My Take on Chapter 3 of ‘The Gospel as Center’

I thought I would put this up here as I put a little effort into it and I need to post 

Some of the men in our Church are reading through the new book edited by D. A. Carson & T. Keller, The Gospel as Center.  I was given the chapters on Scripture and Creation to write about.  Here is what I wrote about chapter 3, “The Gospel and Scripture: How to Read the Bible.”

“Hello,

Pastor asked me to write something on chapters 3 and 4 of our book.  Here are my thoughts on chapter 3:

Chapter 3 is by M. Bullmore on “The Gospel and Scripture.”  Because I am rather pressed for time I shall have to record some problems with the chapter in with its good points.  It is a rather simplistic chapter written with broad strokes, but it is clear that it is written from a point of view decidedly biased toward covenant theology (Hereafter CT).  CT basically teaches that salvation in the Church is the main theme of Scripture.  All the elect are under a “covenant of grace” which means all the elect from Adam’s time to the second coming are in the Church.  Since neither I nor many evangelicals who believe the Gospel hold to CT it is quite wrong for it to be given preference like this in a book purporting to be written for a broad evangelicalism.

On his beginning page (41) the writer declares that by the Gospel he means “God’s eternal purpose to redeem a people for himself (1 Pet. 2:9) and to restore his fallen creation (Rom. 8:19-21),” though later he will define it as “the message of Christ.” (44).  1 Pet. 2:9 does not say what Bullmore states in that first clause.  It simply refers to those to whom Peter is writing (probably the whole Church but some say the Jewish Church), as “a royal priesthood, a holy nation” etc.  But CT teaches that all the saved in both Testaments are in the Church (thus “a people”).  Then he says, “God’s purposes in revelation can never be separated from His purposes in redemption.” (42).  In an important sense he is right.  But since very many are not saved and since the Bible presents to man the right way of looking and thinking about the world, this is too reductionistic.

He goes on to quote from Isa. 55 twice: first the famous verses about the efficacy of the Word of God, and then some slightly earlier verses which refer to the “everlasting covenant” God made with David and Israel.  Now, if God’s Word will “accomplish everything that God purposes it to do” then surely it will accomplish the promises in the Davidic covenant to Israel? (e.g. “He has glorified you”).  I say this in passing but it is worth filing away.

Is it correct to say that the Gospel is the cause of biblical revelation?  Actually, only in a secondary, though important sense.  You see Biblical revelation (Scripture) is necessitated because of the Fall.  Hence, the primary cause of biblical revelation is the separation that exists between the Creator and the creature – not all of whom will be saved.

What about the Gospel being the effect of revelation?  Yes.  The Bible exists for the Gospel, although it exists for more than the Gospel.  For example, the Gospel cannot be found in the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount.  These may help clarify aspects of the Gospel (e.g. justification by faith not law and sanctification after faith), but they are not the Gospel itself.  I’m sorry, but critical thinking is needed.

Pages 44-47 outline the attributes of Scripture and is very good, although I was surprised there was no clear statement about inerrancy there.  These pages are the best part of the essay.  Also, the section on our need of humility is well done.  But then we come a-cropper.  The section on “Hermeneutics” (i.e. interpretation) is pretty awful.  This may seem like a harsh statement because it reads so piously.  But therein lies the danger.  Let us examine a few things.

First, using Lk. 24:25-26, 44-45 and Jn. 5:39 Bullmore makes the common claim that “if we are going to read the Bible rightly. we must see it in all its parts as it relates to Christ.” (49).  What does “in all its parts” mean?  Well, he had just quoted Bryan Chapell’s claim that Jesus can be seen in every text of Scripture in some way.  Then he says, “Jesus’ words presuppose that every passage does indeed point to him.”  That sounds pious!  But which words of Jesus presuppose this?  Are we really to believe that on the two or three hour trek to Emmaus Jesus went through EVERY OT verse and showed Christ was there?  Do you know how long that would have taken, even if it were possible?  Conservatively, it would have taken several days!  No, this is NOT what Jesus’ words presuppose!  All Jesus was doing was going to every OT Book and showing predictions and illustrations of His person and work within them.  He is in Gen. 3:15 and 18:17 and 49:9-10 and Num 14 and 24 and Job 19:25-26 and Isa. 7:14, 9:6, 61:1f. and Mic. 5:2 and Zech. 9:9 etc.  But when Satan causes the deaths of Job’s children we don’t find the Gospel there!  When Doeg the Edomite shows his true colors Jesus isn’t seen.  Yes, like Spurgeon we ought to be able to get to Christ from any passage.  But not before rightly expounding the passage and THEN relating it to Christ.  But that is not what Bullmore is saying.  He wants us to read all the Bible through the lens of Christ.  That is, he is recommending we read Christ into every passage!  That’s typical CT and it leads to gross spiritualizing of Scripture.

