Inerrancy-Chicago Statement

[gluadys]

In another thread we began treading on the question of inerrancy. It is a relatively unknown field to me. But this statement was referred to as a "standard".

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm


Before making any other comment, I would like to know how standard it is.

Would those who subscribe to the inerrancy of scripture please point out any aspect of this statement they do NOT agree with.

That way, we won't be making any false assumptions about personal perspectives.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The Chicago Statement is very, very standard. When asked 'what is the standard cross-denominational confession on biblical inerrancy?' the answer is always, without fail, the Chicago Statement.

 

[gluadys]

The Chicago Statement is very, very standard. When asked 'what is the standard cross-denominational confession on biblical inerrancy?' the answer is always, without fail, the Chicago Statement.

OK, apparently there is no objection to the Chicago Statement as a doctrinal standard of inerrancy.

What aroused my interest was a poster's reference to accepting scripture when it spoke "authoritatively and clearly". This suggested a limitation which I did not associate with inerrancy, which I understood to include the concept that scripture always speaks authoritatively (if not always clearly).

So that is what I checked for first in this statement.

To me it seems the bolded phrases do indeed affirm no exception to the authority, infallibility or inerrancy of scripture, no matter how trivial the comment or how peripheral the subject matter.

(From the summary)

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:

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.

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.


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.


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.
​

Am I understanding these statements correctly?

 

[chaoschristian]

Am I understanding these statements correctly?

I believe you are understanding those statements correctly.

Article XII, specifically, while not mentioning astronomy and cosmology, would logically extend to those fields per the second sentence.

 

[Calminian]

I believe you are understanding those statements correctly.

Article XII, specifically, while not mentioning astronomy and cosmology, would logically extend to those fields per the second sentence.

Wow! The term "sunset" really does prove geocentrism. Way to apply good logical reasoning guys!

 

[Calminian]

Wow! The term "sunset" really does prove geocentrism. Way to apply good logical reasoning guys!

Just trying to jump start things. Anybody know where this is going?

 

[shernren]

Wow! The term "sunset" really does prove geocentrism. Way to apply good logical reasoning guys!

Chaoschristian was in essence repeating what the second sentence of Article XII states:

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.​

Thus, either your statement is a strawman (and chaoschristian intended in no way to start talking about geocentrism) or the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy logically implies geocentrism. Well done.

In any case. theFijian has gone on record before as stating that he agrees with the Chicago Statement; he's a TE. Why not ask him?

 

[Calminian]

Chaoschristian was in essence repeating what the second sentence of Article XII states:

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.​

Thus, either your statement is a strawman (and chaoschristian intended in no way to start talking about geocentrism) or the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy logically implies geocentrism. Well done.

In any case. theFijian has gone on record before as stating that he agrees with the Chicago Statement; he's a TE. Why not ask him?

I guess I'll just sit tight and wait for the conclusions to start pouring in. I'm sure they're coming soon.

 

[chaoschristian]

Wow! The term "sunset" really does prove geocentrism. Way to apply good logical reasoning guys!

Just trying to jump start things. Anybody know where this is going?

What? Your first statement is a non sequitor. I have no idea where you are going with that thought.

This thread was started out of an exchange between Mark and gluadys regarding the nature of scripture vis-a-vis ancient cosmology in general, not geocentrism in particular.

Specifically at issue is whether or not Mark's statement's regarding the inerrancy of scriptural statements about cosmology hold water when judged agains the standard of scriptural inerrancy.

I had no intent nor desire to discuss geocentrism in this thread.

 

[Calminian]

What? Your first statement is a non sequitor. I have no idea where you are going with that thought.

This thread was started out of an exchange between Mark and gluadys regarding the nature of scripture vis-a-vis ancient cosmology in general, not geocentrism in particular.

Specifically at issue is whether or not Mark's statement's regarding the inerrancy of scriptural statements about cosmology hold water when judged agains the standard of scriptural inerrancy.

I had no intent nor desire to discuss geocentrism in this thread.

Well, it wasn't a non sequitor, as I was not the one establishing the premises. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what they are. It was merely a speculation trying to draw out the inferences from the OP.

And I think I actually participated in that exchange a little. But I'll wait. I'm sure it will all start making sense soon.

 

[gluadys]

What?
I had no intent nor desire to discuss geocentrism in this thread.

