KFA Belief Principles:creation

 "AFA believes God created mankind both male and female in His image and likeness.  Every human being bears the imago deo.  Therefore in the sanctity of human life whhich must be protected from conception through natural expiration."
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
 Theogians have been casually divided over the meaning of the image of God. Some argued for man's sense of reason. Others remarked about mans ability to develop relationships. or perhaps man's many powers. It is quite likely that God's image has these and many other qualities.
Psalm 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:7 All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.9 O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!"
Some have wondered if man not lost the image of God due to his moral depravity and the fall. It does appear to have been a downgrade in the scripture."
genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:"
Colossians 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.
We still do seem to bear the image of God to a degree though.
john 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
 But the attribute that we should focus on about is the dignity of mankind.
James 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."
Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
If there is anything physical with dignity it is humanity. Now our evil deeds do ruin the image.  But I believe this is why you see so much of an amazing spirit within children.
Yet as people drift away from God they also drift away from humanity.
Matthew 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:"
So we take a stand against not only murder in the sense of homocide,  but the killing of children in and out of the womb and even in old age. Because we revere the image of God.
Colossians 1:Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:"

Lee Strobel's accidental scoop! Leading Conservative text critic Daniel B. Wallace is not conservative in reality!

     So I was at a flee market the last source of intellectual freedom in America.  I found a book by Lee Strobel.  In fact it was a signed copy!  For only 3$!  As an apologist I am interested in what strobel has to say.  Not only does he have a talent for gathering information with his journalistic skill but he also has talent in his presentation. We  are looking at his book "The case for the Real Jesus" However, the hidden apologetic issue which I have found is textual criticism.  One of the most popular conservative text critics of our time is a man named Daniel Wallace, Wallace was not from my academic circle (SBTS) and as a result I just didn't notice his work until after I had written my book. So I was surprised at what I saw when I read this interview.  Let's see what I have gleamed from this interview.

 "How would you answer Robert Funk who wrote with his Jesus Seminar coauthors: "Why, if God took such pains to preserve an inerrant text for posterity, did the Spirit not provide for the preservation of original copies of the Gospels?
  Wallace chuckled, "Judging by how the mediaeval church worshipped all sorts of relics, it's a good thing God didn't do that!' He said ' Enough pieces of Jesus cross have been found to build the Rose Bowl. What kind of Chaos would we have if people claimed to have an original of a popular book?  Or if we actually did have the originals intacted[sic], what would happen?  My guess is that those manuscripts would be venerated but not examined.  They would be worshipped But not studied" pg. 72
       So the first thing we notice is that Wallace presupposes  that God did not preserve perfect copies of the gospels.  How does he have that super power to know if there were ever perfect copies made?  He can only make claims about the surviving manuscripts which he has found.  Wallace then speculates that if they had survived, then they would become idols.  The inverse of this says that by not having perfect copies God is eliminating idolatry,  Of course this is poppycock. For one thing Wallace boast about the massive amount of idolatry in the mediaeval era. Typically many a liberal has made the accusation that those who view the KJV or the TR as the original text are idolators.  But how does Wallace treat his own manuscripts?  


"Wallace with unruly grey hair and a greying Goatee, couldn't resist showing me his prized possession.  Carefully removing a thick Volume from the bookshelf, he opened it on his desk.  It was one of the 450 modern reproductions of Codex Vaticanus, A manuscript dating less than 250yrs after the New Testament was written.  Some say the original codex was among the 50 Bibles that emperor Constantine ordered to be produced after the Council of Nicea.
Wallace gently turned the vellum pages to show me the columns of Greek neatly fitted written in uncial (or capital) letters, stealing a glance at my reaction to see if I registered appropriate appreciation for the manuscripts beauty, history and significance.  The truth was that I was awestruck.  So detailed was this copy, meticulously handmade at the Vatican, that it even featured holes in the pages at the same spots where the actual manuscript is worn through." pg 71
  It is interesting how they went from criticizing Roman catholic idolatry to giving hyper dulia to A roman Catholic artifact! Especially since a lot of the drooling is over the artistic furnishing of the copy instead of it's "self evident accuracy".  But in reality the real document is not so neatly put together.

