For nearly half a century, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) has served as a guide for many evangelicals in their understanding of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. In this paper, I point out several problems with the foremost arguments for inerrancy as defined by the CSBI.
Since Scripture does not inform us how it is divinely inspired, inerrancy as defined by the CSBI does not necessarily result. Scripture is confluent, having dual authorship: divine and human. While theologians on the left emphasize the human element to a point that Scripture holds little-to-no authority over the Christian, those of us on the right can emphasize the divine element to a point that we become blinded to the effects of the human element. This results in having a view of Scripture that is sometimes not in concert with what we observe in Scripture. Some who have observed this inconsistency have left the faith, because they think the truth of the Christian faith is tied to a CSBI understanding of inerrancy, given the heavy emphasis often given the doctrine by some evangelicals.
I propose a way forward for understanding inspiration that is consistent with Scripture and suggest a better way of understanding inerrancy that results in a harmonious union between our view of Scripture and what we observe in Scripture. The CSBI should be revised accordingly.