Faced with numerous denials of inerrancy from professing evangelicals, theologians and church leaders gathered in 1978 to form the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. Meeting at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago, the new organization adopted a statement that attempted to explain the historic evangelical understanding of Scripture. This document, called the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” would become a landmark by which evangelicals, including fundamentalists, would orient themselves when discussing issues related to biblical inerrancy.
Among the signers of the Chicago Statement was Francis Schaeffer. When commenting on the Lausanne Covenant of 1974, Schaeffer had expressed some unhappiness. The Lausanne Covenant’s statement of Scripture read, “We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written Word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” Schaeffer was not fully satisfied with the expression “in all that it affirms,” fearing that some evangelicals would find a loophole that would allow them to claim that they believed in inerrancy while practically denying it. Nevertheless, Schaeffer did endorse the notion that Scripture is inerrant “in all that it affirms.” He insisted,
[I]t is a proper statement if the words are dealt with fairly. We do not, of course, want to say that the Bible is without error in things it does not affirm. . . . Furthermore, we are not saying the Bible is without error in all the projections which people have made on the basis of the Bible. So that statement, as it appeared in the Lausanne Covenant, is a perfectly proper statement in itself.1
As a signatory of the Chicago Statement, Schaeffer again endorsed comparable language. The Statement reads, “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…:” The Chicago Statement adds, “Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching,” later stipulating that the Bible “is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.”
Given Schaeffer’s repeated ratification of the notion that Scripture is inerrant “in all that it affirms,” “in all its teaching,” and “in all the matters it addresses,” it seems rather unfair to quote him against The Gospel Coalition’s statement on Scripture. Indeed, The Gospel Coalition offers a stronger statement of biblical inerrancy than any of the foregoing. It claims that the sixty-six books of the Bible “alone constitute the verbally inspired Word of God, which is utterly authoritative and without error in the original writings, complete in its revelation of his will for salvation, sufficient for all that God requires us to believe and do, and final in its authority over every domain of knowledge to which it speaks.” It is difficult to imagine a stronger or more clear declaration of biblical inerrancy than to claim that the Bible is “utterly . . . without error.” The authors do not even insert the qualifying phrase, “in all that it affirms.”
That phrase, however, must always be an understood qualifier when claiming inerrancy for the Bible. As Schaeffer put it, “We do not, of course, want to say that the Bible is without error in things it does not affirm.” Scripture quotes many erroneous statements. Some are errors of ignorance and others are outright deceptions (“Thou shalt not surely die”). Scripture is inerrant in its affirmation that these statements were made, but it places no endorsement upon the veracity of the statements themselves.
Generally, quotations within the Bible do not need to be seen as inerrant unless Scripture vouches for their veracity. When the Bible quotes someone delivering a genuine prophecy, it is inerrant. When the Bible quotes people who are stating their own opinions, perceptions, and recollections, however, their utterances may contain errors. An interesting example is Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. Scholars have sometimes pointed to putative discrepancies between what Stephen said and what the text of the Old Testament records. It may be possible to resolve these discrepancies, but even if not, the inerrancy of Scripture is not at stake.
Furthermore, some genres do not communicate factual information. Judges 9 records Jotham telling a fable about trees selecting a king. Surely Jotham never expected anyone to understand this fable as a straightforward dendrological assertion. The same is true of parables. While parables are narratives, they do not assert historical fact. Did any man ever find a treasure in a field, hide it, sell everything that he owned, and buy the field? Whether or not such a man existed is beside the point of the parable. It is also beside the point of biblical inerrancy.
Some genres communicate factual information and some do not. This difference is the real point of Francis Schaeffer’s reservations. To say that the Bible is inerrant “in all that it affirms” raises the question, “What does it affirm?” It is entirely possible to misconstrue a biblical genre and to assume that it requires less accuracy than it really does.
When this kind of mistake occurs, the results may be serious. For example, in 1982 Robert Gundry published a commentary in which he claimed that the Gospel of Matthew was midrash, a genre that does not require historical trustworthiness. The commentary ignited a debate that went on for more than a decade before Gundry was asked to resign his membership in the Evangelical Theological Society.
Others have claimed that the creation narratives in Genesis are poetry or some other non-literal genre. Their construal of the literary genre allows them to claim that they believe in inerrancy while simultaneously affirming progressive creationism or even theistic evolution (the line between them is not clear). One such evangelical is Tim Keller of The Gospel Coalition. Consequently, while it is not quite fair to quote Francis Schaeffer against The Gospel Coalition, it is equally unfair to act as if his concerns are completely unrelated to it.
Clearly, a mistake in the identification of a biblical genre may lead to serious theological consequences. Francis Schaeffer understood the gravity of an error that permits a person to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture while denying the very thing that Scripture intends to teach. Such errors cannot simply be ignored. Gundry’s view of Matthew was understood to be so mistaken that he was asked to resign his membership in the Evangelical Theological Society. How serious is the error of progressive creationism or theistic evolution? That question deserves a separate discussion.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Prostrate, Dear Jesus, at Thy Feet
Samuel Stennett (1727–1795)
Prostrate, dear Jesus, at Thy feet,
A guilty rebel lies;
And upwards to Thy mercy seat,
Presumes to lift his eyes.
If tears of sorrow would suffice
To pay the debt I owe,
Tears should from both my weeping eyes
In ceaseless torrents flow.
But no such sacrifice I plead
To expiate my guilt;
No tears but those which Thou hast shed
No blood, but Thou hast spilt.
Think of Thy sorrows, dearest Lord,
And all my sins forgive:
Justice will well approve the word
That bids the sinner live.
About Kevin Bauder
Kevin T. Bauder is Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that this post expresses.
