Editor’s Note:  Rich Wright, one of the students in our ARS Apologetics Certificate Program, has written an excellent paper on the question of the inerrancy of the Bible, focusing in on the most important document on that topic ever published, which is known as the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.  He criticizes their approach, especially with respect to questions relating to statement relevant to science–especially regarding Genesis and the age of the earth.  The views expressed here are not those of ARS, but we feel that this is a valuable paper and, in fact, we are really proud that Rich submitted the paper to us.  I am also attaching a WORD document.   Chicago Inerrancy Paper

A Case to Rewrite the Chicago Statements on Biblical Inerrancy and Hermeneutics due to Contradictions, Inconsistencies and Lazy Theology Concerning Science and the Bible   Richare Wright

 

Richard Wright

INTRODUCTION

There is much to admire in the Chicago Inerrancy statements.  The authority of scripture had been under attack in 1978, as well as for some time beforehand, and a summary statement of inerrancy was necessary as a rallying point for evangelicals in a world of ever-increasing doubt and skepticism of all things religious.  With salvation clearly on the line, the statements bring home unequivocally resounding  points that are timeless and true for the individual and the church:  that the bible is the only way we can know about the life and teachings of the author of salvation, Jesus Christ:  that it is the only way we can know God’s message of salvation, from the words of Jesus and the other writers of the new testament:  that the scriptures are given to us through the work of the Holy Spirit and receive their authority from God alone and not from any human institution:  and that the bible is without error in all that it teaches.  The statements build from this foundation of theological cornerstones a solid fort of biblical truth that can guide the Christian and the church on how the bible is to be believed in, interpreted and applied to our lives.  The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy  (CSBI), and its sisters the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (CSBH) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Application weren’t put together primarily to cover issues of science and the bible.  However, science and its relation to scripture were discussed, but in the authors opinion in such a brief and vague fashion that the statements did little to address the seemingly growing disparity, then and now, between discoveries in God’s world and revelations in God’s word.  Today, the issues of the bible and science are in the public’s consciousness more than ever, with many millennials leaving the church in part due to perceived contradictions between modern science and certain interpretations of the bible.[1]  This paper will discuss contradictions, inconsistencies and lazy theology in attempts by the authors of the statements to judge certain scientific theories, such as the theory of biological evolution, as biblically invalid due to issues with biblical inerrancy, and how those judgments are having an effect on the faith vs. science debate today.

INFLUENCE

The influence of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in the evangelical world can hardly be understated.  The Evangelical Theological Society has adopted it as the “guiding” definition of inerrancy, a definition that must be affirmed for membership.[2]  Mike Riccardi, a pastor at Grace Community Church in Los Angeles, writes that, “The CSBI has been a key point of reference in the inerrancy debate, clearly spelling out what its signers believed about the integrity and authority of Scripture, and why they believed “inerrancy” was a necessary designation to use.”[3]  In terms of possible implications to younger generations, the influence of the CSBI can be seen in the fact that the first sentence in Wikipedia’s article on biblical inerrancy contains two quotes from the CSBI.[4]  Because of this influence, the statement has heavily influenced the science vs. the bible debate, which on the faith side is fueled mostly by the evangelical camp.  And too many evangelical leaders are still resisting the findings of modern science, making it difficult for educated young people to become believers and easy for skeptics to attack the bible.

BACKROUND

By the 1970s, there was a strong perception among evangelical scholars that the church was drifting away from its position of inerrancy, that the bible is without error.[5]  In October 1978, the International Conference on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) held a conference in Chicago with the expressed purpose of producing a statement defining the doctrine of inerrancy.[6]  This conference included 268 participants from around the world who represented thirty-four seminaries, thirty-three colleges, forty-one churches, and thirty-eight Christian denominations.[7]  The result was the inerrancy statement, which was the first of three statements issued by the group, the second and third being the statement on biblical hermeneutics, released in 1982 and on biblical application which was released in 1986.[8]

Society has changed much since the CSBI was being worked out.  At that time, disco was in full swing, Grease the big movie out, Soviet satellites were burning out in the North American sky and Egypt’s and Israel’s leaders sat together in cozy outdoor meetings at camp David to discuss peace in the Middle East.  One thing that hasn’t changed much since then, however, is evangelicals being concerned that inerrancy, or their version of it, is under attack from liberal conceptions of scripture and the rise of the influence of higher criticism.[9]  These factors caused the formation in 1977 of the ICBI, which planned a defense of its views that entailed meeting in Chicago to create what, “leading inerrantists” view as a thorough statement of their views of inerrancy.[10]

