The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Critical Review 4

“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?