INTERVIEW: Dr. Vern Poythress

A Testimony about the ICBI and CSBI

In October of 1978, a group of 334 evangelical christian leaders from many different denominations and churches came together to formulate the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI). The conference was put on by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), which was an organization that existed from 1978 to 1988. The CSBI set out to define the authority of Scripture in a time when the historic understanding of the Bible’s authority was under attack. Today, many people do not know about the ICBI and the important work they accomplished for the Global Church. Hopefully, today’s interview will help bridge that gap of knowledge.

I (CRS) recently had the privilege of corresponding with Dr. Vern S. Poythress (VSP), distinguished professor of New Testament, biblical interpretation, and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, where he has taught since 1976. He is the author of many books, including titles most notable for our conversation, Inerrancy and Worldview and Inerrancy and the Gospels. He was kind and gracious enough to allow me to interview him. We talked about the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and Hermeneutics, both of which he signed, and other questions surrounding the doctrine of inerrancy. This interview has been edited for length and clarity

CRS: You were one of the signers of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy back in 1978. You were early in your career as a professor and probably not as well known as you are today. How did you get involved with the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy?

VSP: I cannot remember for sure. If I remember rightly, Edmund P. Clowney, at that time president of Westminster Theological Seminary, and one of the prominent defenders of inerrancy, urged me to participate. I was at that time Assistant Professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, having been initially appointed in 1976.

CRS: What are some things you remember about the ICBI, a historic meeting of evangelicals across many denominations?

VSP: I understood that it was a historic meeting. There were many people there who were famous evangelical Bible scholars and theologians. Evangelicalism at the time was being disturbed by opponents of inerrancy both inside and outside the general movement of evangelicalism; people were raising doubts about inerrancy or attacking it.

CRS: Who did you meet or interact with at the meeting?

VSP: I don’t remember anyone in particular. I did not treat the meeting as a time to get acquainted, but a time to pray and to listen carefully to the presentations.

CRS: Did you make any contributions to the statement at all? If so, what were they? If not, what were some contributions made to the statement that you particularly remember that impacted you?

VSP: I did not make any contributions to the wording, and I did not write any suggestions to go to the central committee. The conference was organized with a central committee and with a preliminary draft statement. Contributions were welcomed from all participants. But because there were so many participants, there was a need for steering and filtering through the central committee.

VSP: I was grateful for the conference being held at all. In the completed statement, I was grateful also for several things. First, there was a clear positive statement of what the doctrine of inerrancy is. Second, there were statements designed to head off misunderstandings and caricatures. For example, some opponents have characterized inerrancy as requiring a dictation theory of inspiration, a theory that says that the human authors were mere scribes taking dictation from God, instead of active participants in writing Scripture. The inerrancy statement specifically addresses this misunderstanding, and affirms the involvement of human authors in Article VIII. I also thought that the format was effective. It included a shorter positive statement, and then affirmations and denials, which are useful in clarifying.

VSP: A second conference focusing on hermeneutics was held in 1982. In that conference, I was still a relatively unknown young scholar. I was appointed to be a respondent in one of the break-out sessions. To my surprise, I was invited to be a member of the central committee, because R.C. Sproul became sick and could not participate. As a member of the central committee, I had a more active role. But it was other members who suggested modified wordings to some of the Articles.

CRS: Is it fair to call the ICBI an “international council” when most of the statement framers and signers were from the United States? J.I. Packer and John Wenham come to mind as international contributors to the CSBI.

VSP: As you indicate, there were international participants. It is true that there were many more people from the USA, partly because the conferences were held in the USA. But I think it was also because, on the average, evangelicals in the USA were more alert to the challenges concerning inerrancy.

CRS: What usefulness does the CSBI have outside of the United States? In other words, why should the global church care about a statement developed in the United States?

VSP: The original ICBI statement from 1978 indicates not only what inerrancy is but why it is important. People who abandon inerrancy inevitably find themselves in a position where they must become the judges concerning which affirmations in the Bible they will accept as true and which they will not accept. This results in undermining the authority of the Bible across the board. The real final authority becomes the interpreter’s sense of what is true. And it undermines the authority of Christ as Lord. If Christ is to be our Lord in practice, and not merely in a paper verbal affirmation, we must submit to the words of Christ--all of them, not simply ones to which we choose to submit.

VSP: The principle holds true in all cultures and languages. The global church is subject to the same difficulties, though, depending on the situation, the difficulties may not yet have appeared in church practice. My wife and I have ministered in Taipei, Taiwan, for some years, and the same issues come up there. In Taiwan I was invited one year to give a special lecture on inerrancy, and in another year to teach a larger module on it. Both these requests were initiatives from institutions in Taiwan.

VSP: The principle also holds over the passage of time. Augustine of Hippo was clearly an inerrantist (though that particular word was not yet in use) when he wrote a Harmony of the Evangelists. John Calvin was as well. In both cases it has been disputed. But anyone can look up the original documents and see for himself. The Westminster Standards are inerrantist--without using that word.

CRS: Why should someone read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy today? What value does it have to churchgoers and pastors?

VSP: It is still a good statement of what inerrancy is and what it is not. Now, as in 1978, it is helpful in clearing up misunderstandings, as well as in making a positive statement.

CRS: Since 1978, there have been more attacks on biblical inerrancy. Have any of the attacks been surprising to you?

VSP: Yes, a little, because it is easy for me to fall into the pattern of thinking that the issue has already been adequately addressed (which I do think that ICBI has done). But the issue shows no signs of going away. So I expect there to be renewed attacks from time to time.

CRS: I recently interviewed Dr. Derek Brown of The Cornerstone Bible College and Seminary about his dissertation on his proposals to update the CSBI. As I understand it, you read through his dissertation. Do you think the Chicago Statement is in need of updating to answer contemporary challenges, why or why not?

VSP: I think that I did read a condensation of it. My memory is dim. I am sympathetic with Dr. Brown’s points. There are always things that could be added to a historic statement. And the passage of time means that there are new variations on the older attacks on inerrancy. But I do not think there is anything wrong with the CSBI. If it were to be updated, it should be not because it allegedly needs correction, but only because additions could more directly address new variations on the attacks.

VSP: I think it should be appreciated that a single individual could not produce modifications or a completely new document that would have the same historic status. It is important historically that the CSBI was a consensus document, which received approval and signatures from a wide spectrum of evangelicals. Because of that, it is more difficult for a critic to claim that it is idiosyncratic.

CRS: What resources do you recommend to laypersons or pastors who struggle with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy?

VSP:

J. I. Packer, ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God, is still one of the best.

For big treatments,

B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible.

John Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God.

For more special challenges,

Vern S. Poythress, Inerrancy and Worldview: Answering Modern Challenges to the Bible

Vern S. Poythress, Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization

Gleason L. Archer, Jr., An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.