THE STATEMENTS

Though three statements were released by the ICBI, this paper will focus on the first two, since that is where issues with the bible and science are touched upon.  The CSBI consists of a preface, a short introductory statement, articles of affirmation and denial where each article consists of short, “We Affirm” and, “We Deny” statements and an ending exposition.[11]  The CSBH consists of a preface and its articles of affirmation and denial.[12]  This paper will also refer to short commentaries on each article of the CSBH written by Norman Geisler, one of the signatories, from a book that explains the inerrancy and hermeneutics statements and is the official commentary on them.[13]  Though most analyses of the statements focus strictly on the articles of affirmation and denial, this paper will use all aspects of the statements, including and especially Geisler’s CSBH commentaries, to make its points.

SCIENCE AND THE STATEMENTS

The authors of the statements thoroughly understand that for God to be whom He claims to be in the bible, that is a completely honest, good and trustworthy god, then there can be no real contradiction between what scripture teaches and what the natural world reveals as scientific truths.  This exact sentiment can be found in article 21 of the CSBH:

WE AFFIRM

The harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of biblical teaching with the facts of nature.

 

WE DENY

That any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture[14].

 

Of course, two major question immediately arise, which are what exactly is any passage of scripture teaching, and what is the reality of any given aspect of the physical realm.  The statements, as will be shown, do not consider some accepted scientific theories as, “genuine” science, specifically mentioning the theory of biological evolution, the age of the earth, and as well at times flood geology (though for purposes of brevity this paper will focus on evolution and the earth’s age).  Since this and other articles are not shy in denigrating those theories, at this point it will be important to review the statuses of evolution and the earth’s age at the time when the statements were written to see if they were, “genuine” theories or not.

 

EVOLUTION AT THE TIME

 

In the 1970s, the theory of biological evolutionary was well established.  Topics for discussion by scientists at the time included the so-called evolutionary arms race, punctuated equilibrium, the adaptive role of sex in evolution and the endosymbiotic theory for the origin of organelles, among others.[15]  Richard Dawkins was writing books about selfish genes and E.O. Wilson was writing books claiming that evolution could explain human behavior, a view that has helped lead to the formation of the field of evolutionary psychology.[16]  And by the time the ICBI met on that fateful weekend in October 1978, the modern evolutionary synthesis was four decades old.  In the eighties, developments at the molecular level in biological development influenced a new field in evolution that is prominent in today’s rethinking of evolutionary mechanisms, the field of evolutionary developmental biology, known popularly as, “evo-devo”.[17]  That decade also saw the development of the concept of evolutionary, “exaptations”, or features that evolved but not for their current function.[18]  In short, the theory of biological evolution was alive and flourishing in the late seventies and eighties and its acceptance was seen in the teaching of evolution in public school since the early part of the twentieth century.

 

EARTH’S AGE AT THE TME

 

At the time of the statements’ writing the theory of the earth’s age it was, like evolution, a settled issue among scientists, specifically in the field of geology.  The accepted age of the earth, 4.5 billion years, was first determined by H.G. Houtermans using radiocarbon dating (within error limits) in 1953, sixty plus years ago.[19]  Since the 1960s, ways to radiometrically date rocks have been fined tuned and over 40 methods have been developed, which have been used on different materials, all giving earth ages that are in close agreement to one another.[20]  In short, it is safe to say that the theories of biological evolution, that species developed gradually from common descendants over long periods of time, and an ancient age of the earth were considered, “genuine science” by 1978.  Therefore, it will be appropriate to proceed under the premise that evolution and an ancient earth were accepted scientific theories when the statements were written.

 

STAKES

 

The CSBI is not shy in stating what it is at stake for the individual, and for the church, which doesn’t abide by its concept of biblical inerrancy.  This can first be seen in part five of the CSBI’s short statement, which states:

 

“The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.”[21]

 

The same sentiment can be seen in article 19 of the CSBI, which states:

 

WE AFFIRM

That a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.[22]

 

WE DENY

That such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.