Not surprisingly, he writes about “spiritual interpretation of Scripture” next.  This is not the same as spiritualizing but it often ends up in the same court.  This can be seen in the opening remark under that head on page 49: “The Bible is qualitatively different from every other book and requires that we read it in keeping with its nature.”   I entirely agree with the first part of that statement.  The Bible is the Word of God so it is qualitatively different than non-inspired books.  My problem is with what lurks behind the second part.  You see, he goes on to say (in a rather confused outline of “Illumination”) that not only does the Spirit help us to know the Bible is true.  he also states that one cannot understand the Bible without the Spirit (50).  That is not what Paul is saying in the 1 Corinthians passage and it is obviously untrue – otherwise Bullmore has undermined one of his earlier proof-texts (Jn.5:39) where Jesus exhorts unbelievers to search the Scriptures.  How could they unless they had the Spirit?  And how can any unsaved person read the Bible unless the Spirit helps him interpret it?  This is not the doctrine of Illumination!  Scripture addresses the lost in many places.  It even addresses Satan here and there!  Furthermore, the underlying assumption is that the Bible is only written to believers.  If that is true then an unsaved person cannot logically be condemned for ignoring it.  I hope you see this.

The illustration using Matt. 12:1-8 is poor and unenlightening.  Bullmore is right to say that Jesus was focusing the narrative on Himself.  But He did so because He was “Lord of the Sabbath.”  David was not above the Law – no king was (53?).  But Jesus should be followed by the religious leaders for who He is.  Will they join the disciples instead of condemning them?  That is the crux of the passage.

The last page is also the worst (sorry!).  the “plan of salvation” is not “what scriptural revelation is all about.”  It is a large part of it.  But only a covenant theologian would say such a thing.  And only a CT would be so bold as to announce “The good news is the singular and majestic theme of Scripture” which “should inform and control our “handling” of God’s Word.”  Sounds good doesn’t it?  For one thing, there seems to be more than one usage of “gospel” in the Gospels (e.g. how much of the death and resurrection of Jesus did the disciples understand at first? (Mk. 9:32).  Did Jesus preach it in Mk. 1:13 or Matt.4:23?).  But it is plain rubbish!  What he is recommending is that we come to every verse of Scripture with our mind already made up that we will find Christ in it.  That is not how we do exegesis.

Further, that is not how he got an understanding of the Gospel in the first place.  He did what we all should do: he read what the good news is to us in John 3 and Romans 3-5 and Gal. 1-3 and Eph. 1-3 and he believed what it said.  As all Scripture is equally God’s Word should it not be treated with the same respect?

Your brother,

Paul H.”

Postscript: I wanted to say something here about chapter 4 on “Creation” by Andrew M. Davis because I’m out of town till Tuesday night and may not get a chance to review it.  It is simply outstanding!  Without a doubt it is the best introductory presentation of the subject I have read.  His use of Scripture is superb, and as a piece of composition it is a marvel.   

On the Ending of Mark (revised)

The link below concerns the Ending to Mark’s Gospel.  Does that Gospel end with the words of verse 8, “for they were afraid”?  Were the last verses somehow lost?  Or has the methodology of Textual Criticism, with its preoccupation with “the oldest and most reliable manuscripts” ignored large amounts of textual evidence for these verse?

Call me naive (many will), but I am convinced of the authenticity of the last twelve verse of Mark as traditionally understood – i.e. verses 9-20.  I have read the works on Textual Criticism by Metzger (his Handbook, his Textual Commentary, and his fascinating Chapters in the History of NT Textual Criticism).  I have read the Aland’s and Comfort and essays by Dan Wallace, as well as the older works of Souter (Text and Canon) and Gregory (Canon and Text), and Lake, and Streeter (Four Gospels).  Despite all this reading I remain unconvinced that our Critical NT Texts, strengthened as they are with the evidence from Egyptian deserts, more accurately represent the “original text” than the so-called Majority Byzantine Text.

I still believe that the work done by Burgon and others toward the end of the 19th century, which was more self-consciously faith-driven than the so-called neutral “eclectic method,” more accurately reflects the Biblical Worldview.  My reading of Harry Sturz’s The Byzantine Text and NT Textual Criticism, together with three works by John W. Burgon (especially The Revision Revised) and the huge Plain Introduction by F. H. A. Scrivener convince me that we must have a methodology which comports with the testimony of Scripture rather than with the Enlightenment.

