Introduction

Today I substituted for a Spanish and Literature teacher at the same public school where I studied for 12 years of my life. This morning’s assignment should have been a delight; the students, myself, and another teacher were going through the balcony scene in Shakespeare’s play, Romeo and Juliet. But, for some reason, the story was less captivating this time around.

Like it, or You Fail

I’ve read through Romeo and Juliet in numerous texts, seen it performed live by “professionals” in the Twin Cities, and watched both the 1968 Zeffrelli and 1996 Luhrmann films. Why? Did I love the story? Did I enjoy literature?

…are you a fruit cake? Heavens no, I was never a fan of literature classes (except where  “literature” meant God’s Word). Public, institutionalized education simply forced me to be a fan – and such force not only required my exposure to the material, but made it look as if I was a complete moron for not being utterly captivated by the play. Indeed, if you went through life never having been exposed to the balcony scene of Romeo and Juliet, most people (certainly most of those teaching in public schools and universities) would consider you a hermit, if not simply intellectually inferior. It’s as if to understand the balcony scene and to capture its glory is to understand the glory of love itself. To master Romeo and Juliet is to master the art of love.

What a hopeless assertion.

Unacceptance

We finished reading the scene and a student in the front row blurted out, “This is really cheesy.”

I was about to laugh. He knew he wasn’t supposed to say something like that – not to say something rude, but to say something that contradicted the norm, to challenge the idea that the balcony scene was really as grand as everyone told him it was. It made me stop and think: is it really possible this scene is blown out of proportion? Could it really be just as foolish or immature or overrated as it seems to the virgin-reader who is unmarred by centuries of literary criticism?

But thinking stopped when the other teacher in the room quickly began her apologetic, saying the scene portrays “pure love, which is something everyone finds desirable.”  Furthermore, all reasons for finding it awkward or foolish are simply due to our different culture.  We don’t understand because we just don’t understand the context enough. If we don’t “get it,” it’s a fault on our part, certainly not on Shakespeare’s part. We don’t really have a good reason for not admiring Romeo and Juliet and everything in this scene, even if by today’s standards (or any standards, for that matter) it might seem altogether a bit foolish. The fact is Shakespeare kicks serious butt cheeks in the balcony scene, and everything else  – everything secondary and less authoritative – comes after that principle.

Of course,  I immediately wanted to ask, “who’s standard of desire are we talking about?” and “why do we assume this principle first and assume everything in the scene is right?” “isn’t it possible that this kid’s assertion is actually true, objectively – that this story really isn’t the greatest expression of innocent, pure love in literature, but just a cheesy invention of some playwright? Or is there even such a thing as knowable, true love at all?”

Another student was already thinking ahead of me, but along a different train of thought. She asked, “But, how can they truly love each other if they just met? They don’t even know each other.” The teacher responded, “Some believe in ‘love at first sight,’ and Shakespeare is playing along those lines.”

Love at first sight? Maybe.

Or maybe pure immaturity and a completely artificial sense of love? I guess we can only arrive at that conclusion (or any other radical one) if we question the entire presupposition of the scene.

But, presuppositions always seem to be the issue anyway, so perhaps that should be our course of action…

“Pure” and “True” Love?

If such a “pure love” like that between Romeo and Juliet existed in the first place, how does it actually exist, and what does it mean?

The first thing we must realize is that there are many types of love. As long as love has a source and an object, and as long as there are different sources and different objects of love, then there are different types of love.

Yes, there are many types of love.  CS Lewis identified four loves: στοργή (affection, such as in a family), φιλία (friendship), ἔρως (eros, indifferent love that is not necessarily sexual), and ἀγάπη (charity, love regardless of circumstance). This can be very helpful, and incredible insight has been wrought out of Lewis’ work in this field. As a literary critic – and a sharp, Christian one at that – CS Lewis surely knows what he’s talking about.

But, I don’t completely buy it. If one is going to get philosophical, systematic, and Christian about love,  I’m compelled to opt for Van Til’s epistemology on this one. His take wins hands-down (probably because he has a philosophical, systematic, and fully committed Christian mind; do read his Introduction to Systematic Theology).

First and foremost, there is:

1. Love between God and Himself (i.e. Father’s love for the Son, Jesus).
2. Love between God and His images (i.e. Covenant, the sending and work of His son, etc.).
3. Love between God and the rest of creation.

Then, there is peripheral love, love that extends more broadly and indirectly out of the nature of God:

1. Love between God’s images and God’s creation (man and woman subduing creation).
2. Love between God’s images, manifested (A) in marriage (husband/wife), (B) in immediate family (parent/child), (C) in distant family (community, friends, etc.).
3. Love between God’s non-image creation and other parts of God’s non-image creation (i.e. animal love, etc.).

Thus, love begins with God, since He is the origin of all things, and His love is manifested most brilliantly and fully in Himself. God then expresses love towards His images (man) in creation, and then to the rest of His creation. That love is expressed with complexity between God Himself, images, and other images. Finally, love exists in simple form between non-image bearing creatures. From the incomprehensible glory of the Trinity to a female dog nursing its pups, love is, in many ways, everywhere.

That is a presuppositionalist (fully theological, philosophical) prolegomena of love.

The Balcony Scene Evaluated with A God-Centered Lens

Where then, does this “purest form of love” in Romeo and Juliet find itself?

