ICBI International Council on Biblical Inerrancy JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JPT Journal of Pentecostal Theology. In my opinion and that of many others, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy—the document to which I devote the remainder.
INTRODUCTION
T. Wright: Attempting to Move Beyond the Bible Wars
Wright, The Last Word: Scripture and the Authority of the Bible—Getting Beyond the Bible Wars (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006). Grenz wants to transform the evangelical doctrine of the Bible into a model that properly takes into account the human component of the authorship and interpretation of the Bible. Such a model would more closely connect the doctrine of the Bible with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
By separating the teaching of Scripture from its natural embedding in the teaching of the Holy Spirit, Scripture conceptually separates from the Spirit, whose instrument it is. And the writings contained in the Bible represent the self-understanding of the community in which it. The following five articles of the CSBI address matters related to the doctrine of inerrancy under two specific theological categories: authority and revelation.
The Source of Scripture’s Authority Scripture’s Authority
2 The Statement of Affirmation in the original draft of the CSBI indicated that Scripture was to be received by the church as the authoritative Word of God. At its heart, Scripture is a "covenant book" between God and His people that provides,. Yet it is not simplistic or reductionist to see the Bible as the 'book of the covenant'.
The structure of the covenant enables us to see God's reasons for the structure of Scripture as he has it.” John Frame, Doctrine of the Word of God, vol. God's covenant people have a Book of the Covenant that is in harmony with the Holy Scriptures. Taking the idea a step further, the authority of Scripture is ultimately the authority of the Spirit, whose
The Scope of Scripture’s Authority
The authority of each—both tradition and scripture—depends on the work of the Spirit, both scripture and tradition. Protestants have usually (with the exception of some radical groups) regarded tradition as one of the Spirit's tools for confirming biblically faithful theological formulations and correcting wayward ones. These two parts of the Spirit must therefore be kept separate and in their proper order by inspiration, which is regarded as the ontological supreme work. , "to misinterpret the work of the Spirit."38.
By "coincidence" Treier refers to the Orthodox view that sees Scriptural authority as a "subset of the Church's great Tradition" (ibid.). Nevertheless, in light of the challenges posed by postmodernism in general and Grenz and Franke in particular, I propose a reformulated affirmation and denial statement that specifically addresses the matter of God's authority in Scripture. We further affirm the authority of the Church and her theological traditions reside exclusively in its faithful exposition and application of Scripture.
Scripture and Revelation
We further affirm that God's revelation in Scripture is given in a diversity of literary genres that contain both propositional and non-propositional elements, and that both are equally authoritative. It is possible to place too much emphasis on inerrancy, neglecting the authority of the non-propositional language of the Bible. Although these two questions are intricately connected, I propose the addition of another article to deal specifically with the personal nature of God's revelation in the Bible.55.
Furthermore, the covenantal nature of Scripture provides a framework within which we can consistently affirm both aspects of God's revelation in Scripture. We claim that God's revelation in the Bible is a covenantal and thus a personal revelation of himself. We deny that the personal character of God's revelation in the Bible necessarily excludes the propositional nature of that revelation.
The Adequacy of Human Language for Divine Revelation Language for Divine Revelation
First, I would strengthen the affirmative statement by wording it in such a way as to emphasize God's purpose in forming language specifically for the purpose of revelation. By establishing the starting principle of God's purpose in creating human language, this updated statement immediately rules out arguments that human language is somehow unfit for divine communication. 65Contra Grenz, who notes that God's revelation of himself through the "instrumentality of human words" is a "scandal." Stanley Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology: A Fresh Agenda for the 21st Century (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
This is a scandal in the light of postmodernism, yes, but certainly not a scandal, since the reality of God's revelation is considered in a broader biblical-theological framework. For now, I only want to point out that affirming God's intentional design of human language allows us to maintain an optimistic view—despite our fallenness and sin—of language as a proper vehicle for divine communication. Having now examined the authority of Scripture, the truth of God's revelation in Scripture, and the adequacy of human language to convey that revelation, I now turn to the last article of this section and examine the progressive nature of that revelation.
Scripture as Progressive Revelation Progressive Revelation
Closely related to the subject of the nature of Scripture as progressive revelation (Article V) is the question of the genre of the Bible, meant in this sense: not the individual genre of Scripture - ie. poem, story or parable - but the Bible as a whole. Chatham, Creation to Revelation: A Brief Account of the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006); Preban Vang and Terry G. Hans Frei, for example, affirm the narrative history of the Bible, even though they are not professed evangelicals yet.