"J.H. Ropes describes the quality of the codex: Codex Siniaticus is carelessly written, with many lapses of spelling due ti the influence of dialectal and vulgar speech, and many plain errors, and crude vagaries. Omissions by homoeoteleuton abound, and there are many other careless ommissions.  All these gave a large field for the work of correctors, and the manuscript does not stand by any means on the same level of workmanship as B."
 Paul D. Wegner The Journey from the Texts to the Translations


"First of all," he said rather than having one stream of transmission, we have multiple streams."pg. 81
        This admission seems small. But it opens up a can of worms for the Original Autographs Onlyist.
They start off with the presupposition that since they do not personally see uniformity in their collection of manuscripts that preservation is impossible. but truth be told there are many streams and some they have not observed.  Any of these could preserve the text and perhaps if one text is hidden another is available to that specific generation. What if there were perfect copies in those centuries available to people that were burnt up for the current generation? This may be akin to basketball when someone makes a halfcourt to fullcourt shot.  It may be very rare, but it happens. Because copying a manuscript is a human feat.  Most manuscripts may not be perfect but some can be. Especially when we consider multiple streams. who says that the scribe can only copy with one manuscript?  Just as much as collation can lead to confusion, collation can indeed lead to purification.



"How do we define infallibility?' I asked"
"My Definition of infallibility is the Bible is true in what it teaches. My definition of inerrancy is true in what it touches. So infallibility is a more foundational doctrine, which says the Bible is true with reference to faith and practice.  Inerrancy is built on that doctrine and it says that the Bible is also true with reference to faith and practice. Inerrancy is built on that doctrine and it says that the bible is also true when it comes to dealing with historical issues, but still have to look at it in light of 1st century historical practices." pg. 75

INFALLIBIL'ITY (websters 1828 dictionary)

INFAL'LIBLE, adjective [Latin fallo.]1. Not fallible; not capable of erring; entirely exempt from liability to mistake; applied to persons. No man is infallible; to be infallible is the prerogative of God only.2. Not liable to fail, or to deceive confidence; certain; as infallible evidence; infallible success. To whom he showed himself alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs--"
INER'RABLE, adjective [in and err.] That cannot err; exempt from error or mistake; infallible.

    We see that there is no original distinction between infallibility and inerrancy. not to mention that his definition of infallibility is rather limited by comparison to infallibility.  
What does Jesus say on this topic?
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Article XI (Chicago statement)

• We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

"What if you found an incontrovertible error in the Bible" I asked, "How would you react?"
"He thought for a moment, then replied: "I'd say, well, I guess I have to make some adjustments about what I think about the top level of the pyramid. But it would not effect my foundational view of Christ. I don't start by saying 'If the Bible has a few mistakes I have to throw it all out.' Not a logical position.  We don't take that attitude towards Livy, Tacitus Suetonius, or any other ancient historians writings. For instance, does the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus need to be inerrant before we can claim that he got anything right?" pg. 75-76
  How could the Bible be able to have errors if it is not able to have errors?  If you are a born again christian your presuppositions are fixed by a spiritual change alongside an eternal covenant, To renege is basically apostasy.
Matthew 4: 7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
2 Corinthians 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"

Article VII (Chicago statement)

