Expert: Mr. McClellan - 2/12/2008

Question
Does the term "free citation" refer to paraphrasing, or does it refer to what we call in modern society "plagiarism"?



I ask specifically in reference to Article XIII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, the secong part of which reads: 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.



Do you think this refers to the ancient practice of using others' words, or documents as sources (such as Mark as a source for Matthew and Luke), without giving proper credit, or does it refer to the paraphrasing of OT Scritpures in the NT?

Thank you for your help.

Grace and Peace,

Joseph


Answer
Hello Joseph,
I am glad to be of help.
I am pretty sure the author of that article meant the use of other sources and documents without giving proper credit, but I have discoverd that most people, including journalists, do not always know how to say what they mean, or that sometimes (if not often) they do not really know what they are talking about. So, to be absolutely certain about what the author meant you should send him/her an email and ask.

However, I would like to make a brief comment in the form of questions about the topic of the article which I gather was linked to the "inspiration of the scriptures and how to correctly understand them." If "faith" means "belief that does not require proof" as current dictionaries say, and if such faith is required by God, and if no one can know with certainty what the Bible actually teaches so that God must accept the common notion that everyone's opinion is correct, and if "We must walk by faith and not by sight" means "living without solid and objective proof of what is believed," then what about the people that God is supposed to have chosen to reveal his will to and that they were supposed to share with others? Was their faith destroyed due to the fact that they would have known for certain? These people were supposed to have been given the power to perform miracles that no one could duplicate without God making it possible in order to confirm that what they said was really a revelation from God (See John 3:1-3). People who witnessed those miracles would no longer have had faith, they would have had absolute proof, or absolute knowledge. If "faith" is belief without solid objective proof for what is believed, then why did God supposedly give certain people the power to perform miracles as proof of the source and truthfulness of what those people said? If God requires this kind of faith, shouldn't he have just kept quiet and let people guess about what he requires? Shouldn't those biblical prophets, including Jesus and his apostles and all those early Christians, who the scriptures said were given various miraculous powers, have had to try to convince and convert non believers simply by means of logical arguments without the help of miracles to prove that what they said was true? If that had been the case, then the idea that "it dosen't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere" would make sense. That idea is expressed in numerous ways like, "everyone is right in his own way," "there are many paths to God," etc. Doesn't the Bible say, in various ways and places, that unless a person claiming to have a message from God can work miracles to prove his claim, that no one can be held responsible for not believing what that person says? In fact, it clearly states that people are not to believe a supposed prophet unless they can present such miraculous proofs. That is how people were supposed to be able to distinguish a true prophet of God from a false prophet, or teacher so that they would not be fooled into believing a lie. The Bible also clearly says that there would be many peoople who would present tricks, or false miracles, in order to get people to follow them. So, there has to be a foolproof way to tell the difference between real miracles and the false miracles done by frauds. And, if no one can know the truth for certain, then there can be no such thing as a false prophet or false teacher. Right? And, even if there are false teachers and prophets God could not justly hold them accountable and punish them because they could not know if what they were teaching was true or false. Right? Think about it, even a person who has a prejudiced opinion can accidentally be correct.
Now, I know for certain what the answers to all these questions, and many other, are. They were not meant to just be rhetorical. I just wanted to pose them for your consideration.
I hope that I have been of help.
Sincerely,
Mr. McClellan