Part 2 - Have the Critics Got it Right?

Part 2 – Is This Evangelical Reformed Theology? Critiquing the Critics.

Let me now deal with some of the main objections of reviewers. These include:

1. That he speaks too highly of tradition in the life of the church and this threatens the uniqueness of Scripture.

2. That he takes an ‘Infallibilist” rather than “Inerrantist” position in that theological debate of recent times (which has historically been more significant in America than in Europe or Australia). Although Andrew has said this doesn’t mean he is an “errantist”, many feel that his viewpoint is still undermining the authority of Scripture, or at the very least providing ammunition for those who wish to do so.

3. That his views are essentially Barthian or even Bultmannian fideism in disguise, and he relies heavily on the work of Orr and TF Torrance, whom he quotes approvingly.

4. That he is undermining the basis of his own ordination vows by calling into question the conservative biblical theological tradition of Presbyterianism as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The Nature of the Book & Andrew’s Theological Perspective

Personally I think all these major criticisms are ill-founded and based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what he is proposing. First, he clearly states that what he is doing is raising ideas and issues to stimulate discussion, not a fixed theological fait accompli. Andrew regards the book as merely “a contribution to debate, encouraging Reformed evangelicals to think through some of these issues.” (personal correspondence, July, 2008). Second, there is no doubt in my mind that he holds to a conservative reformed evangelical position regarding the authority of Scripture. I have come to this conclusion after reading the book carefully, extensive correspondence with Andrew himself, and face to face conversation with the man. Whilst I think some of the lesser criticisms made of the book are possibly accurate, I don’t think they are of a magnitude that would warrant censure or the kind of metaphorical book-burning that has taken place!

1. McGowan’s Views on Tradition – clearly Protestant Reformed

Some reviews seem to have quoted Professor McGowan out of context, and in one or two cases almost mischievously misrepresent what he actually says. In several places McGowan takes pains to reiterate his theologically conservative position, but this seems to go unnoticed by his negative reviewers. For example, the chapter in which he discusses the need for formulating a better Evangelical theology of the place of ‘tradition’ in the life of the Church, on p.185 he says this (emphases mine):

“What shape, then, should an evangelical doctrine of tradition take? ...First, tradition is vital and must be recognized as an integral part of being the church. We are not the first Christians and we cannot pretend that with an open Bible we can ignore all those who have gone ahead of us in the faith. Second, tradition must never stand alongside Scripture as a parallel source of authority, nor as an inclusive concept that includes Scripture [my note: contra the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox positions respectively]. The voice of God the Holy Spirit speaking in and through the Scriptures must be our final authority. Third, tradition in the evangelical sense must always mean a recognition of the biblical, theological and ecclesiastical decisions made by those who have gone before us in the faith and the importance of these decisions for our self-understanding. Fourth, tradition must always be subject to review and reformation, in the light of God continuing to speak to us by his Spirit through his Word. In short, our evangelical theology of tradition must guard the authority of the voice of God speaking in Scripture and yet at the same time take seriously the concept of tradition as the collective voice of the church through the ages.”

This paragraph almost alone should be enough to show that the first criticism listed above is not valid. Andrew’s views on tradition represent a normal Reformed evangelical viewpoint.

2. Does McGowan teach that the Bible is in error? Is he a Crypto-liberal?

Some reviews have been very unfair, and several scholars and preachers I have spoken to have admitted to prejudging his work without reading it, based on these reviews, particularly that of JR de Witt. Some hear Andrew as saying that the bible contains errors and therefore we must accept the liberal position that it is only man’s witness to God’s acts. Nothing could be further from the truth and Andrew has been appalled at this characterisation of his views. That is not what I hear him saying at all; in fact he explicitly denounces such views and clearly says that just because he is attacking the apologetical stance of certain 20^th century biblical inerrantists doesn’t mean that he is an ‘errantist.’ Nor does he think that the Bible only becomes the Word of God as the Spirit applies it subjectively to our hearts and minds. He is no crypto-Barthian. I have personally heard him more than once positively affirm his entire acceptance of the plenary inspiration of Scripture and that it is entirely trustworthy and reliable because it is the Word of God. And it is that objectively, apart from the effect it has on us. His criticism is not of the bible as erroneous, but of the logic and theology of Inerrantism as an apologetic.

McGowan does not say what he is accused of saying and does say what he is accused of not saying!

