IV. The Inconsistencies of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) is widely regarded as a definitive articulation of the doctrine of inerrancy within modern Evangelicalism. While it sought to defend the authority and reliability of Scripture, the statement reflects significant theological and logical inconsistencies that stem from its Enlightenment-influenced framework. These inconsistencies undermine the Reformation’s confessional emphasis on providential preservation and reveal the inherent weaknesses of tying scriptural authority to hypothetical autographs. This section examines the key inconsistencies of the Chicago Statement and their implications for the doctrine of Scripture.
A. A Hypothetical Inerrancy
The Chicago Statement asserts that the original autographs of Scripture were entirely without error, encompassing every detail of history, science, and theology. However, the statement acknowledges that these autographs no longer exist, and what remains are copies and translations that contain textual variations. This creates a fundamental problem: the inerrancy affirmed by the statement is entirely hypothetical.
By tethering inerrancy to documents that no one possesses or can examine, the Chicago Statement effectively relocates scriptural authority to a theoretical ideal, rather than the providentially preserved texts available to the church. This hypothetical inerrancy stands in stark contrast to the Reformers’ doctrine, which grounded the authority of Scripture in the extant Hebrew and Greek texts preserved through God’s providence.
B. Reliance on Textual Criticism
The Chicago Statement implicitly places the burden of recovering the inerrant text on the discipline of textual criticism. It suggests that through human effort, scholars can reconstruct the original autographs with sufficient accuracy to affirm their inerrancy. This reliance on critical methodologies introduces significant tensions:
- Human Effort vs. Divine Preservation: The statement elevates the role of human scholarship in validating Scripture’s authority, diverging from the Reformation’s emphasis on God’s providential preservation of the text.
- Inherent Uncertainty of Textual Criticism: Textual criticism, by its nature, deals in probabilities rather than certainties. The Chicago Statement’s dependence on this methodology undermines the assurance that believers can have in the reliability of the Scriptures they possess.
- Fragmentation of Authority: By making textual criticism a necessary tool for accessing the inerrant Word, the Chicago Statement fragments the authority of Scripture, placing it partially in the hands of scholars rather than the church.
C. Confusion Between Infallibility and Inerrancy
The Chicago Statement claims to uphold both inerrancy and infallibility but conflates and weakens these doctrines. Historically, infallibility affirmed that Scripture cannot fail in its purpose of revealing God’s truth and guiding His people. The doctrine was grounded in God’s character and His promise to preserve His Word through every generation.
The Chicago Statement, however, redefines infallibility in terms of inerrancy, making it dependent on the absence of factual errors in the original autographs. This reductionist approach weakens the broader theological framework of infallibility as understood by the Reformers. While infallibility encompasses the inspiration, preservation, and efficacy of Scripture, the Chicago Statement’s version narrows its focus to error-free content, separating it from the providential work of God in the transmission of the text.
D. Practical Contradictions
The Chicago Statement creates practical contradictions that further undermine its claims:
- Accessible Texts vs. Theoretical Inerrancy: While the statement affirms the authority of Scripture for the church, its focus on the inerrancy of the autographs suggests that the texts in the church’s possession are merely approximations of the authoritative Word. This raises the question of whether believers can have full confidence in the Scriptures they use.
- Variation in Manuscripts: The acknowledgment of textual variations in the manuscript tradition directly contradicts the claim that the Scriptures are entirely free from error. If the text of Scripture is not wholly inerrant in its extant form, then inerrancy becomes a concept divorced from the reality of the church’s experience.
- Pastoral Implications: The hypothetical nature of inerrancy, combined with the reliance on textual criticism, leaves lay believers with little assurance that they possess the true Word of God. This undermines the pastoral and practical utility of the doctrine.
E. Departure from the Reformation
The Chicago Statement represents a significant departure from the Reformation’s confessional theology. The Reformers affirmed that God’s Word had been preserved in its purity and was fully accessible to the church. They did not make a distinction between the authority of the autographs and the extant texts but instead upheld the providential preservation of Scripture as the basis for its trustworthiness and sufficiency.
By contrast, the Chicago Statement’s focus on inerrancy as a property of the autographs reflects an Enlightenment rationalism that prioritizes empirical precision over theological faithfulness. This shift introduces a fragility into the doctrine of Scripture, making its authority dependent on human reconstruction rather than divine preservation.
F. Toward a Confessional Understanding
The inconsistencies of the Chicago Statement highlight the need for a return to the Reformation’s confessional doctrine of Scripture. A robust theology of preservation affirms that God has kept His Word pure in all ages, providing the church with an authoritative and reliable text. This framework not only avoids the speculative pitfalls of inerrancy but also aligns with the biblical and theological witness to God’s faithfulness in preserving His Word.
The Chicago Statement’s attempt to safeguard Scripture’s authority ultimately undermines the church’s confidence in the Scriptures it possesses. Its reliance on a hypothetical inerrancy rooted in the autographs fails to provide the assurance offered by the Reformation’s doctrine of providential preservation. By recovering the full-orbed doctrine of infallibility as taught by the Reformers, the church can affirm the reliability and sufficiency of the Word of God in a way that is both theologically consistent and pastorally effective.
