# The Divine Authenticity of Scripture



## CalvinandHodges

Evangelicals have taken extraordinary care in formulating and articulating a high view of Scripture. And yet the doctrine is not without its inadequacies and its internal critics - both past and present. The idea that McGowan contests is that of inerrancy. He points out that "inerrancy" is nowhere taught by the Reformers or in the Reformed Confessions - such as the Westminster Confession of Faith. That inerrancy is a product of the Rational/Scientific philosophy that pervaded Christianity in the 19th Century. He argues that the idea of inerrancy has been contested by the Reformed since its formulation by B. B. Warfield, and that inerrancy should be replaced by an informed concept of the infallibility or authenticity of Scripture. The way forward, according to McGowan, is to reach back within the European evangelical tradition, particularly to the work of the Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck. Even if you may not agree with his thesis - his arguments need to be answered. A stimulating book!


----------



## Wayne

This sounds like a rehash of the Rogers and McKim theory, which was so brilliantly and utterly refuted by Dr. John D. Woodbridge. 

See Woodbridge, John D., _Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal_. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.

and for background, Rogers, Jack and Donald McKim, _The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach_. Harper and Row, 1979.

See also a very helpful article on inerrancy by Mark Dever, posted at 
Inerrancy of the Bible: An Annotated Bibliography - 9Marks

Dever concludes his article with this statement:



> "If I could just recommend one book on the inerrancy of the Bible it would undoubtedly be this one—John Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Tyndale Press, 1972 [UK]; IVP, 1973 [US]). Wenham’s book has been through three editions and makes the simple point that our trust in Scripture is to be a part of our following Christ, because that is the way that Christ treated Scripture—as true, and therefore authoritative."


----------



## Puritan Sailor

"That inerrancy is a product of the Rational/Scientific philosophy that pervaded Christianity in the 19th Century."

This is incorrect. Both Augustine and Gregory Naziansus argued for inerrancy. Last I checked they didn't live in the 19th century...


----------



## CalvinandHodges

No - McGowan goes covers both Augustine and Naziansus - and points out that they believe in Inspiration not Inerrancy.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV

Augustine went out of his way several times to say that there are and have been errors in the Bible. He also said that those errors didn't change the fact that the Bible is the Word of God.


----------



## py3ak

What is McGowan's definition of inerrancy? That is the first step in evaluating his proposal, surely.


----------



## Peairtach

This book

Amazon.com: The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage (9780830828791): A. t. b. Mcgowan: Books

seems to be a follow up to this book by Andrew McGowan

Amazon.com: The Divine Spiration of Scripture: Challenging Evangelical Perspectives (9781844742202): Andrew T. B. McGowan: Books

unless they're the same book in different imprints and editions.

The latter book received a lot of flak for its attempt to reformulate an evangelical view of Scripture while rejecting inerrancy and yet saying that he was not arguing for errancy.

Here's a review by James Anderson of the latter book:-

http://www.proginosko.com/docs/McGowanInerrancy.pdf

And a quote from the same review:- 



> McGowan’s third argument against inerrancy “concerns how we deal with textual issues such as apparent conflicts and contradictions.”
> 
> Faced with these textual difficulties, McGowan observes, inerrantists “will typically reply in one of two ways”: Either they will argue that this is only an antimony, an apparent but not real contradiction, or they will argue that if we had the autographa we would see that the problem does not exist there, only in errant manuscripts, because of errors in the copying over the centuries. (p. 112)
> 
> I have to wonder from what inerrantist literature McGowan has drawn his conclusions. In my experience, these two ‘escape hatches’ are rarely employed and only then as a last resort. Far more commonly, inerrantist scholars will offer one or more exegetical explanations as to why the conflict is merely apparent. McGowan may not find such explanations satisfying, but it is simply misleading to suggest that they are not offered
> as a matter of course.
> 
> In support of his point, McGowan borrows an example from I. Howard Marshall:
> 
> _In the story of Jairus as recorded by Matthew it is simply said that when
> Jairus first met Jesus he told him that his daughter was dead (Matt. 9:18).
> According to Mark and Luke, however, the daughter was merely on the
> point of death at the beginning of the story and it was only later — after
> the incident of the woman with the haemorrhage — that Jairus and Jesus
> learned that she had actually died (Mark 5:3 f.; Luke 8:49 f.). There is a
> clear contradiction between the initial words of Jairus as recorded by
> Matthew and the other Evangelists. We can, of course, explain the
> contradiction quite easily and acceptably by saying that Matthew, whose
> generally policy was to tell stories about Jesus in fewer words than Mark,
> has abbreviated the story and given the general sense of what happened
> without going into details. But the fact still remains that Matthew has
> attributed to Jairus words which he did not actually say at the time stated._ (p. 113)
> 
> Unfortunately for McGowan, this example proves either too little or too much. Does he think that Matthew affirmed a falsehood (intentionally or otherwise)? If so, then his insistence that he isn’t arguing for ‘errancy’ falls flat. He must conclude that Scripture contains errors after all (in the sense that the inerrantist defines ‘error’).
> 
> On the other hand, if McGowan doesn’t believe that Matthew affirmed a falsehood, he can’t reasonably conclude that this example poses any difficulty for the inerrantist.


