Or, “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article 19”

~ Taken from Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount ~

Jesus expresses the highest view of Scripture, saying that “not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen” in the law shall disappear or fail to be accomplished. The Greek for “the smallest letter” is iota, referring to the smallest letter of the Hebrews alphabet yod, which is almost as small as a comma, like an apostrophe or an accent mark. “The least stroke of a pen” (keraia) refers to one of the tiny hooks and projections that distinguish some Hebrew letters from others, like the serif in modern typefaces.

In short, Jesus asserts that all of Scripture is inspired, inerrant, infallible, and authoritative to the letter. Therefore, the proper view of biblical inerrancy affirms not only the general events and doctrines taught in Scripture, but it affirms that God has infallibly caused to be written the very words and the very letters used in the Bible. To deny this or to affirm anything short of this is to call Jesus a liar.

For this reason, I have serious reservations about Article 19 of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. The Article begins with an affirmation: “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.” Of course I do not object to this portion, but then the Article follows with a denial: “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.”

In the official commentary on the Statement, R. C. Sproul further clarifies the denial, and writes:

The denial in Article XIX is very important. The framers of the confession are saying unambiguously that confession of belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is not an essential of the Christian faith necessary for salvation. We gladly acknowledge that people who do not hold to this doctrine may be earnest and genuine, zealous, and in many ways dedicated Christians. We do not regard acceptance of inerrancy to be a test for salvation.³⁷

Although Sproul claims that the Article intends to be unambiguous, its precise meaning is still unclear to me. It seems that there are several possible meanings to the Article and Sproul’s exposition:

1. Without some definite knowledge Scripture’s own claim to inerrancy, one may implicitly reject this doctrine and still be a Christian.

2. With some definite knowledge Scripture’s own claim to inerrancy, one may implicitly reject this doctrine and still be a Christian.

3. Without some definite knowledge Scripture’s own claim to inerrancy, one may explicitly reject this doctrine and still be a Christian.

4. With some definite knowledge Scripture’s own claim to inerrancy, one may explicitly reject this doctrine and still be a Christian.

It is unclear what Sproul means by “people who do not hold to this doctrine.” Is he referring to those who simply neglect to affirm this doctrine, or also to those who consciously reject this doctrine? Although Sproul and the Article do not address this question clearly enough, it is almost certain that they mean the latter, since the Article says, “We further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the church.” That is, the framers were thinking of those who reject the doctrine, and not just those who neglect to affirm it, such as those who have never considered the subject.

In other words, Sproul and the Article appear to affirm all of the four propositions. If this is indeed the case, then I strongly disagree with them. Instead, we should reject at least the final proposition.

We have established from Matthew 5:19 that Jesus held to the highest view of Scripture, affirming that Scripture is inspired, inerrant, and infallible to the letter. Now, if after clearly making this point clear to a person, and he still rejects biblical inerrancy, the necessary implication is that this person believes that Jesus himself made a mistake on this issue. However, if salvation demands an explicit profession of the deity and lordship of Jesus Christ, then it is inconsistent for a professing Christian to confess the deity and lordship of Christ but at the same time charge him with error or even dishonesty.

In other words, it is impossible to profess Christ as Lord and liar at the same time, so that an explicit affirmation of Christ as Lord is also an implicit affirmation of biblical inerrancy, and an explicit denial of biblical inerrancy is also an implicit denial of Christ as Lord.

I am not saying that a person must explicitly affirm biblical inerrancy to be a Christian. Perhaps the person has never considered the subject. Perhaps he is unaware that Christ, the apostles, and the prophets insisted on biblical inerrancy. Or, perhaps he has been mistaught. Under these circumstances, I grant that it is possible for one to be a genuine Christian with an effective profession of Christ without affirming biblical inerrancy.

However, once a person has been confronted with the numerous passages in which Christ, the apostles, and the prophets insist on biblical inerrancy, he may no longer plead ignorance, nor may we think that he has never considered the subject. Rather, he must now explicitly affirm or reject biblical inerrancy, and thus implicitly affirm or reject the integrity and authority of Jesus Christ.

