RECASTING INERRANCY: THE DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE IN
CARL HENRY AND THE OLD PRINCETON SCHOOL
By
George Michael Coon
A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Theology of Wycliffe College and the Department of Theology of the Toronto School of Theology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology Awarded by the University of St. Michael's College
Toronto 2009
© George M. Coon Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada
Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-68859-5 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-68859-5
NOTICE: AVIS:
The author has granted a non L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par ('Internet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.
The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre im primes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.
1*1 Canada ABSTRACT
RECASTING INERRANCY: THE DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE IN CARL HENRY AND THE OLD PRINCETON SCHOOL
George Michael Coon
Faculty of Theology of Wycliffe College Department of Theology of the Toronto School of Theology University of St. Michael's College
Doctor of Philosophy in Theology
Toronto 2009
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate evangelical inerrantism with specific attention to the doctrine of Scripture in Carl Henry and the theologians of the Old
Princeton School. While nearly all affirmations of Scripture's inerrancy share basic similarities, the best articulations of the inerrantist position have undergone development in order to address contemporary theological concerns. As such, adherents to the inerrantist tradition have offered significant theological insights to the Christian community concerning the doctrine of Scripture.
In the Introduction, I describe the need for this investigation, offer a definition of an "inerrantist position on Scripture," and describe the methods and procedures for the thesis. In Chapter 1,1 trace the development of inerrancy from the Reformation notion of
Sola Scriptura, through the Protestant Scholastic focus on Bibliology, to the effect of the
Enlightenment on the doctrine of Scripture.
ii In Chapter 2,1 detail the doctrine of Scripture in the Old Princeton School,
focusing on the work of Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield, with whom the inerrantist
position reached its fullest expression. In Chapter 3,1 consider the work of J. Gresham
Machen, who sought to locate inerrancy in a fuller theological context. Machen
represents a "recasting" of inerrancy in which formal statements of Bibliology are de-
emphasized and located more appropriately on the theological hierarchy of truths.
In Chapter 4,1 analyze the doctrine of Scripture in Carl Henry, whose treatment
of inerrancy supersedes that of his fellow inerrantists. Henry affirmed inerrancy, yet he
understood that inerrancy alone was not an adequate foundation for orthodoxy. With this
realization, Henry avoids making inerrancy a test of faith, and he even predicates
inerrancy on the more crucial doctrines of biblical authority and inspiration.
In Chapter 5, a way forward for the inerrantist tradition is discussed, including a
brief overview of more recent treatments of the subject. Present proposals are brought
into conversation with the primary interlocutors of the previous chapters, and the
question of the viability of the inerrantist tradition is raised. The thesis then concludes with a brief review of the content of each chapter.
in ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To my lovely wife, Amy, Who has read not one word of this Thesis, But without whom, not one word could have been written.
IV CONTENTS
Chapter
INTRODUCTION 1 Setting of the Thesis 4 Defining the "Inerrantist Position on Scripture" 7 Scope and Limits 13 Method and Procedure 16
ONE INERRANCY IN ITS HISTORICAL-THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 20 The Roots of Inerrancy 22 Martin Luther 22 John Calvin 28 Ulrich Zwingli 34 Summary of the Reformation Doctrine of Scripture 37 The Consolidation of Protestant Bibliology 39 Philip Melanchthon 40 Francis Turretin 43 Inerrancy as the Answer to Critical Scholarship 51 Biblical Narrative and Questions of Historicity ... 53 Scripture Translation and the Development of Theological Systems 60 From Inerrantist Roots, to Inerrantist Position, to Inerrantist Tradition 63
TWO INERRANCY ACCORDING TO THE OLD PRINCETON SCHOOL 66 The Princeton Theology in Context 69 Scripture and the Inductive Theological Method 80 The Princetonians' Doctrine of Scripture 83 The Question of Historical Continuity 83 Inspiration as the Foundation of Inerrantist Bibliology 87 The Meaning of Theopneustos 90 Textual Evidence for Scripture's Inspiration 91 How Biblical Figures View the Biblical Text 95 The Princetonian Defense of Inerrancy 98 Answers to Common Objections 98 The Criteria for Proving an Error 102 Dissenting Voices Concerning the Old Princeton Inerrantist Position 107 Toward Inerrancy in Christological Context Ill Summary and Evaluation 114
v THREE INERRANCY ACCORDING TO J. GRESHAM MACHEN 117 Machen's Doctrine of Scripture and Inerrantist Position .. 119 Machen's Inerrancy in Theological and Historical Context 128 Summary and Conclusion 135
FOUR SCRIPTURE AND INERRANCY ACCORDING TO CARL F. H. HENRY 139 Henry' s Polemical Context: Answering Karl Barth 144 Henry's Theological Methodology 151 Henry's Epistemology 154 Henry's Theology of Revelation 159 The Place of Scripture in Revelation 159 The Centrality of the Logos 162 The Necessity of Propositional Truth 164 Henry's Doctrine of Scripture 167 Authority 167 Inspiration 170 Inerrancy 177 Henry's Recasting of Inerrancy 187 The Limits of an Inerrantist Position 188 Against an Overemphasis on Inerrancy 192 Inerrancy De-emphasized yet Important 194 Conclusion 200
FIVE THE INERRANTIST TRADITION IN POSTMODERN CONTEXT 207 Scripture and Inerrancy in a Postmodern Context 208 Kevin Vanhoozer 210 JohnFranke 213 JohnMorrison 216 Peter Enns 219 Framing an Emerging Evangelical Consensus 221 The Emerging Consensus and the Inerrantist Tradition ... 222 What Then of Inerrancy? 226
CONCLUSION 232
BIBLIOGRAPHY 236
VI INTRODUCTION
As a particular proposal within the Christian doctrine of Scripture, evangelical inerrantism has been controversial almost since its inception. Inerrantists have claimed to have a view of Scripture that best reflects the Bible's teaching about itself and the nature of special revelation, and that flows most naturally from the doctrine of inspiration. Non- inerrantists see inerrancy as an unnecessary aberration that ignores the human elements of the biblical text, binds the reader of Scripture to literal exactness in interpretation, and detracts from the role of the Spirit. The inerrantist position has thus had a polarizing effect due to a basic tension within itself: while it appears to offer a high view of
Scripture, it also seems to be a modern construct which espouses a rationalistic epistemology that locates Scripture's authority in its self-evidencing character, rather than in the authority of God Himself.