One review that is quite wrong about all this is that of Free Church Minister Iain D Campbell. Rev Campbell cites Andrew’s criticism of Inerrancy where he asks “what is the point of insisting that there once existed (very briefly) perfect versions of those texts, if we no longer possess them?” Campbell then comments “Yet in spite of insisting that ‘everyone accepts that there are errors’, none of these are cited in this book. It is one of the glaring weaknesses of the whole argument: we are being told that the Bible is in error, yet not what these errors are.”

This is simply not true, on two levels. First Andrew nowhere says that the Bible is in error. That is a misreading of his position. It is not at all the same thing as saying that even if there were errors in the bible, that would not necessarily prove that it was not the complete, perfect and authoritative Word of God.

Second, Andrew DOES give us some idea of what he means by 'errors' within the bible, when he speaks of the Chicago limited or qualified Inerrantist position in chapter 4 (p.104-113 in the Apollos IVP edition). It is obvious that what he has in mind when he says “everyone accepts that there are errors,” are things like those that the Chicago Inerrantists list as things that in their view don’t constitute ‘errors’ such as textual variants and things that involve the limited knowledge of the authors’ historical world views that God did not see fit to overrule but that do not affect the substance of the Truth. Andrew sees this as a matter of semantics - these are the errors you have when you’re not having errors! In fact the more I read and understand what he is actually trying to say, the more I’m convinced that his personal view of scripture is in practice very close to that of the Inerrantist who qualifies carefully what they mean by errors and who takes literary genre into account and doesn’t hold a kind of rigid dictation theory. The kind of thing Andrew would have the guts to call human errors are substantially the same things that Chicago inerrantists would explain away by defining them as "not really errors."

I’m certain from lengthy discussions with him on these matters and hearing him preach that Andrew doesn’t believe that the bible got vital things wrong such as the historical details surrounding the life of Jesus, or that stories in it are myths added by later editors. He is certainly no de-mythologizer wanting to deny the miraculous or supernatural. The difference between his position and people like Carl Henry, however, is one of apologetical starting point. Unlike them, Andrew does not make hypothetical error-free autographs the basis for his contention that the bible is reliable and authoritative (or even as Bahsen appears to do, make inerrant autographs the basis of assurance of salvation)!

Andrew is quite bemused at the storm that his preference for a semantic choice of the word ‘infallible’ over ‘inerrant’ has caused. He says in response to the ferocity of his critics at this point: “The word 'infallibility' is the one used in our Reformed confessions and catechisms and it is the word used by Calvin, Knox and the best of the Reformed tradition, especially the great Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck, whose position I advocate in the book. The word 'inerrancy', on the other hand, originated in the debates in 20th century America. This must surely be the only occasion on record where a theologian is condemned for preferring the language of the Reformed Confessions to the language of modern American theologians!!” (from a personal email 18 Jun 08).

I’m not convinced by the arguments of those critics who say that the modern word ‘inerrancy’ is the same in meaning as the word ‘infallibility’ that the Reformers used, or that they, along with others such as Augustine, held to a capital ‘I’ Inerrancy indistinguishable from that of 20^th century American evangelicals. But nor did thw word 'infallible' mean to the Reformers what the neo-orthodox use it to mean, and Andrew is not saying that. He is not arguing for the kind of ‘infallibility’ that considers the bible only infallible in matters of ‘faith,’ as the Spirit convicts the individual believer. Rather, in his view it is the earlier infallibility of the Reformers of the 16^th and 17^th centuries, and of Reformed scholars such as Bavinck that he is espousing. (...yes I know there is some dispute over what Bavinck actually means, but that is almost beside the point. The fact remains he uses that term and not ‘Inerrant’ and so if he as a great and unquestionably orthodox Reformed theologian can use it, why can’t we? That’s all Andrew is saying at this point - it is a matter of semantics and apologetics, not of theological substance that indicates, or opens the door for, heresy).

Though he is coming from a different theoretical base (presuppositionalism, not evidentialism), Andrew’s personal views on the matter are, as near as I can judge from talking with him, in practical terms indistinguishable from those of the ‘qualified Inerrantist’ position when it comes to those things he believes the bible to be accurate in.

