2. God's gospel is authoritatively announced in the Scriptures �

We believe that God has spoken through the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments. They are the verbally inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for salvation, and the ultimate authority that stands over every realm of human knowledge and endeavor. Therefore, the Bible is to be believed in all that it affirms, obeyed in all that it requires, and trusted in all that it promises.

Questions (please feel free to respond to any or all of these questions):

1. What are your thoughts about this article following the article on God? What are the strengths? What are the weaknesses?

2. Notice the ways in which the Bible is referenced: Scriptures (2x), Old and New Testaments, writings, Bible. Are there other important ways to refer to the Bible that are being overlooked? Is there a difference between a reference to Scripture (singular) and Scriptures (plural)? Is it fitting to refer to Scriptures (plural) and Bible (singular)?

3. In the reference to �God has spoken,� it refers to the Bible. But we would also say that God continues to speak today through that same Bible. Is this continuing to speak in the Scripture important to state, or is that our assumption in the expression referring to the past? It could be used in a perfective sense, i.e. God has spoken and those words have ongoing authority and significance today.

4. The reference to �the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments� refers to the 66 books of the Bible. Today in light of the prominence of The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of Judas, is it important to reference explicitly the 66 books of the Bible, or can it still be assumed that what is said in this article is sufficient?

5. There are some key things being stated: verbally inspired . . . without error . . . complete revelation . . . ultimate authority. Are there other things that need to be stated about the Scripture today? Does the expression �verbally inspired� communicate clearly what we want to affirm, or is there a better expression that gets at the same truth?

6. What is being affirmed in this statement? What is being denied?

7. How is the truth of the doctrine of the Bible being undermined today, within evangelicalism and outside of evangelicalism?

8. How important is it to address things like Postmodernism and the notion of truth and epistemology?

9. Most Creeds and Statements of Faith do not include an explicit statement on hermeneutics. Do you agree with this? What is your sense of not including an explicit statement on it in our SOF? Most, however, do have an implicit hermeneutic that focuses on essential truths of the Scripture that guide our interpretation. As you consider this, what are the key principles being stated in our SOF? How does this compare or contrast with the 1950 SOF?

10. What do you like/dislike about including orthodoxy and orthopraxy, i.e. stating truths about the Bible and also including our response to it? What are the strengths and weaknesses of doing this?