In the Reformation, any understanding of Scripture's authority was related to the authority of Christ and the work of the Spirit.1 By the time of Protestant Scholasticism and the work of Francis Turretin,2 Sola Scriptura had become the foundation for an inerrantist view of Scripture, with the result that Scripture bore the burden of proving all
'Two leading discussions of the Reformers' view of Scripture—in the context of a debate over inerrancy—are Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Inspiration of the Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), and John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).
2Francis Turretin, Institutes ofElenctic Theology, trans. George Geiger, ed. by James T. Dennison, Jr., 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994).
1 2 theological belief.3 At the Enlightenment, the historical-critical method was introduced as a way to overcome "naive" beliefs in the supernatural which many theologians of that period had come to reject.4 With the rising influence of the historical-critical method, conservative theologians began developing the doctrine of Scripture further, highlighting its inerrancy, and defending it as a true account of the revelation of God.5 This development led the early "fundamentalists" to adopt a statement of faith at the Niagara
Bible Conference in 1878 that affirmed the verbal-plenary inspiration of Scripture, with the clear implication that the entire text was free from error.6
This emphasis on the doctrine of Scripture was bolstered by the theologians at
Princeton Theological Seminary, particularly Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield.7 The
3A key resource for this period is Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to 1725,4 Vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003). The second volume is devoted to the development of the doctrine of Scripture. See also Ephraim Radner, The End of the Church: A Pneumatology of Christian Division in the West (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), for a helpful account of the Protestant development of the doctrine of Scripture as forged in an anti-Roman Catholic context.
4The leading authority on these developments remains Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974).
5Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800- 1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970) and George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870—1925 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980) are the standard authorities here.
6The Niagara Creed of 1878 can be found in Sandeen, Roots, pp. 273-77. The Creed was originally part of a pamphlet entitled, "The Fundamentals of the Faith as Expressed in the Articles of Belief of the Niagara Bible Conference." The majority of the points made seem to be a reiteration of conservative Protestant beliefs held since the Reformation. However, the "new" points to the creed are its inerrantist understanding of verbal-plenary inspiration and its millenarian interpretation of biblical prophecy.
7Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (1871; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001). B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1948). In addition to Hodge and Warfield, Archibald Alexander, A. A. Hodge, David Burrell, and Charles Erdman also contributed to the construction of the "Old Princeton" theology. See Ernest R. Sandeen, "Toward a Historical Interpretation of the Origins of Fundamentalism," Church History 36 (1967): 66-83, for a very helpful account of the fundamentalist movement / Old Princeton "alliance" around the notion of inerrancy. 3 inerrantist position reached its fullest expression with these theologians, becoming an essential component of a conservative doctrine of Scripture.8 In the Old Princeton context, inerrancy moved from a position within the doctrine of Scripture to a tradition unto itself. However, in the latter years of the Old Princeton School, J. Gresham Machen sought to set inerrancy in a fuller theological context. He realized the need to place inerrancy and the doctrine of Scripture more appropriately within his theological system in such a way that key tenets of Christology and Soteriology received due emphasis.
More recently, the debate over inerrancy has intensified to the point that entire scholarly alliances devoted to this subject were created, such as the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI)10 and the Evangelical Theological Society. Yet those arguing both for and against inerrancy largely continue to describe the position in the terms of Hodge and Warfield. As a result, contemporary analyses of evangelical inerrantism tend to be limited to the Old Princeton School and its theologians.11
It is difficult to determine exactly when the term inerrancy was first used in theological construction as an attribute of Scripture. The Reformers frequently spoke of Scripture as completely truthful, reliable, and perspicuous. Turretin and Hodge frequently refer to Scripture as "free from error" in every part, trustworthy, and even "infallible." The actual term inerrant and the actual use of the term inerrancy to denote a position on Scripture seem to be employed first in an article entitled "Inspiration," co-authored by Archibald Alexander Hodge and B. B. Warfield. See A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, "Inspiration," Presbyterian Review 2, no. 6 (April, 1881): 225-61.
9J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1923), 69-79. Machen agrees with his Old Princeton predecessors concerning the truth of inerrancy, but he locates it in an explicitly soteriological context, rather than strictly in a polemical or apologetical context.
10The ICBI was founded in 1977 and completed its work in 1989. Some works resulting from ICBI include Norman Geisler, ed., Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979); Norman Geisler, ed., Biblical Errancy: An Analysis of Its Philosophical Roots (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981); Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest, eds., Challenges to Inerrancy: A Theological Response (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984); John Hannah, ed., Inerrancy and the Church (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984); Earl Radmacher and Robert Preus, eds., Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible: Papers from ICBI Summit II (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1984); and Kenneth S. Kantzer, ed., Applying the Scriptures: Papers from ICBI Summit ///(Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1987).