The Context: Presuppositionalism v. Evidentialism

People have been taking chapter four and five of the book out of its context in the setting of Andrew’s earlier chapters on van Til and Presuppositionalism versus 20^th century Evidentialism. One friend I spoke to admitted he had only read those chapters because he had been told that was the substance of the argument. But to do that is to get a distorted picture of what Andrew is trying to say. What I hear him saying is this. Not that the bible contains errors, or is less than perfect, but that the language and syllogisms of 20^th century Inerrantism are unhelpful and go beyond that of both Scripture and the Reformed Confessions. He clearly states that his motivation by contrast is to stay true to Scripture’s own view: “we must not give to the scriptures a place they do not give to themselves, and we must not attribute to the scriptures a nature and character they do not claim for themselves.” (p.121)

Far from denying what chapter one of the Westminster Confession of Faith asserts, Andrew is arguing what chapter one of the WCF argues, which is what Luther and Calvin argued, that the bible is self-authenticating because it is the product of the Holy Spirit of God, and does not need human verification. In his words: “we must ask the most significant question of all, namely on what basis do we believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God? The answer, following Calvin, is that such belief is possible only by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. In other words, the Holy Spirit enables us to ‘recognize’ the Scriptures as the Word of God.” (p.46)

This is not mere ‘fideism’ because he is not denying that the object of our faith is historically real, as the liberals do, or that it doesn’t matter whether it is real or not (as Kierkegaard and some neo-orthodox do). He is just saying, don’t play the materialists’ game. In fact, Inerrancy could itself be charged with a different kind of ‘fideism’, because it requires belief in a hypothetical set of inerrant autographs that we do not have. We must simply accept that logical premise of Inerrancy by sheer ‘faith’ without concrete material evidence of any kind.

The Westminster Confession supports the Presuppositionalist viewpoint

Andrew believes he is returning to the emphasis that was there earlier in the Reformed tradition, as distinct from the priorities and emphasis of the apologetics of Inerrantism. He is saying that Inerrantism is firmly in the Evidentialist-Rationalist camp, arguing from the position of the secularists to ‘prove’ by human reasoning and evidence that the bible contains no errors of fact and that we may by that process be assured of its status as the perfect Word of God. Whereas Andrew believes the Confession and the Continental Reformed theological tradition has historically generally taken the Infallibilist/presuppositionalist view, which Prof McGowan’s believes is also the more biblical view. According to Andrew this is the view of European Reformed scholars such as Bavinck and van Til.

What is the answer to the question “How do we know the Bible is God’s trustworthy and complete Word?” Evidentialism begins with the evidence for its veracity in terms of human witness. But presuppositionalism says, no, it is reliable and trustworthy a priori simply because it IS the Word of God. And it is the conviction of the Holy Spirit, not rational argument from experimental evidence, that is the final arbiter of this. Because it is from God, and is His authoritative Word, that is what convicts us, not that it is inerrant in some hypothetical autographs that we don’t even have. And this is the view of the Westminster Confession isn’t it?! Look at what chapter one of the WCF actually says (emphasis mine):

1.IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

To my reading, that is all that Andrew is saying in the final analysis. The WCF continues, listing various human testimonies and evidences that argue for the veracity of Scripture:

1.V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God:

Now if it left off at that point, perhaps the Evidentialists could claim the support of the Westminster divines in the matter. But it doesn’t. It goes on immediately to say that these things are NOT what convinces us the bible is true and authoritative:

...yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

Andrew’s viewpoint would argue that Evidentialism, of which the Inerrancy movement is a subset, turns the Confession on its head, making what is its minor premise into the major premise. Inerrancy says effectively that although the inward conviction of the Holy Spirit is important, the major apologetic we ought to be working with is what the Confession regards as the minor one: “the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole...the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof...” All of that, says the WCF, is but the minor argument for the authority of the bible, and subservient to the major apologetic, which is that it is self-authenticatingly the Word of God, not needing any other defence. One implication of what Andrew is arguing is that Inerrantism has shied away from the major premise of the Confession on the veracity of Scripture as the Word of God, namely the inner conviction of the Spirit, because it sounds too like neo-orthodoxy. Andrew wants to restore the emphasis of the Reformed tradition. That’s how I read him, and that has been confirmed to me by personal interaction with him since reading the book.

Inerrancy is no better guard against unorthodoxy than infallibilty

Regarding the whole debate generally, I should point out that Inerrantism is not in itself an inherently safer theological position than Infallibilism in terms of guarding the gospel. It is no less liable to error or being influenced by liberal ideas or Modernism. Inerrancy did not stop Warfield from becoming a Theistic Evolutionist, for example. Other Inerrantists have become legalists or KJV-only advocates or Sinless Perfectionists, or taken on any number of other unhelpful or heretical ideas. Neither position can lay claim to producing inherently more biblically orthodox adherents.