• We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

"So it's not necessary for a person to believe in inerrancy to be a christians?" "However, I wouldn't consider inerrancy to be a primary or essential doctrine for saving faith.  It's what I call a 'protective shell' doctrine.  Picture a concentric, with essential doctrines of Christ and salvation at the core.  A little bit further out are some other doctrines until, finally, outside of everything is Christianity." pg. 76
  So there is a question people forget to ask in this process of common thought.  Is salvation exactly the same as the christians religion?
Obviously I have implied that the two are not synonymous even though they are often common. Christian is about "religion" it is about "works".
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."
 So the condition of receiving salvation is faith in the Gospel of Christ.
  So this is a ruse.  Much like the strategy of Satan.
Genesis 3:1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:"
  The question is an offensive tactic to "move the goal post" Just as being able to eat from a tree was not questioned.  The question of salvation over inerrancy was an attempt to muddy the waters and bring emotions to the topic that were alien to the subject.  This tactic implies that the position was weak.
 "I wouldn't consider inerrancy to be a primary or essential doctrine for saving faith."
You may notice the language here subjective.  this is not a manuscript issue it is a theological issue! It needs the input of scripture.
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

   So the Word of God brings us assurance of salvation.  It is not the spiritual transformation, yet we can only know salvation through the Word of God.  If the Bible can be wrong then salvation can be wrong.
Then if you do not know how to be saved then you might not have gotten saved!? This is why Jesus has assurance of scripture.


"Wallace has been subjecting the New Testament text to scrutiny for decades. "Has your scholarship shaken your belief that the bible is trustworthy?" I asked"
"No, not at all. But it has caused me to see it in a different light," he said 'For example, I thought when I started out when I saw the words of Jesus, they must be exactly those words that he uttered.  But historians of that day, were trying to accurately get the gist of what was said."...."So the Gospels contain a summary of what was said.  And if it is a summary maybe Matthew used some of his own words.to condense it.  That doesn't trouble me in the slightest, it's still trustworthy."pg. 78
  It may not be obvious but Wallace here subtly moves the goal post. When the question is asked about "reliability" an unbeliever may find the Bible to be reliable is some aspects.  This is not a position that takes faith.  The apostle by the way were not reknowned scholars..  They were fishermen,  Matthew and luke had an education so that they could write, but they were not properly historians. No, they were apostles! All the authority that they had rested in the fact that they wrote down what God wanted them to write.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
1 john 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."

article XIII  (Chicago statement)

• 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.

Article XV (Chicago statement)

• We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

"Remarkably. the New Testament writers didn't even know they were writing scripture, So obviously God's work was behind the scenes. In the end, I think this is a greater miracle than a Bible coming down from heaven on golden tablets, because the books of the Bible are a collective product that men embraced on their own immediately and often only much later- recognizing that there was another author behind the scenes. It wasn't until one of the final books of the New testament was written that Peter uses the word scripture in referring to Paul's letters." pg. 74
Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,"
2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

"For some it's almost like a magic wand approach, where the Bible is treated like a modern scientific and historical textbook that's letter perfect. Some Christians would say for example, that the words of jesus are in red letters because that's exactly what he said." pg. 74 Daniel P. Wallace
1 timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"
job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.9 Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment."
Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
   Many of Daniel Wallace's mindset may look at a fundamentalist and say "Somebody didn't get the memo"
  But when I read statements like this I also think "Somebody didn't get the memo" !
The supernatural is an essential element to the Christian worldview,  Many christians like to play an apologetic game.  They try to go as far as they can playing the rules of atheism in hopes of getting respect and popularity.
Now it can be acceptable to play on atheistic reasoning in an apologetic encounter.  But at some point a believer has to BELIEVE!
John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing."

"At times, some made it the litmus test for whether a person is a Christiaan., Wallace said. "Theologian Carl F.H. Henry argued against this in 1976.  He urged young evangelicals to recognize that while inerrancy is important, it's not on the levels of certain other crucial truths-and belief in inerrancy should not be used as an excuse not to engage seriously with history.  Still sometimes christians put a roadblock in front of somebody, they can't become a Christian until they believe in inerrancy" pg 78-79
Article XII (Chicago statement)

