Since 1978, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy has stood as the de facto standard confession of the Church in its belief in the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. The statement has grounded the Church’s position in biblical truth and has served as a powerful tool to combat liberalism throughout Evangelicalism and Protestantism. The statement was the work of faithful, tried-and-true men including James Montgomery Boice, J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul, and John F. MacArthur.
And now, The Gospel Coalition—which has a notable liberal drift in its own view of biblical inerrancy with its social justice agenda—proposes an “update” to the statement to “revise and clarify arguments in light of new hermeneutical and cultural arguments.”
While updates and clarifications to biblical statements of faith, creeds, and confessions are normal and have happened multiple times throughout the history of the Church, the fact that The Gospel Coalition wants to head this up, and believes they, of all people, are the ones qualified to do so, is laughable. In fact, The Gospel Coalition and its social justice agenda are the opposition to biblical inerrancy that this statement intended to combat.
The Gospel Coalition is the epicenter of doctrinal drift in Evangelicalism.
In an article published at TGC, Updating the Chicago Statement, Derek Brown proposes we add a new article affirming “doctrinal development,” or, to translate, doctrinal drift. He writes:
At this point, I suggest the CSBI could be strengthened, not by modifying the existing articles but by including an additional article that asserts the legitimacy of doctrinal development and acknowledges the contemporary articulation of inerrancy as a detailed yet valid expression of the historic teaching of the church.
Brown then goes on to offer the following suggestion for the new amendment to the statement:
We affirm that theological formulations often receive greater nuance as we engage contemporary issues. We further affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is a nuanced yet valid expression of the church’s historic position on the nature of Scripture.
We deny that inerrancy rightly articulated is the misguided product of modernism, common-sense realism, or any other external framework applied to Scripture rather than the teaching of Scripture itself.
No. Just no! While attempting to make the case that inerrancy has nothing to do with modernism or realism, it is most certainly a reflection of the postmodern worldview that much of The Gospel Coalition has taken on. Doctrine doesn’t “grow” or “develop,” but our understanding of it does.
Nuance, ambiguity, and the like are not reflections of biblical inerrancy, but tools of Satan to draw one’s mind away from biblical clarity. These tools are used to create ambiguous doctrines that “leave room” for people who “see things differently” to coexist with each other in the Church.
Some examples of this ambiguity in practice has led the Church to embrace new teachings on sexuality, the notion that people can have differing views on human sexuality and still be accepted in the Church. It has also led to the idea that leftists who vote a certain way in opposition to God’s moral standard, i.e. homosexuality, abortion, etc., can have valid reasons for doing so and should not be excommunicated. It has led the Southern Baptist Convention to adopt resolutions affirming Critical Race Theory. And so on.
If you think that The Gospel Coalition—and its proposed changes or “updates” to the Chicago statement—are anything less than sinister, one should really reflect on the history of this organization and its leadership. The entire purpose of The Gospel Coalition seems to have been to normalize the doctrinal shift away from biblical inerrancy, at least the way it has historically been understood, and then bring about change.
No thank you!