----------



## DTK

TimV said:


> Augustine went out of his way several times to say that there are and have been errors in the Bible. He also said that those errors didn't change the fact that the Bible is the Word of God.


Several times? Please document these several times, each and every instance of which you are aware.

Thanks,
DTK


----------



## Puritan Sailor

CalvinandHodges said:


> No - McGowan goes covers both Augustine and Naziansus - and points out that they believe in Inspiration not Inerrancy.



That may be what McGowan says, but that's not what Augustine and Gregory say. 

Augustine writing to Jerome, Letter 82.3 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers, First Series, volume 1, pg. 350). 



> "On such terms we might amuse ourselves without fear of offending each other in the field of Scripture, but I might well wonder if the amusement was not at my expense. For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do* I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.* And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason."


http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf....1.LXXXII.html

Gregory Nazianzen



> I remembered the days of old, and, recurring to one of the ancient histories, drew counsel for myself therefrom as to my present conduct; for let us not suppose these events to have been recorded without a purpose, nor that they are a mere assemblage of words and deeds gathered together for the pastime of those who listen to them, as a kind of bait for the ears, for the sole purpose of giving pleasure. Let us leave such jesting to the legends and the Greeks, who think but little of the truth, and enchant ear and mind by the charm of their fictions and the daintiness of their style.
> 
> *We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle,* will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazard by those who have recorded them, and have thus been borne in mind down to the present day: on the contrary, their purpose has been to supply memorials and instructions for our consideration under similar circumstances, should such befall us, and that the examples of the past might serve as rules and models, for our warning and imitation.



NPNF2-07. Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
pg. 225 

See this thread for more early church quotes on inerrancy:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/innerancy-church-fathers-24121/

-----------------------------------------------------------
Some helpful reviews of McGowan's book: 

Is Inerrancy Unbiblical, Rationalistic and Presumptuous? A critique of A.T.B. McGowan's proposal for evangelicals to reject inerrancy - Reformation21

Review: The Divine Spiration of Scripture by A.T.B.McGowan

Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

Andrew McGowan, The Divine Spiration of Scripture (Nottingham: Apollos (IVP), 2007)


----------



## toddpedlar

DTK said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Augustine went out of his way several times to say that there are and have been errors in the Bible. He also said that those errors didn't change the fact that the Bible is the Word of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Several times? Please document these several times, each and every instance of which you are aware.
> 
> Thanks,
> DTK
Click to expand...


Surely if Augustine "went out of his way" to dispute inerrancy, then producing such a list of these instances should be fairly straightforward, Tim. I'm looking forward to seeing your references.


----------



## TimV

I may have been using improper terminology, thrown off by the statement in the OP



> He points out that "inerrancy" is nowhere taught by the Reformers or in the Reformed Confessions - such as the Westminster Confession of Faith.



The great majority of Reformers agreed with Turretin in that they didn't hold to perfect preservation. If the author means that the autographs had errors, then the above statement is so obviously false that I don't see how friend C&H would have recommended it to us, even to discuss.

Over the last months I've shown several occasions where Augustine called for changing the Bible when better mss came to light, and one case where he even called for leaving some errors intact for the sake of an ecumenical text.


----------



## DTK

toddpedlar said:


> DTK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Augustine went out of his way several times to say that there are and have been errors in the Bible. He also said that those errors didn't change the fact that the Bible is the Word of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Several times? Please document these several times, each and every instance of which you are aware.
> 
> Thanks,
> DTK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely if Augustine "went out of his way" to dispute inerrancy, then producing such a list of these instances should be fairly straightforward, Tim. I'm looking forward to seeing your references.
Click to expand...