 

Finally, it states in the preface of the CSBI that,

 

“The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God’s own Word which marks true Christian faith.”[23]

 

The authors clearly take the view that giving authority to scripture entails holding to a, “total divine inerrancy”, and that anything less than that will lead to, for both the individual and the church, “serious loss” and, “grave consequences”.  The authors also claim that a confession of their brand of inerrancy, “should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.”  The obvious inference being, of course, that one not confessing to their view of inerrancy cannot increasingly conform to the image of Christ.  And though the denial of CSBI article 19 states that not confessing to the authors’ view of inerrancy is a salvation issue, they do claim in the preface of the CSBI that to, “deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God’s own Word which marks true Christian faith.”  So, according to the CSBI, in store for the Christian who doesn’t hold to the authors’ view of inerrancy is not being able to increasingly conform to the image of Christ, the expectation of serious loss and grave consequences, and the consequences of setting aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit.  This seems to be in the very least inconsistent with the denial of confessing to their view of inerrancy being necessary for salvation, one of many inconsistencies/contradictions in the statements that will be shown below, especially with their views of science and the bible.  However, if not an outright salvation issue, the consequences according to the statements of not holding to their view of inerrancy are surely serious, both to the church, and to the individual.

 

SOURCE OF TENSION

 

The tension observed in the statements regarding science and the bible comes mainly from an insistence on interpreting the bible in ways that the authors of the statements feel are important in maintaining their view of inerrancy.  A detailed review of the presumptions that the authors brought in to interpret the bible that will show how, in the end, it is understandable that the statement’s interactions with science are difficult.

 

 

 

A LITERAL VIEW

 

The statements, as seen in several articles, insist on a literal interpretation of the bible.  This is first seen in article 12 of the CSBI, which states:

 

WE AFFIRM

That Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all 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.[24]

 

According to this article, Genesis teaches infallible scientific and historical truth, as well as spiritual, religious and other truth.  The denial goes further, stating that, “scientific hypotheses” cannot overturn, “the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.”  This is where the statements first get it absolutely wrong on science and the bible.  Oxford’s online dictionary defines, “hypothesis” as, “a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation”.[25]  However, evolution and the age of the earth were not mere, “hypotheses” in 1978.  As shown above, they were genuine theories that were well accepted by the scientific community.  This lack of accepting accepted science, which in large part fuels the eternal science vs. the bible debate, underscores a weakness of the statements’ interaction with science and the bible.  The authors want to have their cake and eat it too – they want to insist on a traditional interpretation of Genesis, but just don’t want to concede that a there are real contradictions between that interpretation and legitimate science.  Article 14 of the CSBH states:

 

WE AFFIRM

That the biblical record of events, discourses and sayings, though presented in a variety of appropriate literary forms, corresponds to historical fact.

 

WE DENY

That any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated.[26]

 

Problems arise immediately – first that, while acknowledging that a, “variety of appropriate literary forms” is found in scripture, they all must, according to the authors’ brand of inerrancy, correspond to, “historical fact”.   However, not all literary genres, by their very nature, attempt to portray historical fact.  Also, in the denial, the authors state that nothing in scripture is invented by the biblical writers, which is obvious to any evangelical.  But if God were to use a literary convention such as myth or allegory, for example, to present His word in ways that the people of the time of its writing could understand it, then, while the biblical writer is not inventing any event, he is, through different literary genres, using events that didn’t happen in real life to get across to his audience a theological message.  Also, it is God, the ultimate author of scripture, who would be using these genres and not the writer, whether describing events that are historical or not, to promote His message.  In other words, if there are genres in the bible that are describing events that are not historical, it is not the human author, “inventing” them, it is God using them to promote His spiritual message.  As can be easily seen, lazy theology is observed in this article since it shows a misunderstanding of the use of certain literary genres and it prohibits God from using these genres because they don’t fit into the authors’ literalistic view of scripture.  They acknowledge the use of, “appropriate” literary forms, but never explain, either here or anywhere else, why God couldn’t have used genres such as allegory or even myth to spread his message.  Another article promoting a literal reading of scripture is article 15 of the CSBH, which states:

 

WE AFFIRM

The necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.

 

WE DENY

The legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.[27]

 

