I got a bit carried away with Article IX, so I didn’t post all the rest of the articles and my responses to them here. Here’s Article IX:
Article IX.
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
WE DENY that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.
Readers will know that I may or may not have a problem here. It depends on what is meant. I feel like the language here is problematic since I think the intent here was to circumvent the reality that the authors were not intellectually exempt from the limitations of their worldview. And yet there are two elements of uncertainty: (1) what is meant by “matters that the authors were moved to speak and write”? and (2) what is meant by “introducing distortion and falsehood”? These are weasel words-words that allow EVERYONE to define what is meant, with the effect that ANYONE can condemn ANYONE else of violating the doctrine of inspiration as it is articulated here. Any biblical interpreter could resort to statements like “you’re taking that [problematic statement] out of context-the authors wouldn’t be saying what you think they’re saying” or “that [problematic statement] isn’t a proposition being put forth by the writers, and so they aren’t guilty of introducing distortion” and so on.
Now, you may ask if I’m doing the same thing, especially since I’ve said a number of times, for example, that I don’t think we should blame the biblical authors for making scientific blunders since they couldn’t have known better, and since scientific ideas weren’t the point of what they were arguing for or what they were claiming. Guilty as charged, but my caveat stems from what I think is a firm grasp of the obvious: the biblical writers were from the first century AD or earlier, and so their knowledge base was very limited. I’m being honest. They shouldn’t be blamed for knowing things they could not have known. The other side, I think, is trying to make the authors what they aren’t-modern thinkers-which I think is misguided. God used what he had at his disposal (since he chose the time and place for initiating the inspiration process): pre-scientific human beings. That’s what they were unless he changed them, or unless he gave them knowledge that was well beyond their time. We have no evidence for the latter Where is the 20th century scientific knowledge in the Scriptures? Oh, there are all sorts of clever allegorical ways to insert it here and there, and then claim the advanced knowledge was encrypted in the writers’ words. Try that with 1 Cor 11!
My real concern is that if one believes God gave the biblical writers each and every word they wrote, as opposed to having humans as the immediate creators of their own words, with God as ultimate originator, the presence of this kind of scientifically-flawed material in the Bible impugns God. The Chicago Statement’s Article IX puts God at fault with its disclaiming language. My view does not, for it recognizes God’s decision to condescend to limited humanity and work with what he had, by his own sovereign decision. As such, I do not believe we need to worry about what the biblical writers were “moved” to write-so long as they are not presenting flawed science (or flawed anything) as propositional truth to be embraced as coming from the mouth of God. I don’t see Paul doing this in 1 Cor 11. I see Paul arguing toward a proposition or idea (women ought to be modest on account of the angels) from a flawed basis (his pre-scientific views about fecundity, which were entirely consistent with his cultural / medical contemporaries and predecessors). Paul isn’t writing to teach the church about first century medicine as a point of belief; he’s arguing for something else while using first century medical idea. I don’t think this is introducing distortion into the text for a simple reason: the only reason we’d view it as distortion is if we presumed God was giving out the words Paul used. The Chicago Statement’s weasel wording creates a problem rather than solving one.
Well said.
Back in college, I lost a full grade point on a paper that I wrote on the theology of creation exactly because of the issues you’ve brought up here – and my professor didn’t like talking about them. The Chicago Statement almost seemed as inerrant as the Bible.
@Mike: thanks!
Mike,
A Short word, since I am still researching this inerrancy and science thing out in more depth:
If the Bible indeed employs “flawed propositions” in order to produce conclusive Divine Truth. Doesn’t that ultimately bring all arguments of the Bible into question? I question you based on these presuppositions, (1) Even if we can say that the conclusive truths must be divine truth, we must question the arguments used to reach them (since indeed the human author could have used flawed presuppositions to get there as you believe). (2) Even if God condescended, why would he use false propositions to come to true conclusions…(I know you want to say that God sovereignly wanted to work with what he got, but that is untenable for me because you are still making God use flawed argumentation at least in your ultimate sense–and this does not free him from impugnity because the Muslim god can say HAHA look how little your God is…he can’t even produce flawless propositions with what he has to work with!)..I can see how you would want to say that this condescension is okay for scientific propositions, but howabout other propositions that are equally based on the human author’s “limited knowledge base,” such issues as homosexuality, women senior pastors, and abortion (among others). All of which can be argued as unbiblical with the Bible if your view of inspiration/inerrancy is adopted. (3)There are core doctrinal truths that are not concluded directly in Scripture: such as the Trinity, hypostatic union, and others, which must rely on a systematic treatment of singular propositions found in Scripture and then seek to harmonize them in order to come to Biblical conclusions. However, since you have placed doubt upon the propositions and only total reliability with the conclusive truths; you are in turn casting doubt upon those core doctrines (I know you do not do this intentionally).
I feel that you may try to counter with trying to limit this condescending so that it just applies to the sciences and other such truths that are not “propositional truth to be embraced as coming from the mouth of God.” However you must remember that your limiting of God’s condescension begs the question because can we or can we not consider the word of God as truthful in all matters of which the holy men were inspired to write! even the flawed propositions!? (which in my estimation are integral to arriving at truthful conclusions!)
