Imprecise Language about the Bible’s Authority: The Second Summary Statement of CSBI

"The BioLogos Forum" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.

Today's entry was written by Pete Enns. Pete Enns is a former Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture.

This is part three in a blog series by Pete Enns (other parts can be found in the sidebar). In order to remove obstacles from the science and faith discussion, Enns carefully examines both the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (CSBH), two documents that were developed by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The CSBI and CSBH were produced during three-day summits to which approximately 300 pastors from the Evangelical community came in an effort to defend and define biblical inerrancy. Despite their best efforts, there are still hermeneutical and theological shortcomings in the statements that pose road blocks to the progression of the science and faith discussion. Throughout the series, Enns looks at three main problems with the content of these declarations: inadequate genre recognition, a failure to appreciate how the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament complicates various Articles, and a failure to appreciate narrative developments within the Bible.

Today we are looking at the second of five summary statements that introduce the Articles of Affirmation and Denial of Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CBSI). These five statements explain the theological underpinnings of inerrancy that are developed in the Articles. In my last post, we looked at how “truth” is not a neutral concept to be applied to Scripture, but a concept that must be handled with hermeneutical and theological reflection.

The second summary statement focuses on the notion of biblical authority, which is a central concern of CSBI: inerrancy and biblical authority are two sides of the same coin. Since Scripture is the work of the Holy Spirit, it is authoritative, and it follows that it must be inerrant. And the reverse: since Scripture is the work of the Holy Spirit, it is inerrant, and it follows that it must be authoritative.

In other words, authoritative Scripture must be inerrant; an inerrant Scripture must be authoritative. In a nutshell, this is what CSBI as a whole sets out to explain and defend.

The second summary statement begins to flesh out a bit more the scope of biblical authority.

2. 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: It is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.

This second summary statement is sweeping in scope. Of course, summaries tend to be broad and sweeping by nature, and so perhaps leave themselves open to unfair, easy criticism, which is to be avoided in all discourse. Nevertheless, there are several issues used here that are begging for more clarification.

The first sentence makes the expected claim that Scripture is a product of the Spirit’s superintendence, guiding its human authors who had been prepared for the task. “Superintended” however can be somewhat of a buzz-word, suggesting that the Spirit’s superintendence produced not simply an inerrant Bible, but inerrant in the way as that is understood by the framers of CSBI (which as we will in upcoming posts see includes historical and scientific matters).

But claiming wholeheartedly the Spirit’s superintendence tells us nothing about the end product that the Spirit is superintending. It is possible that the Spirit is not leading the biblical writers to produce a text that the framers of CBSI have in mind. We are running up here against the same problem we saw in my last post: terminology—like “superintendence” or “truth”—loaded with assumed meanings without first conferring whether Scripture is designed to shoulder those meanings. As I said in my last post, this is one of the more persistent obstacles of CBSI.

Another example of vague language is that Scripture speaks with divine authority “in all matters upon which it touches.” This is seen as a natural extension of the Spirit’s superintendence. But what does this mean for Scripture to “touch” upon something?

“Touches” is too vague a word to be of much guidance, for Scripture “touches” on a lot of things, and it is by no means a foregone conclusion that at each “touch point” it speaks authoritatively—especially since the nature of that authority is likewise left vague. Scripture “touches” upon the issue of servitude in the Old Testament, but few today would argue that these passages speak “authoritatively” for practice today.

To raise a relevant example for BioLogos, in Genesis 1, Scripture certainly “touches” on the issue of the creation of the cosmos. But the question quickly becomes, “Touches, but in what way? Authoritative, but exactly how?” In other words, how Scripture is “authoritative” on a subject that it “touches” invariably involves us in a hermeneutical and theological discussion.

It should not be presumed that Scripture’s authority in touching on the matter of creation demands a literal reading of Genesis 1. Put differently, it is not at all clear that the Spirit’s superintendence of the biblical writers means that historical and scientific accuracy is now required of a faithful reading of Genesis 1 simply because Scripture is “authoritative” and “touches” on the issue of creation. The Spirit’s superintendence might have led the ancient biblical writers to “touch” on the matter of creation according to ancient ways of understanding Scripture, not beholden to our current notions. In that case, just what we mean by biblical authority with respect to Genesis 1 becomes a far more complicated matter than CSBI lets on.

The same criticism holds for other vague terms in summary statement two. To say that Scripture is to be believed as divine “instruction” in all it “affirms” begs the question of what “affirms” means and what form of “instruction” is in view. Does not Genesis 1 “affirm” creation in six days, with morning and evening? Of course. But, does the fact that Scripture “affirms” such a scenario tell us what it means to accept it as “instruction”? No, it does not.

Could it not be that “believing” the creation story means reading it as an ancient form of communication, where standards of “affirmation” and “instruction” are to be understood according to ancient categories, not modern ones? Will not such notions as “affirmation” and “instruction” have to be filled in for us by a close reading of Scripture in context rather than meaning we assign to those words.

Likewise, statement two tells us that Scripture is to be obeyed “in all it requires” and “embraced…in all its promises.” On the surface, few would quibble, but again, unless we determine what “require” and “embrace” mean, we are left grasping at straws. Does Genesis 1 “require” that the text be “obeyed” as literal, or does it require some other type of obedience?

In summary, the difficulty with statement two is that claims are made about Scripture that have significant hermeneutical and theological implications, but without having done the necessary and involved hermeneutical and theological work to justify those claims. Any movement forward, especially in the science/faith discussion, will require more careful reflection.