In the wake of RC Sproul's death there have been a host of
tributes written on his behalf. Recently I encountered an article praising
Sproul and his role in framing the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
which first appeared in 1978. This statement is met with almost universal
praise from within Evangelical and Confessional circles and there is much to
praise indeed. While the over two hundred signers were certainly upholding the
Bible in an age of unbelief, few realise or understand that modern inerrancy
represents a shift in thinking and indeed a break from older Protestant
understandings of Scripture.
It is noteworthy and admirable to find men of Christian faith
upholding the Word of God. This is especially true in an era of materialism and
scientism. They are to be commended for this adherence to supernaturalism and
the notion of Divine Inspiration.
Yet latent within their statements and ideas is a poison, a
deadly toxin born of the same Higher Critical root. While they are right to
condemn liberal attacks on Scripture and Rome's subordination of Scripture to
the dictates of the Magisterium, they too have succumbed to a similar disease.
Modern Inerrancy differs from the older Infallibility. Contemporary
Inerrancy roots Biblical Authority in the lost Autographs which are forever
sought by the scholars, by the academy. The older Infallibility argued the Word
of God has been providentially preserved and is the province of the Church. There are always difficulties and
discrepancies, issues of both text and hermeneutic that have to be worked out,
but there was an abiding confidence (rooted in supernatural preservation) that
the text has survived the ages. They firmly believed the Apographs, the
preserved copies of Scripture are the inspired Word of God. Sometimes preserved
by those less than faithful, nevertheless we possess a steadfast and sure
supernatural Revelatory word.
Do not the Inerrantists say the same? No, and it was made
clear even as figures like Sproul eagerly adopted newer Bibles like the English
Standard Version or ESV. An outgrowth of what was always perceived as a
'Liberal's Bible', the ESV (as well as translations like the NIV and NASB)
relies on the Critical Text, a New Testament text built on sand that changes
constantly in light of new 'scholarship'. To surrender the Bible to the likes of
Eberhard Nestle, Kurt Aland, BF Wescott, FJA Hort and Bruce Metzger...
opponents of the Infallible Word and the Kingdom of Christ is something that
still astonishes me and it's something that very few in Evangelical and
Confessional circles have properly wrestled with or even understood.
Rather than defend the Scriptures, the leaders of
Evangelicalism have all but 'sold out' the Bible. The Chicago Statement plays no
small part in this sad tale of downgrade.
The Inerrantists believe there's a solid unchanging
Word...out there, somewhere. It's the job of the academy to find it. This
highly problematic view which at its heart rejects older Protestant
understandings of Scripture is a compromise with Higher Criticism and modern
secular scholarship. The promoters of the Chicago Statement and modern
inerrancy are dishonest about this. They have not reckoned with either the
Confessions of old or the teachings of older Protestant scholastics like Owen
and Turretin who hypothetically considered such developments. Their
condemnation was thorough and quite harsh and yet the Chicago Statement
pretends to uphold the old view... the very position rejected by their own
confessions.
With this embrace of the Critical Text and the methods that
accompany it, comes a host of additional errors. One can safely say the bulk of
Evangelical scholars have compromised and watered down the authority of the
Word in the fact that they give credence to the infidel academy and attempt to
use their epistemologically flawed and ungodly methods to produce theologically
conservative results. They bend as far as they can in order to accommodate
establishment academia. This is at the core of the Evangelical project and unwittingly
they have sown the seeds for Theological Liberalism in their camp. Even now it
is bearing fruit.
Sproul, Schaeffer, Packer and the other supporters of the
Chicago Statement were not liberals and they meant well in what they were
doing. But sadly, they planted rotten seeds and built a house on a foundation
of sand. Few today understand the issues at stake and yet I believe the remnant
of the next generation, if it is to survive will necessarily look back on this
chapter of Evangelical history as one of downgrade. In these episodes Sproul et
al. were acting more in the capacity of Evangelicals than Confessionalists.
Once this is grasped, one wonders how future generations of Confessionalists
will view them? To call them 'stalwarts' becomes problematic to say the least.
Even as they rightly criticised the views of Karl Barth, by
handing over the Bible to the academy and subjecting it to its dissections and
methods, they (ironically) set the stage for an Evangelical embrace of Barth.
