wasn't a study of the original languages a part of your preparation? I mean, this isn't anything new. That's like, duh. I'm not trying to be offensive here, but as a Reformed Baptist who does, in fact, prefer the term ordinance because of the biblical utilization of terminology, I knew that sacramentum was the Latin translation of mysterion.

Wasn't that basic church history 101? It seems to me that when people change from one view to another view, they always end up grossly misrepresenting where they once were. Have you ever noticed that?

Back when I was stupid, like I used to be, I didn't know nothing, but now I know everything. It's like, why do that? Why not just accurately represent the fact that when you held this view, this is what you believed, this is why you've changed, but don't include the, I looked it up in the Oxford dictionary.

I went to Fuller Theological Seminary, for crying out loud, and doing a Master of Arts degree in theology years ago, that was first semester. I mean, what is... I'm sorry.

Deep breath.

Cleansing breath, yes. Sure enough, the word was actually biblical. Now what? I felt another theological box falling apart in my comfortable, rational, no-fear theological worldview. Now, there's really the issue.

There's really the whole, this is what it's all about. John Armstrong thinks the rest of us who haven't joined him on his journey off into wherever it is he's going to end up, that we're rationalists and that we are narrow-minded and we're unwilling to look at other things.

Maybe we already looked and don't like what's out there because we find it unbiblical. Maybe our overriding commitment to the ultimacy of biblical authority keeps us from going these directions. Well, we couldn't allow that to be a possibility.

Anyway, and it goes on from there. The drop box here. Aggie, I'm not making fun of anybody. I am responding to the making fun of my position by someone who said they once held it. There's a difference there.

I think if you think about it, you'll see what it is. Anyway, drop box in the middle says, combined with a de-emphasis on doctrinal confession and catechism. Well, that ain't me. The modern church has thus lost mystery.

One way to get this back is to teach the sacramental nature of the church. If we restore the sacramental nature of the two signs directly given to the bride of Christ by the Savior himself, we may well prepare our congregations for fresh visitations of the Lord who is seen as present each week in the preached word and the sacraments.

Well, you know, certainly Calvin believed that. The question is, how can we translate that into something that is directly relevant to us today? We use the term means of grace, not the term sacrament, so that we recognize that grace is not something that is just automatic.

It's not something to where you have an action that guarantees a certain result. So we use means of grace. We recognize God has means of grace that he has given to us, the church and fellowship and church discipline and the ordinances, the Lord's Supper, baptism, the preaching of the word.

These are all things God has given to us. They are the means that he gives to us that we are to utilize, to grow in grace, and that's wonderful. But obviously I do think that we need to look at what the word says has been given to us in that way.

And to go so far as some people do to make everything sacramental, I've never seen that result in a deeper affirmation of sola scriptura, sola fide, things like that. I've always seen it go the other direction.

That's just my experience. My experience is very limited. All of our experiences are very limited, but that's just simply what I have seen. I don't see anything on the screen here at 877 -753 -3341, so I will go ahead and mention to you something that a lot of folks, and I was thinking about this just a few minutes ago.

The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy was written before a number of the folks on our channel were born. And that, again, is an amazing thing. I want to, as time allowed, go through a lot of this. It is very, very important material.

It's really, I think, what is not so much an ignoring of this as a lot of folks who have heard the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and there's a lot of folks who would say, oh, yeah, I'd agree with that, even if they haven't necessarily read it.

But it is the living out of what this statement says that really, I think, makes a huge impact upon the controversies that we face. There is so much that we are facing in our society. I spoke last evening at church on the subject of gay marriage.

Well, actually, I didn't speak on gay marriage at all, because there is no such thing. Gay marriage is an oxymoron. We need to stop even allowing that. Right now, the left has the forces that oppose God's law.

Let's stop playing games. Let's stop being politically correct. The other side isn't, so who cares? This is a matter of spitting in God's face and hating God's law. That's what the whole movement is about.

God defined marriage in the Garden of Eden. He created Adam and Eve, male and female, He created them. The man is to leave his father and mother, not his father and father and his mother and his mother, but his father and his mother, and he is to be joined to his wife, and they are to become one flesh.

That is the creation ordinance, and those who are actively suppressing the knowledge of God and who hate God's law are pushing that down, and they don't want to be reminded by anything in their society or anything around them, that they are in fact having to put out so much energy to suppress the knowledge of God that is within them.

They hate God's law, and therefore they want to get rid of any representation of God's law, and if man's law somehow, by God's grace, happens to reflect God's law, then they want to see that changed, and they will even simply engage in anarchy, which is what's going on right now in our land, so as to be able to suppress this knowledge of God that is there, and to express their hatred toward it.

So, I was talking about quote-unquote gay marriage and the fact that there is no such thing, that God is the one who defines marriage. Marriage was defined long before the Constitution was written. Everybody knows exactly what marriage was when the Constitution was written, but the fact of the matter is we've allowed jurists, who are not actually jurists.

These are rebel jurists. These are jurists who are out of control. They are despots. They are illegal despots who now sit in positions of authority as a part of God's judgment upon this land. I truly believe that that is the case.