• We deny that biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

"Keep in mind that the first christians didn't have a new testament. All they had was the Old Testament and the proclamation of the eye-witnesses to the resurrection.  And Christians down through church history have not always believed in innerrancy.  It really became a major issue during the Reformation and especially in the 20th century debates between modernism and fundamentalism. So it is possible to be a Christian without holding to inerrancy or even infallibility."pg. 76
 "That the Bible is the word of God, inerrent and is of supreme divine authority, was a conviction held by all  christians and christian teachers thrugh the first 1700 years of church history.  Except int he case of certain free-thinking scholastics. such as abelard, this fact has not really been contested by many scholars." pg. 357 Robert D. Preus.  Norman Geisler edit.   "Inerrancy"  The view of the Bible held by the church: The early church through Luther

Article XVIII (Chicago statement)

• We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

"Barth and the host of Neo-orthodox writers who followed him either deny or dismiss as irrelevant the concrete history of the facts of the gospel narrative.  The resurrection of Christ is a case in point.  The neo-orthodox profess faith in the resurrection but they effectively remove it from the realm of concrete history into a sort of super history, which is not to be confused with historical facts. Historical events have no religious or theological significance Neo-orthodoxy can deny the historicity of  the recorded circumstances surrounding biblical events and still maintain that those events legitimately occurred  in Heilsgeschichte* or  the history of salvation.  Barth adopts this approach to every historical fact of the Biblical revelation of God's saving grace." Alan Cairns Dictionary of theological terms "neo-orthodoxy" pg. 288
  Now I am not here to accuse Wallace of Neo-orthodoxy.  But the influence of the neo-orthodox movement over New-Evangelicals was massive. It begs the question of whether this influence led Scholars like Dr, Wallace away from biblical inspiration.


An Accurate classification of Daniel Wallace' view of scripture
"The view of a section of the New Evangelical movement that inerrancy is an inappropriate word to describe the witness they limit it's infallibility to matters of Christian faith and practice.  Prominent names associated with this group include F.F. Bruce, George Eldon Ladd,  G.C.Berkouwer
, Daniel P. Fuller, and Bruce Metzger(Richard J. Coleman, Issues of Theological Conflict p.11) Accepting the classic liberal position that the bible is culturally and historically conditioned, this group agrees with Fuller's claim that scripture  contains much that is non-revelational.  Such material does not rise above the level of the knowledge- or ignorance or superstition- of it's time and place of origin." Alan Cairns Dictionary of theological term pg/ 264-265 "Limited infallibility"

      In the final analysis Daniel Wallace's theology is a symptom of the disease in Neo-Evangelical Seminaries. It should be obvious that the Original Autographs Onlyist is false because it is unbiblical.
Yet many of these scholars trangress even their own convictions developed in the Chicago statement on biblical Inerrancy.
2Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?"
Modern textual criticism denies inspiration.  Worse yet it takes authority over scripture.  So it surpasses an apologetic approach to becomes a religious axiom.  Here Wallace flirst and finally trespasses the border of Inerrancy. His approach lacks any fundamental integrity.
James 3:1My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation."
  To some this article may seem strict. But a man who is a teacher, a teacher to teachers and more. must be held to a higher standard.

Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy

The Short Statement

1. 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.
2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His 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.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in 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.
5. 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.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Articles of Affirmation and Denial

ARTICLE I

• We affirm that the Holy Scriptures 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.

ARTICLE II

• We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.
• We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

ARTICLE III

• We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.
• We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

ARTICLE IV

• We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.
• We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

ARTICLE V

• We affirm that God's revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.
• We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

ARTICLE VI

• We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.
• We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

ARTICLE VII

• We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
• We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

ARTICLE VIII

• We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
• We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

ARTICLE IX

• We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
• We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

ARTICLE X

• We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
• We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of biblical inerrancy invalid or Irrelevant.

ARTICLE XI

• We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
• We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

ARTICLE XII

• We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
• We deny that biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

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.

ARTICLE XIV

• We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.
• We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

ARTICLE XV

• We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.
• We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

ARTICLE XVI

• We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.
• We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

ARTICLE XVII

• We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word.
• We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

ARTICLE XVIII

• We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
• We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

ARTICLE XIX

• We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.
• We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.