You made a claim, I asked you to document your claim, and now you're asking me for references for a claim I never made?

Please accept my apologies for asking you to make good your claim. I see now where my mistake was made.

DTK


----------



## P.F.

Augustine on Innerrancy: On such terms we might amuse ourselves without fear of offending each other in the field of Scripture, but I might well wonder if the amusement was not at my expense. For I confess to your Charity that *I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.* And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humble piety and just estimate of yourself which I know you to have, and without which assuredly you would not have said, "Would that I could receive your embrace, and that by converse we might aid each other in learning!"

(Letter to Jerome, Letter 82 in Augustine's Letters, Section 3)


----------



## toddpedlar

DTK said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DTK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several times? Please document these several times, each and every instance of which you are aware.
> 
> Thanks,
> DTK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely if Augustine "went out of his way" to dispute inerrancy, then producing such a list of these instances should be fairly straightforward, Tim. I'm looking forward to seeing your references.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You made a claim, I asked you to document your claim, and now you're asking me for references for a claim I never made?
> 
> Please accept my apologies for asking you to make good your claim. I see now where my mistake was made.
> 
> DTK
Click to expand...


DTK - 

You should probably read the post to which you replied again (you replied to a post of mine, not Tim's), and check who it is who posted the request (that was me, not Tim), what the request entailed and to whom the request (that is, the request was made to Tim, not you) was made. I'm agreeing with you 100% and am asking TIM to provide a list of references that he claimed existed. 

Todd


----------



## TimV

> You made a claim, I asked you to document your claim, and now you're asking me for references for a claim I never made?
> 
> Please accept my apologies for asking you to make good your claim. I see now where my mistake was made.



Are you talking to me? It's a bit unclear. I said that Augustine said that there were mistakes in the Bible that could be corrected by older and better mss. Is that what you want to see? When have I asked you for anything?


----------



## DTK

toddpedlar said:


> DTK -
> 
> You should probably read the post to which you replied again (you replied to a post of mine, not Tim's), and check who it is who posted the request (that was me, not Tim), what the request entailed and to whom the request (that is, the request was made to Tim, not you) was made. I'm agreeing with you 100% and am asking TIM to provide a list of references that he claimed existed.
> 
> Todd


Todd,

Thanks, I meant to be asking TimV to make good his claim. My apologies to you.

DTK


----------



## toddpedlar

DTK said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> DTK -
> 
> You should probably read the post to which you replied again (you replied to a post of mine, not Tim's), and check who it is who posted the request (that was me, not Tim), what the request entailed and to whom the request (that is, the request was made to Tim, not you) was made. I'm agreeing with you 100% and am asking TIM to provide a list of references that he claimed existed.
> 
> Todd
> 
> 
> 
> Todd,
> 
> Thanks, I meant to be asking TimV to make good his claim. My apologies to you.
> 
> DTK
Click to expand...


Not a problem  I'm just making your solo a duet.

Todd


----------



## toddpedlar

TimV said:


> You made a claim, I asked you to document your claim, and now you're asking me for references for a claim I never made?
> 
> Please accept my apologies for asking you to make good your claim. I see now where my mistake was made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking to me? It's a bit unclear. I said that Augustine said that there were mistakes in the Bible that could be corrected by older and better mss. Is that what you want to see? When have I asked you for anything?
Click to expand...


Tim -

Let me make it clearer ... DTK was confused about what I had posted.

We're both asking you with one voice: Provide references to Augustine's "going out of his way to state that the Bible has errors in it".


----------



## DTK

TimV said:


> You made a claim, I asked you to document your claim, and now you're asking me for references for a claim I never made?
> 
> Please accept my apologies for asking you to make good your claim. I see now where my mistake was made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking to me? It's a bit unclear. I said that Augustine said that there were mistakes in the Bible that could be corrected by older and better mss. Is that what you want to see? When have I asked you for anything?
Click to expand...

Yes, but that is not your original claim. Augustine's acknowledgement for the occasional need for textual correction does not equal his endorsement of scriptural errancy. I would be grateful for you to post these several references for each and every occurrence you claim that Augustine made.