Once a person knows that the Scripture claims to be inspired, inerrant, and infallible, if he rejects the doctrine of inerrancy, but still claims to believe the gospel, then this can only mean that his faith rests on his own opinion and judgment, and not on the promise of God as revealed in Scripture. Rather than trusting God’s revelation, this person stands in judgment over it, affirming portions of it while rejecting other parts, so that his faith ultimately rests in himself, not God’s power and wisdom. But then, is this person’s faith still real, or has it been exposed as false? If you believe that Jesus is wrong when he talks about Scripture, then on what basis other than your own opinion and preference, or some other standard external to Scripture, can you believe that Jesus is right when he talks about salvation?

To use a random example to illustrate what I mean, I can explicitly affirm biblical inerrancy without explicitly affirming or denying the proposition, “Jehoshaphat lived in Jerusalem” (2 Chronicles 19:4). This is because I may not know about the verse. However, since the proposition is contained in the Bible, my explicit affirmation of biblical inerrancy is also an implicit affirmation of 2 Chronicles 19:4.

But if someone now confronts me with 2 Chronicles 19:4, and I explicitly reject the verse, then this must necessarily imply that my initial explicit affirmation of biblical inerrancy was a lie – that is, I did not in fact believe in biblical inerrancy.

In the same way, a person may explicitly affirm Christ as Lord without explicitly affirming or denying biblical inerrancy. This is probably because he has never considered the subject, or because he has never been confronted with the relevant biblical passages. However, his explicit affirmation of Christ as Lord is also an implicit affirmation of all that Christ has said. And since Christ has asserted biblical inerrancy, this person’s explicit affirmation of Christ as Lord is also an implicit affirmation of biblical inerrancy.

But if someone now confronts him with Christ’s assertions on biblical inerrancy, and he explicitly rejects them, then this must necessarily imply that his initial explicit affirmation of Christ as Lord (which implies an affirmation of what Christ affirms, namely, biblical inerrancy) was also false.

If he claims that Scripture’s teachings about Christ’s redemptive work are true, whereas its teachings about Christ’s assertions on biblical inerrancy are false, then this person is obviously using his own opinion and preference, or some other standard external to the Bible, to judge God’s revelation. This in turn means that his faith is false, since it rests only on his own opinion and preference, and not on God’s promise as recorded in Scripture.

The inevitable conclusion, it seems, is that no one who has been clearly confronted with Christ’s teaching on biblical inerrancy can reject biblical inerrancy and still legitimately claim to be a Christian. However, Sproul and the Chicago Statement appear to teach the opposite, which is why we must disagree with them.

Sproul is known for affirming and defending The Westminster Confession of Faith, but in the very chapter where the Confession discusses “Saving Faith,” it says, “By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaketh therein” (14.2).

To be precise, it does not say, “If you are a Christian, or if you have this faith, then you will surely believe all that is written in Scripture,” but I seriously doubt that the Confession intends to leave room for unbelief, as in, “If you are a Christian, then God has given you the faith by which to believe all that is written in Scripture, even if you do not in fact believe it.” That is, it seems clear that the Confession is referring an actual (even if sometimes implicit) belief in Scripture, and not merely a potential belief that can explicitly reject any part of Scripture.

The following quotations from several commentaries on the Confession agree with this understanding:

As faith, in general, is an assent to truth upon testimony, so divine faith is an assent to divine truth upon divine testimony. Saving faith, therefore, includes an assent of the heart to all the truths revealed in the Word of God, whether they relate to the law or to the gospel; and that, not upon the testimony of any man or Church, nor because they appear agreeable to the dictates of natural reason, but on the ground of the truth and authority of God himself, speaking in the Scriptures, and evidencing themselves, by their own distinguishing light and power, to the mind. (Robert Shaw)³⁸

…a picking and choosing from among all the biblical details shows that these so-called conservatives are using a criterion of truth other than the Bible itself….In other words, they do not accept any verse in the Bible “for the authority of God himself speaking therein.” If they accepted even one verse on God’s authority, they would believe “to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word,” that is, all of it. For the Bible is the Word of God, as Chapter 1 said, and God speaks the truth….the Confession says that saving faith accepts everything that is revealed in the Word… (Gordon H. Clark)³⁹

