The Chicago Statement: The Good, the Bad, and the “wish it had said more”
Posted By MSH on July 9, 2008
The title pretty much sums up my feelings about the Chicago Statement. Below I have pasted its (sort of) preamble, and then its affirmations and denials. I’ve interspersed a few comments (blocked off).
I. SUMMARY STATEMENT
1. 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.
2. 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.
I have to wonder what is meant by “in all matters upon which it touches.” Just what kind of “touching” is meant?
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. 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.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited of 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.
II. ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL
Article I.
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.
Article II.
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.
Article III.
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.
Article IV.
We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.
We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God’s work of inspiration.
Article V.
We affirm that God’s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.
We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.
Article VI.
We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.
We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.
I think the Westminster crowd needs to read this one. How can one affirm verbal, plenary inspiration (the words and every word), and KNOW that this includes, for instance, (1) synoptic divergences; (2) subtle alteration of OT statements in quotations by NT authors; (3) deliberate and transparent agendas on the part of the writer (e.g., the “problem of the Chronicler”) and then DENY that Scripture is also the product of men? Good grief.
Article VII.
We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.
Article VIII.
We affirm that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.
The Westminster addendum: “We affirm that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared — but for sure Scripture is not a product of their handiwork; it is only the product of God. Why he chose human agency but didn’t allow it to accomplish anything or show itself evident is a mystery.”
Article IX.
We affirm that inspiration, through not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
We deny that the finitude or falseness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.
I have problems with this one (the wording). “True and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the biblical authors were moved to speak and write” – like a woman’s hair being part of her fertility? Huh? Like the skies being spread out as hard as a cast metal mirror (Job 37:18)? Etc., etc. This language is more inappropriate than the “affirming” weasel-wording we’ve chatted about already. But the last part is even worse — it can be read as a denial of divine condescension in such matters.
Article X.
We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
Article XI.
We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated.
“All matters that it addresses” – sounds like the affirming weasel-wording. Is this phrase supposed to be consistent with the one in article IX?
Article XII.
We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
Despite the wording here (which I think is ill-advised), I think this could be (pardon me) “affirmed” by someone who relegated bad science in Scripture to divine accommodation. Maybe that’s wishful thinking on my part.
Article XIII.
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
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.
I like this sentence: “We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose.” Great — How come the writers of the Statement didn’t seem to see that this sentence stands opposed to some of the other parts I’ve noted (or at least isn’t completely in line with them)?
Article XIV.
We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.
We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved violate the truth claims of the Bible.
Article XV.
We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.
We deny that Jesus’ teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.
Well, I’m guessing I’d agree with this language, but I’d still argue in favor of divine accommodation in other areas besides Jesus’ “teaching about Scripture.”
Article XVI.
We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history.
We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.
Article XVII.
We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God’s written Word.
We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.
Article XVIII.
We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads or relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims of authorship.
Hard to believe hard-line non-dispensationalists would go along with this one. It just goes to show you that the notion that subscribers to the Statement could sort of define these dicta as they needed to was (and is) alive and well. And I’m not really opposed to that.
Article XIX.
We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.
We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.
END of excerpts.
A lot to like here, but I think it can (and must be) improved.
Comments
3 Responses to “The Chicago Statement: The Good, the Bad, and the “wish it had said more””
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
“We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims of authorship.”
We deny the legitimacy of any method that leads to outcomes we don’t approve of. Boo, hiss. This assumes the answer before the question is considered — or even asked. You’re not allowed to ask. We don’t take kindly to your kind around here. Apparently, the proper way to deal with inconvenient data is to bar the methodological gates.
I know that I am one of the Huns in this particular narrative, but I’ve already come to terms with that.
In Article VI, on inspiration “down to the very words of the original”, Doc H brings up “subtle alteration of OT statements in quotations by NT authors”.
I’ve never really understood why the quotation of OT in the NT is such a stumbling block. Sure, I get the basic contradiction (how can a supposed misquotation be inspired?”) Why can’t both the source and the quotation be inspired in their separate instances? They both occur in different documents, written for different audiences at different times, with different purposes.
I have the same lack of understanding about synoptic divergences. In his preface, Luke flat-out says that he uses other sources. What’s the big deal?
Any workable theory of inspiration must let authors be authors. It must allow authors to write things that we don’t fully understand. It must allow authors to build and present their own cases.
In other words, any workable theory of inspiration must allow authors *to be human*, because they were. Did the Holy Spirit work in the process somehow? Sure, I’d say so.
As Article VII says, “the mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.” If that’s the case, then it must remain mysterious; we can’t attempt to peek behind the curtain of the mystery by hopping on the verbal plenary bandwagon.
Given Article VII, I don’t see how Article VIII makes sense at all. God used “distinctive personalities” but God, while choosing the very words the writers wrote (even though ‘mode’ is unknowable, we know God chose words? That sounds like ‘mode’ to me), didn’t override their personalities? It’s like an algebra equation:
2 + X + 3 = 10
with the caveat that X != 5. Huh?
Bottom line for me: God’s Word is trustworthy and reliable, as 2Ti 3.16 notes, “for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness”. It communicates what he wanted to communicate, how he wanted to communicate it … because he’s God. I don’t need a closely-worded statement that tries to be precise and ends up being overbearing and kludgy to tell me that.
Rairdan: Agreed. I see no reason why letting the authors be who they were, living when they were, and limited as they were in terms of knowledge, should be of harm to the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. But this “humanness” is precisely what the Chicago Statement and the “Westminster Addendum” address insufficiently, or deny outright. If God is “in” a very human process (like the canonicity issue is articulated by evangelicals, Westminster included), then there should be no problem with letting them be human — God can take care of his end. There’s no problem with using a quotation a specific way under God’s direction, or paraphrasing (or making up) dialogue in the synoptics (no one hand a tape recorder, and they don’t all agree – all the gospels simply CANNOT be reproducing the ACTUAL real-time words of anyone, Jesus included). So what? Their recall was assisted by the Spirit and each are faithful to the gist of what was said and taught. How Westminster can ignore something so obvious in their statement is disturbing to me, since it’s the kind of thing that will drive people away from inerrancy, not draw people to it.