By jaminhubner on Apr 2, 2010 in Biblical Authority and Sufficiency, Critique of "The Divine Authenticity" | Comments Off
It was a 7 post blog adventure, but we’re finished! It is my hope in this series that Christians can find confidence in the full truthfulness of the Scriptures, both in principle and in history. McGowan’s intentions seem to be genuine: let us seek balance and truth. Christians must not get over zealous of the [...]
By jaminhubner on Mar 30, 2010 in Biblical Inerrancy, Critique of "The Divine Authenticity" | Comments Off
A Brief Recap Before the Final Post This is the last post in our series on inerrancy and McGowan’s book The Divine Authenticity of Scripture before a brief conclusion. I’m spending a considerable amount of time critiquing McGowan’s work because, well, ultimately, if the Scriptures aren’t inerrant, we’re toast as believers who seek knowledge of [...]
By jaminhubner on Mar 23, 2010 in Biblical Inerrancy, Critique of "The Divine Authenticity" | Comments Off
Time to get back to McGowan… Theses Without Clarity 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. [...]
By jaminhubner on Mar 19, 2010 in Biblical Inerrancy, Canon and Criticism | Comments Off
In 2004, John Brogan of Northwestern University published the essay “Can I Have Your Autographa? Uses and Abuses of Textual Criticism in Formulating an Evangelical Doctrine of Scripture” in the book Evangelicals and Scripture: Tradition, Authority, and Hermeneutics. In my opinion, Brogan’s essay is worth reading since it brings up some of the most controversial [...]
By jaminhubner on Mar 12, 2010 in Biblical Inerrancy, Hermeneutics | Comments Off
As we plow ahead in our series on inerrancy, it’s important not only to uphold the truth in the face of opposition, but to see where improvements – or at least fuller understandings – can be cultivated for our own position as Christians. None of us as apologists have “arrived.” Kevin Vanhoozer is one particular [...]
By jaminhubner on Mar 6, 2010 in Biblical Inerrancy, Critique of "The Divine Authenticity" | Comments Off
“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 [...]
By jaminhubner on Mar 5, 2010 in Biblical Inerrancy, Critique of "The Divine Authenticity" | Comments Off
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 [...]