Clearly, it finds itself expressed in the image-to-image category, where marital love (along with pre-marital and post-marital love) takes place. It is the glorious and profound love between a man and a woman.

But the obvious problem is that the secular world mistakes this love for the grandest, purist, and fullest form of love that exists in the universe, period. That’s all there is. Scholars, professors, and watchers of TV mistake the “innocent” and “pure” love in Romeo and Juliet for ultimate pure love, which, in truth, only exists in the Creator of the universe Himself.

Indeed, for whatever glory there is in being enraptured by a person of the opposite sex, it is derivative of God’s first and most glorious love of Himself. God constructs, we reconstruct. God makes out of nothing, we invent out of something. God is original, man is derivative. Some of us might not like it, but that’s the way it is. We are not the Creator. We are the created.

Thus, in the line of Van Til, John Eldredge’s thesis in the book Epic is correct: man cannot invent a story better than God’s original story. As I wrote a number of years ago in Light Up the Darkness:

No one can create a story truer and more captivating to the human heart than God can. Therefore, all good stories that do exist in the world essentially borrow – if not directly steal – from His story, the gospel story. All the common themes of bondage, evil forces, a beauty, a savior, and so forth have their ultimate source in the Christian worldview. This is because God (creator) is original and we (creatures) are derivative.

Vanity then, is the love of Romeo and Juliet without the love of the Creator.

True love between human beings cannot exist without God’s love of both Himself and of His human images manifested in Jesus the Christ, who gave his life for his “bride” (Rev. 19:7), “for his friends” (John 15:13), and “for the sins of the world” (I John 2:2, John 3:16). Human love cannot exist without some form of God’s love. What is secondary cannot fit in where it is supposed to fit unless what is primary is revealed, admitted, and established as primary.

The existence of a US Representative of California is meaningless, powerless, and devoid of all purpose if California didn’t exist. A glass-encased, miniature display of Mt. Rushmore is meaningless if Mt. Rushmore didn’t exist. God’s images, who are explicitly made to be like God, have no purpose or meaning in their life if God did not exist. Only the most rebellious and insane pots in the cupboard would try to erase “Made by the Sovereign Potter” imprinted on their bottom. True meaning and true experience of love, then, arrives at knowing God first.

Yet, mocking the Potter is precisely what people do when they hold up a creaturely scene of  love like that of Romeo and Juliet without first looking at the cognitively substantive and historically demonstrated love of Jesus Christ. The balcony scene is presented by literary critics as if God had nothing to do with the emotions Juliet and Romeo were experiencing. It’s as if pure love can be experienced without the Source of pure love. In fact, we’re even further encouraged to believe it is true love when it seems to lack any substance beyond mere physical attraction.

But, are we really to believe the scene portrays the height of pure love even within the category it belongs when the substance of the entire relationship is – unless we want to read into Shakespeare a bunch of things he never asserts in the scene – nothing more than the unrestrained, sensual obsessions of a teenager?

Granted, Adam and Eve were in love with each other, captivated by each other to an even greater degree than that of Romeo and Juliet. But that love – and indeed their purpose for existence – transcended their own desires. Their purpose for existing and their love existed only because of God’s first and more complete love.

Love in opposite sex relationships never exists for itself. It always points to something greater, something outside of itself. Romance, eros, and sexual experience is not self-contained, and for that reason is never eternally satisfying. Adam and Eve were given their abilities, desires, and tasks by God because the meaning of their lives is bigger than what they can even come up with.Yes, their job, and their most glorious experiences only point to the greater glory of their romantic, wise, and sovereign Creator.

If we don’t acknowledge this, we are forced to try to create meaning for ourselves. Glory that should have gone to the Creator, wrongly falls into the hands of a dead playwright.

Conclusion: Real Love is Godly, God-Centered, God-Glorifying Love

So, what if the balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet really is cheesy, and that their love is just foolish, immature, self-indulgent, and devoid of all purity? Could we even know it without a Creator – an immovable source from which all love comes?

Impossible. And so, in Modern society, Romeo and Juliet continues to be required reading while virtually every story in the Bible does not – and to our demise.

We spent two hours expositing Shakespeare this morning. Think if kids spent two hours expositing the Bible every morning instead. I shall restate the obvious: The Scriptures must be the primary source of romance and drama – for that is one of the greatest reasons it was given to us, and one of the greatest reasons God’s Son came to earth. Make no mistake about it: Shakespeare is a literary thief. He stole every single feeling, climax, and resolve from His Creator, whether unintentionally or not. Indeed, none of Shakespeare’s work is original, it is but an imperfect reconstruction of what God has already demonstrated in history. And whatever Shakespeare did happen to offer is smoke compared to the drama contained in Holy Scripture.

God-centeredness orients the creature’s mind so that the creature can be truly free and can experience true love. Only when God is on His throne can the magnificence of image-to-image, man-to-woman, husband-to-wife love come to life – not come to life on paper or the lumens of a television screen, but in the life we actually live.

Is that not pure, and desirable?