The general effect of the Spirit’s work is to produce faith in WHATEVER IS REVEALED IN THE WORD…The Roman Catholic doctrine of implicit faith teaches that Catholics accept all that their church officially teaches implicitly, even before they learn what it is. This is a travesty of the true doctrine here presented in the Westminster Confession – regenerate Christians have faith in the word of God, not in the word of men. Implicit faith in the Scripture is actually what the Spirit works in the hearts of the elect. (Gerstner, Kelly, and Rollinson)⁴⁰

Saving faith receives as true all the contents of God’s Word, without exception….the whole must be received as equally the Word of God, and must in all its parts be accepted with equal faith. The same illumination of the understanding and renewal of the affections which lays the foundation for the soul’s acting faith in any one portion of God’s testimony, lays the same foundation for its acting faith in every other portion. The whole Word of God, therefore, as far as known to the individual, to the exclusion of all traditions, doctrines of men, or pretended private revelations, is the object of saving faith. (A. A. Hodge)⁴¹

On this point, I fully agree with the Confession and the above commentaries. This chapter in the Confession addresses saving faith, and not mature faith, perfect faith, or some other kind of faith; it is talking about the kind of faith that any real Christian should have. Therefore, since Sproul has previously affirmed the Westminster Confession, he contradicts himself in also affirming Article 19 of the Chicago Statement and in his exposition of the Article.⁴²

The church should confront those who deny biblical inerrancy, showing them those biblical passages that affirm and teach biblical inerrancy, and showing them that an informed rejection of biblical inerrancy also constitutes a rejection of Christ.

Then, since an informed rejection of biblical inerrancy also constitutes a rejection of Christ, those who continue to reject biblical inerrancy after careful and repeated confrontations by the church should be excommunicated. The church should regard their profession of Christ as insincere and false, and thus treat them as unbelievers and expel them from the covenant community.

This biblical proposal may shock and even anger some church leaders and members. However, what should be more shocking and infuriating is how many churches would rightly expel those who commit sin and refuse to repent, especially after repeated warnings and confrontations, but then these same churches would continue to embrace those who deny biblical inerrancy, when biblical inerrancy is the very basis upon which they expel the other unrepentant offenders.

While we are on the subject, I might as well point out that the church leaders who refuse to deal with those who reject biblical inerrancy should be removed from office. Of course, many churches prefer to please men rather than to please God; they prefer human-centered harmony rather than God-centered purity, and thus heretics and apostates remain and continue to vex these churches, that is, until God either awakens or judges them.

Article 19 of the Chicago Statement and Sproul’s exposition of it amount to an official and public declaration that belief in biblical inerrancy is optional. It is true that the Article warns about the “grave consequences” of rejecting biblical inerrancy, but how grave can these consequences be, when the official exposition of this Article says, “We gladly acknowledge that people do not hold to this doctrine may be earnest and genuine, zealous and in many ways dedicated Christians”?

They do not assert this reluctantly or grudgingly, but gladly. As for the description, “earnest and genuine, zealous and in many ways dedicated,” even those Christians who do affirm biblical inerrancy often do not deserve such commendation. Sproul’s exposition thus officially and publicly assures those who reject biblical inerrancy that the consequences are never so grave as to entail damnation. In fact, “in many ways,” these individuals can be very good Christians without affirming the doctrine. Against this blatant disrespect for what Scripture teaches on the subject, we must instead insist that biblical inerrancy is nonnegotiable; it is not optional.

Notes

³⁷ R. C. Sproul, Explaining Inerrancy; International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1980; p. 56.

³⁸ Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith; Christian Focus Publications, 1998; p. 193.

³⁹ Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe?; Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1965; p. 148-149.

⁴⁰ John H. Gerstner, Douglas F. Kelly, and Philip Rollinson, A Guide to The Westminster Confession of Faith; Summertown Texts, 1992; p. 72.

⁴¹ A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith; The Banner of Truth Trust, 1998 (original: 1869); p. 205-206.

⁴² I will not claim to know why Sproul commits this error. Judging from what I know about him, and to be charitable about the matter, I am guessing that it is because he has not sufficiently considered the necessary implications of Article 19, and not because of any blatant unbelief or serious doctrinal error on his part.