Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate

Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate

General Editor

F. David Farnell

Associate Editors

Norman L. Geisler

Joseph M. Holden

William C. Roach

Phil Fernandes

Foreword by

Paige Patterson

Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate

Copyright ©

2015

Wipf and Stock Publishers. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers,

199

W.

8

th Ave., Suite

3

, Eugene, OR

97401

.

Wipf & Stock

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199

W.

8

th Ave., Suite

3

Eugene, OR

97401

www.wipfandstock.com

ISBN

13

:

978-1-4982-3724-6

EISBN

13

:

978-1-4982-3725-3

Manufactured in the U.S.A. 03/28/2016

Table of Contents

Title Page

Contributors

Foreword

Preface

Part One: Inerrancy Defined

Chapter 1: The Historic Documents of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy

Chapter 2: What Is Inerrancy and Why Should We Care?

Chapter 3: A Voice from a New Generation

Chapter 4: Evangelical Mentoring

Chapter 5: Review of Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, edited by J. Merrick and Stephen Garrett

Chapter 6: The 2015 Shepherds’ Conference on Inerrancy

Chapter 7: Interview with Paige Patterson on the Importance of Inerrancy341

Chapter 8: Do You Have to Be a Calvinist to Believe in Inerrancy?

Part Two: Inerrancy Defended

Chapter 9: It’s Just a Matter of Interpretation, Not of Inerrancy

Chapter 10: Biblical Inerrancy, Inductive or Deductive Basis

Chapter 11: Early Twentieth Century Challenges to Inerrancy

Chapter 12: Early Twenty-First-Century Challenges to Inerrancy

Chapter 13: The Resurgence of Neo-Evangelicalism

Chapter 14: The Battle for the Bible Begins Anew

Chapter 15: Inerrancy as a Litmus Test of Evangelical Orthodoxy?

Chapter 16: Can We Still Believe Critical Evangelical Scholars?

Chapter 17: The Magic of Historical Criticism

Chapter 18: Part One: A Critical Evaluation of Robert H. Gundry’s Westmont College Lecture, Peter: False Disciple and Apostate according to Saint Matthew

Chapter 19: Part Two: A Critical Evaluation of Robert H. Gundry’s Westmont College Lecture, Peter: False Disciple and Apostate According to Saint Matthew (and Now Recently Released Book)

Chapter 20: A Critical Review of Donald Hagner’s Ten Guidelines for Evangelical Scholarship

Chapter 21: On Licona Muddying the Waters of the Chicago Statements of Biblical Inerrancy and Hermeneutics

Chapter 22: The Early Church Fathers and the Resurrection of the Saints in Matthew 27:51–54

Chapter 23: Can We Still Believe in the Bible?

Chapter 24: ICBI Inerrancy Is Not for the Birds

Chapter 25: Contemporary Evangelical NT Genre Criticism

Chapter 26: Book Review — Craig Blomberg’s Can We Still Believe the Bible?

Chapter 27: Book Review — The Lost World of Adam and Eve

Chapter 28: An Exposition and Refutation of the Key Presuppositions of Contemporary Jesus Research

Chapter 29: Redating the Gospels

Chapter 30: Misinterpreting J. I. Packer on Inerrancy and Hermeneutics

Chapter 31: Can We Still Trust New Testament Professors?

Chapter 32: Did Roman Christians Detect the Influence of Roman Historiography in Matthew 27:45–54?

Epilogue: Historical Criticism vs. Grammatico-Historical

Appendix

Bibliography

To . . .

Dr. Norman L. Geisler

The Great Christian Apologist of the Twentieth and Twenty-First Century

The contributors to Vital Issues would like to acknowledge their debt of gratitude to Norman L. Geisler. Dr. Geisler has dedicated his whole career in theological studies to a fearless defense of the inerrancy of God’s Word. His love for God’s Word is very evident in his stand for an apologetic presentation of defense to all those who have contributed to this work.

He has unwaveringly stood firm in his commitment to the historic, orthodox position of inerrancy as a foundational doctrine of the Christian faith. His commitment has often been praised for its boldness and fearlessness. That commitment has also been a lightning rod of opposition.

Yet, what stands out most clearly to us, is his willingness to endure . . .

In the Defense and Confirmation of the Gospel (Phil

1

:

7

)

His example has encouraged us all for the same.

As Paul echoed . . .

2

Timothy

2

:

2

The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Dave Farnell

Joseph Holden

Bill Roach

Phil Fernandes

Shawn Nelson

Chris Haun

Bob Wilkin

Contributors

General Editor: F. David Farnell, PhD, Professor of New Testament at The Master’s Seminary, Sun Valley, CA. His publications include The Jesus Crisis, The Jesus Quest, and Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels.