Nor did I, though at some point it may be unavoidable.

Calminian did say that he would have to start with the very basics to discuss inerrancy with me, and he felt that might be too condescending. I don't feel that it would. So this is a place for me to try and get a sense of the basics.

Another article that interested me is this one:

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.​

I have some questions here.

1. I understand this to mean that the doctrine of inerrancy includes more than the simple concept that scripture is free of error.

It includes a commitment to one specific hermeneutical principle: namely grammatical-historical exegesis.

Is that right?

2. What is meant by grammatical-historical exegesis. The "grammatical" part seems straightforward enough and almost unnecessary. No exegesis would be valid if it departs from the grammar of the text. But what is the significance of "historical" and of coupling the phrase "grammatical-historical"?

3. Why link inerrancy to a specific exegetical principle at all? And why to this principle in particular?

 

[mark kennedy]

Another article that interested me is this one:

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.​

I have some questions here.

1. I understand this to mean that the doctrine of inerrancy includes more than the simple concept that scripture is free of error.

It includes a commitment to one specific hermeneutical principle: namely grammatical-historical exegesis.

Is that right?

That sounds about right to me. I wasn't really interested in the thread but that statement seems like an interesting principle.

2. What is meant by grammatical-historical exegesis. The "grammatical" part seems straightforward enough and almost unnecessary. No exegesis would be valid if it departs from the grammar of the text. But what is the significance of "historical" and of coupling the phrase "grammatical-historical"?

Sometimes there are subtleties in the original that do not come out in the translation. The thing here is that the canon of Scripture is in the original. I think they are anticipating that there is a need to look at the construction of the original text as historical but in the context of the language used.

3. Why link inerrancy to a specific exegetical principle at all? And why to this principle in particular?

You have to understand that exegesis is going deeper into the original, exhaustively when possible. Just as the Scriptures are only truly canonical in the original the inerrancy is only truly without error in the original.

It sounds pretty straightforward to me.

 

[gluadys]

The thing here is that the canon of Scripture is in the original. I think they are anticipating that there is a need to look at the construction of the original text as historical but in the context of the language used.




You have to understand that exegesis is going deeper into the original, exhaustively when possible. Just as the Scriptures are only truly canonical in the original the inerrancy is only truly without error in the original.

It sounds pretty straightforward to me.

Can we sum this up by saying that to you "historical" in this context means the historical text, i.e. the text of the original autographs?

So it does not mean that it would be illegitimate to apply say a feminist exegesis to the text as long as one is exegeting the original text.

 

[shernren]

And whose definition of "historical" are we using? After all, there are plenty of philosophies of history, including evolutionary notions, modernist notions, po-mo notions ...

 

[vossler]

And whose definition of "historical" are we using?

Of course which ever one supports one's own theories or worldview.

If it wasn't so then this question wouldn't have been asked, right?

 

[mark kennedy]

Can we sum this up by saying that to you "historical" in this context means the historical text, i.e. the text of the original autographs?

First of all we don't have the autographs, we do have an abundance of nearly identical copies for the New Testament. There are some 30,000 extant manuscripts that do not differ significantly, these are collectively known as the originals. The Old Testament on the other hand were so meticulously well preserved that their distance from the autographs are not an issue.

So it does not mean that it would be illegitimate to apply say a feminist exegesis to the text as long as one is exegeting the original text.

Honestly, I wouldn't care if a feminist or Issac Asimov are exegeting the text, it's going to come out the same.

Ancient texts submitted as manuscripts get a presumption of law called 'the judgment of charity'.

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. (Simon Greenleaf, the Testimony of the Evangelists)​

In other words it is considered to be free of error until proven otherwise.

 

[mark kennedy]

And whose definition of "historical" are we using? After all, there are plenty of philosophies of history, including evolutionary notions, modernist notions, po-mo notions ...

I like this one:

Works that profess to be historical are of various kinds and trustworthy in varying degrees.