Some gold from The Reformed Pastor by Richard Baxter (1615-1691):

“Nothing can be rightly known, if God be not known; nor is any study well managed, nor to any great purpose, if God is not studied.” 56

“To see and admire, to revere and adore, to love and delight in God, as exhibited in his works – this is the true and only philosophy; the contrary is mere foolery, and is so called again and again by God himself.” 58

“I shall presume to tell you, by the way, that it is a grand error, and a dangerous consequence in Christian academies…that they study the creature before the Redeemer, and set themselves to physics, and metaphysics, and mathematics before they set themselves to theology; whereas no man that hath not the vitals of theology is capable of going beyond a fool in philosophy. Theology must lay the foundation, and lead the way of all our studies.” 58

Compare to Van Til (1895-1987), who said:

“Phenomena cannot be known without noumena.” Introduction to Systematic Theology, 148

“We cannot do without God any more when we wish to know about physics or psychology than we wish to know about our soul’s salvation. Not one single fact in this universe can be known truly by man without the existence of God.” 36

Shall we in the interest of a point of contact admit that man can interpret anything correctly if he virtually leaves God out of the picture? Shall we who wish to prove that nothing can be explained without God first admit some things at least can be explained without him? On the contrary we shall show that all explanations without God are futile. Only when we do this do we appeal to that knowledge of God within men which they seek to suppress. The Defense of the Faith, 258

“If Christian theism is not true, then nothing is true. Is the God of the Bible satisfied if his servants say anything less?” 264

“The basic difference between the two types of apologetics is to be found, we believe, in the primary assumption that each party makes. The Romanist-evangelical type of apologetics assumes that man can first know much about himself and the universe and afterward ask whether God exists and Christianity is true. The Reformed apologist assumes that nothing can be known by man about himself or the universe unless God exists and Christianity is true.” 310

“Perhaps the most striking problem with the rationalistic implication concerning inerrancy is that it limits God. It assumes that God can only act in a way that conforms to our expectations, based on our human assessment of his character.” – McGowan, The Divine Authenticity of Scripture, 118

James W. Scott really couldn’t have responded to this better:

However, the notion that God is always truthful is not “our human assessment of his character,” but rather is what the Bible itself teaches about his character. It is not “our expectation” that God will speak truthfully, but what Scripture itself says. And McGowan himself agrees that the all-knowing God “does not deceive.”
But McGowan thinks he can get around the truthfulness of God and find room for discrepancies in God’s word. “In opposition to these inerrantist assumptions,” McGowan claims that “we must surely argue that God is free to act according to his will.” However, when inerrantists insist that God always speaks the truth, they are arguing that he is acting according to his will and consistently with his nature. But McGowan says that “we might suggest an alternative view.” He cites no Scripture in support of this “alternative view,” so how is it any less an expression of “our expectations” and a “human assessment of his character” than the inerrantist view?

McGowan rightly seeks balance in the Scripture and inerrancy debate, but, indeed, he fails to see the relevance of his own presuppositions.

McGowan’s Proposed Thesis (Contra-Chicago Statement)

We’ve covered a number of interesting claims by ATB McGowan. But, it isn’t until page 118 that he lays out his thesis:

In opposition to these inerrantist assumptions, we must surely argue that God is free to act according to his will. With this in mind, we might suggest an alternative view: God the Holy Spirit breathed out the Holy Scriptures. The instruments of this divine spiration were certain human beings. The resulting Scriptures are as God intended them to be. Having chosen, however, to use human beings rather than a more direct approach (e.g. writing the words supernaturally on stone without human involvement, as with the Ten Commandments), God did not overrule their humanity. This explains, for example, the discrepancies between the Gospels. Nevertheless, this is not a problem because God, by his Holy Spirit, has ensured that the Scriptures in their final canonical form are as he intended them to be and hence is able to use them to achieve his purpose.

This is a bit confusing, since no inerrantist of the Chicago Statement kind really disagrees with any of these assertions. And this is the thesis statement that is essentially supposed to distinguish McGowan’s “alternative” from the Chicago Statement inerrantists, mechanical theories, and liberal views. Simply put, this is the part of McGowan’s work that one would expect to have the most clarity, but it is unfortunately, the most muddled. We are left with all sorts of unanswered questions:

• “God did not overrule their humanity.” Virtually no one – except the fringe minority who buy into pure mechanical/dictation views of inspiration – believes that God overrules the humanity of those who wrote the Bible. What exactly is McGowan referring to?
• “the discrepancies between the Gospels.” What discrepancies are these? Would McGowan call them “errors? We’re not told here, and actually at any point in McGowan’s book, as James Scott points out in the Westminster Theological Journal:

“…it is difficult to determine whether McGowan believes that there are errors (i.e., statements contrary to fact) in the original text of Scripture. He denies that Scripture is inerrant, which would logically imply that it is, in his view, errant. But only once does he actually state that there are “errors” in the Bible, and those are “in the extant manuscripts and translations,” which may all be the errors of copyists and translators. Indeed, he aligns himself with those who are “not persuaded of the inerrantist position” and yet do not “affirm errors in Scripture.” Reconsidering Inerrancy, 185.

• “Final canonical form.” What is this? Is this the NA27 and Hebraica Stuttgartensia? The ESV? KJV? Codex Sinaiticus and other manuscripts? All of the above? We’re not told.

