The Divine Authenticity of Scripture

Status
Not open for further replies.
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)?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Well, I must say that leaves a rather unsatisfactory taste in my mouth.

I returned some Camembert the other day for the same reason. :)
 
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?
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top