Review Article: A. T. B. McGowan, “The Divine Authenticity of Scripture” (Part 1)

A Review of A. T. B. McGowan, The Divine Authenticity of Scripture, Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007, 229 pages.

There are precious few good books on the doctrine of Scripture or on theological method.  This book by the Principal of Highland Theological Seminary in Scotland, and a Visiting Professor at both Westminster and Reformed Seminaries, which speaks to both of these areas, is naturally of interest to evangelicals.  The book has already caused ripples in certain circles since its release, and this belated review will address some of the same issues, as well as adding one or two things which have, for whatever reason been bypassed in other appraisals.

McGowan purports to be “retrieving” the church’s teaching of a high view of Scripture while circumventing “less tolerant” (14) views of inerrantists, in N. America especially.

The author’s reasons for producing the book are fourfold and are plainly set out in the Introduction.  First, he believes the doctrine of Scripture belongs more properly under the locus of Pneumatology rather than being placed at or near the beginning of Systematic Theology (or, indeed in the theology of the Westminster Assembly, which he thinks made “a mistake which needs to be corrected” (12) when they placed it in the first chapter of the Confession.

The second reason for the book is the advocacy of an overdue change in accepted theological vocabulary.  He believes the terms ‘inspiration,’ ‘illumination’ and ‘perspicuity’ are unhelpful, especially today, and that they ought to be replaced ‘divine spiration,’ ‘recognition’ and ‘comprehension’ respectively.

The third change McGowan wishes to make is in regard to the inerrancy debate.  He thinks the inerrancy/errancy debate as it has transpired in America is a false dichotomy brought about by an ostrich-like mentality within American fundamentalism.  To be blunt about it McGowan does not believe that inerrancy is a biblical doctrine (e.g. 162), but is a rationalistic fabrication fostered on modern evangelicals who were enticed by Enlightenment categories.  In McGowan’s opinion “the apparent discrepancies, contradictions and other difficulties that so trouble inerrantists” (163) should be accepted for what they are.  He believes the discussion about inerrant autographs and their effect on the Bible as we have it leads into “sterile” territory, and he wants his book to be a positive contribution to evangelicals with a high view of Scripture who recognize the need to climb out of the barrenness of the inerrancy debate (164).  (In case you are tempted to think of Rogers & McKim I ask that you hold off judgment until later).

Fourthly, the author wishes to re-examine the role of proclamation in the church.  This review will concentrate on the first three issues rather than this fourth point.

Whatever my personal disagreements with McGowan, which are not minor, I respect what I interpret to be his sincere intentions to move theology forward in this area.  However, some of my observations will call attention to what I believe to be significant lapses in the author’s research.  Significantly, it is these weak areas which provide the very underpinning for the more radical proposals the writer urges us to accept.

Tremper Longman, Adam, and Teaching the Truth (2)

What a remarkable event the new birth is!  What a reversal, a triumph, an utter transformation!  I (I should say “we”), who am a continuing stain on God’s landscape (Rom. 3:10-18) – contributing nothing but a deepening of the stain (Matt. 6:11a)  – I have been born from above (1 Pet. 1:23)!  I have been cleansed and forgiven (Heb. 9:11-15)!  God has given me a new life and He has adopted me as His dear son (Rom. 8:15-17).  According to the Apostle Paul I have been “delivered from the domain of darkness and transferred… to the kingdom of His beloved Son” (Col. 1:13).  Jesus says I have eternal life, that I shall not come into judgment, but have actually “passed from death unto life” (Jn. 5:24).

The reason I believe these great truths is because I believe Jesus and those He appointed and inspired.  Jesus is the Truth (Jn. 14:6), and He comes from Him that is true (Jn. 7:28-29).  As the Truth He attests to Himself (Jn. 8:14, 16), and to know Him is to know the truth (Jn. 8:31-32).  Therefore, all that are of the truth hear His voice (Jn. 18:37c).  Jesus’ very character is “Faithful and True” (Rev. 19:11).

Now for my point: When Jesus says that “in the beginning God made them male and female” (Matt. 19:4) He is referring to Adam and Eve in the Garden (cf. Gen. 2:18-24).  Jesus also refers to the murder of their son Abel in Luke 11:51.  When Paul, who received his teaching from the risen Jesus (Gal. 1:15-17),  gives a reason for not admitting women to the teaching office of the church he goes back to Adam and Eve (1 Tim. 2:12-14).  But why did they bother arguing along these lines if they knew their doctrines were resting on mythical foundations?  And what is Jude doing telling us about Enoch being “the seventh from Adam” (Jude 14) if he didn’t believe in Adam?  (Perhaps he didn’t believe in all the other historical data he refers to either!).