An Attempt at Balance (good), but More Confusion (bad)

McGowan continues:

If God can effectively communicate and act savingly through the imperfect human being who are called to preach the gospel, why is it necessary to argue that the authors of Scripture were supernaturally kept from even the slightest discrepancy? 118

Because only the written “Scriptures” are theopnuestos- God-breathed. If the Bible contains errors in the original form, then God erred. But, of course, we’re assuming that by “slightest discrepancy” McGowan means “error.” But, we can’t really know this because he simply does not define the most important terms of the debate. He continues;

We might sum this up by saying that the autographa (if we could view them) might very well look just like our existing manuscripts, including all of the difficulties, synoptic issues, discrepancies and apparent contradictions, because that is what God intended. In other words, God chose to use human authors and although he spoke through them and ensured that they communicated his Word, he did not overrule their humanness. The inerrantists run the danger of so denying the humanness of the authors of the Scriptures that they fall into a ‘dictation theory’ of Scripture, a theory that, in their better moments, most inerrantists would deny. 119

Regarding the first sentence, I honestly don’t understand why McGowan makes the assertion that he does. Of course the autographs look like the copies we have. That’s never been the issue with inerrancy. And, again, what are “discrepancies”? What constitutes “difficulties”? How many of these “issues” are our problem as interpreters and how many of them are God’s problem as the provider of His Word? McGowan is simply too vague to distinguish his own perspective from the ones he does not like.

The fact is this: we have the autographic text, which is mixed in with textual variants in subsequent copies. God “intended” inerrant autographa in the process of inscripturation, and intended variation in the process of transmission – at least in the sense that God is sovereign over everything.

Regarding the remainder of this quote, it is surprising that McGowan associates inerrancy with dictation theory, given that countless journal and book publications from inerrants have fully articulated how and why inerrancy does not imply strict dictation. Apparently he is aware of this, saying dictation is “a theory that, in their better moments, most inerrantists would deny.” But he simply does not support his assertions in or before this statement, nor let his opponents speak for themselves. Why and how do inerrantists “run the danger of so denying the humanness of the authors of the Scriptures that they fall into a ‘dictation theory’”? We have to know this since the Chicago Statement itself (see Article 8 ) counters the assertions of McGowan. But, we’re just not told (at least with clarity) really at any point in McGowan’s book.

It is interesting that on his commentary on II Tim. 3:16, John Calvin says of the Scriptures, “that the law and the prophets are not a teaching delivered by the will of men, but dictated by the Holy Ghost…[they have] nothing of man mixed with it,” which according to McGowan, is going too far like inerrantists (or whoever it is who believes God “overrules their humanness”). Yet, we’ve already heard McGowan say that “a good case can be made for saying that” those who “reject the notion of ‘inerrancy’…is consistent with the view of Calvin,” (106). McGowan associates Calvin with his own view, but then dismisses (the same essence of) Calvin’s view for going too far like inerrantists. Calvin, of course, is an inerrantist, and McGowan (again) needs to provide substantiation for his inconsistency. (For the record, in the context of the commentary, Calvin is simply asserting that while the Bible is authored by both God and humans, God remains the primary author. The Bible is God’s Word, and is never in conflict with whatever human features exist in the Scriptures.)

As we stop and reflect on this and seek to reconstruct our evangelical doctrine of Scripture, we must remember two vital things. First, we must not give to the Scriptures a place they do not give to themselves; and second, we must not attribute to the Scriptures a nature and character they do not claim for themselves. 121

This was precisely the point of Bahnsen’s scholarly essay in the book Inerrancy, which McGowan simply dismissed on page 106, saying “I am not at all persuaded.” In fact, the first two essays of the book Inerrancy, which is the most relevant and direct source of information on the view that McGowan seeks to be distanced from, is specifically dedicated to answering this objection by McGowan. But, neither of these two essays (by Wenham and Geisler) are even cited. Just as remarkable, Grudem’s essay “The Self-Attestation of Scripture and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scripture” in Scripture and Truth is also ignored.

We can’t help but ask, why does McGowan continue to target everything but the most relevant sources in his critique of inerrancy?

The Inerrancy of the Autographa?

I refused to support the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy for a number of years because A) I hadn’t looked into it enough, and B) I didn’t understand why the inerrancy of the autographa (original manuscripts of the Bible) really mattered, since we don’t have them anyway. And, wasn’t “inerrancy” just a fundamentalist invention to try and force Christians into buying young earth creationism and literalistic interpretations of Revelation?

I obviously had no idea what I was talking about. But after several years, and a few recent months of research on the subject, my views changed (I suppose this isn’t surprisings since I’m still in my ‘formative years’). One particularly influential essay was Greg Bahnsen’s “The Inerrancy of the Autographa,” found in the official ICBI publication Inerrancy. It never occurred to me to ask “how does Jesus and how do the people of God treat the Bible – as manuscripts that came from autographs?” Bahnsen’s rigorously biblical approach compelled me to look deeper into the issue, and finally to realize the significance of the autographs. It simply never occurred to me to ask, “What does the Bible have to say about itself?” The great Presbyterian scholar John Murray gave some wisdom on this a number of years ago:

“If the Bible does not witness to its own infallibility, then we have no right to believe that it is infallible. If it does bear witness to its infallibility then our faith in it must rest upon that witness, however much difficulty may be entertained with this belief. If this position with respect to the ground of faith in Scripture is abandoned, then appeal to the Bible for the ground of faith in any other doctrine must also be abandoned. The doctrine of Scripture must be elicited from the Scripture just as any other doctrine should be. If the doctrine of Scripture is denied its right of appeal to Scripture for support, then what right does any other doctrine have to make this appeal?” – 1946, John Murray

So, what does the Scripture teach in regards to manuscripts, autographs, and distinctions (whether in authority/function etc.) between the two?