Associate Editor: Norman L. Geisler, PhD, Chancellor of Veritas Evangelical Seminary; Distinguished Professor of Theology and Apologetics; Occupant of the Norman L. Geisler Chair of Christian Apologetics.

Associate Editor: Joseph M. Holden, PhD, President of Veritas Evangelical Seminary, Santa Ana, CA. His publications include The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible; Charts of Apologetics and Christian Evidence; Living Loud: Defending Your Faith; and The Apologetics Study Bible: Bones and Dirt.

Associate Editor: William C. Roach, PhD, is the senior-editor of the Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and adjunct professor at The College at Southeastern in Wake Forest, NC, and Capital Theological Seminary in Washington, DC. Dr. Roach has authored numerous articles and book chapters, including Hermeneutics as Epistemology: A Critical Assessment of Carl F. H. Henry’s Epistemological Approach to Hermeneutics and has coauthored the book Defending Inerrancy. He also regularly contributes articles to the website www.defendinginerrancy.com and operates a blog titled Confessions of a Theologian.

Associate Editor: Robert Wilkin, PhD, is President of Grace Evangelical Society. He has written four books, Confident in Christ; The Road to Reward; Secure and Sure; and The Ten Most Misunderstood Words in the Bible. He also was the editor and a contributor to the two-volume Grace New Testament Commentary and is a contributor to Four Views on the Role of Works at the Final Judgment.

Associate Editor: Phil Fernandes, PhD, President of the Institute of Biblical Defense and Pastor of Trinity Bible Fellowship in Bremerton, WA. His recent publications include The Atheist Delusion: A Christian Response to Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and Hijacking the Historical Jesus: Answering Recent Attacks on the Jesus of the Bible.

Contributor: Shawn Nelson holds a BA in Biblical Studies and is President of Geeky Christian, a nonprofit ministry dedicated to reaching the next generation with the Gospel through technology. Shawn’s books include Romans in Logical Form and Evidence of an Early New Testament Canon. More info regarding his ministry can be found at www.geekychristian.com.

Contributor: Christopher Travis Haun is a Master’s Degree candidate at Veritas Evangelical Seminary, Santa Ana, CA. He is an Editorial Associate at Bastion Books, a Technical Assistant to Norman Geisler International Ministries, and a contributor to Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics.

Foreword

Mark Twain was not a theologian, but he was a shrewd observer of life on the Mississippi River. And one thing that you never read in his novels is a pericope about a loosely tethered boat slipping the knot and drifting upriver to some mysterious location. As certain as anything in this life can be, all that is adrift on the mighty Mississippi is headed south. If you want to go upriver there must be deliberate propulsion and guidance. Such an observation requires only the opportunity to reflect for a few days on the flow of the river. Only a fool would attempt to sustain the case that things quite frequently drift upriver.

Norman Geisler and F. David Farnell, together with a cast of highly credible thinkers, understand that pedestrian avowal and know that the same forces are at work in theology. Vital Issues in Inerrancy is the resulting volume unveiling the sorrowful journey of dozens of theological boats that have slipped their logical and spiritual knots and are now drifting south on the River of Doubt. The authors reset this strategic doctrine, setting the parameters both for what qualifies and for what does not meet the standards for biblical inerrancy.

But why is such a book necessary. Isn’t this thrashing the proverbial dead horse? When the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) was functioning in the late ’70s and ’80s, there was a lively discussion among the members of the board about the future of the organization. Some saw the need for the organization to exist in perpetuity. Others of us feared the prospects of an organization that could become another parachurch ministry furthering the departure of talent and resources from the local churches in America. We suggested a ten-year limitation with a sunset clause in place to guarantee a concluding date. An incredible number of critical texts penned during those ten years contributed heavily to the reversals in the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church and most dramatically in the Southern Baptist Convention.

While I remain confident that a limited period was appropriate, the volume that you hold in your hand or view on the screen is a testimony to two things. First, the ICBI shut down, but the need for continued vigilance is unmitigated. Second, the amazing tendency on the part of evangelical scholars to follow the line of least resistance and drift away from biblical theology is continuing to the sorrow of the church of God. I used the word amazing because the history of the effects of biblical scholarship hinged to historical-critical interpretation is the history of decimated congregations and evangelistic and mission stagnation. This is so obvious as to need no elucidation.