This raises another issue. Some people seem to think that because McGowan quotes liberally (no pun intended!) from all sorts of sources that he must endorse the views of those scholars. Not only is this to make a generic fallacy, it is exactly what the Inerrantists do when they take Warfield as their champion, despite his development of the doctrine of Theistic Evolution, something that most Inerrantists would find unacceptably liberal. If they are allowed to use Warfield without accepting everything he stands for, why isn’t McGowan allowed to say that some of what Orr or Torrance have to say is useful and true? What’s good for the goose...

3. Does The Divine Spiration of Scripture undermine the ordination vows of Perbsyterian Ministers to uphold the teaching of the Westminster Confession?

Finally, Andrew has been criticised for going against the Westminster Confession, in at least two ways. First, allegedly for saying that Inerrancy is not a biblical doctrine but only an ‘implication’ of a biblical doctrine and therefore not something mandatory for a Christian to believe. If he were saying that, it would contradict WCF 1.6 which says: “The whole plan of God about everything necessary for His own glory, human salvation, faith and life, is either directly set down in Scripture, or can be deduced from Scripture, by good and necessary consequence.” But Andrew does not deny this! He has yet again been misquoted. He never says that Inerrancy is not essential because it is only a deduced and not an induced doctrine. He does, however, clearly imply that Inerrancy is in his opinion NOT one of those things that “can be deduced by good and necessary consequence.” He is not saying merely “it’s only an implication and we don’t have to accept implications.” He is arguing that it is not a good and necessary implication. His exact words are “If we accept this argument that inerrancy, properly understood, is not a biblical doctrine but an implication from another biblical doctrine , then it is reasonable to ask if it is a legitimate implication. My argument is that it is not a legitimate implication...” The claim that his words deny section 1.6 is clearly a mischievous misreading on the part of the reviewer that said this.

The second way it is claimed that Andrew goes against his ordination vows by attacking the Subordinate Standard that all Presbyterian ministers must hold to, is that he criticises the place of the doctrine of the Scriptures in the WCF, saying that it would be better placed under the doctrine of The Holy Spirit rather than at the very beginning. In fact, Andrew states that “the first and most important” thing he is trying to say in this book is not that we should use ‘infallibility’ instead of ‘inerrancy’ but “that the doctrine of Scripture must be seen as an aspect of the work of the Holy Spirit and placed accordingly in our theological statements, that is, after the doctrine of God and not before it.” This major point has been lost in the more controversial debate.

The response to Andrew’s suggestion here rather proves the point he makes in chapter 6 that sometimes what is in theory the subordinate standard can be treated in practice as though it is on a par, or even above, the ‘Ordinate’ standard! And he is not even arguing for any change to the substance of the WCF teaching, just the relative theological ordering of the doctrinal topics. Imagine what the reaction would be if he had suggested that something it actually SAYS is not biblical?! The reaction of some to his mere suggestion that perhaps the Confession could have been better ordered indicates that what he urges in chapter 6 is right, namely that “the need to define properly the relationship between Scripture and our confessional statements is both vital and urgent.” Andrew is well aware of the dangers of this, and does not raise it lightly. He writes quite firmly against those who would spuriously use the principal of Semper Reformanda to introduce heresy, as some have attempted to do in his own Church of Scotland. But his call that with proper safeguards we must be continually developing our theological confessions in the light of our times is one of the major points he is making, and one worth serious consideration. He writes:

“We must note that confessional statements ought to be constantly subjected to scrutiny by careful exegetical work and should always be recognized as transient documents. Confessions should be written regularly so that the church always has a doctrinal statement that deals with the issues and concerns of the day. The fact that most of the confessions in use in the Protestant churches were written in the seventeenth century is a strange phenomenon. Is it not remarkable that none of us has confessions that deal with the principal difficulties that have assailed us and are assailing our church, namely liberalism, pluralism, relativism, postmodernism and so on?” (p.185 Apollo edition)

This whole issue, raised in chapter 6 of Andrew’s book, is one that needs much more work by Reformed scholars, and I hope that others will take up his challenge there. But the point I make here is that Andrew is not attempting to deny anything in the Confession and has stated more than once in my presence that he is happy to own all of what is written in it. The issue he is raising is for him a hypothetical one, but he is asking, as others have done before him, what if there were something in the Confession that was found to be in error? What mechanism exists for us to do anything about that? Or how do we add necessary theological topics to the Confession? Neither subtraction nor addition is currently possible without causing a major disruption.

In the final part of this review, Part 3, I will conclude with a summary of the substance of the book as I understand it, and some of the major issues and challenges this whole controversy has raised for us.