UA key example of this can be seen in David H. Kelsey, The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975). The new release of this book, Proving Doctrine: The Uses of Scripture 4
Setting of the Thesis
Carl Henry, the leading American evangelical theologian of the 20 century, was a bold and unhesitating advocate of inerrancy. In his magnum opus, God, Revelation, and
Authority,n Henry devotes several pages to the discussion of the doctrine of Scripture and deals at length with the issue of inerrancy. Yet for Henry, inerrancy is predicated on the nature of God and His revelation.13 Henry was often discouraged by the heated polemics within evangelicalism during the 1970s and 80s because he saw that more was at stake theologically than simply inerrancy itself. In Henry's doctrine of Scripture, he contextualizes and nuances inerrancy along the trajectory established by Machen, and so builds on earlier contributions from within the tradition.
Because of Henry's attention to the subject of inerrancy, one would expect to find discussions of his view in recent debates on this topic. Both non-inerrantists and inerrantists alike have pointed to Carl Henry's view as among the most persuasive of
in Modern Theology (Hanisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999), includes an updated Preface but leaves the original text unaltered. Kelsey surveys seven Protestant theologians who wrote between 1920 and 1960, each representing a model of using Scripture authoritatively in theological construction (2). The chronological exception to Kelsey's group of interlocutors is Warfield, who represents the "Doctrine as Content" model, the model closely associated with the inerrantist position (16-24). Kelsey's decision to use Warfield for this model is likely due to the fact that Warfield's contribution to the inerrantist position remains the best known in scholarship and that he wrote voluminously on the subject. Insofar as that is the case, Kelsey is not mistaken to choose Warfield. However, the fact that there seemed to be no other more recent representative of this model available to Kelsey is indicative of the general assumption that the inerrantist position in Warfield is an adequate representation of the inerrantist position today. I believe that Warfield is an accurate representation of the inerrantist position in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but there are more recent contributions that need to be noted to give an adequate representation of the inerrantist tradition today.
12Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, 6 Vols. (1976-1982; repr., Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000).
13Note that inerrancy is not treated fully until Volume 4 of 6 in God, Revelation, and Authority. 5 those espousing inerrancy. Yet no one has subjected Henry's position to a sustained theological analysis.15 Further, no one has seriously considered whether Henry's view of inerrancy improves on the position of the Old Princeton School and contributes to a way forward for those espousing the position.
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the inerrantist tradition via a historical narrative of key theologians. This investigation will culminate in a detailed analysis of
Carl Henry's doctrine of Scripture. I will argue that Carl Henry's position on inerrancy helpfully develops the inerrantist tradition beyond its well-known explication by the theologians of the Old Princeton School. Henry builds upon the most salient features of the Old Princeton position and recasts inerrancy in a well-articulated theological context.
This development allows Henry partly to overcome the tension within the inerrantist position described above. While the tension remains, Henry's position provides helpful resources for the ongoing development of the tradition.
Although the primary research contribution of this thesis lies in the attention given to Carl Henry's work, I believe it will be relevant and useful even for those not familiar with Henry or recent developments in conservative evangelical theology.
Beginning with the Old Princeton School, inerrantism has manifested characteristics of
Bob Patterson, Carl Henry (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983), 10. On the back cover, Patterson states, "In his God, Revelation and Authority series, Henry may have given the best statement on the inerrancy of the Scriptures—an accurately nuanced approach that most evangelicals can assent to. He is not militant on inerrancy and he respects those who have honest reservations about it. He wants to strike a balance between overbelief (which seeks to protect the Bible from its own humanity) and underbelief (which expects too little from the biblical text)." Also note D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, "Preface" in God and Culture: Essays in Honor of Carl F. H. Henry, ed. by D. A. Carson and John Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), viii-x.
15 While his work is not a rigorous theological analysis, Avery Dulles did select Carl Henry as a key interlocutor to represent the "Revelation as Doctrine" model of revelation in Models of Revelation (1983; repr., Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001), 36-52. Avery presents Henry as a representative of "conservative evangelicalism," continuing in the line of B. B. Warfield and the theology of Scripture found in the Old Princeton School. 6 what Alasdair Maclntyre calls a "living tradition." According to Maclntyre, "A living tradition ... is an historically extended, socially embodied argument, and an argument precisely in part about the goods which constitute that tradition."16 The inerrantist position fits this description because it is an argument about Scripture that claims to offer essential theological tenets to those within and without the tradition. Among these tenets are a claim that inspiration is a quality of the text of Scripture itself, a belief that Scripture is epistemically foundational for theological construction, a view of biblical authority which affirms the importance of propositional truths, and an affirmation of the historicity of Scripture's narrative events. That the inerrantist position is a living tradition also means that it finds itself within particular historical and ecclesiastical contexts. As the contexts change and develop, so too does the tradition. Hence, one can expect the various
"goods" offered by the inerrantist tradition to undergo different emphases at various stages in the history of the tradition itself.
In this thesis, these salient points of the inerrantist tradition will be noted as they are articulated by the theologians we will consider. Along the way, I hope to foster an appreciation for the contribution of the inerrantist tradition, even for those readers outside the tradition itself. The inerrantist tradition is part of my own theological heritage, and I have benefitted from its contributions. While there are clearly weaknesses with the position, especially as it is often articulated in contemporary polemics, I believe it remains something worthwhile and helpful. Thus I am attempting a work in both retrieval and renewal—retrieving what is worthwhile in the inerrantist tradition in order to present its most essential contributions in a way that speaks to the present context.
l6Alasdair Maclntyre, After Virtue, 2nd ed. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 222. 7
Defining the "Inerrantist Position on Scripture"
Before beginning our analysis of the inerrantist tradition, we must begin by defining it. Millard Erickson, an inerrantist, states that "The inerrancy of Scripture is the doctrine that the Bible is fully truthful in all of its teachings."17 Echoing Erickson, Wayne
Grudem states that "The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact." For Grudem, this means that "the Bible always tells the truth, and that it always tells the truth concerning everything it talks about."19 The inerrantist position on Scripture, as commonly understood, is that which affirms the statements given above.