Bahnsen, Inerrancy, and Scripture

Bahnsen argues that “Present copies function authoritatively because they are viewed as reflecting the autographa correctly… The sufficiency of a copy is proportionate to its accurate reflection of the original,” (this is an extremely small list of references for Bahnsen’s argument, but a few might be helpful: Exodus 32, 34, Jer. 36:1-32, Deut. 17-18, John 10:34-36 and quote of Psalm 82:6, etc.). Copies of the autographs have “functional authority,” so that we can call them “Scripture” and “the Word of God.” Jesus never had the autographs any more than we did, and yet he referred to copies of the original as “the Word of God” and as having authority for the church. We don’t “need” the autographs today. Scripture is also clear, however, that, since the autographs certainly contain original and therefore the most pure form of the autographic text, they carry the most weight and alone have the divine attribute of total “inerrancy.” The present copies of the Bible today, which (as far as textual scholars like Kurt Aland, James R. White, etc. are concerned) contain the autographic text (+ additions, more on this later), are tethered to the originals for that reason. That is the biblical position of the autographs.

John 10:34-36 is particularly instructive.  Jesus said, “Is it not written in your law . . .?” thereby indicating their own manuscript copies of the Old Testament.  He then quotes Psalm 82:6, resting the thrust of His argument on one word in that text. The premise of His argument is that God “called them ‘gods,’ unto whom the word of God came.”  That is, God called the judges “gods” who were contemporary with Asaph, the psalm writer, and they were the ones to whom the word of God came.  It is thus Asaph’s original that is equated with the word of God.  Jesus was able to accept, and work on the foundation of, the Jews’ belief in the authority of “their law” (copies) because He deemed these to reflect the original accurately.  The “Scripture” to which He appealed in this controversy is intimately connected with what was actually said to those “to whom the word of God came.”  The inscripturated word of God that originally came to the Israelites is not found written in their present-day law books.  Here we find quite an explicit indication that the authority of present copies is traced to the autographa lying behind them.

The importance of the autographa for the New Testament Scriptures is already hinted at in Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would take His original words and bring them to the remembrance of the apostles for the sake of their writings (John 14:25-26).  When the apostles cited the Old Testament in their preaching and writing, it was with the assumption that they were propounding the initially composed Scripture.  Accordingly, Peter described “this Scripture” (i.e., Ps. 69:25) as that “which the Holy spirit spake before by the mouth of David” (Acts :16; cf. 4:25).  The earlier autograph, given beforehand by the Holy Spirit, is the primary referent of his preaching form present copies of the Psalm.  Similarly Paul cited Isaiah 6:9-10, saying, Well spake the Holy spirit through Isaiah the prophet unto your fathers . . .” (Acts 28:25; cf. Rom. 3:2), and he proceeded on the understanding that his quotation was true to the original deliverance given many years previously.  The citation of Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 10 is viewed as a rendition of what the Holy Spirit originally said through the prophet (Hebrews 10:15).   Indeed, the comfort that could be gained from the then-present copies of the Scriptures was tethered to “whatsoever things were written aforetime,” the original text written in former days (Romans 15:4).  In a similar way, that for which Paul claimed inspiration was his autographical text – “The things which I write unto you . . . are the commandment of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37; cf. 2:13).

Over and over again we are confronted with the obvious fact that the biblical writers made use of existing copies, with the significant assumption that their authority was tied to the original text of which the copies are a reliable reflection.  It is especially important to note this fact with respect to two key verses that teach the inspiration of Scripture.  In 2 Timothy 3:16 Paul stresses that all the Scriptures were God-breathed, placing obvious emphasis on their origin, and thus on their autographic form.  The reason why the sacred writings known to Timothy (perhaps the Septuagint) could make him wise unto salvation is found in the fact that they were rooted in the original, divinely given Scripture – those writings that were the direct result of inspiration and that Paul here associated with Scripture’s original form as coming from God.  Likewise, in 2 Peter 1:19-21 we are told that “we have the prophetic word” (presumably in copies) and must heed it and treat it as authoritative.  Why is this so?  Because men spoke from God, being “carried along” by the Holy Spirit.  The sufficiency and function of the extant biblical manuscripts is not divorced from, but rather explained in terms of, the original manuscripts, which were divine products. (Inerrancy, 163-4)

Keep in mind the difference between the autographs (physical papyri) and the autographic text (the text on the papyri). Bahnsen continues:

From this mistaken starting point the critics go on to say that the evangelical restriction of inerrancy to the autographa means that, because of errors in all present versions, our Bibles today cannot be trusted at all, cannot communicate God’s word to us, and cannot be the inspired Word of God.  If our present Bibles, with their errors, are not inspired, then we are left with nothing (since the autographa are lost).

