What Does it Mean to “Receive” the Bible as Authoritative? CSBI Article I

"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 six 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.

In the past several posts, we have looked at the Preface and Summary Statements of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. These introduce the theological assumptions that inform the heart of the document, which is the nineteen “Articles of Affirmation and Denial.”

Listing one’s beliefs in the form of what is affirmed and correspondingly denied is a helpful, and quite common, way of expressing a set of beliefs. (for example, Answers in Genesis has a statement “Affirmations and Denials Essential to a Christian (Biblical) Worldview”) Denials are essentially clarifications of the affirmations, though from another angle. Hypothetically, for example, one can affirm that “We believe that God is the creator of the heavens and the earth.” This, however, leaves a lot of leeway to fill in information that the authors may not have intended. One could follow this affirmation by saying, “We deny that God created through an evolutionary process.” Or, one could say, “We deny that ‘creation’ conforms to modern scientific notions, but rather profess that it is to be understood by ancient standards of ‘ordering the cosmos.’” Either way, the affirmation is clarified by the denial.

Denials flesh out what is being affirmed, and typically, though not always, CSBI’s Articles make their point clearly enough.

The Articles also show some sort of progression of thought that moves from #1 to #19, from more basic points of theology to more hermeneutically complex points (though not consistently so). It will also be obvious that all the statements are equally open to criticism—especially for us, if they have no real bearing on the science/faith question. Others are more pertinent. Still, in order to get the whole picture, we will cover all nineteen articles but not belabor less central issues that arise, however interesting they might be in other contexts. (So, some posts will look at several of the Articles, not just one.)

We will begin today by looking at the first Article.

Article I

We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.

We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

The first article simple says that the authority of Scripture is dependent on no outside source but is “internal,” so to speak. Some speak of Scripture as “self-attesting.” Of course, this is a matter of faith for Christians, as it should be. Scripture’s authority cannot be adjudicated by any outside source, but must simply be accepted, or “received” as such as this article puts it.

But we must follow the logic of this first article, for receiving Scripture as authoritative does not constitute proof that it is. All religions have an authority that serves as a fundamentally unquestioned base from which to proceed theologically. This is why others add that receiving Scripture as authoritative is a gift of the Spirit: if any other ground is given, the “self-attesting” nature of Scripture would be undercut.

I would add, though, that confessing Scripture’s authority as a starting point does not address the way in which Scripture functions authoritatively. We have seen this repeatedly in my previous posts. In other words, we are still left with hammering out the theological and hermeneutical details.

For example, are there portions of Scripture that functioned authoritatively in ancient contexts but not in later times? Are there portions of the Old Testament—no less God’s word—that cease having authoritative status in light of the gospel (e.g., Jesus’ discontinuation of dietary laws in Mark 7:19)? Does Jesus’ injunction to turn the other cheek have authority in all situations, personal and national?

These and many other similar questions are perennial ones that Christians invariably address in hammering out how (not whether) Scripture functions authoritatively in the life of the church.

So, by speaking of Scripture as the received authority of the church, this should not be read to imply that reading Scripture will easily settle our theological questions—as if a glance at Genesis 1 and 2 settles the question of human origins. The diverse opinions on many theological issues held by the church throughout history attest to the invariably complex nature of the theological and hermeneutical discussion.

“Authority” really means that, in their theological and hermeneutical deliberations, Christians will recognize that Scripture is always there, front and center, as that to which one must give serious and respectful account to “give account” reflects the church’s unending privilege in working out where and in what way Scripture speaks.

My main concern in Article I, though, is that it continues in the vein that we have already seen in the Preface and Summary Statements: it uses vocabulary invested with potentially theologically charged meaning. To put it another way, the entire debate is all about how to define words like authority, inerrancy, what the Bible teaches, affirms, etc.

Failure to address the theological and hermeneutical issues surrounding those definitions will certainly prevent a meaningful dialogue between faith and science from getting off the ground. Yet this is precisely what is needed.

Promoting this needed dialogue is not meant to “make room” artificially for evolution, to sneak it in through the back door of irrelevant debate and scholar-speak, but to do what the church has always had to do: think about what Scripture means and how it is to be applied in concrete circumstances. That is part of the Christian calling. To require such depth of thought in the evolution discussion is not a faithless accommodation to evolution, but a thoughtful application of the church’s perennial theological task.