Apologetics, Bad Arguments, and Inerrancy

We live in the 21^st century.

21 centuries is a long, long time.

Believers stand on a mountain of stories, adventures, trials, errors, wisdom, knowledge, growth, prosperity, setbacks, wars, romances, arguments, failed arguments, doctrinal development, and doctrinal decline. But, of course, none of that is of any use if we fail to remember or simply ignore what has happened. We are not born with knowledge of the past. We must seek the truth with eyes to see the truth, not passively let information (which doesn’t even need to be “truth” at all) fall in our lap. Directed intentionality always reaps more rewards than undirected passivity, whether those rewards be economical, spiritual, marital, or mental.

For that reason, one of the most frustrating aspects of Christian apologetics is the critic’s continual use of bad arguments – claims that have been thoroughly demonstrated to be false.

Apologists Don’t Split Hairs, They Pull Them

For example, Matthew 23:37 has been misquoted by virtually every Arminian and Catholic apologist underneath to sun to prove that man’s will can overcome God’s will. We’re told that, “the text says, ‘I have longed to gather you, but you were unwilling.’ Therefore, God limits his sovereignty and does not violate the will of persons. God’s grace is, contrary to Calvinism, resistible. God can lose when the will God and the will of man are in conflict.”

Of course, the text doesn’t say that at all.

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.” (Matthew 23:37)

That is, “I wanted to gather your children…and you were unwilling.” “Your children” is not the same thing as “you.” The “you” is the Jewish leaders who are unwilling, not the “children” who the Father wants to gather. There is no conflict of wills in Matthew 23:37. Period.

Yet, seminary President after seminary President (Paige Patterson, Adrian Rogers, etc.), theologian after theologian (yes, even Reformed ones like Spurgeon!), author after author (Dave Hunt, etc.) continue to both misquote this text and say “gathered you” instead of “gathered your children,” and then build a faulty exposition/argument upon it.

Bad arguments about virtually everything simply do not stop at the work of apologetics. No matter how many times the truth has been proclaimed, we’re told:

• John 1:1-2 should be rendered “was a god,” not “was God.”
• Paul’s discussion on election and salvation in Romans 9 is dealing with nations, not individuals.
• “Scripture” in II Tim. 3:16 has no binding application on anything else than the Old Testament.
• James 2 proves that justification before God is not by faith alone, disproving sola fide.
• Hebrews 6 proves that Christians can lose their salvation.
• “Foreknow” in Romans 8:29-30 means “looking down the halls of time and choosing on that basis.”
• I Timothy 2:12-15 is not normative for the church today, despite Paul’s grounding in the universal, timeless principles of gender in Genesis 2.
• The ones “taken away” in Luke 17:34-37 are the righteous, not the unrighteous.

None of these assertions are true. Indeed, all of these assertions have been proven false.

Of course, the same is true for doctrinal arguments as much as exegetical arguments. We’re told:

• “Calvinism denies freewill, which means everyone is a robot and evangelism is useless.”
• “Calvinism teaches a monstrous God who enjoys sending babies to hell.”
• “Presuppositionalism is fideism; Christians believe what they believe for no reasons at all.”
• “Presuppositionalism is circular, which means it’s invalid and useless.”
• “If we’re justified by faith alone, and that justification is a onetime, permanent act of God, then there’s no point or reward in doing good works.”
• “If the Scriptures are the final authority and ultimate revelation of God in creation, then there is no use for the church or church history.”
• “If the average man can interpret the Scriptures without an infallible pope or infallible church to tell him where he’s wrong, we can never know the truth, and there is no use for the church.”

None of these claims are true. All of these claims have been refuted over and over and over again, year after year, decade after decade, in book after book, essay after essay. And all of those refutations are readily available and easily accessible in the public domain.

And what takes place in doctrinal arguments takes place in historical arguments. We’re told:

• “Cornelius Van Til wasn’t a philosopher.”
• “Calvin wasn’t a Calvinist.”
• “Calvin had Servetus burned because Servetus wasn’t a Calvinist.”
• “The early church fathers denied sola scriptura, which is an invention of the Reformation.”
• “The early church fathers denied sola fide, which is an invention of the Reformation.”
• “The Council of Nicaea established the canon of Scripture.”
• “The Council of Nicaea invented the doctrine of the Trinity.”
• “Bavinck, due to his incarnational and organic view of inspiration/Scripture, denied the modern doctrine of inerrancy (i.e. Chicago Statement), which is an invention of the post-Reformation scholasticism of Warfield and Princeton.”
• “Kuyper, due to his incarnational view of Scripture, denied the modern doctrine of inerrancy (i.e. Chicago Statement), which is an invention of the post-Reformation scholasticism of Warfield and Princeton.”
• “Calvin, due to his view of Scripture and view of divine accommodatio, denied the modern doctrine of inerrancy (i.e. Chicago Statement), which is an invention of the post-Reformation scholasticism of Warfield and Princeton.”

Again, none of these claims are true. All of these claims have been refuted over and over and over again, year after year, decade after decade, in book after book, essay after essay. And all of those refutations are easily available and accessible in the public domain.

Oops…They Did it Again

The 21^st century has brought these old arguments in new forms. Had it not been for our sin to forget and our sin to ignore the truth, the work of the apologist might not have even been necessary for the church. But since we do forget the truth, we must be reminded of it.

A.T.B. McGowan of Highland Theological College in Dingwall, Scotland, indulged in the last few of these fallacies. Although his book is endorsed by I. Howard Marshall, The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage (2007) is a weak attempt to deal with the facts, leading McGowan to re-write history in order to undermine the doctrine of inerrancy.

In the same year, Calvin College Associate Professor of Religion, Daniel Harlow, did the same thing in his editorial article “Consensus in CRC: Bible is not inerrant” (Chimes, 17). In his essay, Harlow commits virtually every major fallacy regarding the inerrancy debate. As such, his argument holds as much (or as little, rather) water as McGowan’s book on the doctrine of Scripture.

Due to the important nature of this subject (the Bible’s truthfulness), let us examine these two publications over the next month, fairly representing the critic, and yet delivering due criticism. Truth shines brightest against the dark backdrop of error.