Is the Bible Historically and Scientifically Infallible and Inerrant? CSBI Articles XI and XII

"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 eleven 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.

Article XI

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from 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. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

In a nutshell, the argument posed in these two Articles is as follows.

(A.) Since Scripture is inspired by God, It therefore, ⇒ (B.) is not misleading, false, fraudulent, or deceitful, but true, reliable, and inerrant. ⇒ (C.)These properties extend to the entirety of Scripture, ⇒ (D.) not just to spiritual matters but to matters of history and science. ⇒ (E.) This applies specifically to the creation and flood stories.

We see here what we have seen throughout CSBI thus far. According to the framers, inspiration requires the Bible to behave in certain ways. To make such a far-reaching claim, it must already be presumed what inspiration necessarily entails. One would never move from “inspiration” (A) to “scientifically and historically accurate creation and flood stories” (D and E), as these Articles do, unless one’s prior definition of inspiration required it.

So, once again, we are up against a familiar problem. Much of what burdens CSBI can be summed up as failing to reflect adequately on the nature of inspiration. The irony is clear. In their efforts to protect biblical authority, the framers define inspiration in a way that does not account well for how the Bible actually behaves.

This results in the need to defend the Bible in statements such as CSBI. The problem, however, may not be the Bible as much as false expectations of what the Bible can deliver. And nothing hampers the science/faith discussion more quickly than false expectations of Genesis 1-3 and other relevant texts.

The logical flow of the assertions in these Articles, as outlined above, shows us how the framers move from the inspiration of Scripture to a historically and scientifically error-free record of creation and the flood as a necessary consequence of inspiration.

Note that inspiration implies that Scripture does not mislead, deceive, etc., but rather is truthful and inerrant (B). These are relatively innocent claims that an Evangelical audience would readily agree to, though already at this point we are seeing the recurring problem of (1) using emotionally loaded terms like “fraud” and “deceive”, and (2) frontloading important terms like “truth” and “inerrant” with meaning that has not been discussed or defined. At this point an observant reader might put on the brakes and ask, “Okay. I agree that inspiration implies that God will be truthful and free from error when he speaks, but don’t we need to talk about what truth and error mean?”

Asking this question is crucial, for it is clear the framers wish to lead us to a certain logical conclusion (A eventually must lead to D and E). The next chain in the framers’ logic is to assert that inerrancy extends to all of Scripture, not just part of it (C). Once again, few Evangelicals would blink at reading this. However, a rhetorical trap of sorts is about to be sprung moving from C to D and E. Readers have been lead along and are now “logically committed” to seeing all of Scripture as inerrant because Scripture is inspired and cannot mislead.

But what crucial piece of information is missing? We do not yet know the manner in which Scripture does not “mislead” or is “truthful” and “inerrant.” I know I sound like a broken record, but we are back to the recurring problem of defining our terms. The framers seem to want to paint us into a hermeneutical corner by claiming that inspiration means that error-free historical and scientific truth will be found there (D and E), since this is what is required of an inspired text (as A through C have shown).

But, this tour de force carries little weight until we are clear on how these crucial terms are defined. For example, it is an indisputable literary fact that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life differ rather significantly. Does the premise that God does not “mislead” or “deceive” mean that such differences of fact are actually not there? Or, do we need to account for how the Bible actually behaves in order to define what “mislead” might mean with respect to Gospel differences—or, indeed, whether the term is even significant? If the latter is correct (as I argue), then the logical chain of A through E will have to be rethought.

The same hold for scientific issues. Does the premise that God does not mislead or deceive but only speaks truthfully and free from error mean that Genesis 1-3, therefore, must be compatible with modern scientific and historical standards? CSBI seems to make the case for this very point in these two Articles.

Or can Genesis 1-3 speak truthfully, etc., in the idiom of ancient creation stories, where “history” and “science” (at least as we define these terms today) are irrelevant categories—in other words, by letting biblical categories determine how Scripture is truthful, etc.? In my estimation, CSBI is not persistent enough in allowing Scripture to define its own categories.

CSBI does not address these sorts of questions of definition, but these are the very questions that have to be addressed with care and energy, not only for the benefit of the science/faith discussion but many others matters of biblical interpretation.

The chain of logic seen in these Articles seems persuasive until the underlying problems of definition are exposed. That which is assumed by the framers is the very thing that needs to be under serious discussion: what do mislead, deceive, truth, error, etc., mean and how does all of this apply to pressing matters of contemporary interpretation?

But as it stands, these Articles paint well-meaning readers into a corner, where they are logically bound to dismiss scientific evidence concerning cosmology and geology in order to retain a high view of Scripture. This is a false dilemma and should not be perpetuated.