Biblical Inerrancy, the Chicago Statement, and the Old Testament
When surveying teachings on the doctrine of Scripture, one need not look long before encountering biblical inerrancy. After all, “Scripture is the source of evangelical faith, and since inerrancy is ultimately a matter of reading Scripture faithfully inerrancy is often regarded as of the essence of genuine Christian faith.”[1]
However, this doctrine has caused a fair share of misgivings within the last one hundred years, specifically from critical Bible scholars.[2] Often they argue that this teaching of the Church is a nineteenth century “novelty” that is not articulated throughout ecclesiastical history.[3] Conversely, statements affirming this wide-held doctrine have grown within the last century and a half. Among these are the work of men like B. B. Warfield and Carl F. H. Henry. There is also the significant collaborative effort found in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (hereafter CSBI).
The CBSI is the principal statement on biblical inerrancy within modern-day evangelicalism. The statement was penned in 1978 and signed by a virtual who’s who of evangelical leaders. From Francis Schaeffer to Norman Geisler to James Montgomery Boice to R. C. Sproul, these men came together to clarify and affirm the biblical-historical position on inerrancy.[4] The CBSI was followed by the Chicago Statement on Hermeneutics (1982) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Application (1986).
In this essay I discuss the nature of biblical inerrancy as expressed in this premier statement, survey the challenges the framers faced, and observe the implications for Old Testament theology found therein. Of course, both the New and Old Testament are implicated in discussions of inerrancy. However, within this essay, the Old Testament will operate as our case study. The reason is simple. Within the Old Testament, via progressive revelation, a foundation is built in the biblical story. If the Biblical record of creation, the exodus, and the sorted history of the Israelites are replete with errors, then the New Testament stands upon shaky ground.
The Nature of Biblical Inerrancy
Norman Geisler, a key figure in the development of the CSBI, writes, “Perhaps no theological cause in modern times has brought together such divergent elements of the Christian community in such a spirit of unity . . .” He continues, “[It] is a clear indication that there is not true unity apart from unity in the truth, and there is no unity in the truth apart from God’s Word . . .”[5] Geisler dually notes how belief in Scripture’s inerrant truth is a primary cause for Christian unity. For this reason Christians should be concerned with this doctrine and statements regarding it.
The main purpose of the CSBI is not only to define and apply, but also to defend two marks of bibliology that are deeply connected to inerrancy: authority and necessity.[6] Inerrancy is grounded in the doctrine of God Himself. Accordingly CBSI seeks to underscore the conviction that Scripture’s words are God’s Words.[7] If God has spoken, revealing His truth and character through Scripture, then it holds authority and necessity in the Christian life and in the life of the Church. Furthermore, if these are God’s Words, they must reflect His nature—thus the conviction that the Bible is void of error.
Challenges for the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
The CSBI was not articulated within a historical vacuum. James Barr paints the critical historical development well:
For over a century critical scholars had been using historical methods on the biblical books. . . . [They] had come to assert (a) that many biblical books were not written by the persons to whom they were traditionally attributed; (b) that on the contrary they might be made up of layers of material from different periods, put together by a complier at the end of the process; (c) that they contained, or might contain, elements of myth or historical legend, so that the real history of the times had to be reconstructed . . .[8]
The CSBI stands up against such critical Bible scholarship, dealing with its share of detractors and critiques since its inception. However, we should note how well the CSBI dealt with the challenges it sought to answer.
As Mark Thompson notes, “Among the distinctive contributions of this statement is a careful distinction-without-separation of the contested terms inerrant and infallible . . .”[9] This is an important clarification between two words that have elsewhere been used synonymously. Scripture will “infallibly convey the truth about God”[10] while at the same time be inerrant in its content.
Also, the statement addresses “standards of truth and error.”[11] The CSBI effectively describes how literary devices, genre, anachronisms, etc., relate to the doctrine of inerrancy. For these reasons one sees how a statement on inerrancy must be appropriately nuanced. Using words like “truth” and “error” must be clarified and nuanced accordingly. By stating both affirmations and denials, the CSBI is able to articulate nineteen different articles for this ever-important doctrine. Furthermore, the CSBI provides exposition from its theological stance, giving a brief overview of the doctrine of inerrancy.
One must remember, though, that the CSBI was developed in a particular moment in time. It addressed problems and challenges that were pertinent at that cultural moment. Since then, new challenges to the Scriptures have arisen. Thus the CSBI will inevitably be historically limited, but, in many ways, remains relevant.[12]
Implications for the Old Testament
One of the ways the relevance of the CSBI is still seen is in how it addresses issues concerning the Old Testament. In the Old Testament we find what the very acts of God within time and space. These include, among many other events, the creation of the world, the beginning of God’s covenant people, and His ongoing interaction with humanity. As one author wrote, “What one thinks about the accuracy of the Old Testament will be influenced by what he thinks about larger questions.”[13] In this is an inherent epistemological presupposition.[14] If one believes that the Old Testament is comprised of God’s actual revealed truth, it effects how one understands its historical accuracy. Thus the biggest challenge for the Old Testament and inerrancy, arguably, is the matter of historical-critical criticism.