Here the authors of the statements proclaim by fiat that only the grammatical-historical approach to the bible is acceptable.  As such, it is important here to review the grammatical-historical method for interpreting the bible, for presumptions behind the grammatical-historical (GH) method of interpreting the bible, which is the method that is used almost exclusively in the evangelical world, define the underlying views that the authors of the statements had in interpreting the bible and have had an enormous influence in creating the tension between science and the statements, and with evangelicals in general.  The GH method assumes that there is one meaning to any passage (or groups of passages) of scripture and tries to, “discover the meaning of the passage as the original author would have intended and what the original hearers would have understood”.[28]  Many use the GH by employing the inductive method, a three-fold approach to a text – observation, interpretation and application.[29]  The observation of the bible attempts to determine, among other things, the literary form of the text.[30]   However, there is an uneasy relationship between certain genres and the GH method.  Since the GH method is always looking for a literal interpretation of biblical text, it can’t really recognize genres that are not attempting to portray literal, historical fact, allegory for example.  The GH method recognizes different genres and tries to flesh out what the writer is trying to say through that genre, but if that genre were allegory, then the GH method will look for literal, historical truth in a story that was not meant to be taken as such.  The GH method’s main rival, the Historical-Critical (HC) method, while as well as the GH method attempts to ascertain the original authors’ message to their audiences, uses extrabiblical sources to help determine the factors that contributed to the making of the text.[31]  So, for example, a bible exegete using the HC method might notice the similarities between the Genesis creation accounts and the ancient Babylonian Mesopotamian creation stories, Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, and Gilgamesh.[32]  The exegete might conclude, especially if he or she had a good foundation in modern science, that the Genesis creation stories were to be understood allegorically, that the author or authors were using a story that was not historical to promote a theological message, as near east creation stories at that time did.  However, the exegete using the GH method to interpret Genesis would not look to use outside sources and would not realize that there are similar ancient creation accounts to Genesis.  Furthermore, the GH-only exegete, upon finding out about other ancient creation stories, would reject using them for analysis since GH world-view doesn’t allow for using higher criticism in helping with bible interpretation.  The result is an insistence on a literal view of early Genesis and a glacially slow acceptance of authentic science, followed by strained attempts to fit the newly accepted theories with a literal Genesis under a cloud of continual friction between the bible and science – to the disdain of the younger generation, wanting to believe in something, but understanding that this science, “contradicts the bible”.

 

NEW GENRE

 

Article 15 of the CSBH seems to create a new literary genre.  In Geisler’s continued attempts to insist that there can be no mythical or allegorical interpretation of the bible, he writes in part of the commentary to that article:  “The Denial warns against attributing to Scripture any meaning not based in a literal understanding, such as mythological or allegorical interpretations.  This should not be understood as eliminating typology or designated allegory or other literary forms which include figures of speech (see Articles X, XIII, and XIV).”  Here Geisler admits that there is allegory in the bible, but only, “designated allegory”, meaning that the text describes itself as allegory, as in Galatians 4:21-26.[33]  So, according to Geisler, allegory is a legitimate biblical literary form, as long as it is announces itself as such.  Geisler seems to mistakenly proceed as if there are no debates in biblical scholarship on genre attribution.  For one example, did those in Joel’s time think that:

 

“I will show wonders in the heavens
and on the earth,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
³¹ The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.”[34]

 

was meant to be taken literally?  How about on the day of Pentecost when Peter quoted it?  Should we apply the GH method to try to understand it?  There simply are passages of scripture in the bible, in writings of the prophets, the book of Revelation and possibly others that have prompted many scholars to agree that the appropriate genre would be allegory.  Besides being wrong in its assertion that only, “designated allegory” is found in scripture, the creation of the new literary category simply ignores the reality of the uncertainty of bible genres and reveals more lazy theology.

 

THEOLOGICAL TRAIN WRECK – ARTICLE 22 OF THE CSBH

 

Most of the issues of where the statements go wrong on science and the bible can be seen in article 22 of the CSBH, which states:

 

WE AFFIRM

That Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.

 

WE DENY

That the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.[35]

 

Since the statements insist over and over again that the bible is to be interpreted literally, it should come as no shock to anyone that toward the end of the CSBH, the second of the three statements, the authors consider Genesis 1-11 to be, “factual”, and that scientific theories (again called, “hypotheses) cannot overturn what scripture, “teaches about creation.”  However, the Geisler immediately back-tracks in the commentary, which creates contradictions within the article and with other articles.  The commentary in its entirety states:

 

 “Since the historicity and the scientific accuracy of the early chapters of the Bible have come under severe attack it is important to apply the “literal” hermeneutic espoused (Article XV) to this question. The result was recognition of the factual nature of the account of the creation of the universe, all living things, the special creation of man, the Fall, and the Flood. These accounts are all factual, that is, they are about space-time events which actually happened as reported in the book of Genesis (see Article XIV).  The article left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference. There was, however, complete agreement on denying that Genesis is mythological or unhistorical.  Likewise, the use of the term “creation” was meant to exclude the belief in macro-evolution, whether of the atheistic or theistic varieties.” [36]

 

