THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY

• Context & Purpose (1978, Chicago)

• Nearly 300 theologians, pastors, scholars met to assert biblical inerrancy clearly.

• Produced the CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY (CSBI): preface + exposition + 29 articles.

• Aim: affirm Scripture as inspired, trustworthy, and free from falsehood in all it affirms.

• Origin & Concern (ICBI)

• Drafted under the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.

• Responded to perceived erosion of biblical authority in evangelicalism.

• Targeted not only liberal theology but also evangelicals treating the Bible as fallible in history/science/details.

• Key Figures & Influence

• Contributors included R.C. Sproul (chair), J.I. Packer, James Montgomery Boice, Norman Geisler, Francis Schaeffer, John Gerstner, Carl F.H. Henry.

• Not all signed, but many shaped tone/precision; represented mainstream evangelical intellectual leadership.

• Reception & Institutional Use

• Became a benchmark for orthodoxy on Scripture in many seminaries/denominations/parachurches.

• Embraced by The Master’s Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary, Dallas Theological Seminary; baseline for ETS.

• Often used in pastoral hiring as a doctrinal fidelity test (CSBI or equivalent).

• Controversies & Critiques

• Accused of reflecting modernist precision more than biblical categories.

• Grounds inerrancy in lost autographs, leaving unverifiable “verbal inerrancy.”

• Alleged to be weaponized in theological disputes (esp. 1980s–1990s SBC/evangelical institutions).

• Significance & Function

• More than affirming truthfulness; it draws boundaries between submission to text vs. judging it.

• Continues as a litmus test for fidelity to Scripture.

• Understanding its claims/assumptions clarifies divides over Scripture’s nature/authority.

• Takeaway

• Regardless of agreement, CSBI is a key theological artifact.

• Reveals what signatories believed and why a precise, unapologetic defense was deemed necessary.

• Intended as a boundary “in granite,” not sand.

WHY WE MUST BE PERSNICKETY ABOUT THIS

• Expect Technical Debate

• Rigorous theology requires precise, sometimes tedious scrutiny of every word, clause, affirmation, denial.

• Authoritative claims warrant equally intense interrogation.

• Human Statements ≠ Inspired Text

• Creeds/confessions (esp. committee-written) aim for clarity but are not flawless or inspired.

• Institutions should be cautious about binding consciences to non-inspired statements.

ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL

ARTICLE I: WHAT ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT?

• Core Claim

• Affirms Scripture as the authoritative Word of God.

• Denies that authority derives from Church/tradition/human sources.

• Critique

• “Authoritative” undefined at this point (promised later).

• Fails to define “Holy Scriptures” (canon question: 66-book Protestant? Catholic? Apocrypha?).

• Leaves ambiguity about whether Scripture is the whole/sufficient Word of God.

ARTICLE II: WRITTEN NORM OR SUPREME AUTHORITY?

• Core Claim

• Scripture is the supreme WRITTEN norm binding the conscience; Church’s authority is subordinate.

• Denies creeds/councils/declarations have authority ≥ Scripture.

• Critique

• “Supreme written norm” is mushy—why not simply “supreme authority”? Why the qualifier WRITTEN?

• Leaves room for a “middle” binding authority under Scripture (unclarified).

• Risks smuggling tradition back in via vague phrasing.

ARTICLE III: REVELATION OR JUST A PIECE OF IT?

• Core Claim

• The written Word in its entirety is revelation from God.

• Denies Scripture is merely a witness, becomes revelation only in encounter, or depends on human response.

• Critique

• Strong stand against neo-orthodoxy/subjectivism.

• Does not state whether Scripture is the EXCLUSIVE binding revelation today.

• Leaves door ajar for ongoing extra-biblical “revelations” (dreams/impressions/prophetic words).

ARTICLE IV: CAN WORDS REALLY HANDLE TRUTH?

• Core Claim

• God used human language for revelation; language is not rendered inadequate by creatureliness/sin.

• Denies that cultural/linguistic corruption thwarted inspiration.

• Critique

• Could ground claim in God’s authorship of language and His speech acts.

• Hints at verbal plenary inspiration but stops short; clarity deferred to Article VI.

• “So limited” phrasing softens denial; does not address effects of sin on interpretation/comprehension (need for illumination?).

ARTICLE V: PROGRESS OR CONTRADICTION?

• Core Claim

• Revelation in Scripture is progressive.

• Denies later revelation corrects/contradicts earlier; denies any normative revelation post–NT completion.

• Critique

• “Normative revelation” undefined—implies possible non-normative revelations?

• “Fulfillment never correction” is asserted, not defined; hard cases (Sabbath/Mosaic laws/Acts 15) blur lines.

• Neglects dispensational transitions; “fulfillment” may flatten genuine changes across economies.

ARTICLE VI: INSPIRED WORDS… BUT WHICH ONES?

• Core Claim

• Whole and parts of Scripture, down to the very words of the originals, were divinely inspired.

• Denies inspiration of whole without parts or parts without whole.

• Critique

• Points to autographs we do not possess; raises textual variants and disputed passages (Mark 16:9–20; John 7:53–8:11; 1 John 5:7).

• Tension with modern critical editions/translations that bracket/remove texts.

• Does not clarify whether inspiration includes grammar/syntax/order beyond lexemes.

ARTICLE VII: INSPIRATION AS MYSTERY: CONVENIENT OR HONEST?

• Core Claim

• Inspiration is God by His Spirit, through human writers; origin is divine; mode largely a mystery.

• Denies reduction to human insight or heightened consciousness.

• Critique

• “Mystery” language can discourage inquiry despite Scriptural examples of diverse modes (dictation, prophetic speech, recall, research, editorial shaping).

• Ambiguity creates space for charismatic extensions without clear boundaries.

ARTICLE VIII: GOD'S WORDS, MAN’S VOICE?

• Core Claim

• God used writers’ personalities/styles; God caused them to use the very words He chose without overriding personality.

• Critique

• Asserts both divine word-choice and preserved human agency without explaining the concursus.

• Implicitly rejects mechanical dictation, trance, pure mouthpiece models.

• Likely aligns with organic/concursive/confluence theories but leaves mechanics undefined.

ARTICLE IX: NOT OMNISCIENT—BUT STILL ACCURATE?

• Core Claim

• Inspiration didn’t grant omniscience, yet guaranteed true/trustworthy utterance on all addressed matters.

• Denies finitude/fallenness introduced distortion/falsehood.

• Critique

• Omniscience note is oddly placed; key issue is guaranteed accuracy despite limited author knowledge.

• Needs sharper formulation emphasizing truthfulness irrespective of author’s exhaustive understanding.

ARTICLE X: INERRANCY… BUT ONLY IN THE LOST ORIGINALS?

• Core Claim

• Inspiration (strictly) applies to autographs; originals ascertainable with great accuracy from manuscripts.

• Copies/translations are God’s Word insofar as they faithfully represent the original.

• Denies absence of autographs affects essentials or invalidates inerrancy claims.

• Critique

• “Great accuracy” ≠ inerrancy; yields a practical doctrine of approximation.

• Leans on modern textual criticism without specifying which readings/manuscripts; sidelines ecclesial preservation claims (e.g., TR position).

• Functionally affirms inerrancy of a text we don’t possess while withholding inerrancy from extant texts/translations.