Anyway, here is a response in two parts to a critical paper on the last 12 verses.  The response is by Maurice Robinson, whose writing I always find clear-headed: Part 1; Part 2

Autographa & Apographa: John Owen on Inspiration and Preservation

Introduction

The greatest British theologian of the 17th Century was, in the opinion of many, John Owen.  Owen made distinctive contributions in a number of theological loci.  His book on the mutual relationship within the Trinity and our communion with each of the Divine Persons is still the best work on the subject.[1] Likewise, his manifesto for congregational-independency[2] offers some of the best arguments for Pastor-led congregational form of church government, and his The Death of Death in the Death of Christ[3] is considered the book on the Reformed view of particular redemption.  Owen’s teaching on the subject of the inspiration of the Bible is also most instructive, especially in view of what has been and is being taught in some evangelical seminaries and books.

The Importance of Divine Inspiration

Owen’s views on the crucial matter of the relationship of the Bible as we have it and the autographs are worth pondering.  He, like all solid evangelicals, rests the authority of the Bibles we have, not upon some inner impression of its validity, but upon its original theopneustic character.  In his, The Divine Original of the Scripture he asserted, “That the whole authority of the scripture in itself depends solely on its divine original, is confessed by all who acknowledge its authority.”^[4] Thus the autographs were from God and delivered to men.  We possess “the words of truth from God Himself.”[5]

Inspiration he defined as “an indwelling and organizing power in the chosen penmen.” ^[6] Thus, “they invented not words themselves…but only expressed the words they received.”[7] Indeed, “the word that came unto them was a book which they took in and gave out without any alteration of one tittle or syllable (Ezek. ii 8-10, iii 3; Rev. x 9-11).”^[8] As Owen writes in his great work on the Holy Spirit:

He did not speak in them or by them, and leave it unto their natural faculties, their minds, or memories, to understand and remember the things spoken by him, and so declare them to others; but he himself acted their faculties, making use of them to express his words, not their own conceptions.^[9]

It is because of its divine provenance that the Scripture gains “the power and to require obedience, in the name of God.”[10] The Scriptures “being what they are, they declare whose they are.”[11] Even so, being as the Bible is the Word of God, every man is bound to believe it.[12]

Some Historical/Archaeological Evidences for the Reliability of the OT

I thought you might enjoy reading down this list.  I hope it gives a boost to your faith.

It is all very well to speak about Bible History, but can the claim be substantiated? Does the Old Testament stand up under scrutiny? This list represents a broad sampling of its impressive credentials in this area.

It is among the rubble and ruins of the ancients (where Scripture would soon fall foul if it erred), that it is so very impressive.  and although unbelieving, liberal scholarship tries to reevaluate the evidence;  continually proving the ironic quip, “If I hadn’t believed it, I would not have seen it with my own eyes,” all their assertions have been fended off many times by conservative scholars.

• The Ebla Tablets verify the social conditions of Abraham’s time (c. 2000 BC).

• They also identify numerous cities (e.g., Ashdod, Akko, Sidon, Alalakh, Lachish, etc.) which are mentioned in the OT.

• One tablet was discovered which listed the five cities of the plain in exactly the same order as Genesis 14:2.

• It is now known that there were at least six written languages extant at the time Moses wrote the Torah.

• Balaam, the seer spoken of in Numbers 22-24 is actually known from an inscription discovered in 1967 at Tell Deir ‘Alla (8th century BC).  The encampment of Israel in Numbers 22 would be just 25 miles south of Deir Alla.

• In 1994 the British revisionist P. R. Davies opined, “King David is about as historical as King Arthur.” At the same time the Tel Dan Stela (dated to the 9th century BC) was uncovered which mentioned the dynasty of Judah as “the house of David,” thus referring to David by name. The inscription reads:

“[I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab] king of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin]g of the House of David.”

• The Merenptah Stela, (c. 1220 B. C.) includes a clear reference to “Israel” as a foreign people.  This shows that by the late 13^th Century Israel could be identified as a specific people group.  The relief at Karnak also shows an Israelite army with chariots.

• The Assyrian King List records a list of continuous years that run from 892 B.C. to 648 B.C.  Wherever it mentions Israelite kings (e.g. Omri, Ahab, Jehoram, Jehu), it accords with the Bible’s chronology and history. This is the normal outcome when comparison is made with any ancient list (e.g. Egypt, Babylonia, and Assyria).

• Comparison with Mesopotamian King Lists shows that, “the Hebrew writers of Kings, etc., have their Assyrian and Babylonian monarchs impeccably in the right order.” They also have their names right, which is in stark contrast to writers in the 4th to 2nd centuries BC, when the revisionists say that these Bible histories were written.

• The “Ivory House” spoken of in 1 Kings 10:18; 22:39, and Amos 3:15; 6:4 has been excavated.