The, “teachings of creation” is first mentioned in part 4 of the Short Statement in the CSBI, which states that, “Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation”.[37]  Geisler in the commentary of article 22 recognizes that early Genesis had come under, “severe attack”, surely meaning from science, yet the response was to apply the, “literal hermeneutic espoused (Article XV)” to the question.  What did the authors mean to accomplish by applying a literal rendering to the traditional literal rendering of early Genesis?  If the authors meant what they had written in article 21 of the CSBH, that there can be no conflict between God’s special revelation and His natural revelation, then one would have expected them to consult with believing scientists to assess the, “genuineness” of the theories that appeared to be in conflict with the traditional rendering of early Genesis.  However, there is no evidence in any of the statements that they attempted any such determination.  Did the authors ever consider why was it that the, “historicity and scientific accuracy” of early chapters of Genesis were under such a severe attack?  Could it have been from God?  Nothing is mentioned about the science behind the theories at all, only statements that everything in the bible is to be considered literal and historical fact, regardless of how strongly modern science makes those assertions harder and harder to believe.  If the authors, who are so certain that Genesis is historical, see that certain scientific theories and a literal Genesis are non-compatible, then they should have simply stated that they will stand by the literal bible on principle, regardless of the findings of modern science.  However, that is not the case, even in the commentary of the same article.  Regarding the age of the earth, the commentary states that, “The article left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference.”  Geisler admits that some of the authors of the CSBH did not believe in a young earth, presumably because of the findings of modern science.  If that is the case, then scientific, “hypotheses” can, in fact, overturn teachings on creation from Genesis, since for 1600 years educated Europeans believed, due to the, “teachings” of Genesis, that the world was young and over the next 300 years came to believe in an ancient earth, as did educated Americans, due to the teachings of science.[38]  The commentary also contradicts article 12 of the CSBI that also claims that scientific, “hypotheses” can’t be used to, “overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood”.  The authors could be saying something to the effect of, “Genesis doesn’t definitively claim a young earth, and with the current age of the earth theory they are open to either interpretation, either a young or an old earth”.  But that presents a big problem for the authors, since, again, in several articles they claim that scientific, “hypothesis” cannot, “be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood” (CSBI article 12), cannot, “overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation” (CSBH article 22) and that, “Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation” (CBSI Short Statement).  If science can’t overturn the teachings on creation, then it must be clear what the bible is saying about creation.  One simply cannot make the claim that science can’t overturn a certain teaching, when there isn’t a clear view of what that teaching is.  But that is exactly what the authors do.  When Geisler says that the authors, “left open the question of the age of the earth”, not only does the commentary contradict CSBI article 12, its own article and the CSBI short statement, it is admitting that at least some of the teachings on creation in Genesis are not clear teachings.  If that is the case, then why is it not possible that other creation teachings might not be clear?  If science can overthrow the teaching of a young earth in the 17^th century, then why can’t it overthrow the teaching of instantaneous creation of animals in the 20^th century?  The question is especially poignant when considering that a young earth and a special creation of man and animals are mentioned in the same creation story in Genesis 1.  But again, absolutely no effort is put forth concerning the theology of early Genesis or the science that is severely attacking its literal historicity.  And, as mentioned above, never is an explanation given as to why the insistence on using a purely literal hermeneutic in bible interpretation, even when it is admitted that such an interpretation was becoming more and more strained in the face of modern science.  Therefore, it can clearly be seen that all the problems of the statements and science can be seen in the CSBH’s article 22:  contradictions, inconsistencies and lazy theology.

 

OTHER EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE

 

The evangelical wanting to believe in a purely literal interpretation of Genesis might comfort him or herself with the thought that, “the earth’s age in Genesis is vague and if the earth really is old then it is only one exception to the rule”.  He or she might not feel an overwhelming onslaught to the literal Genesis or bible.  But if the evangelical had any knowledge of the history of the church and/or science, then he or she will see that the age of the earth is hardly the only literal interpretation laid waste by scientific discoveries, and not the only one mentioned in the statements.  To their credit, the authors mention another such example in the commentary of article CSBH 20, though there are issues with the article itself, which states:

WE AFFIRM

That since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are

consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to

nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extra-biblical data have

value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty

interpretations.

