Biblical Inerrancy: 1978 Chicago Convention

[Vanguard]

1978...the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) met in Chicago. Nearly 300 evangelical scholars and leaders from multiple denominations attended, and their effort was to defend the inerrancy of the Scripture against rising liberal interpretations and teachings. Ten years and three official statements later, the ICBI disbanded; their work complete.

You can read their entire article here: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm

Summary: there are two major parts to the article.

1. The original autographs (writings) are inerrant and are the words of God captured and recorded. However, those autographs have long since been lost or destroyed. Only those autographs are considered inerrant.

2. The copies of those autographs are subject to human error, and are therefore not inerrant, but infallible. They do not intentionally try to deceive or mislead, but can be misinterpreted, especially when translating to languages outside of the Aramaic and Hebrew.

[concluded]

 

[Vanguard]

What this means is that while the original written words of God may be inerrant, we don't have those. All we have are copies and translations into other languages. It is for that reason, no translation in any language is 100% accurate. When converting from the Hebrew and Greek to English, you lose the idioms and cultural influences, which further dilutes the accuracy of the Scripture. Modern translations have gotten better at translation accuracy and interpretation, but to truly understand the words in the Bible, you need to be fluent with the source languages and cultures. That is where linguistics comes in.

This is far beyond the reach of most people, so we put our trust in the accuracy of our versions and pray that our pastors/priests are at least presenting the message of God correctly. Hopefully they are teaching based off Scripture and not tradition.

 

[Sinthesis]

What if tradition more accurately presents the gospel message than the latest 'diluted' scriptural interpretation? Is all tradition bad? For while we can surely agree that not every interpretation of scripture is correct, should we not then also consider the interpretation of tradition?

 

[farouk]

What if tradition more accurately presents the gospel message than the latest 'diluted' scriptural interpretation? Is all tradition bad? For while we can surely agree that not every interpretation of scripture is correct, should we not then also consider the interpretation of tradition?

'Thou has maginified thy word above all thy name' (Psalm 138.2).

Religious tradition can never be on a par with God's Word.

 

[P31Woman]

http://carm.org/creeds-and-confessions

Here is a good list of Chrisitan creeds and confessions.

Many confessions/creeds come into existance inorder to fight false teaching.

A good example is today we have people trying to redefine marriage. Something that in the Christian church has been understood as the union of one woman and man. False teachers try to worm their way into our churches and teach lies. In response the Church will rise up and make a confession/creed/statement.

Here is the Summary Statement from the OP's link....

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

I. SUMMARY STATEMENT


1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. 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; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited of 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.

 

[P31Woman]

What if tradition more accurately presents the gospel message than the latest 'diluted' scriptural interpretation? Is all tradition bad? For while we can surely agree that not every interpretation of scripture is correct, should we not then also consider the interpretation of tradition?

There are about 6,000 Greek manuscripts of the NT with an internal consistency of approx. 99.5% textual purity. Translators go back to these manuscripts not to copies of translations.

 

[Sinthesis]

What if tradition more accurately presents the gospel message than the latest 'diluted' scriptural interpretation? Is all tradition bad? For while we can surely agree that not every interpretation of scripture is correct, should we not then also consider the interpretation of tradition?

'Thou has maginified thy word above all thy name' (Psalm 138.2).

Religious tradition can never be on a par with God's Word.

There are about 6,000 Greek manuscripts of the NT with an internal consistency of approx. 99.5% textual purity. Translators go back to these manuscripts not to copies of translations.

I'm not challenging textual purity. Instead I'm challenging the purity of some messages people derive from the inspired text. In the case of misguided or false teachers, text can be twisted into presenting a false meaning. So, while a false teacher can use a pure text to proclaim a false doctrine, could an inspired teacher use an historic tradition of men to support a true doctrine?

 

[Obadiah]

I'm not challenging textual purity. Instead I'm challenging the purity of some messages people derive from the inspired text. In the case of misguided or false teachers, text can be twisted into presenting a false meaning. So, while a false teacher can use a pure text to proclaim a false doctrine, could an inspired teacher use an historic tradition of men to support a true doctrine?

I think you make a good point, and agree that an inspired teacher (I assume in this case you mean "inspired" in the human way, not "inspired" as in directly inspired by God to give new scripture...) could use historic traditions to support a true doctrine. I've seen this done many times. However, that "true doctrine" and the tradition used to support it must also match scripture in order to actually be a true doctrine. If the teaching or doctrine contradicts or can not be backed with scripture, it can not be true doctrine.

 

[P31Woman]

Good point!

 

[Webb]

Any creed having more than the Bible is too much. Any creed having less than the Bible is not enough. If one says "our creed contains just what the Bible says", then why have it? Chuck it and take the Bible. "The Bible only makes Christians only".

 

[VirginShallConceive]

There are about 6,000 Greek manuscripts of the NT with an internal consistency of approx. 99.5% textual purity. Translators go back to these manuscripts not to copies of translations.

One thing to keep in mind is that the farther you go back in time, the easier it is to change the popularly accepted wording. In other words, if you live in, let's say, 1000 BC, and you are the main keeper of the texts that belong to the Israelites, it is easier for you to make changes to the texts without almost anyone else noticing. If your king put you in charge of the texts, you might be able to persuade your king to allow changes that will benefit him. Or, if your king is illiterate, and the previous keepers of the texts are all dead and gone, you have free reign over the changing of the texts. Or, if your king is well-versed in the texts, and he has chosen you because he believes that you are a prophet, he will allow anything you say to be added to the existing texts(as long as he is pleased with you).

Now, the farther you travel forward in time, the harder it is to alter texts.