Thanks,
DTK

-----Added 12/7/2009 at 09:39:46 EST-----



toddpedlar said:


> Tim -
> 
> Let me make it clearer ... DTK was confused about what I had posted.
> 
> We're both asking you with one voice: Provide references to Augustine's "going out of his way to state that the Bible has errors in it".


Thanks Todd! That was/is my intention.

DTK


----------



## TimV

> You made a claim, I asked you to document your claim, and now you're asking me for references for a claim I never made?
> 
> Please accept my apologies for asking you to make good your claim. I see now where my mistake was made.



Let me ask you with a single voice what you mean by that, since I'm truly not in the mood for reading minds. I said



> The great majority of Reformers agreed with Turretin in that they didn't hold to perfect preservation. *If the author means that the autographs had errors, then the above statement is so obviously false *that I don't see how friend C&H would have recommended it to us, even to discuss.



and 



> I said that Augustine said that there were mistakes in the Bible that could be corrected by older and better mss.



Are you both KJV onlies?


----------



## Osage Bluestem

That book just sounds like another subtle attack on biblical inerrancy from someone who is supposed to uphold it.

The book is probably inspired by the devil.


----------



## DTK

TimV said:


> Are you both KJV onlies?


It doesn't seem that I can get a simple, straight answer for your claim. Therefore, I'm bowing out of this discussion to spend my time in more fruitful pursuits.

DTK


----------



## TimV

> It doesn't seem that I can get a simple, straight answer for your claim. Therefore, I'm bowing out of this discussion to spend my time in more fruitful pursuits.


Words removed by Administrator. I have never ran from a discussion and I don't plan on now. When I get back from my first appointment I will plan on posting several examples of where Augustine said that there were mistakes in the Bible he had at the time.


----------



## toddpedlar

TimV said:


> You made a claim, I asked you to document your claim, and now you're asking me for references for a claim I never made?
> 
> Please accept my apologies for asking you to make good your claim. I see now where my mistake was made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you with a single voice what you mean by that, since I'm truly not in the mood for reading minds. I said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The great majority of Reformers agreed with Turretin in that they didn't hold to perfect preservation. *If the author means that the autographs had errors, then the above statement is so obviously false *that I don't see how friend C&H would have recommended it to us, even to discuss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said that Augustine said that there were mistakes in the Bible that could be corrected by older and better mss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you both KJV onlies?
Click to expand...


I can only speak for myself, and no, I am not KJV-only.

You said the following:



> Augustine went out of his way several times to say that there are and have been errors in the Bible. He also said that those errors didn't change the fact that the Bible is the Word of God.



This is the post to which we both were referring. You say nothing here about "corrected by older and better mss." The words you used imply that Augustine believed that the Bible had errors in it (NOT that there are bad manuscripts out there that have errors in them). This is why hackles were raised. 

If all you want to do is say that Augustine believed that there were some manuscripts that had errors in them, this is NOT a denial of inerrancy. Yet you claimed that Augustine did not hold to inerrancy. Hence the confusion about what you were saying.


----------



## P.F.

Todd:

I've provided evidence that Augustine believed in inerrancy: "the authors were completely free from error" were his words.

He ascribed apparent errors to three possible causes:

1) a bad manuscript; 

2) a bad translation; or

3) his own imperfect understanding.

McGowan's claims are refuted by the testimony of folks like Augustine, as well as by the Reformers who held the same thing. Offhand, I recall William Whittaker (16th Century) making the same argument, even quoting from Augustine:



> That some of the ancients were of this opinion appears from the testimony of Augustine, who maintains, in opposition to them, "that the evangelists are free from all falsehood, both from that which proceeds from deliberate deceit, and that which is the result of forgetfulness." (De Cons. Ev. Lib. II. c. 12.)


----------



## toddpedlar

TimV said:


> It doesn't seem that I can get a simple, straight answer for your claim. Therefore, I'm bowing out of this discussion to spend my time in more fruitful pursuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get into a self righteous huff. I have never ran from a discussion and I don't plan on now. When I get back from my first appointment I will plan on posting several examples of where Augustine said that there were mistakes in the Bible he had at the time.
Click to expand...


Again, Tim, you did not qualify your earlier remarks with the words "he had at the time." You stated that Augustine believed there were errors in the Bible. That's quite a different statement than his believing that there were errors in manuscripts he had access to. Perhaps it is best if you just realize that you posted something that did not carry your intent, but implied quite naturally the conclusion we came to.