Now comes the magnificent phalanx of scholars, with (on this occasion) Tremper Longman at the head.  In the first part of this article I noted that Longman has gone one better (or worse) than those evangelicals who denied the literal six day creation, and even those who taught theistic evolution, by casting real doubt on the historicity of “a little historical Adam” as he rather contemptuously refers to him.  Is Longman calling Jesus a liar then?

B. B. Warfield and the “Common-Sense” Conception of Theology

Introduction

Non-biblical philosophies have a way of creeping into even the best Christian writing.  Given the reality of the Fall this is perhaps unavoidable.  Still, Christians should regard it as their duty to their Lord not to be reliant upon any unscriptural underpinnings in their theology.  The Apostle Paul, who knew the philosophers (Acts 17), sees it as one of his obligations to remind believers how they ought to think (e.g. Rom. 12:1-2; Col. 2:8).  Ones ultimate criterion of thought, the most basic appeals to facticity, affect the outworking of ones worldview.  This is to be seen more clearly in some scholars than in others.  Those I have in mind in this piece are men who take a view of the Bible which runs counter to what the Bible itself permits, and whose scriptural vision is duly impaired.

Scripture always and everywhere presents itself as the Word of God.  This is either assumed, as in the opening verses of the Book of Genesis, or it is stated explicitly (e.g. 2 Tim. 3:16).  The Lord Jesus Himself is quite matter-of-fact in the way He assumes the Holy Scriptures to require no other human response but that of belief (e.g. Jn. 5:39-47).  The Bible is self-attesting (Isa. 66:2b).

When once a person has become a Christian he has entered upon a true relationship with the Author of the Word which, by supernatural working, he has believed and by which he has been given light with which to search it and think about it.  He has not acquired saving knowledge by anything within himself.  He has not come to know the Author of life and the Creator of time and space unless he has come to know Him through His Word, and the true significance of the Word.  Saving knowledge opens our eyes to all other knowledge – or at least it should.  Thus, Scripture is seen as the touchstone of all veridical truth.  We begin our knowing anew in light of God’s Word (Psa. 36:9).

Of course, to operate this way one must be like Jesus and the Apostles and accept the outside-Word from God without placing it through the wringer of empiricism.  Faith, for sure, is what brings the testimony of the Spirit with it to give certainty.  But whether faith is present or not does not alter the provenance of the Bible, and thus its ultimate authority or its right to provide the first principles of knowledge.  If “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein” (Psa. 24:1), then a biblical perspective, not just on sin and salvation, but on every other subject under the sun is demanded.  If this is not done the rights of theology will be circumscribed by the creature to the detriment of a proper Christian worldview.

Tremper Longman, “Adam” and Teaching the Truth (1)

Every now and then some evangelical scholar creates a stir by disclosing what he really believes about the Bible.  Peter Enns revealed his opinion that the ancient Israelites entertained the same cock-and-bull worldview as their pagan neighbors.  A. T. B. McGowan has launched a more subtle attack on biblical inerrancy by recommending a kind of fallible infalliblism.  Now another evangelical scholar has disclosed his difficulties with simple belief in the Bible.  Tremper Longman is a distinguished OT scholar teaching at snazzy Westmont College.  He has written and edited a number of notable commentaries and reference books.

Now Longman has revealed that he is not sure whether Adam (and so Eve) really existed.  Justin Taylor has posted the clip of Longman expressing his reservations.

He speaks about “a little historical Adam” who some believe was created by God.  According to Longman, one would have to be guilty of “a highly literalistic reading” of Genesis 1 and 2 to believe that Adam was a real individual.  He has not yet resolved whether or not God actually fashioned the first man at some point in evolutionary time, or whether He just guided evolution in doing its thing.

Now, Longman used to teach at Westminster Seminary, which has a poor record of teaching a literal account of the Six Days of Creation.  J. Gresham Machen himself believed in theistic evolution, as did his mentor B. B. Warfield.  And it should not be forgotten that many (probably most) biblical scholars reject a literal six day creation in favor of some form of progressive creationism.  So Longman is not far out in left field when compared with the scholarly crowd – even within evangelicalism.

A Very Brief History of Covenant Theology (2)

Part One Here

Why Did Covenant Theology Take Hold?

We have already indicated that political expediency may have encouraged the covenant mindset, at least early on.  But theologically speaking, there is one overwhelming reason for its attraction.  The covenant concept, especially the Covenant Of Grace, brings the Old and New Testaments together into one unity (which Dispensationalists like myself would say is a artificial, forced unity).  The Covenant Of Grace provides the continuity that is essential if the Church is to be the one people of God in both Testaments that Reformed theology claims it to be.