However, while Erickson and Grudem have succinctly defined the basic inerrantist position on Scripture, some have noted multiple "types of inerrancy" employed in various doctrines of Scripture. This variety adds complexity to any analysis of an inerrantist tradition that spans several centuries and has been defended by a variety of theologians and scholars. It is therefore necessary to identify the specific type of inerrancy that is the subject of this thesis. To do so, we will examine the types of
17Millard Erickson, Christian Theology 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 247.
18Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 90.
19Grudem, Systematic Theology, 91. Another noteworthy definition of inerrancy (from an inerrantist perspective) can be seen in P. D. Feinberg, "Bible, Inerrancy and Infallibility of," in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 142. Feinberg states, "Inerrancy is the view that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences." 8 inerrancy described by Gabriel Fackre,20 a non-inerrantist, and Millard Erickson, an inerrantist already mentioned above.
In his analysis of the inerrantist position on Scripture, Fackre identifies conservative, moderate, and liberal views of inerrancy. Fackre describes the conservative inerrantist position as "transmissive inerrancy," which holds that "the autographs [of
91
Scripture] are protected from any error in all the subjects with which Scripture deals."
While conservative inerrancy is not the same as a "dictation theory," the "human factor is kept to a minimum," thus providing the notion that God's providence even protects the transmission of the original text in certain translations from error. Hence, for the conservative inerrantist, according to Fackre, "the supervision of textual errorlessness in 99 • the original and received writings thereby guarantees a flawless text." Transmissive inerrantists, according to Fackre, typically busy themselves with harmonizing every supposed difficulty in the text, even in current translations. This harmonization is 9^ necessary to ensure the ongoing inerrancy of the text.
The moderate inerrantist position is what Fackre calls "trajectory inerrancy."
Trajectory inerrancy "allow[s] for the power of the Spirit's work in the autographs to be given full play alone with the extension of divine guidance through the transmissive process."24 Hence, while only the original autographs possess complete inerrancy as
Gabriel Fackre, The Christian Story: A Pastoral Systematics, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 64.
2'Fackre, The Christian Story, 65. (Parenthesis mine)
22 Fackre, The Christian Story, 65-66.
23Fackre, The Christian Story, 69.
24Fackre, The Christian Story, 67. 9 inspired by the Holy Spirit, texts today are reliable in proportion to their accurate rendering of the originals. Fackre argues that trajectory inerrantists will usually allow for critical scholarship, particularly textual critics, in order to get as close as possible to a fully accurate rendering of the original manuscripts. Inerrancy, as a characteristic of the original manuscripts only, ensures epistemic stability insofar as the current translations accurately reflect them.
Finally, Fackre describes the liberal inerrantist position as "intentional inerrancy."
Fackre states that "While holding to the errorlessness of the Bible, intentional inerrantists assert that the Scripture itself must determine how Scripture is to be interpreted." Here inerrancy is affirmed in the context of understanding authorial intent, recognizing that the biblical authors may not always have "intended" to be stating facts. Fackre states that this position allows for a "form of inerrancy in which one reads ancient texts that include chronicles not meant as 'informational' or accurate in the modern sense, but that have theological or moral meaning." While Scripture may appear to be teaching historical fact at a given point (e.g., the creation account in Genesis 1), it may only be intending to give a theological or moral lesson. The human factor of the text is even more prominent in this view, as is the willingness to allow for the contributions of critical scholarship.
When difficulties in the text arise, intentional inerrantists will often forego attempts at harmonization and offer more general, spiritual meanings of difficult passages. This
'Fackre, The Christian Story, 69.
'Fackre, The Christian Story, 68.
Fackre, The Christian Story, 68. 10 allows them to continue to affirm factual accuracy without, in their view, violating original authorial intent.
Millard Erickson has also described a variety of understandings concerning the inerrantist position. First, Erickson describes "absolute inerrancy" as a view "that the biblical writers intended to give a considerable amount of exact scientific and historical data. Thus apparent discrepancies can and must be explained." In other words, all biblical statements of fact must carry the kind of precision and exactness one would expect in a modern, scientific context. Absolute inerrantists tend to take biblical descriptions, accounts, and numbers crassly literally.
Second, Erickson describes the view he calls "full inerrancy." In this view, though the Bible's primary purpose is not to give scientific or historical data, when it does, it does so without error. However, rather than having to explain each and every diversion from modern standards of precision, "full inerrancy regards [scientific and historical] references as phenomenal; that is, they are reported the way they appear to the human eye."30 So, everything the Bible does affirm is, in fact, true. However, the full inerrantist position allows for imprecision and approximation, rather than insisting on reconciling every biblical statement with literal exactness.
Third, Erickson discusses what he calls "limited inerrancy." In this view, the
Bible is without error in its central message of salvation and crucial doctrinal points
28Fackre, The Christian Story, 69.
29Erickson, Christian Theology, 248. Erickson lists Harold Lindsell as an example of an absolute inerrantist. See Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976).
30Erickson, Christian Theology, 248. Erickson lists Roger Nicole as an example of this understanding. See Roger Nicole, "The Nature of Inerrancy," in Inerrancy and Common Sense, ed. Roger Nicole and J. Ramsey Michaels (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 71-95. 11 concerning God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, man, sin, and salvation. However, concerning more "natural" matters, the Bible's "scientific and historical references reflect the understanding current at the time it was written." Hence, there is a cultural dependency about Scripture that may make some of its statements appear erroneous to the modern reader. However, there is no reason, in this view, to abandon a kind of principled inerrancy that maintains a high view of Scripture's ability to accurately communicate its central message.