Such a dilemma rests on numerous fallacies and misunderstandings.  In the first place, it confuses autographic text (the words) with autographic codex (the physical document).  Loss of the latter does not automatically entail loss of the former.  Certain manuscripts may have decayed or been lost, but the words of these manuscripts are still with us in good copies.  Second, evangelicals do not, by their commitment to inerrancy, have to commit the logical fallacy of saying that if one point in a book is mistaken, then all points in it are likewise mistaken.  Third, the predicate “inerrant” (or “inspired”) is not one that can be applied only in an all-or-nothing fashion.  We create a false dilemma in saying that a book either is totally inspired or totally uninspired (just as it is fallacious to think a book must be either completely true or completely false).  Many predicates (e.g., “bald,” “warm,” “fast”) apply in degrees.  “Inerrant” and “inspired” can be counted among them.  A book may be unerring for the most part and yet be slightly flawed.  It can have inspired material to some measure and uninspired material to some measure. (Inerrancy)

James Scott agrees in a 2009 Westminster Theological Journal article:

Although we generally equate our Bibles with Scripture, we must recognize that, strictly speaking, our Bibles are Scripture only to the extent that they accurately represent the inspired text (II Tim. 3:16). – James W. Scott, Reconsidering Inerrancy, 194

Thus, A) there are degrees of inerrancy, since we’re talking about letters, words, text, and the comparison between texts, and B) there is a distinction between the autographic text and the autographic codex.

In summary, Bahnsen makes a compelling argument for:

• There are degrees of inerrancy.
• There is a difference between autographs and autographic text.
• The Scriptures teach that copies and their authority are “tethered” to the originals.
• The Scriptures teach that the authority of copies is sufficient for the church, so that Jesus and others can refer to errant copies of Scripture as “Scripture” and “the Word of God.”

McGowan’s (Attempted) Refutation of the Above Argument

McGowan’s treatment of Greg Bahnsen’s essay “The Inerrancy of the Autographa” in The Divine Authenticity of Scripture is inadequate. In essence, he dismisses its primary thrust.

McGowan quotes Bahnsen saying that textual variation is not a problem with inerrancy, since the attribute of inerrancy only (strictly) applies to the autographs. Then, McGowan responds to this assertion, “This is a curious argument, which implies that God has no further interest in, nor control over, the biblical texts after the autographa have been produced,” (The Divine Authenticity, 110).

This is simply untrue. Textual variation and its general irrelevance with the doctrine of inerrancy in no way “implies that God has no further interest in, nor control over, the biblical texts after the autographa have been produced.” Just because God gives priority to one project (inscripturation) doesn’t mean he has “no further interest in, nor control over,” another (transmission). Is not God permitted to have distinctions within His control over the universe? Can He not sovereignly choose to produce single autographic codices and preserve that autographic text through fallible copies that contain variations?

Surely He can, and surely He did. Kurt and Barbara Aland’s works, Daniel Wallace’s work, and James R. White’s opening presentation in his debate with Bart Ehrman make it superbly clear that, frankly, God has a remarkable interest in preserving the original text of the Bible throughout the ages. In fact, White said:

…Think about these handwritten papyri written by persecuted believers, slated for destruction by the decree of Caesar himself, and yet despite 250 years of persecution and the destruction of countless copies, this body of writings the New Testament today boasts the broadest and earliest manuscript tradition of any comparable ancient writing. You’ll forgive me, please, for seeing in this the very hand of God Himself. – James R. White, opening statements, Does the Bible MisQuote Jesus? (2009)

The very providence of God undoubtedly permeated the transmission of the manuscript copies. God – who is sovereign over all things – had all control, not “no control” – over the transmission of the Bible. But He chose to preserve the autographic text through fallible human beings and amidst textual variation.

Now, as Christians, we can say, “OK, let’s get to work on textual criticism like faithful believers to pare away the variants and get to the original,” or, we can say, “Forget this. God should have preserved manuscripts without variation if He really cared about the church. I’m leaving Christianity,” like Bart Ehrman. Whatever the case, it is simply unfortunate that McGowan inserts a false implication into the position he is critiquing.

The next thing McGowan says is, “Bahnsen even tries to insist that this is the view of Scripture itself [copies are tethered to originals]…It is difficult to see any evidence for this assertion, and I am not at all persuaded by the references he presents in the pages following,” (110).

“Even tries to insist that this was the view of Scripture itself”? I’m not sure why McGowan puts it this way… “this” is the entire point of Bahnsen’s essay! McGowan presents Bahnsen’s entire argument as if it’s just a tidbit attached on to some other larger enterprise. The reverse is true. Bahnsen provides over 12 pages of Scriptural exposition regarding the Bible’s position on the autographs, copies, and distinctions between the two. He provides over a half-dozen arguments from dozens of Scriptural texts. This is the meat, the very essence of Bahnsen’s essay. McGowan simply chooses not to engage it. Indeed, McGowan does not address a single one of the Scriptural arguments in the 12 pages of Bahnsen’s primary argumentation.

So to say, “It is difficult to see any evidence for this assertion” is to say “I haven’t read Bahnsen’s main argument,” or simply “I’ve read Bahnsen’s main argument but I don’t want to deal with it at all because it refutes my beliefs.”

McGowan then turns around and makes objections that Bahnsen specifically addressed in those 12 pages, saying:

“Must we assume that problems like this did not exist in the autographa or that explanations are forthcoming for all of them? It is also surely the case that the amount of time required to defend the inerrancy of biblical statements that appear to be conflict with each other or with other well-established facts is neither justified nor profitable. After all, if God is able to use the errant copies (manuscripts, translations, editions) that we do have, in order to do his work, why invest so much theological capital in hypothetical originals we do not have?” 113

Nowhere in Scripture itself is there a claim to the kind of autographic inerrancy Warfield taught. Those who advocate inerrancy might well (and do) argue that it is a legitimate and natural implication of the doctrine of divine spiration, but they cannot argue that inerrancy is itself taught in Scripture. 114

Unfortunate, indeed. McGowan pretends as if Greg Bahnsen’s essay simply does not exist.