• The city of Lachish was besieged by Sennacherib in 701 B.C. (2 Kings 13; Isa. 36); a date confirmed by Assyrian records.

• Kitchen has shown that the death of Sennacherib mentioned in 2 Kings 19:37(and Isa. 37:38) is known from non-biblical records. The Babylonian Chronicle speaks of murder by a son. Esarhaddon’s archives (plus records from Nineveh) mention two sons by name, the names being the Babylonian equivalent of those in the Bible.

• Menahem and Rezin of Damascus (2 Kings 15:37; 16:5-9) are mentioned by Tizlath-Pileser III, King of Assyria from 745-727 B.C.

• Pottery fragments dating from the reign of Sargon II, show that Samaria was settled by people from Babylonia and elsewhere (2 Kings 17:24).

• Again, the Assyrian List implies that for a time, Shalmaneser V and Sargon II acted jointly in battle. (See the plural in 2 Kings 18:10!).

Review Article: A. T. B. McGowan, “The Divine Authenticity of Scripture” (Part 3)

In my last installment of this review I said that this would be the final part.  With due apologies, I publish this with the promise that the last part is on its way.

The chapter, “Infallibility: An Evangelical Alternative,” proposes the author’s remedy for the allegedly unsatisfactory belief of many in inerrancy.   As already noted, McGowan is keen to dump the term “inerrancy,” which he feels embodies a rationalist gloss on the teaching of the Bible, and replace it with “infallible,” which he says carries an older and more scriptural pedigree (123).  What then, we must enquire, are we to mean when we assert an “infallibilist” position on Scripture?  McGowan writes,

“Having freely chosen to use human beings, God knew what he was doing.  He did not give us an inerrant autographical text, because he did not intend to do so.  He gave us a text that reflects the humanity of its authors, but that, at the same time, clearly evidences its origin in the divine speaking.  Through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit, God is perfectly able to use these Scriptures to accomplish his purposes.”  (124, emphasis added).

But before anyone calls to mind the Rogers/McKim Proposal  of an errant original[i], McGowan wants his reader to know that he rejects that view just as much as he rejects inerrancy.  He thinks the errancy/inerrancy debate as it has been carried on in America presents a false dichotomy.  “There is a third option, namely that the Scriptures we have are precisely as God intended them to be, but we must take seriously the fact that God used human authors to communicate his Word and did not make them ciphers in doing so.” (125).

Review Article: A. T. B. McGowan, “The Divine Authenticity of Scripture” (Part 2)

The final change in vocabulary, that of exchanging inerrancy for infallibility is the most controversial in McGowan’s book, not least because McGowan wants to do away with the concept of inerrancy altogether.   However, before we examine this last point – which is the central premise of the book – it would be unwise for us not to mention something about how the author gets us there.   For this we will need to survey chapter 4, “Fundamentalism and Inerrancy.”

One will not read too far into the fourth chapter to get the drift of McGowan’s thought.  In his opening statements he declares, “that evangelicals ought to abandon the word ‘inerrancy’ and use language that is more biblically accurate and theologically constructive.” (84). He will argue for this in earnest in the next chapter, but this statement sets the agenda.  The author needs to show up inerrancy as a bad idea, and so after a couple of pages about Warfield, whose position on inerrancy is widely accepted by both evangelicals and fundamentalists, he proceeds to infer that J. Orr and A. Kuyper and H. Bavinck “rejected this doctrine of inerrancy” (87).[i]

This is really just introduction to the author’s main concern in this chapter, which is “Inerrancy.”  First he aims his guns at Fundamentalism.  He notes correctly that “Fundamentalism was and is primarily an American movement” and then lists a number of histories he has consulted (90).  Unfortunately, he seems to be unaware of the important works of Dollar and Beale, or of the helpful contributions of McLachlan and McCune.  This hamstrings him more than he knows, and coupled with what comes across as a rather rarefied British academic upbringing it impedes his argumentation severely.  As any Fundamentalist will at once recognize, McGowan is criticizing the movement from a distance; a distance he has made little effort to close.  Early fundamentalists supposedly were generally “anti-intellectual” and evidenced “the complete rejection of any form of textual criticism” (91).  Evidently, “many fundamentalists argued that no form of textual criticism was acceptable.” (94). He then ropes together many if not most “fundamentalist inerrantists” into this category by identifying them with the more extreme “King James Only” party[ii] (94, 103-104).  The same unfortunate group of fundamentalist inerrantists is also judged to be guilty of adhering closely to a dictation theory of inspiration (103), although in this case he seeks to bring the same charge against American evangelicalism in general.  As one might expect, McGowan’s documentation for these specific charges is slim.

From pages 105 to 122 McGowan presents three Arguments against inerrancy. 

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.