----------



## toddpedlar

PCFLANAGAN said:


> Todd:
> 
> I've provided evidence that Augustine believed in inerrancy: "the authors were completely free from error" were his words.



1) Actually, I never asked you to provide any evidence about Augustine, but was asking Tim to show his evidence that Augustine believed there were errors in the Bible.
2) I totally agree with your position - that Augustine held to inerrancy. We're on the same page.

If I'm deciphering things correctly now, it seems that Tim did not mean to claim that Augustine denied inerrancy, but that he denied perfect manuscript transmission. 

Todd


----------



## Wayne

Portions of John Woodbridge's book, in reply to Rogers & McKim, can be found on Google Books: 

Biblical authority: a critique of ... - Google Books

In regards of the immediate discussion here, see particularly pages 37ff. of Woodbridge's book, where he examines Augustine's views (though I see that the preview ends suddenly)


----------



## P.F.

Todd:

I understand where you stand, which is where DTK and I also stand. Possibly it is where Tim stands, though he apparently entered the discussion without understanding what "inerrancy" means.

My comment, however, is really to Rob (aka CalvinandHodges) who stated: "No - McGowan goes covers both Augustine and Naziansus - and points out that they believe in Inspiration not Inerrancy."

The book's index lists four pages that reference Augustine: pp. 100, 180, 199, and 200.

Page 100 contains a block quotation that mentions that Augustine used the term _inerrabilis_ about Scripture.

Page 180 mentions that we Reformed folks of the Scottish tradition view Augustine as within our traditional lineage.

Page 199 mentions that Calvin recovered systematic expositional preaching from folks like Augustine and Chrysostom.

Page 200 mentions that Zwingli was strongly influenced by Augustine, to whose work Zwingli had devoted much time in study.

The word "inerrancy" may be a new word, but the concept is a very old concept.

Now, I'm wondering if Rob would like to substantiate his claims with respect to Augustine either with his own arguments or with quotations from McGowan on pages that I didn't locate.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

The book is an attack on inerrancy by an author who is heterodox at best.

I found this review:

Is Inerrancy Unbiblical, Rationalistic and Presumptuous? A critique of A.T.B. McGowan's proposal for evangelicals to reject inerrancy - Reformation21


----------



## P.F.

CalvinandHodges said:


> No - McGowan goes covers both Augustine and Naziansus - and points out that they believe in Inspiration not Inerrancy.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob


Rob:

Further to my comments above:

1) Is McGowan seriously suggesting that the Spirit can err?

2) Augustine makes some pretty explicit claims that there are no errors in Scripture - what's McGowan's response (I couldn't find one, but perhaps I missed it)?


----------



## Prufrock

TimV said:


> The great majority of Reformers agreed with Turretin in that they didn't hold to perfect preservation. If the author means that the autographs had errors, then the above statement is so obviously false that I don't see how friend C&H would have recommended it to us, even to discuss.



Just for clarification, if you're quoting my statement that stated, "So, yes, Turretin did not believe in 'perfect preservation'," then my words are being wildly wrested from their context, since it was clear that I was stating that he *did* believe in a preservation in which all the words AND letters were were the same as in the autographs, but "other minutiae" (I'll leave it to you to figure out what those can be) might differ.


----------



## Wayne

In the Ref21 review by Martin Downes, he employs a quote by Warfield. Along the same lines, James Bannerman also strikes at the heart of McGowan's thesis [excerpt from _Inspiration_ (Edinburgh, 1865), p. 586]:



> The example of our Lord Himself, and His inspired apostles, both warrants and requires us, in interpreting Scripture, to go beyond the outward letter, and to seek the manifold and deeper truths that are to be educed from it by good and necessary consequence. To rest contented with the words of inspired men, neglecting the fuller meaning beneath, or to require that, for ever truth we receive as God's truth, we should show proof that it is set down expressly in so many terms in Scripture, is a practice condemned by many instances in the Word of God. The remarkable example of our Lord, in deducing by good and necessary consequence the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead from the name given to Jehovah at the bush, is an instance in point. That doctrine was very far indeed from being expressly asserted in the language from which it was taugh; it could be brought out of the language only by a process of reasoning not by any means obvious or immediate. Yet the inference from the language was put upon the same level of authority, and held to be as much a part of the revelation of divine truth, as the name of Jehovah expressly set down in the written Word; and our Lord blamed the Jews for not knowing the Scriptures in not understanding the doctrine. In the same way the apostles in their writings, by many examples, indicate the warrantableness and the duty of drawing from the inspired volume truths that are not expressly, but only by implication, contained in its statements, and of putting these Scripture consequences on the same level with Scripture itself.
> The reason is manifest. If the Bible be the divine record of divine truth, it must contain within it a wisdom wider and deeper than its words; and the deductions of doctrine made form its statements on a comparison between them, if _truly_ drawn, are as much part of God's meaning and of His revelation,--being indeed virtually contained in it,--as these statements themselves