 

WE DENY

That extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over

it.[39]

The theology alluded to in this article is hazy indeed.  The authors seem to make a distinction between, “faulty interpretations” mentioned in the affirmation and the, “teaching of Scripture” in the denial.  What exactly, then, determines whether an interpretation of scripture is a faulty interpretation or a teaching of scripture?  As usual with other vague declarations in the statements, no clarifying explanation is given.  But not only does this article display another example lazy theology, it as well seems to be another example of an article that contradicts itself.  The authors mention, in the affirmation, what the commentary in CSBH article 22 alludes to – that there are times when extrabiblical data can not only clarify biblical teachings but can even prompt for, “correction of faulty interpretations”.  Firstly, this directly contradicts CSBI article 12 and CSBH article 22, both of which state that scientific hypotheses (extra-biblical data) cannot overturn the teachings on creation and the flood.  The denial, however, goes on to state that extrabiblical views cannot ever disprove the, “teaching of scripture or hold priority of it.”  But that is exactly what the affirmation allows, extrabiblical data to correct a faulty interpretation.  And admitting that the earth may be old also accepts that some, “extrabiblical” data can overturn a creation, “teaching”, since Christians, due to, “teachings” in Genesis held to a young earth for at least 1600 years.   However, the age of the earth is hardly the only exception to the rule of literalness that the authors recognize where extrabiblical data corrected a faulty interpretation.  The commentary in article 20 states:

 

“Although only the Bible is the normative and infallible rule for doctrine and practice, nevertheless what one learns from sources outside Scripture can occasion a reexamination and reinterpretation of Scripture. For example, some have taught the world to be square because the Bible refers to “the four corners of the earth” (Isa. 11:12).  But scientific knowledge of the spherical nature of the globe leads to a correction of this faulty interpretation.”[40]

 

Geisler correctly states that believers, because of the a literal Genesis, believed in a flat earth, and did so for hundreds of years after philosophers and scholars believed in a round earth until, “scientific knowledge” led them to a, “correction of [that] faulty interpretation”.[41]  Also, there is the famous example of astrological findings leading believers to leave the formally biblically endorsed geocentric model of the universe, which they had believed for 2,000 years due to, “teachings of the bible”, to a heliocentric view.[42]  So, if the authors concede that the earth is ancient, then there are at least 3 well-known examples of literal interpretations of the bible knuckling under the weight of established science, one from ancient times, one from renaissance times and one in modern times.  The evangelical cannot find comfort in the age of the earth being the sole exception to the rule – there are multiple established examples of extrabiblical data overturning traditional, “teachings” of scripture.   Therefore, the denial in the article simply has no legs to stand on, denying that, “extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.”, when exactly that has happened at least three times in the history of Christianity, one example admitted to in the statements and another alluded to.  But the problems of this article are more due to lazy theology than with contradictions, since it does not at all help us understand the difference between a, “teaching” and a, “faulty interpretation”.

 

WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

 

When Pontius Pilate ruminates in John 13:38, “What is truth”[43], he asks a very important and not so easily answered question.  As mentioned earlier, the science vs. the bible debate does ultimately hang on two issues:  what the bible really says and what scientific data really concludes.  In other words, what really is biblical or scientific truth.  As much as some scientists and bible scholars might not want to admit it, interpretations both of biblical text and scientific data are constantly changing.  To simply charge that science cannot overrule the, “teachings” of scripture ignores those two realities – that not only does science change, but so do interpretations of the bible.  And it is nothing more than lazy theology to make that charge with literally nothing to support it.  Simple truths are hard to come by in both science and theology, and making overarching charges demands both theological and scientific explanations, which the statements do not provide in the slightest.  What the statements are missing, as biblical scholar Peter Enns so eloquently states it, is, “an awareness that ‘what the Bible says’ is itself the subject of careful, deep, nuanced, theological and hermeneutical reflection, which from the early church on has been part and parcel of the Christian task.”[44]  Unfortunately, the statements never even make an attempt at that important task.

 

 

THE WILL TO ACCEPT

 

Lazy theology in the statements can be seen in how the authors would differentiate between, “extrabiblical data”, (scientific theory) which they honor as able to correct faulty biblical interpretations, and, “extrabiblical views”, which cannot overthrow a scriptural teaching.  Having already established that both the age of the earth and evolution were accepted scientific theories by 1978, and since the authors acknowledged, though in contradiction to other articles, in CSBH article 20 and the commentary of CSBH article 22 that scientific discoveries can overturn a certain interpretation, then what seems to be differentiating the extrabiblical data that can and cannot overturn, “teachings of scripture” is what literal interpretations the authors are willing to throw under the bus, and not the genuineness of the science that is attacking the teachings.  There must be an explanation, for instance, for why the authors are willing to even consider an ancient earth but not evolution, but none is given, either a scientific one or more importantly a theological one.  What theological reason is given as to why a young earth may be a faulty interpretation, but not special creations, given especially that they are mentioned in the same creation story.  Rick Riordan, author of, ”The Lightning Thief “, has said, “humans see what they want to see.”[45]  In light of nothing else offered, it appears that the authors are willing to consider some long held, “teachings of creation” able to become, “faulty interpretations” and others not because they are simply unwilling to accept, like many believers are not, for whatever their reasons, that evolution is the method that God used to create humans.  It may be that the authors were concerned about the dangers of the, “slippery slope”.  But, again, nothing on that is offered, another display of lazy theology.