Unrighteous judges come from God as a plague upon a land. Our land is filled with unrighteous judges. They are not under the control of the law. They don't care what the original intent was, and it is a part of God's judgment upon this land, and we all get to live with it.

We all get to live with it. There. I said it right out front, and while I still have the freedom to say it, and that freedom, who knows when that's going to end, and if you think that's conspiratorial thinking, you're wrong.

Anyway, I was talking about last night, and I was discussing the biblical commands in regards to this, and I pointed out that Jesus is teaching on this subject in Matthew chapter 19. Excuse me, used the cough button there for a second.

Jesus is teaching on the subject of Matthew chapter 19, assumes a certain level of authority for the Old Testament scriptures that functionally many evangelicals no longer have, and one of the reasons there is such a muted response from the quote-unquote church, however you define that, to this particular issue is because we have lost touch with a meaningful and heartfelt doctrine of the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture.

We seem to think that the battle for inerrancy was over in the 1980s, the good guys won, the bad guys lost. Folks, it just isn't that way. It just isn't that way. It doesn't work that way. I don't think we won the battle.

I think the bad guys won the battle because they just redefined the terms and the good guys didn't realize they were doing it. And so in many seminaries in the land today, people will even sign statements that say, I believe in inerrancy, but they don't teach in accordance with it.

They don't do theology in accordance with it. They don't do exegesis in accordance with it. It's not a heartfelt commitment. And I would suggest to you, the theologian that does not bow in humble reverence to the authority of the word of God is a theologian who is not allowing the theos, God, to speak for himself.

That's really what a belief in inspiration and inerrancy is, is an admission that I can't know anything about God apart from God revealing himself and I must be honest in allowing God to define himself, not me, not me, myself and I.

That's what inspiration, inerrancy, exegesis is all about, is honoring God by allowing God to speak for himself. If you don't engage in meaningful rules of hermeneutics and exegesis, what you're saying is, I don't trust the word of God to speak.

I will speak for the word of God in my own words. That's what it's all about. And so I wanted to look at the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy because it really addresses these primary issues and to remind our little, teeny, tiny audience.

You know, someone was saying we only have 24 listeners. Well, that's not true. We happen to have more than that. Lots of folks listen all over the place. They just don't all listen at the same time. That's one of the advantages of doing a webcast is people can listen to this thing at 3 o 'clock in the morning if they want to.

They can download the MP3s. They can put them on MP3 players. You know, this is a great way of doing things. But in comparison to the big boys, we have a teeny, tiny, little audience. No question about it.

But this teeny, tiny, little audience is the audience that we've been given, and I really try to make this hour we spend together twice a week something that will be of use to a large portion of that audience.

I can't keep everybody happy. You know, it's sort of like Angel's Cartoons. You just can't keep everybody happy. And so for this audience, I wanted to go over this. I know that most of you have read this.

I know that most of you agree. However, we need to be reminded of what is important. You know, it's the old Peter line. He says, I know you know these things, but I want to set you in remembrance. I want to remind you.

We need to be reminded. We forget things. We forget the most important things very, very easily because the world is like the waves crashing against the shore. The world daily is wearing away at the shore, and we need to be putting out positive effort to be constantly rebuilding what the world is trying to wash away.

Another illustration of that that's beautiful is out of Pilgrim's Progress. You've got the fire, and the water is always being put on it, but the fire doesn't go out. Why does the fire not go out? Because on the other side of the wall is the Holy Spirit pouring in the oil.

The fire continues on. But we have to be involved in rebuilding ourselves, reminding ourselves of those things that are very important. Now, the Chicago Statement on Errancy, which was put together at the Hyatt Regency O 'Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978, a number of notable folks were there, big names, some of whom are not even with us any longer, obviously, 1978 being a few years ago, starts off with articles of affirmation and denial.

Actually, it starts off with a summary statement. I guess I'll go ahead and read the summary statement, since that's a good thing to do. Number one, God, who is Himself truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge.

Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself. I would, in fact, yeah, that's a good idea. I just saw someone request this. Could you put the URL? This is why it's always good to listen and be in channel at the same time, if you can possibly do that.

Just post the URL in channel. There are a number of them out there. You can just Google it. It's easy to pull up. I pulled the one up off of Phil Johnson's site. Grace to you. I would only modify that first statement a little bit.

It is not just to lost mankind that God intends this. In fact, I would argue that, biblically, the strongest statements in regards to the purpose of Scripture and the audience of Scripture is actually to the redeemed, to the church.

The purpose of Scripture being to the church. I would probably, being the churchman that I am, emphasize that a little bit more strongly. Number two, Holy Scripture being God's own word written by men prepared and superintended by His Holy Spirit is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches.

It is to be believed as God's instruction in all that it affirms, obeyed as God's command in all that it requires, embraced as God's pledge in all that it promises. Number three, the Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

Important point, often one upon which tremendous imbalance exists, unfortunately, in many modern situations. Number four, being holy and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts and creation, about the events of world history and about its own literary origins under God than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

That will be expanded upon in the following portions of the Affirmation of Denial. And finally, number five of the summary statement, the authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the church.