Which serves to show that these contentions are not new, and these errors have been answered and refuted many times over.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

In answer to the question on the definition of inerrancy - McGowan points out that there are many different "types" of inerrantists. He uses the Chicago statement of inerrancy as the defining characteristic:

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

He then asks those who would hold to this definition to give Scriptural support for the doctrine.

1) Can you prove - by direct quoting of Scripture that "inerrancy" as defined by the Chicago statement is Biblical?

or,

2) Can you prove - by good and necessary consequence that "inerrancy" as defined by the Chicago statement is Biblical?

As far as Rogers and McKim are concerned McGowan rejects their theory, and quotes Woodbridge positively on that matter. He notes that Woodbridge does not deal with Rogers and McKim on the subject of Common Sense philosophy, and that, "Dr. J. Ligon Duncan has responded to this (the Common Sense points of Rogers and McKim) argument and demonstrated cogently that it is not substantial."

One of the major points of the book - and why I believe that it is valueable - is that McGowan breaks free of the fundamentalist either/or postition that one must either affirm inerrancy or deny it. McGowan points out:



> I shall argue in this chapter that there is an older and better way to defend a 'high' view of Scripture: the 'infallibilist' view. I shall argue that this is a stronger, more sustainable and, above all, more biblical view of Scripture than the inerrantist view. It will be my contention that many evangelical theologians have historically held to a 'high' view of Scripture without arguing either for inerrant _autographa_ (Warfield) or for errors in Scripture (Rogers and McKim), p. 123-124, emphasis and parenthesis his.



As far as those who wish to claim that Augustine and others held to the same idea of 'inerrancy' as does the Chicago statement. I think that imposing a 20th century definition of words upon an early church theologian is rather impractical. In matters of inspiration and hermeneutics Augustine is notorious for saying one thing (historical-grammatical interpretation) and doing another (Analogy).

A book review is a book review, and if I have to defend it from every criticism, then it will no longer be a book review. Suffice it to say that McGowan has anticipated the objections of his opposition, and has answered them in his book. I would suggest that you read the book, and then read his critics. This is the best way to come to your own conclusions about what he says.

Grace and Peace,

Rob

PS: By the way - I have been trying to get an image of the book in the review site, but every time I try to download it - it does not work! :-( Does anyone know how to do this? 

PPS: In answer to the immediately above post - "Good and necessary consequence" is not being denied. What is being denied is that the 'inerrantist' position has not convincingly proved their position from good and necessary consequence.

-RPW


----------



## Wayne

Well, I must say that leaves a rather unsatisfactory taste in my mouth. 

I returned some Camembert the other day for the same reason.


----------



## P.F.

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> As far as those who wish to claim that Augustine and others held to the same idea of 'inerrancy' as does the Chicago statement. I think that imposing a 20th century definition of words upon an early church theologian is rather impractical. In matters of inspiration and hermeneutics Augustine is notorious for saying one thing (historical-grammatical interpretation) and doing another (Analogy).
> 
> A book review is a book review, and if I have to defend it from every criticism, then it will no longer be a book review. Suffice it to say that McGowan has anticipated the objections of his opposition, and has answered them in his book. I would suggest that you read the book, and then read his critics. This is the best way to come to your own conclusions about what he says.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> Rob


Rob:

You had previously claimed McGowan addressed Augustine in his book. Where in the book? Did he simply resort to the same generalizations as you have above? As I mentioned above, I found Augustine listed in the index for four pages, none of them address the issue.

What point or points in the Chicago statement would Augustine have disagreed with and what is the evidence to support this contention?


----------



## TimV

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. 1, ed. Philip Schaff; vol. 6, St. Augustine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans reprint, 1974), p. 191.