Regrettably, the younger generation does not read nearly as prolifically as former generations. So most are simply unaware of Gerhard Maier’s The End of the Historical-Critical Method. They have not read the arresting articles from Norm Geisler’s 1979 edited volume titled Inerrancy. They remain blissfully unaware of Laird Harris’s work on Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Although the book is actually concise enough for anyone to read, few have heard of the early Clark Pinnock’s magnificent 1967 treatment of A Defense of Biblical Infallibility. D. A. Carson and John Woodbridge examined Scripture and Truth in 1983, but a fair number of the young future pastors were just being born about that time. And hardly any of the younger set has carefully considered Carl F. H. Henry’s fifteen wonderfully crafted theses articulated convincingly in the first sixteen pages of God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 2. In my own Southern Baptist denomination, there is little consciousness of editors Robison B. James and David S. Dockery’s revealing work Beyond the Impasse? which contrasts the difference in believing and unbelieving perspectives with clarity. And, of course, this is to name but a few of the convincing tomes penned on this subject.

There are better reasons to revisit the subject. The earliest attack in Eden appears to be directed at the possibility that God had spoken a clear, definitive, cogent, and permanent word: Has God said? What began there continues relentlessly through the ages, whether it be an early attack on the historicity of Daniel by Porphyry or the most recent attack on the historicity of Matthew 27:52–53 by Michael Licona in The Resurrection of Jesus (2010). Of course, Licona wants to have his cake and eat it also, but the verse cannot at the same moment both describe a reality and be dismissed as Midrash. The point is that every generation has to answer this issue for itself. This current treatise engages the postmodern with the claims of inerrancy and documents in a kind but firm way those evangelical voices damaged by compromise with the culture and the academy.

All associated with this book wish that it were not necessary. Like Jude, they would much rather have written concerning our common salvation. Unfortunately, in every generation, Satan must attack the doctrines of revelation, creation, the person and work of Christ, and the consummation of the kingdom. If these doctrines are allowed to stand as believed and taught by the apostles, then Satan’s efforts to destroy the church surely fail. The authors of this volume understand that they must contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. And that faith begins with a sure and certain word from God.

May God be pleased to bless these pages for the edification of the young church today. And may the end result be the opportunity for all seven billion of this world’s teeming population to hear the message of the unsearchable riches of Christ.

Paige Patterson, President

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ft. Worth, Texas

Preface

The contributors to Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate would like to acknowledge especially the hundreds of courageous men and women of the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy who assembled in Chicago some thirty-five years ago and forged the watershed documents of the Chicago Statements on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) and Hermeneutics (1982). These biblical scholars and pastors from all over the world, assembled three times over a ten-years period to leave a testimony of the (1) absolute inerrancy of God’s Word, (2) the orthodox meaning and nature of the term, as well as (3) issue a stern warning to future generations of the acute danger and consequences of its abandonment by God’s faithful. They were all direct witnesses to what shook the church in the earlier parts of the twentieth century when inerrancy was abandoned. They left marvelous documents that would witness to inerrancy as foundational to all other truths of Christianity as expressed in the Old and New Testaments. Inspiration and inerrancy, to them, were the bedrock foundation for all other doctrines of Christianity, without which foundation, no truth claims exist for Christianity. Many of these have gone to be with the Lord since the original signing of these declarations. Yet, they have left for us a marvelous, sustaining testimony to the need for faithfulness to God’s Word and inerrancy as the watershed issue for our time.

Many troubling events preceded the Chicago Statements. At the turn of the twentieth century, mainline denominations redefined the term infallibility from its traditional, orthodox meaning to the idea that while the Scripture was infallible only in faith and practice, the Old and New Testaments contained errors in history, geography, science and origins. Bible-believing people America broke away from these mainline denominations and formed their own schools and seminaries. The term inerrancy or without any error became the watchword used to distinguish the redefining in meaning of the former word, infallibility. Sadly, while both terms really mean the same, now a distinction is maintained by the faithful to prevent any misunderstanding that God’s Word is true in all matters that it addresses, i.e., Your Word is Truth (John 17:17).

Not only did mainline denominations redefine infallibility to include errancy but also adopted a qualitatively different hermeneutic to interpret Scripture that is directly associated with an assault on the foundational truths in God’s Word. A departure from grammatico-historical hermeneutics adopted by ICBI preceded the redefining of the term infallibility. This plain, normal sense of Scripture, maintained by grammatico-historical exegesis, was abandoned to meet the popular theological and scientific fads developing in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Although these fads were ever fleeting and changing, waxing and waning, the church abandoned the plain sense of Scripture so that the Scripture could be remolded for current thought that often stood diametrically opposed to the plain, normal sense. Indeed, the historical-critical method adopted by mainline denominations was a direct cause for their need to redefine the term infallibility, for the plain, normal sense could not be forced to accommodate modern philosophies. Historical-critical ideologies directly influenced the adoption of many philosophies and isms that denigrated the truths of Scripture maintained by orthodox Christianity from its foundations in the first century. Historical-criticism became the dissolvent that could make the Scripture pliable to modern sensibilities, rather than a trust in the timeless truth of God’s Word. The Bible was remolded rather than rejecting the ideologies that were hostile to God’s Word. In sum for this early period, (1) the adoption of historical criticism and (2) redefining of infallibility to exclude inerrancy resulted in the creation of new churches and schools among the faithful in the churches of America.

