Chicago Statement on Inerrancy
JAlw@aol.com JAlw@aol.com
Sat, 3 Oct 1998 21:37:49 EDT (00907483069, 5f4289ad.3616d16d@aol.com)
Have the errancy list members already commented lately on the Chicago
Statement? I've been away for most of the last year, so I may be presenting
material of no interest to members. Below are just a few of the positions
taken by the Chicago signatories; my comments are in parentheses.
1. 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 X)
(In other words, if we could find the Bible-writers' original work, we're
certain they would contain zero evidence of any imperfections. That's our
faith, and we're sticking to it.)
2. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may
properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the
flood. (Article XII)
(Any past, present, or future scientific evidence which purports to prove
error in the Biblical account of creation and the flood is--by
definition--flawed.)
3. 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 [in] observational descriptions of nature. . . the use of hyperbole
and round numbers, variant selections of material in parallel accounts. . ..
(Article XIII)
(Any human logic which points to Bible error is--by definition--inadequate.)
4. Imprecise citation was conventional and acceptable and violated no
expectations in those days. . . we must not regard these things as faults when
we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was
not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it.
(If a statement is inaccurate or incorrect, we should assume that it was Gods'
will that the author not worry about precision.)
The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of
seeming discrepancies between one passage and another, and where for the
present no convincing solution is at hand we should maintain our confidence
that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.
(There are no discrepancies in the Bible, only seeming discrepancies.
Whenever these can't be harmonized on Earth, we are certain they will be
in Heaven.)
It would seem that the Chicago Statement provides an almost-bulletproof
defense against any allegation of bible error. Does anybody agree?
Joe Alward