In response to the trend toward liberal and neo-orthodox interpretations denying the biblical
inerrancy of Scripture, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was produced by hundreds of
evangelical scholars and leaders in an international and interdenominational effort to affirm and defend
biblical inerrancy. This Statement was produce at a congress, sponsored by the International Council on
Biblical Inerrancy, in Chicago during the fall of 1978.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars,
including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell,
John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C.
Sproul, and John Wenham.
The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy went on to produce another significant statement:
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics in 1982 for the purposes of clarifying hermeneutical
principles and practices.
For further information, consult Inerrancy by Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1980), God, Revelation And Authority, vol. 4 by Carl F. H. Henry (Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1979), and
Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary by R. C. Sproul (Oakland, Calif.: ICBI, 1980).
Included in the pink highlight are the commentaries on The Chicago
Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics by Norman L. Geisler.
Summit I of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy took place in Chicago
on October 26-28, 1978 for the purpose of affirming afresh the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture,
making clear the understanding of it and warning against its denial. In the years that have passed
since Summit I, God has blessed that effort in ways surpassing most anticipations. A gratifying flow
of helpful literature on the doctrine of inerrancy as well as a growing commitment to its value give
cause to pour forth praise to our great God.
The work of Summit I had hardly been completed when it became evident that there was
yet another major task to be tackled. While we recognize that belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is
basic to maintaining its authority, the values of that commitment are only as real as ones understanding
of the meaning of Scripture. Thus, the need for Summit I. For two years plans were laid and papers were
written on themes relating to hermeneutical principles and practices. The culmination of this effort
has been a meeting in Chicago on November 10-13, 1982 at which we, the undersigned, have participated.
In similar fashion to the Chicago Statement of 1978, we herewith present these affirmations
and denials as an expression of the results of our labors to clarify hermeneutical issues and principles.
We do not claim completeness or systematic treatment of the entire subject, but these affirmations and
denials represent a consensus of the approximately one hundred participants and observers gathered at
this conference. It has been a broadening experience to engage in dialogue, and it is our prayer that
God will use the product of our diligent efforts to enable us and others to more correctly handle the
word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15).
WE AFFIRM that the normative authority of Holy Scripture is the authority of God
Himself, and is attested by Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Church.
WE DENY the legitimacy of
separating the authority of Christ from the authority of Scripture, or of opposing the one to the other.
A comment by N. Geisler: This first article affirms that the authority of Scripture cannot be
separated from the authority of God. Whatever the Bible affirms, God affirms. And what the Bible affirms (or
denies), it affirms (or denies) with the very authority of God. Such authority is normative for all believers.
It is the canon or rule of God.
This divine authority of Old Testament Scripture was confirmed by Christ Himself on numerous
occasions (cf. Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 24:44, John 10:34-35). And what our Lord confirmed as to the divine authority
of the Old Testament, He promised also for the New Testament (John 14:16, 16:13).
The Denial points out that one cannot reject the divine authority of Scripture without thereby
impugning the authority of Christ, who attested Scripture's divine authority. Thus it is wrong to claim one can
accept the full authority of Christ without acknowledging the complete authority of Scripture.
WE AFFIRM that as Christ is God and Man in One Person, so Scripture is, indivisibly,
God's Word in human language.
WE DENY that the humble, human form of Scripture entails errancy
any more than the humanity of Christ, even in His humiliation, entails sin.
Here an analogy is drawn between Christ and Scripture. Both Christ and Scripture have dual
aspects of divinity and humanity, indivisibly united in one expression. Both Christ and Scripture were conceived
by an act of the Holy Spirit. Both involve the use of fallible human agents. But both produced a theanthropic
result: one a sinless person and the other an errorless book. However, like all analogies, there is a difference.
Christ is one person uniting two natures whereas Scripture is one written expression uniting two authors (God
and man). This difference notwithstanding, the strength of the likeness in the analogy points to the inseparable
unity between divine and human dimensions of Scripture so that one aspect cannot be in error while the other
The Denial is directed at a contemporary tendency to separate the human aspects of Scripture
from the divine and allow for error in the former. By contrast the framers of this article believe that the
human form of Scripture can no more be found in error than Christ could be found in sin. That is to say, the
Word of God (i.e., the Bible) is as necessarily perfect in its human manifestation as was the Son of God in His
WE AFFIRM that the Person and work of Jesus Christ are the central focus of the
WE DENY that any method of interpretation which rejects or obscures the
Christ-centeredness of Scripture is correct.