Sadly, in the 1950s and 1960s of the twentieth century, the very same adoption of (1) historical-critical ideologies and (2) the redefining of the term inerrancy began among those who had withdrawn at the turn of the century. A battle for the Bible was occurring again. The lessons of history had not been learned. The faithful descendants of those who had withdrawn from mainline denominations rallied in Chicago for ten years to stem the tide that was once again occurring. They carefully formulated the Chicago Statements on Inerrancy and Hermeneutics in hopes of stemming the tide and guide the faithful away from the spiritual disaster that was forming. The Chicago Statements championed (1) grammatico-historical hermeneutics (e.g., CSBI art. XVIII) and (2) set forth the orthodox meaning of inerrancy maintained since the nascent beginnings of the early church.

Since the signing of the Chicago Statements, troubling signs have once again been appearing in recent years among many Neo-Evangelicals who either did not fight the battles for the inerrancy of Scripture as did the Council or who do not remember the troubling times that caused their development. The nature and definition of inerrancy are now being challenged and/or redefined from the orthodox position to include ideas of fallibility once again. History is being forgotten and Evangelicals are showing the need once again for sounding the alarm for Defending Inerrancy. Historical criticism now dominates among schools and churches that broke away in the earlier, academic prestige and fads in scholarship now hold as watchwords instead of faithfulness of God’s inerrant Word. The contributors to this volume pray that the Lord will raise up a new generation of evangelicals with the spiritual fervency of the International Council to uphold the inerrancy of God’s Word: Isaiah 40:8—"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever" (Isa 40:8).

Earnestly contending for the faith delivered once and for all to God’s people . . . (Jude 3).

F. David Farnell

Norman L. Geisler

Joseph P. Holden

William C. Roach

Phil Fernandes,

Shawn Nelson

Christopher T. Haun

Robert Wilkins

Part 1

Inerrancy Defined

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, prominent Neo-Evangelicals are actively involved in an attempt to redefine the term inerrancy away from the historic, orthodox position of the church through its history. Theological liberals in the early twentieth century did the very same thing to the term infallibility. Infallibility lost its meaning and became a meaningless term.

The same is now being done with inerrancy in the evangelical camp by historical-critical evangelicals. This section sounds forth the warning to God’s people of those evangelicals who are attempting to redefine the term inerrancy. It also explains its historic, orthodox meaning and characteristics held from the earliest foundations with special attention given to the historic International Council on Biblical Inerrancy and its Chicago Statements (1978) on Biblical Inerrancy and Hermeneutics (1982) developed to combat such a drift.

Chapter 1

The Historic Documents of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy

¹

Norman L. Geisler

It is a fact of human experience that when the living eyewitnesses to events die off, the process of developing myths about these events is often accelerated. So, as one of the three living framers of the Chicago Statements on inerrancy and hermeneutics, it seemed good to put the first two statements and their official commentaries in one inexpensive and universally accessible source, entitled Explaining Biblical Inerrancy: Official Commentary on the ICBI Statements (2013).²

Four Fundamental ICBI Documents

There were four ICBI documents on the meaning of inerrancy: (1) The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (by the ICBI drafting committee, 1978); (2) The Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, by Dr. Sproul; (3) The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (by the ICBI drafting committee, 1982); (4) The Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, by Dr. Geisler. These four documents are reproduced here in the combined version that was produced in 2013.³

Dr. R. C. Sproul was not just a signer of the three ICBI statements. He was also the original framer of the affirmations and denials of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, the president of the ICBI during its tenure, and the author of the official commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Dr. Sproul wrote Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary (International Council on Biblical Inerrancy) in 1980.

Dr. Norman Geisler was a signatory of the ICBI statements, a member of the ICBI drafting committee, the general editor of all the books published by ICBI, and the author of the official booklet explaining the second Chicago Statement, titled Explaining Hermeneutics: A Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (International

Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1983).

