Fewer Broken Pieces

After the five point summary, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy moves on to nineteen articles of affirmation and denial (one statement of each per article).  I will comment on the first three here.

(I should note here that my treatment of the Chicago Statement follows the order of that document. The “exposition” section comes last, yet the summary and articles are based on that exposition.  Therefore I will compile a list of questions which are hopefully addressed in the exposition, and my comments may have to revised in light of that final section when I reach it.)

The first article:

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.

It seems that this article requires a corollary concerning the doctrine of the canon.  That is, if our canon does not come from any human source, how do we receive it from God?  And if the canon is indeed from God, how do we decide which attested canon is that which God has provided?  So while we agree that scriptures derive their authority from God, it is more difficult to delineate just what those scriptures are without human tradition.  This article may very well be true, but it requires some additional explanation as to how we know what the scriptures are which we are to receive as divinely authoritative.

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.

Similar to above, this point requires some corollary explanation.  Our ability to apply the scriptures as the supreme norm is dependent on our ability to properly understand those scriptures.  If scripture is going to be the divine arbiter, practically speaking, we need to know just what it is saying.  So we need an authoritative hermeneutic.  What is that, and how do we get to it?  True Christians have had radically different hermeneutical systems.  And even when a given hermeneutic is consistently applied, we cannot always reach a definitive answer as to the meaning of the text for various reasons.

I suppose in the later sections of the Chicago Statement it will be explained why the scriptures are qualitatively different with regard to their authority.  Personally I am inclined to think that “scripture v. tradition” is a false dichotomy.  So the second article needs some consideration of hermeneutics and the nature of the scriptures.

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.

I believe this question is addressed later in the process, but if the text itself is revelation, how does it work in translation?  Linguistically speaking, an exact translation is impossible.  Therefore it seems that revelation cannot be preserved across languages without somehow altering the revelation.  If it is altered, what use is it to say it is inerrant?  This is obviously a scandal for most everyone in the world.  Once again, this should be addressed in the final portion of the Statement.

More later.

The doctrine of inerrancy seems to be falling out of favor.  As I noted before, I am going to be interacting with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.  First, I will look at the five points of the summary, which should help frame the inquiry:

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.

The phrasing here is somewhat odd.  Through what has God revealed himself, Jesus or scriptures?  Well, both, it seems.  It seems to me that the last sentence should be rephrased as “Holy Scripture is one of God’s witnesses to Himself.”  I am not sure if this statement really intends to say that the Bible is the only witness or not, but I think it should be cleared up.  Obviously, based purely on chronology, we can see that the Bible is not a necessary condition for understanding God.

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.

This is perhaps the most troubling for me.  Scripture does not promise anything - it contains records of God’s promises.  Why the equivocation?

The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

While I certainly affirm this, it can be a thorny issue.  Why is it that true believers can understand the scriptures in such radically different ways?  I will address the issue more carefully later.

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.

The main problem I see with this point is that it views the Bible as a generic historical narrative and does not take other genres into account.  What does it mean that the Psalms are inerrant?  The proverbs?  Parables?  Of course we can see from this statement that the drafters of this document viewed the Creation story as a historical narrative.

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 statement of consequences is interesting.  Rhetorically it places dissenters in a difficult position, since they are said to have suffered some sort of loss.  Personally I do not appreciate this point.  I understand that the drafters likely truly believed this, but I will reserve judgement on this point.  As for the point itself, I am not sure I see how the lack of inerrancy as stated here leads to a degradation of scriptural authority.  It seems to me that the scriptures have authority because God gave them, not because they are inerrant.

I suppose I have been quite negative and deconstructive so far, and there is probably more of the same coming.  I do not mean any personal affront to the authors.  I am just interested in interacting with the ideas.

This week I am going to be interacting with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.  It is the defining document on the doctrine of inerrancy among Evangelicals.  I myself have come to something of a crossroads with respect to the topic.  So interacting with this statement should help me understand where I have come from, where I am, and where I may be going.