Regarding this first quote of McGowan (page 113), James Scott responds concisely:

McGowan then asks: “Must we assume that problems like this did not exist in the autographa or that explanations can be forthcoming for all of them?” The answer is yes. We “assume” it because it is a necessary consequence of the Bible being the word of God and therefore truthful and self-consistent. Actually, there are relatively few instances in which an appeal to a variant reading is helpful in solving the apparent conflicts in the parallel accounts of the Synoptic Gospels, and extremely few in which an appeal to a presumably lost original reading would seem to be appropriate—but that possibility must always be considered. In the overwhelming number of cases, it is rather the case that “explanations can be forthcoming” from a careful analysis of the precise meaning of the texts in question.
Not satisfied to raise doubts regarding the historical accuracy of the gospel narratives, McGowan goes on to say that “the amount of time required to defend the inerrancy of biblical statements that appear to be in conflict with each other or with other well-established facts is neither justified nor profitable.” Only someone who believes that there are errors in the Bible and wants to gloss over it, or someone who does not care whether we know what is true and what is false in it, would make such a statement belittling those who have studied the Scriptures deeply and reverently in an effort to ascertain the harmony of their teachings. If God can accomplish his work using “errant copies,” McGowan asks in conclusion, “why invest so much theological capital in hypothetical originals we do not have?” But the originals are not hypothetical; we have, to a remarkable extent, the text of the originals. We focus on that text because we distinguish between the word of God and all human corruptions of it. We invest “theological capital” in harmonizing the Scriptures and defending their accuracy, in historical as well as in doctrinal matters, because that is necessary in order to determine the whole counsel of God and to give confidence to people that Scripture is the reliable word of God. – Scott, Reconsidering Inerrancy, 195-196

Typical, Repetitive, Baseless Assertions

We’ve already documented that it is false to assert that Kuyper, Bavinck, and Calvin did not hold to what conservative scholars would today call “the doctrine of inerrancy.” Scriptural inerrancy is not a new invention and it is not an unfair conclusion to draw given the nature, inspiration, and the truthfulness of Scripture. It is the consistent belief of Reformed thought, whether it’s the persons Calvin, Turretin, Warfield, Bavinck, Bahnsen, or Sproul, or whether it’s the terms “infallibility,” “does not err,” “errorless,” or “inerrancy.” The reality, both conceptual and historical, is generally the same in the Reformed tradition. The burden of proof is on those who assert otherwise.

Several such cases can be found in McGowan’s The Divine Authenticity of Scripture:

“Warfield was an inerrantist, while Orr and Kuyper were infallibilists.” The Divine Authenticity of Scripture, 14

“There were some who rejected this [Warfield’s] doctrine of inerrancy, despite being very close to Warfield on most other issues. As we shall see later, this was the position taken by the Scottish theologian James Orr and the Dutch theologians Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck.” 87

Then, in summarizing three different views of inerrancy, McGowan points to a third position, where there…

“are evangelicals who are unhappy with the term ‘inerrancy’ but who nevertheless also reject the notion of ‘errancy’, believing that they are being presented with a false dichotomy…The strongest proponents of this position are James Orr and Herman Bavinck, although a good case can be made for saying that it is consistent with the view of Calvin.” 106

As we have documented already, none of these claims are substantiated. While Warfield’s view of inspiration and Scripture is somewhat different than Bavinck’s “organic” and “incarnational” model of Scripture, Bavinck’s view of inerrancy (though he never actually used that term) is essentially the same as Warfield’s view on inerrancy (though, he also never actually used that term). Both scholars held to the absolute truthfulness of the Scriptures and expressed that by the words “errorless” and “without error” (Warfield) and “preservation from error” (Bavinck). Calvin (“unerring standard,” “unerring rule”) and Kuyper’s view (“divinely errorless fashion”) is essentially no different.

McGowan will dedicate an entire chapter trying to counter this truth. But before doing so, he tries to undermine the necessity of inerrant autographa. But he only manages to avoid the most relevant scholarship on the subject by one of the greatest Christian philosophers of the last hundred years…

Introduction

As I planned in the intro to this series, it’s time to engage in some serious apologetic issues regarding the doctrine of inerrancy by examining a handful of blunders made by A.T.B. McGowan’s The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage (2007).

The ultimate purpose of this review series is to uphold the truth of God’s unfailing Word and represent the historical position of the church as it really existed. The more “hands-on” purpose of it is to correct McGowan’s misunderstanding of Bavinck and contemporary inerrantists (i.e. Chicago Statement of Inerrancy), which will hopefully de-alienate Christians who hold to inerrancy. More thorough and scholarly refutations can be found elsewhere (for example, James Scott’s “Reconsidering Inerrancy: A Response to ATB McGowan’s The Divine Authenticity of Scripture, WTJ 71: (2009): 185-209). But I do hope this work will be fair, accurate, and God-honoring.