Restoring the Unity of the Bible: A History, Plan, and Continuing Purpose (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009). Wright says that "most of the component parts [of the Bible], and all of them when put together (whether in the canonical Jewish or Christian form), can best be described as history" (emphasis original). In my reappraisal and reformulation, I contended that the current status of evangelical discussion of the doctrine of Scripture requires a clear articulation of the nature of Scripture as a self-authenticating text that functions primarily as a covenant.
The Nature and Extent of Inspiration Extent of Inspiration
Although it is difficult to improve on this particular article given the clear, straightforward assertion of the comprehensive scope of Scripture's divine inspiration, there are some subtle modifications that further this article and the remaining articles that touch on the doctrine of inspiration. will strengthen. Historically, the majority of modern English copies of the Bible have used the word "inspiration" and its cognates to translate the Greek word. In order to maintain the passage's emphasis on the origin of Scripture, some contemporary versions of the Bible have rejected the word "inspiration" and rendered theopneustos as "God-breath" instead.
Although it is not the intention of this thesis to recommend the removal of the word "inspiration" from the CSBI and with McGowan the proposal. Similarly, some of the quotations reveal that Barth did not identify God's Word with the Bible, but that the Bible is a witness of the Word." G. The next article (VII) will re-emphasize the statement made here by maintaining the mysterious nature of the mode of inspiration.
The Definition and Mode of Inspiration and Mode of Inspiration
We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can be properly affirmed by the whole without the parts, or by some parts but not the whole. While these explanations are helpful, there are a few recommendations I suggest in light of some contemporary developments in the doctrine of inspiration. While the CSBI as a whole affirms that God's act of inspiration worked in such a way as to avoid violating the personalities of the human authors (see Article XIII), a more direct reference to the doctrine of agreement is needed in the document.
Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. We deny that God's act of inspiration can be equated with His providential preparation of the biblical writers, or that it is sufficient simply to assert that the Scriptures are what God intended them to be. The discussion of God's providential preparation of the biblical writers and the distinction between providence and inspiration leads naturally to a concentrated focus on the human authorship of Scripture in Articles VIII-XIII.
The Human Authorship of Scripture Authorship of Scripture
The statement, "We affirm that God in His work of inspiration used the distinctive personalities and literary styles of writers whom He had chosen and prepared," is a claim that a. What is needed in this CSBI is an account of the author's human work that lends particular credence to the claim that human personalities and literary styles were not opposed by God's act. We affirm that God in His work of inspiration used the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He chose and prepared.
With the addition of the above statement, denial can now reaffirm the key truth of the inerrancy and human authorship of the Bible. In the article now under discussion (XIII), I propose to add a statement to the denial section clearly asserting that there is no inherent conflict between the claims of inerrancy and the claim that God's work of inspiration respected the perfect humanity of the authors. We further deny that inerrancy necessarily requires a limitation on the humanity of the biblical authors.
The Definition of Inerrancy
Although the following article (IX) indicates that the "finitude and decay" of the biblical writers does not necessarily involve the introduction of error into their writings, the above addition to Article VIII offers a slightly different nuance by asserting this. One of the criticisms leveled at the doctrine of inerrancy when the CSBI was written was that it seemed to imply that authors must possess omniscience in order to accurately convey divine truth. The confirmation statement counters this criticism and distinguishes between complete knowledge and reliable statements, implying that the possession of the former is not necessary for the production of the latter.
McGowan, as well as Sparks, all ground their argument for an inerrant text, at least in part, on the assumption that genuine human personhood entails the property of making mistakes: to claim an inerrant text implies—requires—the conclusion that inerrantists have minimized much of the Bible's human component. One of the primary claims of the CSBI is that inerrancy must be judged according to the biblical text—a text that has been given in everyday human language (see especially Article XIII and the exposition). 34 In his discussion of the humanity of Scripture and the propensity of some to commit the logical fallacy described above, Paul Wells aptly concludes: "At this point a doctrine of Scripture in which humanity and fallibility are not synonymous is essential." Paul Wells, "The Doctrine of Scripture," in Reforming or Conforming: Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church, ed.
Inerrant Autographs