In the year 2013, in the Age of the Internet, the oldest version usually wins out. If someone tries to alter the KJV, for example, anyone with half a brain can verify that this person has altered the KJV. They can verify this by simply clicking a mouse in the comfort of their own home(even in their pajamas). They no longer have to embark on an Indiana Jones-style adventure.

Hypothetically, let's say that there have always been people who have, if given the opportunity, altered the Bible, either verbally(way early on), or textually. If you want to try to find the original wording, the closest you can get is the oldest dated specimen. Until you find an older one, that's the closest you can get. If, today, you find real, undeniable alterations that are documented by the sources that you do have, imagine how the stories must have changed before they ended up on the sources that we do have access to.

 

[Free]

Any creed having more than the Bible is too much. Any creed having less than the Bible is not enough. If one says "our creed contains just what the Bible says", then why have it? Chuck it and take the Bible. "The Bible only makes Christians only".

The Creeds are summations of core Christian doctrines meant for easy memorization. Why would someone want to chuck something like that?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

"The Bible only makes Christians only".

People believe without benefit of the Bible. It is Christ that makes Christians.

 

[P31Woman]

One thing to keep in mind is that the farther you go back in time, the easier it is to change the popularly accepted wording. In other words, if you live in, let's say, 1000 BC, and you are the main keeper of the texts that belong to the Israelites, it is easier for you to make changes to the texts without almost anyone else noticing. If your king put you in charge of the texts, you might be able to persuade your king to allow changes that will benefit him. Or, if your king is illiterate, and the previous keepers of the texts are all dead and gone, you have free reign over the changing of the texts. Or, if your king is well-versed in the texts, and he has chosen you because he believes that you are a prophet, he will allow anything you say to be added to the existing texts(as long as he is pleased with you).

Now, the farther you travel forward in time, the harder it is to alter texts.

In the year 2013, in the Age of the Internet, the oldest version usually wins out. If someone tries to alter the KJV, for example, anyone with half a brain can verify that this person has altered the KJV. They can verify this by simply clicking a mouse in the comfort of their own home(even in their pajamas). They no longer have to embark on an Indiana Jones-style adventure.

Hypothetically, let's say that there have always been people who have, if given the opportunity, altered the Bible, either verbally(way early on), or textually. If you want to try to find the original wording, the closest you can get is the oldest dated specimen. Until you find an older one, that's the closest you can get. If, today, you find real, undeniable alterations that are documented by the sources that you do have, imagine how the stories must have changed before they ended up on the sources that we do have access to.

Do you have any proof this occured or is this pure specualtion on your part?

I notice you give God no role in protecting His written revelation to Man. If God is all powerful creator surely it's no great feat for him to protect something as important as His written revelation to man.

 

[P31Woman]

Any creed having more than the Bible is too much. Any creed having less than the Bible is not enough. If one says "our creed contains just what the Bible says", then why have it? Chuck it and take the Bible. "The Bible only makes Christians only".

They are tools God allows Chrisitan to use in our fight against Satan.
No one if going to force you to use that tool. It's up to the individual and the Holy Spirit living within them.

 

[Webb]

They are tools God allows Chrisitan to use in our fight against Satan.
No one if going to force you to use that tool. It's up to the individual and the Holy Spirit living within them.

Creeds are not the same, they serve to divide. Jesus prayed in the shadow of the cross "sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth", Jn.17:17. His word is truth, and He had previously said "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free", Jn.8:32. I have in my library the creed books and manuals etc. of various churches and religions. They do not agree. The unity for which Jesus prayed in Jn.17 can only be enjoyed and attained to on the basis of God's word.

 

[P31Woman]

Creeds are not the same, they serve to divide. Jesus prayed in the shadow of the cross "sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth", Jn.17:17. His word is truth, and He had previously said "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free", Jn.8:32. I have in my library the creed books and manuals etc. of various churches and religions. They do not agree. The unity for which Jesus prayed in Jn.17 can only be enjoyed and attained to on the basis of God's word.

Not sure I need to read your post....see it contains more than pure scripture and less than the entire scripture.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Do you have any proof this occured or is this pure specualtion on your part?

I notice you give God no role in protecting His written revelation to Man. If God is all powerful creator surely it's no great feat for him to protect something as important as His written revelation to man.

It's just a simple observation that the more easily and quickly information is spread around the globe, the more difficult it becomes to alter documents and make them appear original. When you scope out the situation, do you honestly see a God who protects His written revelation to Man, or not? If God allows Muhammad or Joseph Smith to drastically alter His Word, and real live people believe it, and these real live people claim to feel the presence of the god of Muhammad or Joe Smith, who's to say that God hasn't allowed some not-so-drastic altering to occur? Who's to say that the Creator of the Universe hasn't allowed the drastic, the not-so-drastic, and the entire spectrum in between?

 

[P31Woman]

It's just a simple observation that the more easily and quickly information is spread around the globe, the more difficult it becomes to alter documents and make them appear original. When you scope out the situation, do you honestly see a God who protects His written revelation to Man, or not? If God allows Muhammad or Joseph Smith to drastically alter His Word, and real live people believe it, and these real live people claim to feel the presence of the god of Muhammad or Joe Smith, who's to say that God hasn't allowed some not-so-drastic altering to occur? Who's to say that the Creator of the Universe hasn't allowed the drastic, the not-so-drastic, and the entire spectrum in between?

IOWs You have no such evidence.

 

[Webb]

Not sure I need to read your post....see it contains more than pure scripture and less than the entire scripture.

A very cute reply. Did you expect a full and complete reproduction of the Bible in my post? What I posted didn't contradict itself as the creeds of men often do.