Inerrancy Defined

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was formulated in October 1978 by more than 200 evangelical leaders at a conference sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), held in Chicago. The statement was designed to defend the position of Biblical inerrancy against a perceived trend toward liberal conceptions of Scripture. The undersigners came from a variety of evangelical Christian denominations, and include Robert Preus, James Montgomery Boice, Kenneth Kantzer, J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul and John F. MacArthur. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy has been described as similar to the Second Vatican Council Decree Dei verbum in addressing issues of the historical critical method and affirming inerrancy.

A pre-published work on Biblical Inerrancy

There is such a thing as territorial waters: a reality that can surprisingly often be a source of tension between nations. Sometimes, the reason is that below the ocean floor are rich deposits of oil. Otherwise, it is a matter of a prudent concern for self-preservation. While a country isn't gravely harmed when a potential enemy violates its territorial waters by the incursion of a naval ship or two, nonetheless, asserting one's sovereignty even of the sea surrounding the nation amounts to a first line of defence. The territorial waters are defended so as to better defend what is of primary importance, the homeland itself. Something similar is the case with Scripture. One reason that we ought to defend the complete inerrancy of Scripture, including what it says about matters of history and natural science, is because, if we do not, we will inevitably be forced to concede ground in matters of faith and morals as well. Here, I wish to make just this defence by mounting several simple arguments for the complete inerrancy of Scripture. I shall take as my adversary a person holding to the position of 'limited inerrancy.' This is the notion that the inerrancy of Scripture is restricted only to matters of faith and morals. THE BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE The 'unlimited' versus 'limited' inerrancy debate came to the fore most dramatically during the Second Vatican Council. In the midst of discussions on the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), the then Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal König, stood up and indicted Scripture of erring in some matters of history. 1 This opinion, which was shared by other Council Fathers, manifested itself in some of the early drafts of Dei Verbum. An early draft said that Scripture " teaches the truth without any error " but this formulation was changed in the fourth draft to read: " teaches the saving truth without error. " The omission of the word 'any' and the addition of the adjective 'saving,' before the noun 'truth,' seemed to point to the theory of limited inerrancy. It seemed to imply that only those biblical assertions needed for salvation are without error. 2 Quite some controversy ensued and the line was eventually changed again so that in its final formulation it read: " the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation " (Dei Verbum §11). This is, for sure, less supportive of a limited inerrancy stance because the phrase 'for the sake of our salvation' could be taken to imply the motive for why God inspired the human author of Scripture, rather than a clause which restricts the scope of inerrancy only to matters touching on our salvation.

Scripture Inerrancy