Now that, of course, sadly describes the vast majority of theological seminaries in our land today. When I say that, I'm using a fairly wide definition of theological seminaries. You can look from the most conservative to the most liberal and only in a small portion of that spectrum would these articles and this statement be accepted as normative and sadly, in a smaller portion of that spectrum, would the actual application of these things be consistently brought forth.

And that then results, obviously, in a tremendous impact upon the theology and the practice and the teaching within those seminaries. And so we'll pick up with Article 1 on the far side of the break. Here on The Dividing Line, if you've just been waiting to get in, 877 -753 -3341.

Otherwise, we'll continue with the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy right after this.

Try to save your soul from death. It's all works righteousness, you know. Can I manufacture grace, myself and I, in some religious place by weeping hard on your face or saying prayers to some dead saints, you know.

It's not through creeds or liturgy.

Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

In their book, The Same-Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject, explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality, including Genesis, Leviticus and Romans.

Expanding on these scriptures, they refute the revisionist arguments, including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law. In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for His people.

The Same-Sex Controversy, defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at aomin .org.

Sponsor Read: The King James Only Controversy

Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the Word of God James White, in his book, The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith.

In a readable and responsible style, author James White traces the development of Bible translations, old and new, and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

You can order your copy of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, by going to our website at www .aomin .org.

Sponsor Read: Chosen But Free and Calvinism

What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen But Free, A New Cult, Secularism, False Prophecy Scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism.

He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant. In his book, The Pottish Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler,. But the Pottish Freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself. In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the gospel preached by the Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture.

The Pottish Freedom, a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at aomin .org.

We are the ones that make this new world.

You know, I'm really impressed somebody in channel was asking if that was me singing. My sole claim to fame in singing is that one time, yes, one time, I backed up Steve Camp while singing, not that song, but, well, no, we did Cornerstone.

I at least know that one. We may have done two songs, but specifically Cornerstone. And that's my one claim to fame. I have a second claim to fame. Steve called me this morning. Steve Camp called me this morning.

And I get up. I've been doing the late-nighters recently, trying to get this book done. And, yes, it was a memorable experience for me. There is no two ways about it. That was one of the highlights of my life.

And I got up this morning, and my cell phone's doing the beep thing it does whenever you have a voicemail. And so I call my voicemail, and Steve had called me. Steve Camp had called me at 5 .56 a .m. my time.

And he does that.

Man, I've been laying there and made the mistake of having the cell phone too close to the bedroom. And, you know, I hear the, you know, you stumble out of bed. You strain three different muscles as you're trying to keep from running into things.

And you grab the phone, and he's like, Oh, brother, man, I didn't think you'd get up this early. The phone's ringing.

What do you want?

But I hadn't heard it this time. So he had left me a message. We're trying to arrange doing something or having problems doing it. So, anyway, that is Steve Camp singing, and not me singing. We use Steve's music for our bumpers.

And so anyone who's heard me sing would never confuse me with Steve Camp.

I assure you of that.

See, if you had gone on the cruise, then you would know, having probably heard him sing and then having heard me sing. Someone just sent me an email saying, Hey, I ordered Bay Baiting Calvinism three weeks ago.

I still haven't gotten it. So I just forwarded that to the people who... Folks, I have nothing to do with that. I just forwarded it to the people who do. And, obviously, there was a problem with the order somewhere along the line.

And we'll get it figured out. So we are looking at the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy. What I like about the second section, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, is that when you put them in both those ways, when you put Affirmation and Denial together, you're really...

That's one of the things I like about oral debates is that you're putting them side by side.

And...

Aw, thanks, Unical Man. I have sung next to Dr. O. He ain't a bad bass. No, I do not sing with a British accent. I could, but I do not.

Anyway...

But, however, I should mention before I get back that I've been invited to go to London. And if I go to London and do some debates over there, I can guarantee you that if you listen to those debates and compare them...

Compare them with what comes out of the normal debate type stuff, it's going to sound British. I can't help it. It's just that when I'm around British folks,.

I just stop sounding British.

Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, Articles 1–3

Let's look at a couple of these articles. And then we have one phone call that wants to revisit the discussion with Pierre from last program in regards to John 3 .16. It's not Pierre, but someone else.

Articles of Affirmation and Denial. Article 1. We affirm that the Holy Scriptures to be received as the authoritative Word of God. We deny the Scriptures receive their authority from the church tradition or any other human source.

One thing I really appreciate concerning the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy is that it has a logical progression in its affirmations and in its beliefs. And that is, inerrancy is based upon the nature of Scripture being God-breathed.

That's what gives rise to inerrancy. If you don't see the organic relationship between where the Scriptures come from, what their origin and source and nature is, and all the other issues concerning inerrancy and accuracy and the ability of Scripture as a divine body to communicate truth, then you're going to be completely lost.

And unfortunately, that's what happens in so much of modern theology, is you have this discombobulation, this atomization of things into all these separate categories, and you don't see the organic whole that is there.