Other Important ICBI Books

In addition, official ICBI books were produced on these two statements. On the first statement (1978), the book titled Inerrancy was produced, consisting of chapters by ICBI conference scholars and edited by Norman L. Geisler. Also, there was Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible (Zondervan, 1984), edited by Earl Radmacher and Robert Preus, consisting of papers from the ICBI hermeneutics summit in 1982. Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest put together Challenges to Inerrancy: A Theological Response (Moody, 1984). Another ICBI book on the meaning of inerrancy was produced, titled Biblical Errancy: An Analysis of Its Philosophical Roots (Zondervan, 1981), and was edited by Norman L. Geisler. The final book of the ICBI series was on the application of inerrancy. It was edited by Kenneth S. Kantzer and titled Applying the Scriptures (Zondervan, 1987).

Why the ICBI View on Inerrancy Is So Important

As evangelicals we recognize that no extra-biblical statements or creeds are infallible. Only the Bible is infallible. Nonetheless, some doctrinal statements are very important. The ICBI statements fall into this category for many reasons. First, they stand in continuity with the historic orthodox view of Scripture.⁴ Second, it was put together by an international group of some three hundred evangelical scholars, not by an individual or mere handful of persons. Third, it has been adopted (in 2003) as a guide in understanding inerrancy by the largest group of evangelical scholars in the world, the Evangelical Theological Society. Fourth, its views were adopted by one of the largest protestant denominations in the world (the Southern Baptist Convention) in a landmark turnaround which saved them from drifting into liberalism. Finally, it has become the standard view of evangelicalism in America on this topic, having been officially or unofficially widely adopted as the guideline on the meaning of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible in numerous schools, churches, and Christian organizations.

Purposes of this Book

As general editor of the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) books, a member of the ICBI drafting committee, and the author of the ICBI official commentary on the ICBI hermeneutics statement, my purpose in this combined commentary is twofold. First, my desire is to make all four foundational ICBI documents available in one volume for this and future generations to study. Second, I hope this will help dispel some contemporary misinterpretations of what the ICBI framers meant by inerrancy. There are several issues to which we wish to draw attention.

Misunderstanding about the Meaning of the Concept of Truth in the ICBI Statements

One of the most important misunderstandings of the ICBI statements occurs on what the framers meant by the biblical view of truth mentioned in article XIII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978). It reads, We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. Some mistakenly took this to justify an intentionalist view of truth and inerrancy which states that the Bible is only true in what it intends to affirm, not necessary in all that it actually affirms. But this is contrary to what the ICBI framers meant by inerrancy, as is revealed in its official commentary on those very articles. ICBI declared explicitly, "When we say that the truthfulness of Scripture ought to be evaluated according to its own standards that means that . . . all the claims of the Bible must correspond with reality, whether that reality is historical, factual or spiritual."⁵ It adds, "By biblical standards of truth and error is meant the view used both in the Bible and in everyday life, viz., a correspondence view of truth.⁶ This part of the article is directed toward those who would redefine truth to relate merely to redemptive intent, the purely personal, or the like, rather than to mean that which corresponds with reality."

Misunderstanding about the Function of Genre in Scripture

The second major misinterpretation of the ICBI statements centers on the use of genre in the interpretation of Scripture. Article XVIII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) reads: "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 (emphasis added). Likewise, article XIII asserts, We affirm that awareness of the literary categories, formal and stylistic, of the various parts of Scripture is essential for proper exegesis, and hence we value genre criticism as one of the many disciplines of biblical study (emphasis added). Article XV adds, We affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal sense. . . . Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text" (emphasis added).⁷

From these statements some evangelical scholars have claimed ICBI blessing on the view that one can determine the meaning of a biblical text by first making a list of the kinds of genre from external sources and then applying what they believe is the appropriate genre to the Scriptures. However, the view that genre determines meaning is not only contrary to what the ICBI framers meant, but it also suffers from a logical mistake. In order to discover the genre of a particular text, one must already have a developed a genre theory. But a genre theory comes from studying and comparing individual texts of the Bible by means of the grammatico-historical method of interpretation which the ICBI framers were committed to from the beginning.⁸ But if externally determined genre governs the meaning of the biblical text, then this scenario is impossible. The interpreter must know the genre before he knows the text. But this is tantamount to imposing genre expectations upon the text. In hermeneutics, this is labeled eisegesis (reading meaning into the text), rather an exegesis (reading meaning out of the text)! So, this widely used method of genre determination is contrary to the ICBI understanding of inerrancy.

Misunderstanding of the Historical Nature of Biblical Narratives

From the beginning, ICBI spelled out its commitment to the historicity of the biblical narratives. Article XVIII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) reads, "We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or counting its teaching, or rejecting its claim to authorship (emphasis added). The ICBI position became even more explicit in its Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (1982). Article XIII declares, We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual. Article XIV goes on to say, We deny that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated" (emphasis added).