Finally, Erickson describes a view of inerrancy called "inerrancy of purpose."
Because the purpose of "biblical revelation is to bring people into personal fellowship with Christ,"32 Scripture, at its core, is non-propositional. While it contains truth, it does not merely intend to communicate raw facts. Therefore, instead of seeing Scripture as an epistemic foundation for doctrine (or even religious practice), we need to view Scripture as a means ordained by God to accomplish a particular purpose. Erickson states, "Thus, factual inerrancy is an inappropriate term. Truth is thought of not as a quality of propositions, but as a means to accomplish an end." There is no concern here for reconciling histories, timelines, scientific claims, or anything else that is not directly related to Scripture's primary purpose of bringing people into a right relationship with
Jesus Christ.
3'Erickson, Christian Theology, 248-49. Erickson lists Daniel Fuller as an example of one holding to limited inerrancy. See Daniel P. Fuller, "Benjamin B. Warfield's View of Faith and History," Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 11 (1968): 75-83.
32Erickson, Christian Theology, 249.
33 Erickson, Christian Theology, 249. Erickson lists Jack Rogers and James Orr as representatives of this view. See Jack Rogers, "The Church Doctrine of Biblical Authority," in Biblical Authority, ed. Jack Rogers (Waco, TX: Word, 1977), 41^46. See also James Orr, Revelation and Inspiration (1910; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952). 12
Erickson sees similarity between absolute and full inerrancy and between limited and purpose inerrancy. Yet full and limited inerrancy differ significantly. Erickson notes that conservative evangelicals and those representatives of the inerrantist position in general have typically opted for full inerrancy rather than limited inerrancy.34 Since
Scripture is God-breathed, inerrancy in a "full" yet not "absolute" sense is the most consistent corollary. For Erickson the difficulty of the limited inerrancy view is that it leaves open the question of what is and is not to be considered inerrant. And, because some crucial doctrines contain vital historical components (e.g., the bodily resurrection of
Christ), the entirety of Scripture should be seen as without error in whatever arena it speaks or teaches, including history. While a distinction between doctrinal and historical/scientific matters may seem sensible, there are specific occasions when
Scripture brings the two together in such a way that they cannot be separated.
Erickson concludes this analysis by offering an expanded definition of the "full inerrancy" view: "The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms."35 For the purposes of this thesis, Erickson's definition will be that which informs my analysis of the particular theologians under consideration. Although the thinkers in question predated Erickson's work, I believe that the "full inerrancy" position he describes best characterizes the particular stream of inerrantism I propose to study.
Erickson, Christian Theology, 259.
'Erickson, Christian Theology, 259. 13
Of course, no single definition of the inerrantist position will fully encompass all interlocutors analyzed. Each theologian to be studied manifests unique features in his doctrine of Scripture that, at times, stretch the boundaries of the definition above.
However, employing this definition allows consistent analysis of each theologian, rather than binding the interlocutors to something foreign to their thoughts. As with many theological terms, such as "revelation" or "grace," precise definitions are difficult to ascertain, and the meaning of these terms is flexible and often contested. The term
"inerrantist position on Scripture" is no different. Yet despite the complexity and contestation of the term itself, its usage throughout this study will help provide a needed point of reference as the analysis moves from one individual to another.
Scope and Limits
As the title of the thesis suggests, the particular manifestation of the inerrantist position to be analyzed is that found in the Old Princeton School and in the work of Carl
F. H. Henry. This focus will largely limit the scope of the thesis to what is found on inerrancy in the history of American Evangelical Christianity. This limitation is not arbitrary, for the inerrantist debate has been, primarily, an American one. In 1987, Mark
Noll addressed the attendees of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy with a lecture entitled, "A Brief History of Inerrancy, Mostly in America."36 In this lecture, Noll argues that the effects of the Enlightenment and the resultant development of critical views of Scripture, which questioned Scripture's truthfulness, developed "more slowly in
36Mark Noll, "A Brief History of Inerrancy, Mostly in America," in The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy 1987 (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1987), 9-25. 14
England and America than in the Continent."37 And furthermore, while these critical views of Scripture eventually gained some headway in Great Britain, "scholars and pastors in America were even more skeptical than their colleagues in Britain concerning
•50 any effort to question the detailed accuracy of Scripture."
The tendency to staunchly defend the complete truthfulness of the Bible would come primarily from conservatives in America (and some in Britain) as they "began carefully to formulate what had previously been largely an intuitive confidence in the
Bible."39 Those in America seemed to be in the best position to undertake such a task because (1) the influences of liberalism were slower in coming to America and (2)
American theologians were already seeing what, for them, were disturbing consequences of the new, liberal theology that espoused critical views of Scripture. Hence, according to
Noll, as the question of inerrancy is considered, it should be no surprise that the history of this position is to be found "mostly in America."40 Thus, while one could likely find conservatives arguing for inerrancy in many contexts, the fullest expressions of the inerrantist position are found in the work of American theologians.
Furthermore, within American defenses of inerrancy, Noll distinguishes the
Princetonian position from two others. First, the dispensational defense of inerrancy has largely focused on the hermeneutical concern of reading Bible prophecy as literally as possible. The key importance of inerrancy, for many in this group, deals with a concern for the historical accuracy and precise fulfillment of all prophetic events. While most
37Noll, "A Brief History," 11.
38Noll, "A Brief History," 12.
39Noll, "A Brief History," 12.