 

STUMBLING BLOCK

 

Paul says in Romans 14:13 that, “Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister”.[46]  We all know of people leaving faith because of perceived contradictions between the science and the bible.  The author knows a teenager in his faith community who doesn’t believe in God because of science and bible contradictions and knows of a campus leader who has lost his faith because of them.  With examples of science and biblical interpretations changing, it is nothing less than foolish for the authors of the statements to hold believers to a literal Genesis, biblically foolish, especially with what the authors acknowledge is at stake.  The advent of the internet has made it easy for Christians to investigate for themselves the statuses of scientific theories that are, “attacking” the bible, aside from courses in high school and college.  It might not have been the case in 1978 or 1982, but in this age almost every believer, especially millennials, has studied, has read about and/or has conversed with others about evolution, the age of the earth and/or flood geology, and in each case the scientific consensus directly contradicts a literal reading of Genesis.  If we are to understand that salvations are on the line and we are not to be stumbling blocks for people to come to faith, then we shouldn’t hold someone to any particular view of Genesis, and neither should the statements.

 

CONCLUSION

 

With so much at stake, the important Chicago Inerrancy statements simply miss the target when addressing the relationship between science and the bible.  It may have been semi-understandable that in 1982 many evangelical scholars and leaders weren’t up to date with the findings of modern science, but it certainly isn’t now.  The authors, writing summary statements, can’t be faulted for not writing complete theological treatises on all controversial matters that the statements covered.  However, discussions on science and the bible touch upon very important and profound theological issues, which require some amount of expounding, but none was given.  The statements supply a surprisingly large number of articles and other declarations that insist that all the bible is literal, historical truth, including Genesis.  Those articles, combined with Geisler’s commentary to those articles, reveal contradictions, inconsistencies, and a healthy dose of lazy theology.  And the influence of the Chicago statements has led to a large percentage of evangelical science, “deniers”, who make it easy for non-believers to make straw-man arguments against belief in the bible and has allowed new-atheist writers like Richard Dawkins to equate being a Christian to believing in a literal 6-day creation.   Paul writes, “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”[47]  Therefore, it is the strong opinion of the author that statements on science and the bible in the Chicago statements be amended, so as not to put a stumbling block in front of our brother and sister and for the salvation of as many as possible, as would be pleasing to God our Savior.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Evans, Rachel Held. “Why Millennials Are Leaving the Church.” CNN Belief Blog RSS. CNN, 27 July 2013. Web. 8 June 2015.

[2] Mohler, Albert, Jr. “The Devil Is in the Details: Biblical Inerrancy and the Licona Controversy.” AlbertMohler.com. Albert Mohler, 14 Sept. 2011. Web. 6 June 2015.

[3] Riccardi, Mike. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,The Cripplegate. N.p., 7 May 2014. Web. 6 June 2015.

[4] Biblical Inerrancy.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 8 June 2015.

[5] Nichols, Stephen. “The Chicago Statement.” Web log post. The Chicago Statement. N.p., 17 Sept. 2014. Web. 10 June 2015.

[6] International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.” Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, n.d. Web. 10 June 2015.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 12 June 2015.

[9] Enns, Peter. “Science, Faith, and The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” Web log post. Patheos – Hosting the Conversation. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 June 2015.

[10] Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 12 June 2015.

[11] Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition.” Bible Research. Michael D. Marlowe, n.d. Web. 5 May 2015.

[12] Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.” Bible Research. Michael D. Marlowe, n.d. Web. 05 May 2015.

[13] Sproul, R. C., and Norman L. Geisler. Explaining Biblical Inerrancy: Official Commentary on the ICBI Statements. Matthews, NC: Bastion, 2013. International Society of Christian Apologetics. International Society of Christian Apologetics. Web. 9 July 2015.

[14] Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.” Bible Research. Michael D. Marlowe, n.d. Web. 05 May 2015.

[15] History of Evolutionary Thought.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 12 June 2015.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Harter, Richard. “Changing Views of the History of the Earth.” The TalkOrigins Archive. TalkOrigins Foundation, 1 June 1998. Web. 18 Aug. 2015.

[20] Age of the Earth.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 12 June 2015.

[21] Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition.” Bible Research. Michael D. Marlowe, n.d. Web. 5 May 2015.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Hypothesis.” Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, n.d. Web. 15 June 2015.

[26] Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.” Bible Research. Michael D. Marlowe, n.d. Web. 05 May 2015.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Historical-Grammatical Method.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 18 June 2015.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Enns, Peter. “Mesopotamian Myths and “Genre Calibration”” BioLogos.org. Biologos, 27 Nov. 2009. Web. 15 June 2015.

[33] Sanders, James A. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. 62. Web. 24 August 2015.

[34] Joel. Bible Gateway. Harper Collins Christian Publishers, n.d. Web. 24 August 2015.

[35] Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.” Bible Research. Michael D. Marlowe, n.d. Web. 05 May 2015.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition.” Bible Research. Michael D. Marlowe, n.d. Web. 5 May 2015.

[38] Elliot, Paul M. “What Is Grammatical-Historical Interpretation & Why Is It Important?” Teaching the Word Ministries. Teaching the Word Ministries, n.d. Web. 15 June 2015.

[39] Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.” Bible Research. Michael D. Marlowe, n.d. Web. 05 May 2015.

[40] Ibid.

[41] “Flat Earth.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 6 June 2015.

[42] “Biblical Literalism.” – RationalWiki. Wikipedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 6 June 2015.

[43] John. New International Version. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Bible Gateway. HarperCollins Christian Publishing. Web. 4 Aug. 2015

[44] Enns, Peter. “Science, Faith, and The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” Web log post. Patheos – Hosting the Conversation. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 June 2015.

[45] A Quote from The Lightning Thief.” Goodreads. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Aug. 2015.

[46] Romans. Bible Gateway. Harper Collins Christian Publishers, n.d. Web. 8 June 2015.

[47] I Timothy. Bible Gateway. Harper Collins Christian Publishers, n.d. Web. 12 August 2015.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

1 Timothy. Bible Gateway. Harper Collins Christian Publishers, n.d. Web. 12 Aug. 2015.

A Quote from The Lightning Thief.” Goodreads. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Aug. 2015.

Age of the Earth. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 12 June 2015.

Age of the Earth.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 12 June 2015.

Biblical Inerrancy.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 8 June 2015.

Biblical Literalism. – RationalWiki. Wikipedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 6 June 2015.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.” Bible Research. Michael D. Marlowe, n.d. Web. 05 May 2015.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition.” Bible Research. Michael D. Marlowe, n.d. Web. 5 May 2015.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 12 June 2015.

Christian Apologetics. International Society of Christian Apologetics. Web. 9 July 2015.

Elliot, Paul M. “What Is Grammatical-Historical Interpretation & Why Is It Important?” Teaching the Word Ministries. Teaching the Word Ministries, n.d. Web. 15 June 2015.

Enns, Peter. “Mesopotamian Myths and “Genre Calibration”” BioLogos.org. Biologos, 27 Nov. 2009. Web. 15 June 2015.

Enns, Peter. “Science, Faith, and The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” Web log post. Patheos – Hosting the Conversation. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 June 2015.

Evans, Rachel Held. “Why Millennials Are Leaving the Church.” CNN Belief Blog RSS. CNN, 27 July 2013. Web. 8 June 2015.

Flat Earth. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 6 June 2015.

Harter, Richard. “Changing Views of the History of the Earth.” The TalkOrigins Archive. TalkOrigins Foundation, 1 June 1998. Web. 18 Aug. 2015.

Historical-Grammatical Method. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 18 June 2015.

Historical-Grammatical Method.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 18 June 2015.

History of Evolutionary Thought.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 12 June 2015.

Hypothesis. Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. Web. 15 June 2015.

International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.” Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, n.d. Web. 10 June 2015.

John. New International Version. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Bible Gateway. HarperCollins Christian Publishing. Web. 4 Aug. 2015.

Mohler, Albert, Jr. “The Devil Is in the Details: Biblical Inerrancy and the Licona Controversy.” AlbertMohler.com. Albert Mohler, 14 Sept. 2011. Web. 6 June 2015.

Nichols, Stephen. “The Chicago Statement.” Web log post. The Chicago Statement. N.p., 17 Sept. 2014. Web. 10 June 2015.

Riccardi, Mike. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,The Cripplegate. N.p., 7 May 2014. Web. 6 June 2015.

Romans. Bible Gateway. Harper Collins Christian Publishers, n.d. Web. 8 June 2015.   Sanders, James A. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. 62. Web. 24 August 2015.

Sproul, R. C., and Norman L. Geisler. Explaining Biblical Inerrancy: Official Commentary on the ICBI Statements. Matthews, NC: Bastion, 2013. International Society of Christian Apologetics. Web. 9 July 2015.