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is clear on this issue: "We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture (art. XIII). We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the biblical authors were moved to speak and write (art. IX). 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 (art. XII). We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture" (art. XII).

The ICBI commentary adds, "Though the Bible is indeed redemptive history, it is also redemptive history, and this means that the acts of salvation wrought by God actually occurred in the space-time world (art. XII). With regard to the historicity of the Bible, article XIII in the commentary points out that we should not take Adam to be a myth, whereas in Scripture he is presented as a real person. Likewise, it affirms that we should not take Jonah to be an allegory when he is presented as a historical person and [is] so referred to by Christ. It adds, We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood" (art. XII). In short, the ICBI framers believed that using genre to deny any part of the historicity of the biblical record was a denial of inerrancy.

Misunderstanding about the Relation of Hermeneutics and Inerrancy

Another misunderstanding is the claim that the ICBI view is that inerrancy is hermeneutic and inerrancy are to be totally separated. In short, they claim that inerrancy simply affirms that whatever the Bible affirms is true, but only hermeneutics can inform us as to what the Bible is actually affirming. That is to say, it is just a matter of interpretation of the text and not a question of inerrancy. It is wrongly thought by some that ICBI made no specific claims on what the biblical text means or on whether the biblical narrative is historical as long as they believe that the text is inerrant—whatever it may mean. However, this is clearly not the case for many reasons:

The Total Separation of Hermeneutics and Inerrancy Is Not Logically Necessary

The ICBI framers foresaw this issue and spoke to it clearly. In brief, the ICBI response is that hermeneutics and inerrancy are formally distinct, but when it comes to the inerrancy of the Bible they are actually inseparable. For example, Siamese twins with two heads and only one heart are inseparable but not identical. Apart from death, our soul and body are inseparable, but they are not identical. Hence, the charge that inerrancy and hermeneutics are identical does not necessarily follow logically.

A bifurcation of hermeneutics from inerrancy is empty, vacuous, and meaningless. This innovative view of the ICBI statements on inerrancy amounts to saying that the Bible is not teaching that anything is actually true. However, the ICBI statements repeatedly affirm that everything the Bible affirms is completely true. The Chicago Statement makes "reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture (art. XIII). It insists that it is trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the biblical authors were moved to speak and write (art. IX). But these would be senseless claims, if the Bible was not really making any claims about reality. So, the claim to inerrancy entails a certain kind of understanding of what the Bible means, namely, a historical-grammatical understanding of the text. This, along with the correspondence view of truth (see above) negate the claim that inerrancy as such is merely a vacuous claim that amounts to saying, If the Bible is claiming that anything is true, then it is actually true, but inerrancy is not really claiming anything is actually true. Only hermeneutics can fill in this void." On the contrary, both the correspondence view of truth and the historical-grammatical view of interpretation demand that the doctrine of inerrancy as embraced by ICBI is claiming that the belief in biblical inerrancy entails actual truths about reality.

The ICBI Chicago Statement on inerrancy includes a statement on the literal historical-grammatical hermeneutics. As noted above, article XVIII reads: We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis . . . There are very good reasons for including this statement on hermeneutics in an evangelical inerrancy statement. For one thing, there would be no doctrine of inerrancy were it not for the historical-grammatical hermeneutic by which we derive inerrancy from Scripture. For another, the term evangelical implies a certain doctrinal stand on essential doctrines, including the inspiration of Scripture, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, his atoning death, and his bodily resurrection. These doctrines expressed in the early creeds of Christendom are derived from Scripture by the historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Without it there would be no evangelical or orthodox creeds or orthodox beliefs in accord with them. Thus, the ICBI evangelical view of inerrancy is wedded with a literal method of interpretation that affirms truth about the real world.