40Noll, "A Brief History," 12-13. 15 dispensational inerrantists would agree (nearly entirely) with the Princetonian articulation of the position, they would closely attach certain hermeneutical approaches and positions with the inerrantist perspective.41 Second, Noll also describes the "Baptist" defense of inerrancy, noting that for scholars such as E. H. Johnson and Augustus Strong, belief in the entire truthfulness of the Bible was something based on spiritual more than intellectual grounds. While Noll describes this as a historical "Baptist" defense, he also notes that many Holiness, Wesleyan, and Pentecostal churches also held to an inerrantist position based more on experience than evidence.
While both the dispensational and "Baptist" defenses of inerrancy have much in common with the Princetonian defense, the latter will receive primary attention in this thesis for two reasons. First, the work of the Old Princeton School, particularly the works of B. B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen, represent the most scholarly presentation of the inerrantist position. The Princetonians directly engaged non-inerrantist views of
Scripture in their own constructive proposals, and they did so more completely than others espousing the inerrantist position. Second, the contemporary development of the inerrantist position can be most readily seen in the work of Henry vis-a-vis that of the Old
Princeton School. As will be demonstrated in this thesis, Henry saw himself building on the concepts of Machen and especially Warfield.
Having presented a rationale for giving specific attention to the work of Carl
Henry, and having narrowed the scope of the thesis to Henry's relationship to the Old
Princeton School, I will now offer some further limitations to this project. First, because
41Noll, "A Brief History," 15-17.
42Noll, "A Brief History," 17-19. 16 the purpose of the thesis is to analyze and evaluate inerrancy as a theological construct, the analysis will be primarily focused on the doctrine of Scripture rather than actual biblical exegesis. While there will be some description of my authors' exegesis on key texts, the bulk of the analysis will consist of explanation and evaluation of formal theological statements.
Second, because the primary theological concern here is the question of inerrancy, it will be necessary to interact with other themes in the doctrine of Scripture, such as inspiration, biblical authority, theological methodology, and theological epistemology.
These ancillary concerns will provide greater understanding of the inerrantist position of each theologian under consideration.
Finally, while the above ancillary concerns need to be considered, others will need to be avoided to appropriately limit this study. First, there will not be an analysis of each theologian's position on the biblical canon. Second, there will not be an analysis of each theologian's position on biblical hermeneutics. While the questions of biblical canon and biblical hermeneutics relate to inerrantist concerns,43 they comprise large fields of study in their own rights. Proper consideration of these areas would exceed the scope of this thesis.
Method and Procedure
The thesis that follows is divided into five chapters. In the first chapter, I will present a historical-theological sketch of the doctrine of Scripture from the Reformation
43An inerrantist position does not necessarily result from a particular hermeneutical position. Nor does an inerrantist commitment automatically affect a certain hermeneutical approach to the text. The same might be said, to a lesser degree, concerning the relationship of inerrancy to the biblical canon. 17 through the Enlightenment period to provide a genealogy of inerrancy and help locate it on the map of modern bibliology. For the Reformers, namely Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli, Scripture was not yet seen as a separate doctrine because it was treated in the context of Christology and Pneumatology. In Protestant Scholasticism,
Scripture became an object of study for its own sake. In particular, Francis Turretin brought a rationalistic approach to doctrine, resulting in the application of an early
"scientific method" to Scripture. Also, as Protestants advanced their anti-Roman Catholic polemic, they sensed the need to develop a theological system as sophisticated as that used by Roman Catholicism in order to combat its theology point for point. Later, following the Enlightenment, the doctrine of Scripture became supremely crucial as inerrantists reacted to liberal theology's historical-critical method. All of these factors gave rise to a belief that the inerrantist position was a necessary component of conservative Protestant bibliology.
In the second chapter, this narrative will continue into the 19th century through a more detailed discussion of the inerrantist position in Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield,
Princetonian theologians credited with bringing the inerrantist position to its greatest prominence. I will consider several topics within this chapter, including Hodge and
Warfield's theological context and methodology, their foundationalist approach to epistemology, their doctrine of Scripture with specific focus on Scripture's authority and inspiration, their articulation of the inerrantist position, and the place of inerrancy and
Scripture in their overall theological system. As a point of evaluation, I will consider some theological tensions between their strong assertion of inerrancy and their 18
Calvinistic theological perspective. In this chapter, I will rely almost entirely on a close reading of the relevant primary sources.
In the third chapter, I will analyze the inerrantist position of J. Gresham Machen, relying on a close reading of relevant primary sources. Machen is rightfully identified with the Old Princeton School's viewpoint, yet he argued for it in the context of his
Christology and Soteriology. Thus, Machen serves as an example of one who accepted inerrancy, but more explicitly remained consistent with the Reformers' understanding of
Scripture, thereby improving upon the work of Hodge and Warfield. It will be argued that even in the Old Princeton School itself, the inerrantist tradition underwent subtle change, development, and improvement.
In the fourth chapter, my analysis will shift to the inerrantist position of Carl F. H.
Henry, again with particular emphasis on a close reading of relevant primary sources. In the mid-to-late twentieth century, Henry was the most significant conservative evangelical theologian in America. In similar fashion to Machen, Henry sought to place inerrancy more appropriately within his larger theological system. While Henry's work primarily focused on theological method, prolegomena, and the doctrine of God, his inerrantist position is argued as that which is predicated on the authority of God as
Revealer, the trustworthiness of His revelation, and the inspiration of Scripture. Because
Henry refused to enter the heated debates on inerrancy in the 1970s and 80s, he was able to take a more reasoned and balanced approach to this divisive issue. In the analysis of
Henry's position, I will describe his theological context, his epistemology, his theological method, his doctrine of Scripture's authority and inspiration, his particular understanding of inerrancy, and his opinion on the relative importance and significance of inerrancy 19 throughout his career. The chapter will conclude with an evaluation of Henry's position.