This Affirmation follows the teaching of Christ that He is the central theme of Scripture
(Matt. 5:17, Luke 24:27, 44, John 5:39, Heb. 10:7). This is to say that focus on the person and work of Christ
runs throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. To be sure there are other and tangential topics, but
the person and work of Jesus Christ are central.
In view of the focus of Scripture on Christ, the Denial stresses a hermeneutical obligation
to make this Christocentric message clear in the expounding of Scripture. As other articles (cf. Article XV)
emphasize the literal interpretation of Scripture, this article is no license for allegorization
and unwarranted typology which see Christ portrayed in every detail of Old Testament proclamation. The
article simply points to the centrality of Christ's mission in the unfolding of God's revelation to man.
Neither is there any thought in this article of making the role of Christ more ultimate than
that of the Father. What is in view here is the focus of Scripture and not the ultimate source or object of
the whole plan of redemption.
WE AFFIRM that the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture acts through it today to
work faith in its message.
WE DENY that the Holy Spirit ever teaches to any one anything
which is contrary to the teaching of Scripture.
Here stress is laid on the fact that the Holy Spirit not only is the source of Scripture, but
also works to produce faith in Scripture He has inspired. Without this ministry of the Holy Spirit, belief in
the truth of Scripture would not occur.
The Denial is directed at those alleged revelations which some claim to have but which
are contrary to Scripture. No matter how sincere or genuinely felt, no dream, vision, or supposed revelation
which contradicts Scripture ever comes from the Holy Spirit. For the utterances of the Holy Spirit are all
harmonious and noncontradictory (see Article XX).
WE AFFIRM that the Holy Spirit enables believers to appropriate and apply Scripture
to their lives.
WE DENY that the natural man is able to discern spiritually the biblical
message apart from the Holy Spirit.
The design of this article is to indicate that the ministry of the Holy Spirit extends beyond
the inspiration of Scripture to its very application to the lives of the believer. Just as no one calls Jesus
Lord except by the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 12:3), so no one can appropriate the message of Scripture to his life
apart from the gracious work of the Holy Spirit.
The Denial stresses the truth that the natural man does not receive the spiritual message of
Scripture. Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit there is no welcome for its truth in an unregenerate heart.
This does not imply that a non-Christian is unable to understand the meaning of any Scripture.
It means that whatever he may perceive of the message of Scripture, that without the Holy Spirit's work he will
not welcome the message in his heart.
WE AFFIRM that the Bible expresses God's truth in propositional statements, and
we declare that biblical truth is both objective and absolute. We further affirm that a statement is true if
it represents matters as they actually are, but is an error if it misrepresents the facts.
DENY that, while Scripture is able to make us wise unto salvation, biblical truth should be defined in
terms of this function. We further deny that error should be defined as that which willfully deceives.
Since hermeneutics is concerned with understanding the truth of Scripture, attention is
directed here to the nature of truth. Several significant affirmations are made about the nature of truth.
First, in contrast to contemporary relativism it is declared that truth is absolute. Second,
as opposed to subjectivism it is acknowledged that truth is objective. Finally, in opposition to existential
and pragmatic views of truth, this article affirms that truth is what corresponds to reality. This same point
was made in the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (1978) in Article XIII and the commentary on it.
The Denial makes P evident that views which redefine an error to mean what misleads,
rather than what is a mistake, must be rejected. This redefinition of the word error is both contrary
to Scripture and to common sense. In Scripture the word error is used of unintentional acts (Lev. 4:2) as
well as intentional ones. Also, in common parlance a statement is in error if it is a factual mistake, even
if there was no intention to mislead anyone by it. So to suggest that the Bible contains mistakes, but that
these are not errors so long as they do not mislead, is contrary to both Scripture and ordinary usage.
By this subtle redefinition of error to mean only what misleads but not what misrepresents,
some have tried to maintain that the Bible is wholly true (in that it never misleads) and yet that it may have
some mistakes in it. This position is emphatically rejected by the confessors of this document.
WE AFFIRM that the meaning expressed in each biblical text is single, definite and
WE DENY that the recognition of this single meaning eliminates the variety of its
The Affirmation here is directed at those who claim a double or deeper meaning
to Scripture than that expressed by the authors. It stresses the unity and fixity of meaning as opposed to
those who find multiple and pliable meanings. What a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject
to change by readers. This does not imply that further revelation on the subject cannot help one come to a
fuller understanding, but simply that the meaning given in a text is not changed because additional truth is
Meaning is also definite in that there are defined limits by virtue of the author's expressed
meaning in the given linguistic form and cultural context. Meaning is determined by an author: it is discovered
by the readers.
The Denial adds the clarification that simply because Scripture has one meaning does not imply
that its messages cannot be applied to a variety of individuals or situations. While the interpretation is one,
the applications can be many.
WE AFFIRM that the Bible contains teachings and mandates which apply to all cultural
and situational contexts and other mandates which the Bible itself shows apply only to particular
WE DENY that the distinctions between the universal and particular mandates of
Scripture can be determined by cultural and situational factors. We further deny that universal mandates may
ever be treated as culturally or situationally relative.
In view of the tendency of many to relativize the message of the Bible by accommodating it
to changing cultural situations, this Affirmation proclaims the universality of biblical teachings. There are
commands which transcend all cultural barriers and are binding on all men everywhere. To be sure, some
biblical injunctions are directed to specific situations, but even these are normative to the particular
situation(s) to which they speak. However, there are commands in Scripture which speak universally to the
human situation and are not bound to particular cultures or situations.
The Denial addresses the basis of the distinction between universal and particular situations.
It denies that the grounds of this distinction are relative or purely cultural. It further denies the legitimacy
of relativizing biblical absolutes by reducing them to purely cultural mandates.
The meaning of this article is that whatever the biblical text means is binding. And what is
meant to be universally binding should not be relegated to particular situations any more than what is meant
to apply only to particular circumstances should be promulgated as universally applicable.
There is an attempt here to strike a balance between command and culture by recognizing that
a command transcends culture, even though it speaks to and is expressed in a particular culture. Thus while
the situation (or circumstances) may help us to discover the right course of action, the situation never
determines what is right. God's laws are not situationally determined.
WE AFFIRM that the term hermeneutics, which historically signified the rules of
exegesis, may properly be extended to cover all that is involved in the process of perceiving what the biblical
revelation means and how it bears on our lives.
WE DENY that the message of Scripture
derives from, or is dictated by, the interpreter's understanding. Thus we deny that the "horizons" of the
biblical writer and the interpreter any rightly "fuse" in such a way that what the text communicates to the
interpreter is not ultimately controlled by the expressed meaning of the Scripture.
The primary thrust of this Affirmation is definitional. It desires to clarify the meaning of
the term hermeneutics by indicating that it includes not only perception of the declared meaning of a text but
also an understanding of the implications that text has for one's life. Thus, hermeneutics is more than
biblical exegesis. It is not only the science that leads forth the meaning of a passage but also that which
enables one (by the Holy Spirit) to understand the spiritual implications the truth(s) of this passage has for
The Denial notes that the meaning of a passage is not derived from or dictated by the
interpreter. Rather, meaning comes from the author who wrote it. Thus the reader's understanding has no
hermeneutically definitive role. Readers must listen to the meaning of a text and not attempt to legislate it.
Of course, the meaning listened to should be applied to the reader's life. But the need or desire for specific
application should not color the interpretation of a passage.
WE AFFIRM that Scripture communicates God's truth to us verbally through a wide
variety of literary forms.
WE DENY that any of the limits of human language render Scripture
inadequate to convey God's message.
This Affirmation is a logical literary extension of Article II which acknowledges the
humanity of Scripture. The Bible is God's Word, but it is written in human words: thus, revelation is
verbal. Revelation is propositional (Article II) because it expresses certain propositional
truth. Some prefer to call it sentential because the truth is expressed in sentences. Whatever the
term-verbal, propositional, or sentential-the Bible is a human book which uses normal literary forms. These
include parables, satire, irony, hyperbole, metaphor, simile, poetry, and even allegory (e.g., Ezek. 16-17).
As an expression in finite, human language, the Bible has certain limitations in a similar
way that Christ as a man had certain limitations. This means that God adapted Himself through human language
so that His eternal truth could be understood by man in a temporal world.
Despite the obvious fact of the limitations of any finite linguistic expression, the Denial
is quick to point out that these limits do not render Scripture an inadequate means of communicating God's
truth. For while there is a divine adaptation (via language) to humans there is no accommodation to human
error. Error is not essential to human nature. Christ was human and yet He did not err. Adam was human before
he erred. So simply because the Bible is written in human language does not mean it must err. In fact, when
God uses human language, there is a supernatural guarantee that it will not be in error.