Some thoughts,
Chris
CORRECTION:
such issues as homosexuality, women senior pastors, and abortion (among others). All of which can be argued as (BIBLICAL, OKAY) with the Bible if your view of inspiration/inerrancy is adopted.
@cwmyers007: I don’t really understand this response. If you’re saying my view allows a pro-homosexuality or pro-abortion view, or a pro-ordination of women view, that would be nonsense. These issues are issues of exegesis, not how inspiration works.
You would think so. And I wish it could be secluded to just exegesis. But every group before-mentioned denies plenary inspiration/inerrancy and takes a position VERY close to you. They say, “Oh Paul was a man of his day”…”if we look into the general message and essence of NT Christianity than gender distinctions must be obliterated; women must take their place among men in the pulpits.” Or “Paul was responding to the times of his culture-his words on homosexuality is not from God but from the bias of his milieu, we must embrace homosexual unions because the God of love embraces them.” Believe me Mike, these issues stink at the core because of their view of how inspiration works. When God no longer gives the words than man does and this denigrates the authority on which we stand. I am surprised that you do not see the import of this into your distant “ultimate” not-directly-giving-the-words-of-His-Own-Word God of Scripture.
@cwmyers007: Finally got back to you. A couple comments.
1. You wrote: “If the Bible indeed employs flawed propositions in order to produce conclusive Divine Truth. Doesnt that ultimately bring all arguments of the Bible into question?” It could (but I don’t think that’s how to view this). I don’t really like the term “propositions” with respect to, say, Paul’s pre-scientific ideas in 1 Cor. 11. I really don’t see him as giving propositional truth for believers (i.e., laying out an idea we are to believe). Rather, I see him laying out an idea (“women, don’t be provocative; be modest”) on the basis of a flawed idea. The proposition there is the former, not the latter. Think of it this way: a Scripture writer can put out an idea that is an eternal truth, but he himself is not eternal, nor omniscient, nor perfect, etc. He himself is very far from omniscient or right on everything, yet he was used by God to give eternal propositions. I think we’d all agree with that approach. I’m saying it’s in operation in a vivid way in 1 Cor 11. We also have all had the experience of making a true, powerful point and then later realizing that our reasoning behind the point wasn’t that good — and yet the point stands, and can actually be made from other intellectual beachheads (even better). I think we all have to admit that argument trajectories and propositions based on those trajectories are different, and do not NECESSARILY unvalidate each other. That’s all I’m saying in regard to Paul and 1 Cor 11.
2. You wrote: “Even if God condescended, why would he use false propositions to come to true conclusions.” He didn’t – if by “use” you mean “give” (and it’s not a proposition anyway – see above). God didn’t “give” Paul his unscientific ideas above women’s hair and fecundity. God knows better. That came from Paul who was a product of his world and education. God was after the proposition about modesty. THAT is what he approved; how Paul got there was incidental. If you mean by “used” that God “put up with” these propositions, I’d agree.
Let’s take a more “normal” example. Does God approve of the idea that women should not normally own property? This is laid out in the OT law. In the Mosaic law, inheritance of property carried through the males of the (extended) family. If there was no male heir left, the property was forfeit. The only exception we see is when the daughters of Zelophehad (who were in just such a pickle) appealed to Moses (cf. Num. 26:33; Numbers 27) . Moses allowed them to keep their land — but that’s the point. The LAW itself made no such provision, and so direct appeal to Moses himself had to be made. There are a bevy of other such PATRIARCHAL cases. The Mosaic law often extends directly from patriarchal culture. So….was God dictating (pardon the pun) that culture and its ideas about women? I don’t believe so. I believe it was what it was. God came to humans in THAT time who had THOSE ideas in THAT place, etc. and used the people at his disposal. We can try and sugarcoat what the OT does with women as chattel, or with slaves, but those patriarchal views are in the text, loud and clear – just like hair and fecundity. My view would say that the idea of having the girl’s father decide to force an unbetrothed virgin woman to marry the guy who just had sex with her isn’t a “divine proposition” (Lev. 22:16-17; cp. Deut. 22:28-29; the woman had ZERO power over her own life there). Rather, I would say that God allowed patriarchal figures like Moses to apply the basic commandments within the prevailing culture (where do we have any verse that says all or even most of these laws were dictated? we don’t). I doubt many of us today would think it “biblical” to prohibit women from owning property; we accept THAT part of the Bible as being “culturally passe” — and so I’d like to know why my application of the same stance is so off-base in 1 Cor 11 when it is so obvious that Paul’s ideas are scientifically passe?
I may return to the comments again, but these get long – but they are good.
@cwmyers007: I think you are confusing the cultural defense of homosexuality with what I’m saying. They are far apart. Heterosexuality is rooted in creation order and opposition to homosexuality (seeing it as contrary to the created norm) is not bound to one (Judeo-Christian) culture. Apples and oranges.
Were I to argue like MSH, I would say that since we cannot believe ALL the words of the Word of God, we cannot be sure the heterosexuality is truly rooted in creation order.
Maybe heterosexuality was just bound to the Edenic culture? You know, just to get everyone started. But once started sex is a free-for-all.
@qaton: Pure idiocy.