> "Now, if any one finds a difficulty in the circumstance that this passage is not found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and thinks that damage is thus done to the veracity of the evangelist, let him first take notice of the fact that this ascription of the passage to Jeremiah is not contained in all the codices of the Gospels, and that some of them state simply that it was spoken “by the prophet.” It is possible, therefore, to affirm that those codices deserve rather to be followed which do not contain the name of Jeremiah. For these words were certainly spoken by a prophet, only that prophet was Zechariah. In this way the supposition is, that those codices are faulty which contain the name of Jeremiah, because they ought either to have given the name of Zechariah or to have mentioned no name at all, as is the case with a certain copy, merely stating that it was spoken “by the prophet, saying,” which prophet would assuredly be understood to be Zechariah. However, let others adopt this method of defence, if they are so minded. For my part, I am not satisfied with it; and the reason is, that a majority of codices contain the name of Jeremiah, and that those critics who have studied the Gospel with more than usual care in the Greek copies, report that they have found it stand so in the more ancient Greek exemplars. I look also to this further consideration, namely, that there was no reason why this name should have been added [subsequently to the true text], and a corruption thus created; whereas there was certainly an intelligible reason for erasing the name from so many of the codices. For venturesome inexperience might readily have done that, when perplexed with the problem presented by the fact that this passage could not be found in Jeremiah."





> "Augustin's textual and grammatical comments are few in number, but they cannot be said to be wanting in all value. A few instances will suffice for a judgment of their merit:—
> 
> In the Harmony of the Gospels (ii. 29, 67), writing of the daughter of Jairus (Matt. ix. 29), he mentions that some codices contain the reading "woman" (mulier) for "damsel." Commenting on Matt. v. 22, "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause," he includes the expression "without a cause" without even a hint of its spuriousness (Serm. on Mt. i. 9, 25); but in his Retractations (i. 19. 4) he makes the correction, "The Greek manuscripts do not contain sine causa." Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, the Vulgate and the Revised English Version, in agreement with the oldest manuscripts, omit the clause. He refers to a conflict of the Greek and Latin text of Matt. v. 39 ("Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek"), and follows the authority of the Greek in omitting the adjective "right" (Serm. on Mt. i. 19, 58). At Matt. vi. 4 he casts out, on the authority of the Greek, the adverb palam ("openly"), which was found in many Latin translations (as it is also found in the Textus Receptus, but not in the Vulgate, and the Sinaitic, B, D, and other manuscripts). Commenting on Matt. vii. 12, "Wherefore all things whatsoever ye would that men," etc., he refers to the addition of "good" before "things" by the Latins, and insists upon its erasure on the basis of the Greek text (Serm. on Mt. ii. 22, 74)."



David Schaff in the Introduction to volume 6 of the series Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers



> Just for clarification, if you're quoting my statement that stated, "So, yes, Turretin did not believe in 'perfect preservation'," then my words are being wildly wrested from their context, since it was clear that I was stating that he *did* believe in a preservation in which all the words AND letters were were the same as in the autographs, but "other minutiae" (I'll leave it to you to figure out what those can be) might differ.





> 'The question is not, are the sources so pure that no fault has crept
> into the many sacred manuscripts, either through the waste of time, the
> carelessness of copyists or the malice of the Jews or of heretics? For
> this is acknowledged on both sides



You can't get clearer. Turretin, like Augustine knew that the Bibles they had at the time had errors, but the autographs did not. "both sides" means Protestants and Catholics. And the WCF doesn't condemn his statement, which is why WCF 1.8 can't mean what many of the KJVO camp think it means, like the question you asked some months ago whether or not the WCF only allows Pastors to use the KJV in church. "both sides" knew that there could be, and have been errors in the Bible (although not in the originals), but those errors don't change one single Christian doctrine.


----------



## P.F.

To be clear, the Chicago Statement deals with a number of topics. On inerrancy, Article XII is key: "We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit."


----------



## Prufrock

Tim, I'm very well aware of Turretin says. Please, per the other thread, represent *all* of what Turretin says on the subject in his chapters on scripture. Again, I'm not asking you to agree with him, nor am I going to endeavor to convince you of his position: but I will ask you to represent what he actually *does* say. 

Over and out.


----------



## py3ak

I think this thread is getting out of hand. Perhaps the format makes communication more difficult than normal, but I think after this many mis-steps we'd do better to start over.


----------