1. There is the historical romance, which in a framework of history interweaves an invented tale. Some of the Apocryphal tales of the Apostles are of this class, springing apparently from a desire to provide Christian substitutes for the popular romances of the period.
2. There is the legend, in which popular fancy, working for generations, has surrounded a real person and real events with such a mass of extraneous matter that the historical kernel is hardly discernible.
3. There is the history of the second or third rate, in which the writer, either using good authorities carelessly and without judgment, or not possessing sufficiently detailed and correct authorities, gives a narrative of past events which is to a certain degree trustworthy, but contains errors in facts and in the grouping and proportions, and tinges the narrative of the past with the color of his own time. In using works of this class the modern student has to exercise his historical tact, comparing the narrative with any other evidence that can be obtained from any source, and judging whether the action attributed to individuals is compatible with the possibilities of human nature.
4. There is, finally, the historical work of the highest order, in which a writer commands excellent means of knowledge either through personal acquaintance or through access to original authorities. and brings to the treatment of his subject genius, literary skill, and sympathetic historical insight into human character and the movement of events. Such an author seizes the critical events, concentrates the reader’s attention on them by giving them fuller treatment, touches more lightly and briefly on the less important events, omits entirely a mass of unimportant details, and makes his work an artistic and idealized picture of the progressive tendency of the period.

(ST. PAUL THE TRAVELER AND THE ROMAN CITIZEN, W.M. RAMSAY, D.C.L., LL.D. 1895)

 

[gluadys]

The Old Testament on the other hand were so meticulously well preserved that their distance from the autographs are not an issue.

No, it is not an issue, though one can only speak of "meticulous preservation" post-Exile.

Honestly, I wouldn't care if a feminist or Issac Asimov are exegeting the text, it's going to come out the same.

You misread. I did not mean exegesis by a feminist. I meant a feminist exegesis. (Granted most feminist exegesis is done by feminists, but I was referring to the exegetical principle, not the person doing the exegesis.) Why do you think the exegesis would come out the same no matter what hermeneutical principle is applied?

 

[gluadys]

I like this one:

Works that profess to be historical are of various kinds and trustworthy in varying degrees.

1. There is the historical romance, which in a framework of history interweaves an invented tale. Some of the Apocryphal tales of the Apostles are of this class, springing apparently from a desire to provide Christian substitutes for the popular romances of the period.
2. There is the legend, in which popular fancy, working for generations, has surrounded a real person and real events with such a mass of extraneous matter that the historical kernel is hardly discernible.
3. There is the history of the second or third rate, in which the writer, either using good authorities carelessly and without judgment, or not possessing sufficiently detailed and correct authorities, gives a narrative of past events which is to a certain degree trustworthy, but contains errors in facts and in the grouping and proportions, and tinges the narrative of the past with the color of his own time. In using works of this class the modern student has to exercise his historical tact, comparing the narrative with any other evidence that can be obtained from any source, and judging whether the action attributed to individuals is compatible with the possibilities of human nature.
4. There is, finally, the historical work of the highest order, in which a writer commands excellent means of knowledge either through personal acquaintance or through access to original authorities. and brings to the treatment of his subject genius, literary skill, and sympathetic historical insight into human character and the movement of events. Such an author seizes the critical events, concentrates the reader’s attention on them by giving them fuller treatment, touches more lightly and briefly on the less important events, omits entirely a mass of unimportant details, and makes his work an artistic and idealized picture of the progressive tendency of the period.

(ST. PAUL THE TRAVELER AND THE ROMAN CITIZEN, W.M. RAMSAY, D.C.L., LL.D. 1895)

Would you agree that all of these grades of historical reliability are found in scripture?

I find it interesting that Ramsay considers historical work "of the highest order" to be "an artistic and idealized picture".

Not unvarnished description then.

Then there is the telltale reference to the "progressive tendency of the period" which sounds like he personally is captivated by the modernist metanarrative of progress. (Pretty much to be expected of a European or American writer in 1895).

So history "of the highest order" becomes "history that tells a modernist story of progress". IOW, history "of the highest order" is history told within the framework of my mythological metanarrative.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, it is not an issue, though one can only speak of "meticulous preservation" post-Exile.

I have no substantive reason to question the preservation of the Old Testament, per-exile.

You misread. I did not mean exegesis by a feminist. I meant a feminist exegesis. (Granted most feminist exegesis is done by feminists, but I was referring to the exegetical principle, not the person doing the exegesis.) Why do you think the exegesis would come out the same no matter what hermeneutical principle is applied?

It never occurred to me that there was a uniquely feminist hermeneutical principle applied to exegetical work.