Looking at Scripture through a humanist lens and embracing the epistemology of
secular materialism while trying to maintain Divine Inspiration has failed. As
Iain Murray points out in Evangelicalism Divided, these Evangelical scholars
believed that Text Criticism could be employed when viewing the 'human' aspects
of the text. This established a fatal bifurcation and today as I peruse
Evangelical magazines such as 'Bible Study Magazine' I am appalled by the views
being espoused. These Evangelical leaders have truly abandoned the Old Paths of
historical Protestantism. Their Evangelicalism marks a break with historic
Protestantism and is instead a new form of Christianity... at peace with
Theological Liberalism and at peace with the world.
This 'Conservative' Liberalism was on display decades ago. I
often pick up my set of IVP Tyndale commentaries and many of the commentators
would qualify as members of the Evangelical academy, not a few of them from
within the Evangelical wing of the Church of England. The commentaries are helpful
and instructive but more often than not I am struck by the way in which liberal
processes and categories have crept into their method, their vacillating and
unwillingness to stand on and assert Divine Supernaturalism. They are useful
works but there's something a bit off about them. Rather than build on the
notion that the knowledge of God is the beginning of wisdom they all too often
engage in a delicate dance, seeking to uphold one truth while kow-towing to
another. Some volumes in the set are definitely better than others, and a few
are rather poor indeed. But these commentaries were published thirty years ago.
Today's Evangelical scholarship like in the aforementioned and certainly misnamed
Bible Study Magazine makes the IVP-Tyndale scholars look quite conservative. We
are witnessing a steady downgrade and it's not just among the Evangelicals. The
Confessionalists have also opened the door.
Inerrantists draw a distinction between infallibility and
inerrancy and argue vigorously that in the 20th century the further
distinction and elaboration of inerrancy was and is necessary. Infallibility is
too broad a concept, not exact or precise enough. Inerrancy tries to speak
definitively with regard to the letter of the text but instead it speaks only
in definite terms regarding the autographs... the original handwritten 1st
century texts now lost to us. Inerrancy is apparently something we seek, not
something we actually possess.
God gives us His Word but it's up to the academy and now even
hypothetical computer reconstructions to 're-discover' it. In attempting to
delineate a more robust and academically sound position they have instead
removed the Bible from the people and placed it in a position of dynamic
instability.
A cursory read of the Chicago Statement leads one to nod
along in agreement. But there's more there than what is found on the surface.
The poison is latent, but it's poison nonetheless.
This issue of Scripture is one of the 'elephants' in the room
of the modern Bible-professing Church. There are several cancers that have
infected the Body and if unchecked they will collectively destroy the majority
of Evangelical and even Confessional Churches within a generation or two.
This will sound confusing, even crazy to some. These men,
these upholders of the Chicago Statement, they're the conservatives right? Aren't they the one's battling liberal
incursions into the Evangelical and Confessional academy? There's some truth to
this of course. And yet, as is so often the case in the history of the Church,
one moment's remedy ends up setting the stage for a future problem. They're
treating symptoms, not the disease. Maybe this is the best we can hope for,
someone will say. True, men are flawed and fallen and we will forever be
chasing down error and distortion. A static orthodoxy while ideal is virtually
impossible and yet to combat the errors of the day and to 'win' in terms the
world will understand (and recognise) a terrible price is paid... and few have
rightly reckoned with that or counted the cost.
And have they 'won' anything? I think a strong case can be
made that they've won nothing at all. At best, they bought a little time and it
could be argued that time is coming to an end.
One thinks of a deliberately agrarian nation being threatened
by an industrial one. How to defend your quiet land and simple people? You must
industrialise in order to stave off the attacks of the enemy but in doing so
you fundamentally change your own society. The values you cherished and wanted
to protect are now transformed in order to preserve your nation. In saving it,
something was lost. In order to fight the enemy, you had to (in-part) become
what they are. That's certainly a pyrrhic victory unworthy of celebration.
What's the alternative? Are there any?
There are indeed, but one's thinking has to undergo a
significant transformation. We have to be willing to be fools for Christ's
sake. Respectability, status, money and societal recognition will not be a path
we can follow. We are called to be second-class citizens and despised in the
eyes of the world. Let the fools prattle on in their false wisdom. We will
answer them with the proclamation of Christ. The world in its wisdom cannot
know Him and scholarly articles and academic compromises aren't going to change
that. What do we lose? We lose the world but we gain Christ. This ethos replete
throughout the New Testament is utterly alien to the mindset and categories of
both Sacralist Confessional Protestantism and Modern Evangelicalism. They
cannot understand it and that's the great irony. In their detailed scholarly
attempts to dissect the Text, and even God Himself, they have missed the forest
through the trees.... and in many cases the fundamental themes of Scripture,
especially when it comes to questions concerning the Gospel and the Kingdom of
God.
See also: