Peter Enns and the Chicago Statements on Biblical Inerrancy & Hermeneutics

Over at the BioLogos Forum, Peter Enns is involved in a very lengthy series of intricately looking at both statements known as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (download a PDF of the statement here) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (download a PDF of the statement here).

Of course, knowing BioLogos’ specific focus on how our Christian faith and science come together, Enns is looking at how these two statements have bearings on the discussion about faith and science, or how these statements could impede such dialogue.

Over the past couple of years, I have really begun to rethink my understanding and approach to Scripture. At some point, I would love to do some more extensive reading, writing and engagimg with what might be the more normal evangelical approach to Scripture – the nature of Scripture, the nature of God-breathed (theopneustos), the concept of inerrancy, and even looking at the 2 Chicago Statement’s. Such will be a large task, no doubt. But I sense the typical evangelical approach might need some rethinking.

Enns’ series at BioLogos is not nearly finished, I suppose. But he has already posted 10 articles thus far. Here is the link to article 1, and then to continue reading the series, look on the right-hand side of the website under ‘More from this Series’. The article listed first in order is the most recent article. So to move on to part 2 in this series, click on the next to last article, and so on.

2 thoughts on “Peter Enns and the Chicago Statements on Biblical Inerrancy & Hermeneutics

  1. BioLogos is well regarded among certain quarters in my church community, and there’s quite a few of us following Enn’s progress with great interest. He will need to tread with caution; the CSBI is a touchstone of evangelical orthodoxy.

  2. I think there is a dropped thought in that first sentence at “series of intricately looking at both statements.” But thinking of rethinking how we look at Scripture, I’ve long had an issue with the assumption that if it can possibly be taken literal, it must be. I think that is an over-reaction to those that try to turn everything into metaphor or spiritualize it. And that is particularly the case in the areas where science meets Scripture. Marv and I, for example, have gotten into this a bit (or more) over on his Genesis blog. We tend to read the text thinking that it is answering OUR questions within our mental and linguistic worldview. But it doesn’t. It was written TO a people with different questions, different understandings of the world, and a different focus. John Walton does an excellent job of showing the differences in The Lost World of Genesis One. I’d come to the same conclusions from the text alone, but it is refreshing to read that I’m not making something up that isn’t there and that what I see in the text is there for a purpose.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s