V. The Role of Infallibility in Bolstering Inerrancy
The doctrine of inerrancy, as articulated by B.B. Warfield and formalized in the Chicago Statement, drew heavily from the historic doctrine of infallibility. However, this borrowing was selective and reductionist. By isolating inerrancy from the broader theological framework of infallibility, Warfield and his successors weakened the historic Reformed understanding of Scripture. The full-orbed doctrine of infallibility, rooted in God’s character and providence, affirmed the entire process of inspiration, preservation, and the Scripture’s efficacy in achieving its divine purposes. This section examines how infallibility was redefined to support inerrancy and the consequences of this shift for theology and the church.
A. The Reformed Doctrine of Infallibility
Historically, infallibility was central to the Reformed understanding of Scripture. It affirmed that:
- God’s Word Cannot Fail: Infallibility rested on the character of God, who cannot lie or err. The Scriptures, being divinely inspired, are entirely trustworthy and achieve the purposes for which God gave them (Isaiah 55:11; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
- Providential Preservation: Infallibility encompassed the belief that God had preserved His Word throughout history. The extant manuscripts and translations were seen as sufficiently pure to convey God’s truth, providing an authoritative basis for doctrine and practice (Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8).
- Holistic Application: Infallibility applied not only to the truth claims of Scripture but also to its power to sanctify, guide, and convict. It affirmed the sufficiency, clarity, and efficacy of the text in all matters of faith and life.
This understanding of infallibility was not limited to theoretical affirmations but was deeply practical. It provided the church with confidence in the Scriptures it possessed and used, without requiring speculative appeals to hypothetical originals.
B. Warfield’s Redefinition of Infallibility
In his defense of inerrancy, Warfield co-opted elements of the doctrine of infallibility while narrowing its scope to align with Enlightenment rationalism. This redefinition had several key effects:
- Narrowing of Focus: Warfield shifted the emphasis of infallibility from the entire process of inspiration and preservation to the error-free nature of the original autographs. This move reduced infallibility to a function of factual accuracy, ignoring its broader theological and pastoral dimensions.
- Separation from Preservation: By tying inerrancy to the autographs, Warfield effectively severed the connection between infallibility and the providential preservation of Scripture. The extant text, though reliable, was no longer considered the direct object of infallibility but a secondary witness to the inerrant originals.
- Alignment with Rationalism: Warfield’s framework reflected an Enlightenment epistemology that sought to validate Scripture’s truthfulness through empirical and critical methodologies. This reliance on rationalism shifted the foundation of infallibility from faith in God’s providence to human efforts to reconstruct the original text.
C. The Fragmentation of Infallibility
The narrowing of infallibility to support inerrancy created a fragmented understanding of Scripture. Key elements of the historic doctrine were sidelined or weakened:
- Loss of Providential Assurance: The Reformers’ confidence in the purity of the extant text gave way to uncertainty about the Scriptures in the church’s possession. The focus on the autographs introduced a theoretical gap between the church and the authoritative Word of God.
- Erosion of Scriptural Clarity and Efficacy: By emphasizing factual accuracy over the broader purposes of Scripture, Warfield’s inerrancy diminished the holistic view of infallibility as affirming Scripture’s ability to accomplish its divine purposes.
- Pastoral Implications: The fragmentation of infallibility undermined the pastoral assurance that believers could trust the Scriptures they read and heard. The theoretical nature of inerrancy left room for doubt about the reliability of the extant text.
D. Reassessing the Relationship Between Infallibility and Inerrancy
While Warfield’s redefinition of infallibility sought to strengthen inerrancy, it ultimately weakened the historic Reformed understanding of Scripture. A reassessment of this relationship reveals the need to restore infallibility to its full theological context:
- Infallibility as Foundational: Infallibility should be understood as the broader theological category encompassing Scripture’s inspiration, preservation, and efficacy. Inerrancy, if affirmed, must operate within this framework, rather than superseding or redefining it.
- Return to Providence: The Reformers’ emphasis on providential preservation provides a more robust foundation for confidence in Scripture. Rather than relying on speculative reconstructions, the church can trust that God has kept His Word pure in all ages.
- Holistic Confidence: Recovering the full scope of infallibility allows for a holistic confidence in Scripture, affirming its authority, clarity, and sufficiency in all matters of faith and life.
E. Toward a Confessional Recovery
The church today stands at a crossroads. The doctrine of inerrancy, shaped by Enlightenment rationalism, has introduced uncertainties and tensions that the Reformers’ doctrine of infallibility did not face. A recovery of the full-orbed doctrine of infallibility, rooted in providence and confession, offers a more theologically and pastorally satisfying approach to Scripture.
By affirming that God has not only inspired His Word but also preserved it for His church, the doctrine of infallibility restores confidence in the extant text without reliance on speculative theories. It aligns with the biblical witness to God’s faithfulness and the historic Reformed understanding of Scripture, providing a firm foundation for the church’s teaching, preaching, and practice.
Warfield’s adaptation of infallibility to support inerrancy reflects a well-intentioned but ultimately flawed attempt to defend the Bible against modern challenges. By rediscovering the richness of the Reformed doctrine of infallibility, the church can regain a biblical and confessional confidence in the Scriptures, fully equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