This form of criticism, among other things, rejects Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and asserts that the prophets were the true founders of the Israelite religion. These assertions have far-reaching implications—even for the words of Christ. Christ spoke often concerning the Old Testament, referring to key figures (e.g., Lk. 11:51; Mt. 24:37-39; Jn. 8:56) and historical events (e.g. Mt. 5:12; 8:4; Jn. 7:22; Lk. 2:26). To reject the historicity of these people and events is to reject the very words of Christ. This seems to be the perspective the CSBI takes regarding the Old Testament, noting that it not only points forward to Christ, but also that Christ spoke of it authoritatively.[15]
Much of mentioned historical-criticism was influenced by Hegel’s evolutionary view of history.[16] In an over-simplified sense, Hegel believed that human history was ever evolving, through progression, reaching points of conflict and resolution. Thus mankind would “evolve” in their social interaction. Put simply, historical-criticism finds itself as an heir to a secular worldview and naturalistic epistemology. John Burgess writes, “Different interpretive communities will use historical criticism to different ends. The secular historian will see the history behind the Exodus as nothing more than secular history . . .”[17] This criticism often comes from a more naturalistic epistemology—rejecting not only historical possibilities, but also any supernatural possibilities as well.[18] In this one may find a critical scholar categorically denying all possibilities for the supernatural, advocating for a skeptical empiricism.
There is a direct implication of this criticism for inerrancy and interpretation. What one believes concerning inerrancy (and therefore history as recorded in Scripture) effects how one interprets the Bible. As the CSBI states in regards to interpretation, “[H]istory must be treated as history.”[19] If Scripture claims to be recording history, a conviction for inerrancy—historically defined—tells us to interpret as such. Failing to do so will result in a lack of fidelity to Scripture.
One could argue that discussions regarding inerrancy and the doctrine of Scripture have never been more significant. As one surveys this doctrine, it becomes clear how far reaching the implications are. In light of this, one might say that inerrancy is necessary, not only for the individual Christian, but also the life of the Church.[20] This belief, coupled with a study of the Old Testament, is especially important. As the Old Testament is the subject of continual historical-criticism, one must assess and understand different hermeneutical presuppositions at work in these criticisms. To be correct on the doctrine of inerrancy is to set the course right for the Christian and the Church; consequently, a belief in inerrancy becomes vital to the faithful Christian’s approach to the Bible.
____________________
[1] J. Merrick with Stephen M. Garret, “Introduction: On Debating Inerrancy,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, eds. J, Merrick and Stephen M. Garret (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 9.
[2] To understand the difficulty involved in conceptualizing this term, see Paul Helm, “The Idea of Inerrancy,” in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures, ed. D. A. Carson, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016); and Paul D. Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979).
[3] Mark D. Thompson, “The Divine Investment in Truth: Toward a Theological Account of Biblical Inerrancy,” in Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture, eds. James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 71-73. For a brief rebuttal to this point, see footnote 1 in Thompson’s chapter.
[4] “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition”; http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html; accessed April 28, 2016; Internet; hereafter “Chicago Statement.”
[5] Noman L. Geisler, “Preface,” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), ix.
[6] Ibid., ix.
[7] Merrick, 15.
[8] James Barr, The Bible in the Modern World (London: SCM, 1990), 2.
[9] Thompson, 80.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] R. Albert Mohler, Jr. “When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, 48.
[13] Meredith G. Kline, “Is the History of the Old Testament Accurate?” in Can I Trust the Bible?, ed. Howard F. Vos, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), 135.
[14] For the relation between inerrancy and epistemological presuppositions, see Vern Sheridan Poythress, Inerrancy and Worldview: Answering Modern Challenges to the Bible (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012); and Norman L. Geisler, “Philosophical Presuppositions of Biblical Errancy,” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979)
[15] “Chicago Statement.”
[16] Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998), 20-21.
[17] John P. Burgess, Why Scripture Matters: Reading the Bible in a Time of Church Conflict (Louisville: Westminster John Knox), 5.
[18] Thomas H. McCall, “Religious Epistemology, Theological Interpretation of Scripture, and Biblical Critical Scholarship: A Theologian’s Reflections,” in Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture, eds. James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 44-46.
[19] “Chicago Statement.”
[20] Mohler, Jr., 58.
Recent Comments