Good question. First off, let me say that I personally do not see reason to affirm the Chicago Statements, but instead affirm the Lausanne Covenant. Do deal with your points, one by one,
The insistence on “verbally God-given” is idiosyncratic, and many who even affirm the statement do not believe that. The mechanism of inspiration is often considered a mystery.
Yes! However, what does Scripture teach us about the creation and the flood? That certainly is an open question.
This is a key point. This is correctly claiming that we do not use modern standards to adjudicate these matters.
Once again, what exactly is the passage teaching?
This is not part of the doctrine of inerrancy, it is non-sequitur to anti-evolution presuppositions (in place of the teachings of Scripture), and cannot be justified. Science cannot speak of when God does and does not act, because of methodological naturalism. In the same way, those who affirm the Chicago Statement cannot make hermeneutical claims against evolution without begging the question with circular reasoning.
Just remember that the anti-evoltuionism is not part of inerrancy, that is an addon that cannot be justified from scripture or hermeneutics or theology.
In contrast, there are a few very helpful principles for faith science conversation in the statements:
Since all facts cohere, the truth about them must be coherent also; and since God, the author of all Scripture, is also the Lord of all facts, there can in principle be no contradiction between a right understanding of what Scripture says and a right account of any reality or event in the created order. Any appearance of contradiction here would argue misunderstanding or inadequate knowledge, either of what Scripture really affirms or of what the extra-biblical facts really are. Thus it would be a summons to reassessment and further scholarly inquiry.
This is a very good statement of inerrancy. It is not that everything fits, but that if we see contradiction, we impute error on our understanding. That is a key part of the doctrine.
What the Bible says about the facts of nature is as true and trustworthy as anything else it says. However, it speaks of natural phenomena as they are spoken of in ordinary language, not in the explanatory technical terms of modern science; it accounts for natural events in terms of the action of God, not in terms of causal links within the created order; and it oflen describes natural processes figuratively and poetically, not analytically and prosaically as modern science seeks to do. This being so, differences of opinion as to the correct scientific account to give of natural facts and events which Scripture celebrates can hardly be avoided.
This also helpful. It is, I would summarize, claiming autonomy of language for both science and theology. The understanding must cohere, but the language can diverge.
It should be remembered, however, that Scripture was given to reveal God, not to address scientific issues in scientific terms, and that, as it does not use the language of modern science, so it does not require scientific knowledge about the internal processes of God’s creation for the understanding of its essential message about God and ourselves. Scripture interprets scientific knowledge by relating it to the revealed purpose and work of God, thus establishing an ultimate context for the study and reform of scientific ideas. It is not for scientific theories to dictate what Scripture may and may not say, although extra-biblical information will sometimes helpfully expose a misinterpretation of Scripture
This also is helpful, in that questioning of scripture based on scientific findings is legitimized.
In fact, interrogating biblical statements concerning nature in the light of scientific knowledge about their subject matter may help toward attaining a more precise exegesis of them. For though exegesis must be controlled by the text itself, not shaped by extraneous considerations, the exegetical process is constantly stimulated by questioning the text as to whether it means this or that.
Just to draw application to common ancestry in science and theology.
Autonomy of language means that:
- Theology can use (especially historically) the term “genetic” without meaning DNA.
- For the word ancestry, theology can mean genealogical, even though science usually means genetic.
- Science can define “human” however it likes, and so can theology, and they need not map to the same definition.
Legitimacy of questions means:
- From the inference of large population size in last 100 ky, we can ask if Scripture really teaches there was no one outside the garden.
- We can ask if mankind was created in Genesis 1 and then later Adam was created in Genesis 2?
- We can ask if Scripture really teaches Adam is our sole genetic progenitor? Or if it is possible it is teaching that he is our sole-genealogical progenitor?
Critically, the Chicago Statements do correctly distinguish between Scripture and what we think Scripture says. THere can be many errors in the latter, without errors in the former.