This evaluation will be broader than that offered in the preceding chapters and will provide a transition to the next chapter.
In the fifth chapter, I will briefly reflect on the place of inerrancy in contemporary evangelical theology. I will overview some recent works on the doctrine of Scripture from leading evangelical theologians, outlining where the inerrantist tradition finds itself today. The contemporary interlocutors will be placed in dialogue with the theologians discussed in chapters two through four. Through this traditioned discourse, I will argue that within each period of the inerrantist tradition, there are elements worthy of retrieval and renewal. My analysis in this chapter will include both description and constructive reflection, with suggestions concerning a "way forward" for the inerrantist position.
After the fifth chapter, I will conclude the thesis by reiterating the main argument of each preceding chapter and summarizing the thesis as a whole. CHAPTER ONE INERRANCY IN ITS HISTORICAL-THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
Anyone studying recent evangelical treatments of the doctrine of Scripture will note that the question of the origin of the inerrantist position has engendered lively discussion among scholars both adhering to and rejecting inerrancy. Generally, those holding to inerrancy argue that the position has been present throughout the history of the church or, at the very least, in the theology of the Reformers.1 Based upon this argument, some state that those committed to orthodox theology should affirm this position in their present theology. Those who reject inerrancy argue that the position developed in post-
Reformation scholasticism or as a construct of Enlightenment rationalism. Hence, they argue that those affirming it have accepted a philosophical construct that is inconsistent with the nature of biblical revelation itself. Therefore, non-inerrantists claim that the inerrantist position is an aberration from correct theology.
'Some arguing that the inerrantist position was part of the Reformers' theology include Reinhold Seeberg, Text-book of the History of Doctrines, trans. Charles E. Hay, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977); John Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982); and Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy ca. 1520 to ca. 1725,4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002). Seeberg does not affirm inerrancy himself, but he does argue that this was the position of the Reformers. Of those listed here, Woodbridge would be the strongest proponent of retaining an inerrantist position in one's doctrine of Scripture.
2Some arguing that the inerrantist position was not part of the Reformers' theology include J. K. S. Reid, The Authority of Scripture: A Study of the Reformation and Post-Reformation Understanding of the Bible (London: Methuen, 1957); Dewey M. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963); and Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979).
20 21
Rather than rehearse this debate in detail,3 this chapter offers a historical overview of the doctrine of Scripture in order to provide a general answer to the question of the origin or origins of the inerrantist position. For our purposes here, precisely locating the beginning of inerrancy is not as significant as tracing, in broad strokes, a historical trajectory of the doctrine of Scripture to note the conditions that gave rise to the inerrantist understanding in the Old Princeton School and, later, in Carl Henry. As will be seen in the next chapter, Charles Hodge did not see himself as describing anything new in his understanding of Scripture's infallible (inerrant) status. He saw himself as the keeper of an inerrantist tradition that had lines of continuity back to the Reformers and even back to the apostolic period itself. Hence, it is necessary to note the various significant contributions to the doctrine of Scripture in the periods leading up to Hodge that would cause him to see himself as operating in an inerrantist tradition. The historical sketch will survey the doctrine of Scripture in the Reformation, the Protestant Scholastic period, and the Enlightenment.4
3This debate is helpfully described and evaluated by Thomas Buchan, "Inerrancy as Inheritance?" in Evangelicals and Scripture, ed. Stanley J. Grenz, Bruce L. McCormack, and Donald W. Dayton (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 42-54. Buchan focuses his summary and critique of the debate upon the work of John Woodbridge (referenced above), Rogers and McKim (referenced above) and Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976). Buchan argues that both sides of the debate are guilty of anachronistic readings of the Reformers. Those arguing that inerrancy is not at home in the Reformation seem to read a Barthian position (of sorts) into the work of Luther; those arguing that inerrancy is at home in the Reformation seem to read Warfield into the work of Calvin.
4Without parallel in the English language, the magisterial resource for a historical analysis of the Protestant doctrine of Scripture is Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2. While Muller's greatest attention is given to the Protestant Scholastic period, his detailed and comprehensive study of the doctrine of Scripture stretches from the Medieval Scholastics through the early eighteenth century. His survey of all relevant literature concerning this topic is massive, and his work sets a high standard for all future consideration of this topic. That stated, the historical overview of this chapter is not intended to cover all the subtleties and nuances of the doctrine of Scripture as articulated variously in the Reformation, Protestant Scholastic, and Enlightenment periods or even in each specific theologian considered. The purpose of this historical overview is to briefly survey key primary and secondary sources from these periods, noting specific points in the development of the doctrine of Scripture that provided for and established the inerrantist position as it is known today. 22
Furthermore, in this chapter I will demonstrate that the development of the inerrantist position, in some form, was a natural outgrowth of themes already present in the Reformation. While the Reformers did not articulate the inerrantist position as it is known today, their teachings on Scripture include statements that provided a basic foundation to the inerrantist position. Then, as the Protestant Scholastics began to construct the superstructure of systematic theology in the Reformed tradition, inerrancy became an essential component of conservative Protestant bibliology. Finally, in the
Enlightenment, both those arguing for and against the scientific accuracy of Scripture brought the issue of inerrancy to a place of prominence in the doctrine of Scripture, eventually leading conservative theologians to make inerrancy a tradition unto itself.
The Roots of Inerrancy
Martin Luther
Concerning Scripture's origin, Luther maintained that Scripture came from God.