Johannes Coccieus (d. 1669) issued in 1648 a book that presented an outline of the scriptural teaching on salvation.  In tracing salvation from the creation of Adam (who was originally under the Covenant of Works) down to the end of time (the elect under the Covenant of Grace), Coccieus had presented his Dutch constituency with a progressive historical outworking of God’s decree[1] (his system included the Millennium).  Herman Witsius’ (d. 1708) scheme differs from that of Coccieus in that it is more concerned with systematic theology and practical living (including Sabbath-keeping) than with a mere outlining of salvation history.  His book, The Economy of the Divine Covenants (1677), issued last in two volumes with a Forward by J. I. Packer, is a wonderfully devout work filled with the kind of robust theology which characterized the best of the Dutch Nadere Reformatie. It is hardly surprising that this work is seen as a premier account of CT. 

“The Letters of Geerhardus Vos” – A Review

The Letters of Geerhardus Vos, edited with an Introduction by  James T. Dennison, Jr., Phillipsburg, NJ, P&R, 2005, 274 pages.

Geerhardus Vos, first Professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary (1892-1932), was one of the most important Reformed scholars of the Twentieth Century.  His works, including, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments and The Self-Disclosure of Jesus are classics on their respective subjects.  Indeed, Vos has been rightly dubbed “the Father of Reformed Biblical Theology.”  He was a man of great learning and profound thought, and his work, including an outstanding anthology of articles entitled Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation (ed. Richard B. Gaffin) ought to be studied by everyone who is interested in the best Reformed thinking on the Bible.  It is therefore of real interest that these “Letters” of Vos have now been published by P&R Publishers.

A Very Brief History of Covenant Theology (1)

As an outsider to Covenant Theology (CT), but one who has attended a Seminary that taught it and who appreciates the great men associated with it, I thought I would write a short history of Covenant Theology for those non-CT’s who might like to know a tad more about it.

[Don't worry, I'll return to the 95 Theses very shortly!]

My purpose in here is not to define what is known as Covenant Theology.  What I wish to do is to provide some of the salient historical backdrop to it and then ask why it has proven itself so durable.

I think a good way to do this is to present four questions which I will then attempt to answer.

Four Questions

1. How old is Covenant Theology (CT)?
2. When did it gain prominence?
3. Why did it take hold?
4. Summary: What is its status today?

It is not my wish to get technical and sophisticated.  This little presentation is just an overview.

Answering the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism (7)

24. Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism in pointing out that “the prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly this same method” (J. D. Pentecost), they overlook the problem that this led those Jews to misunderstand Christ and to reject him as their Messiah because he did not come as the king which their method of interpretation predicted.

Response: It is not advisable to refer to Dispensational interpretation as “literalism” – so-called or otherwise, as this leads to misunderstandings and misrepresentations (See below).  It is far better to treat the Bible the same way one would treat any other book.  It seems preposterous to us to scout around for an alternative hermeneutics just because the Bible is the Word of God.  In fact, it is precisely because the Bible is the Word of God to man that one would expect it NOT to require some esoteric interpretation unless very good reasons could be given for doing so.

Answering the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism (6)

18. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ structuring of law and grace as “antithetical concepts” (Charles Ryrie) with the result that “the doctrines of grace are to be sought in the Epistles, not in the Gospels” (Scofield Reference Bible – SRB, p. 989), the Gospels do declare the doctrines of grace, as we read in John 1:17, “For the law was given by Moses; but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ,” and in the Bible’s most famous verse: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

Response: Dealing first with the Scofield quote, we are at least glad to get a reference!  But let’s reproduce the whole SRB quotation: “The doctrines of grace are to be sought in the Epistles, not in the Gospels; but those doctrines rest back upon the death and resurrection of Christ, and upon the great germ-truths to which He gave utterance, and of which the Epistles are the unfolding.  Furthermore, the only perfect example of perfect grace is the Christ of the Gospels.”

The only thing Scofield appears to be pointing out here is the Protestant view that the unfolding of the DOCTRINES of grace are in the Epistles.  That is why evangelicals tend to fetch their doctrinal underpinnings from places like Paul’s epistles to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc., more than from the Gospels.

Answering the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism (5)

11. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ structuring of redemptive history into several dispensations, the Bible establishes the basic divisions of redemptive history into the old covenant, and the new covenant (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8; 9:15), even declaring that the “new covenant … has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete is ready to disappear” (Heb 8:13).

Response: No dispensationalist denies the division of the Bible into OT and NT.  Neither does he deny the “old covenant”/”new covenant” division (which is not the same).  These verses speak to the biblical covenants.  The passages, e.g. Hebrews 8:13 refer to the replacing of the Mosaic institutions by the work, both past and present, of Christ.  They do not bear upon the progressive revelation which is found within the outworking of these covenants.  Even CT’s identify differing periods of the outworking of the Covenant of Grace.