The ICBI Claim to Inerrancy Involved a Claim to Objective Truth about Reality

Since ICBI embraced a correspondence view of truth which affirms that truth corresponds with reality, then when we say the Bible is completely true the statement cannot be empty. It must refer to some reality beyond itself. This is why ICBI included a statement about the literal historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible as part of its articles about the meaning of inerrancy. Article XVIII says: We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis . . . In short, there is an overlap between inerrancy and hermeneutics because inerrancy is not an empty claim. It is a claim that involves the assertion that an inerrant Bible is actually true in all that it affirms. And this truth corresponds literally to the reality about which it speaks. This is not to say that Bible does not use figures of speech for article XVIII clearly allows taking account of literary forms and devices. It means that there is some literal referent for these figures of speech. Thus, inerrancy is not claiming that if the Bible is making a truth claim, then that truth claim must be true. Rather, inerrancy claims that the Bible is making truth claims, and they are all true. Since truth is what corresponds to reality, to say the Bible is inerrant is to say that all of its claims correspond to reality. In this way there is a marriage, not a divorce, between inerrancy and the literal method of interpreting the Bible. This disjunction between hermeneutics and inerrancy is an example of methodological unorthodoxy.⁹ If it were true, then one could completely allegorize the Bible—denying the literal virgin birth, physical resurrection of Christ, and everything else—and still claim that they held to the inerrancy of the Bible. This would mean that someone like Mary Baker Eddy (the founder of the Christian Science cult) could, even with a totally allegorical method, affirm that the ICBI statements on inerrancy are true, even though she does not believe in any evangelical doctrine, including the inspiration of Scripture. It would also mean that someone could use a so-called Averronian method of double truth and still hold to an ICBI view of inerrancy. But it makes no sense to claim that the Bible is completely true in all that it affirms and yet deny that it affirms certain specific doctrines. In addition to unorthodox doctrines, there are also unorthodox methods. Historical-grammatical hermeneutics is an orthodox method accepted by ICBI. An allegorical method is an unorthodox method. Likewise, New Testament scholars who deny the historicity of sections of the Gospel narratives are acting contrary to the meaning of the ICBI framers.

The Separation Is Explicitly Contrary in Spirit and in Letter to the ICBI

The preface to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics made it clear that the ICBI framers saw hermeneutics as being inseparably connected to inerrancy. It says:

The work of Summit I had hardly been completed when it became evident that there was yet another major task to be tackled. While we recognize that belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is basic to maintaining its authority, the values of that commitment are only as real as one’s understanding of the meaning of Scripture. Thus, the need for Summit II. For two years plans were laid and papers were written on themes relating to hermeneutical principles and practices.¹⁰

The very fact that there was a second ICBI summit is a clear indication of how the ICBI framers and signers judged this matter. The second ICBI summit is an expansion and elaboration of article XVIII from the statement produced by the first ICBI Summit.

Concluding Comments

It is hoped that providing the primary sources for the ICBI view on inerrancy will help clarify these and other issue at stake in the current inerrancy debates. While every scholar is free to mean by inerrancy whatever he or she desires it to mean, no one is free to dictate to the ICBI framers what they meant by inerrancy. This is particularly true of those who subscribe to the grammatico-historical method of interpretation, as the ICI framers did. For if a document should be interpreted in accord with the expressed intentions of an author, then there are stated limits (as shown above) on what inerrancy covers or does not cover.

Failing to follow this path gave rise to an acute problem in the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). The issue surfaced in 1976 when the ETS Executive Committee confessed that some of the members of the Society have expressed the feeling that a measure of intellectual dishonesty prevails among members who do not take the signing of the doctrinal statement seriously. Other "members of the Society have come to the realization that they are not in agreement with the creedal statement and have voluntarily withdrawn. That is, in good conscience they could not sign the statement."¹¹ Later, an ETS ad hoc committee recognized this problem when it posed the proper question: Is it acceptable for a member of the society to hold a view of biblical author’s intent which disagrees with the Founding Fathers and even the majority of the society, and still remain a member in good standing?¹² Failing to say no is not only contrary to the expressed intention of the author view, but it opens the door for a deconstructionist and reconstructionist view of doctrinal statements like those of the ICBI. It is hoped that these primary ICBI sources contained in this book can help avoid this problem among those who claim to subscribe to biblical inerrancy. Since the three living framers of the ICBI statements (Sproul, Packer, and I) concur on these matters, it would be as presumptuous to reject this official understanding of the ICBI statement on these matters as it would be for a liberal judge to reject the meaning of Madison, Washington and Adams on the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978)

Articles of Affirmation and Denial

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics

Articles of Affirmation and Denial (1982)

1. Chapter

1

of Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate is mostly a reproduction of Norman L. Geisler’s introduction to Explaining Biblical Inerrancy. The editors of this volume believe that it serves as a very appropriate introduction to Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate. See Geisler, introduction to Explaining Biblical Inerrancy,

6

–

14

.

2. This updated, combined version of the Official Commentary on the ICBI Statements may be obtained at www.bastionbooks.com. See also Geisler and Roach, Defending Inerrancy.

3. This commentary only contains the heart of the first and second Chicago statements, the articles of affirmation and denial. The summary statements and the excellent short expositions that are normally included in those statements have not been included. The full statements can be viewed at http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI.shtml.