In short, McGowan misrepresents both Bavinck and those who (like RealApologetics.org) hold to inerrancy as defined by the Chicago Statement (1978). Correction is essential because of the huge mass of misinformation and confusion regarding the nature, purpose, and substance of the “doctrine of inerrancy.” For those who have not read previous articles on this blog, for the sake of clarity, I will repost a few quotes that state what I believe are the best (concise, accurate) definitions of inerrancy:

“Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.” – RC Sproul, President of Ligonier Ministries and author of over 100 books

“The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture, in the original manuscripts and when interpreted according to the intended sense, speaks truly in all that it affirms.” – Kevin Vanhoozer, Professor of Theology at Wheaton College, author of Drama of Doctrine, Ph.D Cambridge

“The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.” – Wayne Grudem, author of Systematic Theology, Ph.D Cambridge

“All [inerrancy] means is that we hold that the Bible is true – that is, as God gave it. It is without error. That’s not referring to whether or not that somebody wrote down the words there might not be a spelling mistake or something like that. That’s not the issue, but whether or not what God said as originally given was true. And accounts for different literary genres for example. The Bible is not a systematic theology textbook. Although, it does give a whole lot of systematic truth. But it includes lament, and narrative, and letter, and adoration, and apocalyptic symbolism, and so on. So the way truth is conveyed varies enormously from literary form to literary form. All that is accounted for in any sophisticated treatment of the doctrine of Scripture. But the “flag” inerrancy is meant to describe is the reliability of Scripture.” – DA Carson, Ph.D Cambridge

“My own conclusion is that ‘the Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). The point of this verse in John is that whatever Scripture addresses has a truthful force that cannot be blunted. I understand this in terms of the inerrancy of Scripture, especially as that is formulated in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” – GK Beale, Ph.D Cambridge

Before giving the grand list of recommend books (actually, it’s only 3), perhaps we had better define what “biblical theology” is.

“Biblical theology” is not “theology that is biblical.” It is one of the more controversial subjects when it comes to the question of how to do theology (and “theological encyclopedia”), simply because it’s hard to establish in practice – if not also in principle. Whatever the case, biblical theology is increasingly important to understand since the nature of apologetic confrontations are not always the same. Some answers require detailed understanding of certain verses – as in the case of exegetical theology. Other questions require broad understandings of general concepts and theological topics – as in the case of systematic theology. Still other questions, require knowledge of how the smaller pictures fit within the context of the larger picture.

This is the task of biblical theology. Biblical theology is the second phase/mode of doing theology, after exegetical theology (detailed, contextual and linguistic analysis) and before systematic/dogmatic theology (topical, logical organization).

But, don’t take my word for it. Below is a wide-range of quotations from various scholars that define biblical theology.

“Biblical theology may be defined as theological interpretation of Scripture in and for the church. It proceeds with historical and literary sensitivity and seeks to analyze and synthesize the Bible’s teaching about God and his relations to the world on its own terms, maintaining sight of the Bible’s overarching narrative and Christocentric focus.” – BS Rosner, New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, 10.

“[Biblical Theology] is that approach to the Scripture which attempts to see Biblical material holistically and to describe this wholeness or synthesis in Biblical categories. Biblical Theology attempts to embrace the message of the Bible and to arrive at an intelligible coherence of the whole despite the great diversity of the parts. Or, put another way: Biblical Theology investigates the themes presented in Scripture and defines their inter-relationships. Biblical Theology is an attempt to get to the theological heart of the Bible.” – Elmer Martens, “Tackling Old Testament Theology,” JETS, 20 (1977): 123.

“Biblical theology, then, is that discipline in the theological curriculum that views the message of the Bible holistically from the perspective of the Bible’s own central theme. It is a call for the unity of the Bible, the continuing ‘promise-plan of God’ as it moves through each main period of time or era (i.e. diachronically), unfolding more and more of the continuing story of God’s person, work, and plan disclosed through Israel and thereby for all the nations of the world.” – Walter Kaiser Jr., Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 68-69.

“Biblical theology…offers systematic theology an interpretive bridge to the overarching meaning of the biblical witness and its many theologies and themes.” – Richard Muller, The Study of Theology, 132.

“Biblical theology is a means of looking at one particular even in relation to the whole picture.” – Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan, 121.

“Reading canonically means that we will listen for the overarching biblical story as we read the biblical text. We will engage in biblical theology – the theology of the whole Bible.” – Jeannine Brown, Scripture as Communication, 229.

“Responsible exegesis of entire texts (as opposed to a merely mechanical or atomistic approach) is the working material of biblical theology…But exegesis tends to focus on analysis, and may therefore drift to details and specialized interests (source criticism, for instance) of little use to biblical theologians; biblical theology tends toward synthesis: the theology of the book, the corpus, the canon, constructed out of the detailed exegesis of the book, the corpus, the canon. Inevitably, the exegesis largely controls the biblical theology, though not every detail is taken up in the theology…Biblical theology tends to seek out the rationality and communicative genius of each literary genre; systematic theology tends to integrate the diverse rationalities in its pursuit of a large-scale, worldview-forming synthesis.” – DA Carson, “Systematic and Biblical theology,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, 91, 103.

“Biblical Theology [internal structure] occupies a position between Exegesis and Systematic Theology in the encyclopedia of theological disciplines.[1] It differs from Systematic Theology, not in being more Biblical, or adhering more closely to the truths of the Scriptures, but in that its principle of organizing the Biblical material is historical rather than logical.” – Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, v.