(Legal Disclaimer: This image is not from Photobucket. It in no-way infringes upon anyone’s bogus claim to Photobucket ownership or use of Photobucket bandwidth - whatever that may be.)
Posted on 07/04/2012 1:16:13 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Hi friend! I owe you an email I know. I’ve been in slow motion mode again, lol. Hope your trip was good.
You hit it on the head about Quix, and truth to be known, he has written how he loved JR - so it’s really sad....
Thanks for your verification, I knew I was right about the other sites. I think I read up into the 900’s on this thread and then lost track. Things eventually evolve into other subjects and catfights and I stop reading. Good to see you!!!
(((HUGS))) to you both!
;-)
They don’t know what to make of me over there.
Sorry to disappoint you ... but you won’t find these people listed in the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” ... advocating “snake handling” ... LOL ...
These people are mainstream and well-respected Christian Evangelicals, mainly in the USA but also around the world.
You’ve got people from leading seminaries and those who have dedicated their lives to the Word of God and bringing it to people - and they’re not about “snake handling”. That’s usually an ignorant and common idea among the uninformed.
And for those who don’t know who those people are in that statement, they have some listed here ... (and for someone who might want all the names, I did have those at one time, but I would have to search for it right now. Let me know if you want it).
Here’s one reference to it and some names.
— — —
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
with Exposition
Background
The “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
The ICBI disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986. The following text, containing the “Preface” by the ICBI draft committee, plus the “Short Statement,” “Articles of Affirmation and Denial,” and an accompanying “Exposition,” was published in toto by Carl F. H. Henry in God, Revelation And Authority, vol. 4 (Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1979), on pp. 211-219. The nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, with a brief introduction, also appear in A General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, rev. 1986), at pp. 181-185. An official commentary on these articles was written by R. C. Sproul in Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary (Oakland, Calif.: ICBI, 1980), and Norman Geisler edited the major addresses from the 1978 conference, in Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).
Clarification of some of the language used in this Statement may be found in the 1982 Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
— — —
And then Dallas Theological Seminary, one of the pre-eminent seminaries in the world, and also in the USA - has a copy of it in their archives and they put it in PDF format here.
http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf
All those things you say we cannot re-elect Obama for, are things Romney would very probably do under the banner of Republican, though his causes might be different -- he's a big believer in global warming, for example. You have your eyes squeezed tightly shut to what Romney is, and are seeing him only as you hope he'd be. You are also squeezing your eyes tightly shut to any role conservatives in Congress, increased in number and motivated to keep right by the clear rejection of Romney, would have in opposing Obama. So you reach your conclusions based on incomplete factors.
Romney isn't a risk. He's a sure bet -- for making liberalism more powerful in both parties and making conservatives and conservatism in the Republican party weaker.
With my third party vote, I forfeit any say in influencing whether or not we get Obama or Romney. What I am voting for is to join the millions of Americas on both sides of the aisle who are disgusted with both of them, and pray that the next president is so weak politically that he could only muster a little more than one vote in three because of bleed-off to third party candidates by thoroughly fed-up voters. Heaven knows that both Obama and Romney are so weak that this could actually happen in 2012. It's a Hail Mary pass, but it's the only play open to me -- Romney is off the table for me in every way, from moral to political. I refuse to vote against my own spiritial and political interests, and a vote for Romney would be just that.
Regardless of how the electoral college vote worked out, the popular vote has the potential of putting the next lemon president -- and he will be something more than a lemon -- on defense. It's the best any of us can hope for, because no matter how many boogie men you shake at us, no matter how many scary scenarios you present, the fact remains that as president, Romney would make liberals more powerful in both parties, and the fact remains that Obama would do the opposite, whether he meant to or not.
As I said, when one person says that something is not “coherent” with “pretensions of theology” - and they’re talking about the joint effort of about 300 of these pre-eminent Evangelical scholars - I usually tell the person “thinking that” - that it’s probably THEM that has the real problem ... :-)
And that “joint effort” that we’re talking about, which “you” seem to find to be not coherent ... LOL ... is the following ...
— — —
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
with Exposition
Background
The “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
The ICBI disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986. The following text, containing the “Preface” by the ICBI draft committee, plus the “Short Statement,” “Articles of Affirmation and Denial,” and an accompanying “Exposition,” was published in toto by Carl F. H. Henry in God, Revelation And Authority, vol. 4 (Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1979), on pp. 211-219. The nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, with a brief introduction, also appear in A General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, rev. 1986), at pp. 181-185. An official commentary on these articles was written by R. C. Sproul in Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary (Oakland, Calif.: ICBI, 1980), and Norman Geisler edited the major addresses from the 1978 conference, in Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).
Clarification of some of the language used in this Statement may be found in the 1982 Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
HUGS back attcha Yorkie!!
Aw, c’mon Quix. Aren’t they missing your babble over at TBL?
Considering that the only other option is Republican socialist POS for a first term, as opposed to a DEMOCRAT socialist POS for a second term, yes. In what world does electing a liberal statist help fight liberal statism? Especially when that liberal statist you elect is the de-facto head and most powerful member of the only political party positioned to oppose the liberal statist agenda?
That's nuts!
In ANY case, a vote FOR a plurality via third party to weaken the victory of whichever socialist POS wins, holds absolutly zero sway over whether the Democrat or the Republican wins. Those of us who vote third party are forfeiting any influence in how that question is settled. We aren't voting for either of them -- we're voting for weakening the popular mandate of whichever bastard wins.
Of course, the entitlement-minded among us don't get that. They wrongly calculate that any refusal to vote for Romney is a vote "for" Obama because they believe in their hearts that the Republican, no matter how much a socialist POS, is entitled to a conservative's vote; they are as wrong as folks on welfare who think they're entitled to the fruits of conservatives' labor.
Absolutely.
************************************
You are unique. :)
I’m sorry to have to fill you in on what’s going on here, since you appear to be confused — but — what you’ve got here is a thread where it’s “about Quix” and some of Quix’s friends are here also telling people about him, too. And the prior post you read is one of the friends of Quix.
I know with a long thread, it might be hard to keep up ... so I thought I would fill you in on the details here ... :-)
I hope that helps.
You’re so kind.
That’s sick.
I don't.
Hmmmm...what brought that on?
Just check out the posting similarities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.