4. See Hannah, Inerrancy and the Church.

5. Sproul, Explaining Inerrancy,

48

.

6. Ibid.

7. Also see Osborne, Allen, and Scaer, Genre Criticism, in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible,

165

–

216

.

8. See Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy [hereafter CSBI], art.

18

.

9. We first addressed this issue in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) in

1983

. See http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/

26

/

26

-

1

/

26

-

1

-pp

087

-

094

_JETS.pdf

10. See International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, Chicago Statement on Hermeneutics, para.

2

l (emphasis added).

11.

1976

ETS Minutes, emphasis added.

12. In

1983

ETS minutes.

Chapter 2

What Is Inerrancy and Why Should We Care?

Norman L. Geisler and Shawn Nelson

It has been said that a table must have at least three legs to stand. Take away any of the three legs and it will surely topple. In much the same way, the Christian faith stands on three legs. These three legs are the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture. Take away one and, like the table, the divine authority of the Christian faith will surely topple. These three in’s complement each other, yet each expresses a slightly different distinction in our understanding of Scripture.

Inspiration. The first in is inspiration which deals with the origin of the Bible. Evangelicals believe that God breathed out the words of the Bible using human writers as the vehicle. Paul writes, All Scripture is inspired by God (literally is God-breathed) and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:16–17).¹³

Infallibility. The next in, infallibility, speaks to the authority and enduring nature of the Bible. To be infallible means that something is incapable of failing and therefore is permanently binding and cannot be broken. Peter said the word of the Lord endures forever (1 Pet 1:23–25) and therefore its authority cannot be broken. When addressing a difficult passage, Jesus said, the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:34–35). In fact, he said, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished (Matt 5:18). These speak to the Bible’s infallibility.

Inerrancy. The last in, inerrancy, simply means that the Bible is without error. It is a belief in the total truthfulness and reliability of God’s words.¹⁴ Jesus said, Your word is truth (John 17:17). This inerrancy isn’t just in passages that speak about salvation, but also applies to all historical and scientific statements as well. It is not only accurate in matters related to faith and practice, but it is accurate and without error regarding any statement, period (John 3:12).

But Is It Really Important?

Yes, inerrancy is extremely important because: (1) it is attached to the character of God; (2) it is taught in the Scriptures; (3) it is the historic position of the Christian church; and (4) it is foundational to other essential doctrines.

1. It Is Based on the Character of God

Inerrancy is based on the character of God who cannot lie (Heb 6:18; Titus 1:2). God cannot lie intentionally because he is an absolute moral law-giver. He cannot err unintentionally because he is omniscient. And if the Bible is the written Word of God (and it is), then it is without error.

2. It Was Taught by Christ and the Apostles

Inerrancy was taught by Christ and the apostles in the New Testament. This should be our primary basis for believing it. B. B. Warfield said, We believe this doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures primarily because it is the doctrine which Christ and his apostles believed, and which they have taught us.¹⁵

To quote Jesus himself, The Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35) and until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished (Matt 5:18).

3. It Is the Historic Position of the Church

Inerrancy is the historic position of the Christian church. ICBI produced a whole book demonstrating this point.¹⁶ As Al Mohler pointed out, even some errantists have agreed that inerrancy has been the standard view of the Christian church down through the centuries. He cites the Hanson brothers, Anthony and Richard, Anglican scholars, who said,

The Christian Fathers and the medieval tradition continued this belief [in inerrancy], and the Reformation did nothing to weaken it. On the contrary, since for many reformed theologians the authority of the Bible took the place which the Pope had held in the medieval scheme of things, the inerrancy of the Bible became more firmly maintained and explicitly defined among some reformed theologians than it had even been before.¹⁷

They added, The beliefs here denied [inerrancy] have been held by all Christians from the very beginning until about a hundred and fifty years ago.¹⁸

4. It Is Fundamental to All Other Doctrines.

Inerrancy is foundational to all other essential Christian doctrines. It is granted that some other doctrines (like the atoning death and bodily resurrection of Christ) are more essential to salvation. However, all soteriological (salvation-related) doctrines derive their divine authority from the divinely authoritative Word of God. So, epistemologically (in a knowledge-related sense), the doctrine of the divine authority and inerrancy of Scripture is the fundamental of all the fundamentals. And if the fundamental of fundamentals is not fundamental, then what is fundamental? Fundamentally nothing! Thus, while one can be saved without believing in inerrancy, the doctrine of salvation has no divine authority apart from the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.

It Is an Essential

Inerrancy deserves high regard among evangelicals and has rightly earned the status