Luther states repeatedly that Scripture is the inspired Word of God and that it has come from God for the benefit of humanity.5 The fact of Scripture's divine origin is not weakened by its human authorship. The humanness of Scripture shows that God
5Martin Luther, Luther's Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, 54 vol. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1958-1967), 41:50-51, 148-51; 54:13. See also Martin Luther, Works of Martin Luther, 6 vol., mul. ed. (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company and General Council Publication Board, 1915- 1932), 2:315,2:455, "The Scriptures, although they also were written by men, are not of men nor from men, but fromGod. " 23 addresses people at their limited capacity of understanding.6 Because of Scripture's human characteristics, Luther warns that some will deny that Scripture has come from
God. In a lecture on 1 Peter 3:15, Luther exhorts his students to stand firm in their affirmation of Scripture as God's Word. He states, "Therefore if the people will not believe you, you are to keep silent. For you are under no obligation to force them to hold that Scripture is God's Book, or Word."7 For Luther, the human author's words are also the words of the Holy Spirit.
For Luther, the Holy Spirit's work of inspiration was characteristic of the prophets and apostles (as they were writing Scripture) as well as a property of the final product itself. Luther maintains that the very words chosen by the human author were also the very words of the Holy Spirit.9 Robert Preus indicates that Luther did not seem to distinguish between the res and the verba of Scripture. When Luther attributed Scripture to the Holy Spirit, he was speaking of Scripture in its parts as well as the whole. Preus
6For a discussion of Luther and Calvin's notion(s) of accommodation, see Rogers/McKim, Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, 75-115. Whereas Rogers and McKim argue that the principle of accommodation negates a need for inerrancy and hence "proves" that the Reformers did not hold to it, others have argued that the principle of accommodation developed by the Reformers was actually a way of preserving their belief in inerrancy in the face of apparent difficulties in the text. For example, see John Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal, 61-62.
'Martin Luther, Luther's Works, 30:107.
8Martin Luther, Luther's Works, 1:3-72. In his commentary on Genesis, Luther often reminds the reader that while Moses wrote the text, the Holy Spirit acted as divine author. When a controversial issue is encountered, Luther constantly defends Scripture, challenging the reader to submit to the teaching of the Holy Spirit. For example, when defending the Scripture's account of the arrangement of heaven, earth, and the middle firmament, Luther states, "We must pay attention to the expression of Holy Scripture and abide by the words of the Holy Spirit, whom it pleased to distribute His creatures in this way." (30). Also, if we are confused how it could be that God could create merely by speaking things into existence, Luther states, "Thus we see that the Holy Spirit also has His own language and way of expression, namely, that God, by speaking, created all things and worked through the Word, and that all His works are some words of God, created by the uncreated Word. Therefore just as a philosopher employs his own terms, so the Holy Spirit, too, employs His." (47).
'Martin Luther, Luther's Works, 1:88. See also D. Martin Luther's Werke, Kritische Gesamtqusga.be (Weimar: Bohalau, 1883), 40:3:254: 'Won solom enim vocabula, sed etphrases est divina, qua Spiritus Sanctus et scriptura utitur." states that in Luther's commentaries, he "again and again cited the Holy Spirit as the author of a given verse or even word, and he poured over each word as given by the Holy
Spirit."10
Another characteristic of Luther's doctrine of Scripture is his high view of biblical authority. Luther's commitment to biblical authority is the context in which his famous
Sola Scriptura11 should be seen. When Luther developed this theme, he did so in an attempt to position Scripture above an ecclesiastical tradition that he saw placed above the written Word. While not abolishing a role for tradition, Scripture alone was to be the final arbiter in matters of faith. According to Luther, Scripture was more capable of disclosing truth than church tradition because of the clarity that the Holy Spirit brought to the life of the believer through Scripture.12 Also, the church and her tradition were subject to Scripture due to the example of Jesus Christ, the living Word. Because Christ considered Scripture authoritative, even in his own teaching, so too is Scripture above church tradition. Sola Scriptura was a theological statement, based on the authority of
10Robert D. Preus, "Luther and Biblical Infallibility," in Inerrancy and the Church, ed. John D. Hannah (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), 120. Preus further notes that Luther did not take time to reflect at length on the mechanics of inspiration or on how God originated Scripture (121). Yet that does not detract from the fact that Luther believed it to be so. Luther is not nearly as concerned with the "how" of Scripture's divine origin as much as he is with the "that" of it. So while one cannot proof-text a "modern" view of inspiration out of Luther, one does see in Luther a basic belief that Scripture is God's Word.
"For Luther, Sola Scriptura is a descriptive term of biblical authority rather than a statement that limits revelation to one source.
l2Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will, in Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, Library of Christian Classics, ed. Philip S. Watson (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 17:109-12.
13Thus for Luther, Scripture is to be the primary source for articles of faith. No article of doctrine should originate and have its basis outside of Scripture. Luther states, "When anything was decreed in a council contrary to Scripture, we ought to believe the Scriptures rather than the council. The Scriptures are our law and our reliance, whereby we can resist even an angel from heaven, as St. Paul commands in Galatians 1, let alone a pope and a council!" See Martin Luther, Works of Martin Luther, 3:96. 25
Jesus Christ, to rule over the church. Scripture is the Word of God, both living and written, in which God's will is revealed.15
In addition to the divine origin of Scripture and its authority, Luther also claimed that Scripture's teachings were completely truthful (reliable), even though the reader of
Scripture may not always understand the text fully. Luther states, "But in theology one must simply hear, believe, and hold firmly in his heart: God is faithful, no matter how absurd what He says in His Word may appear to our reason."16 Because God is truthful, one can trust, "in his heart" that His revelation in Scripture will be truthful and not misleading.17 In commenting on how the Lord speaks of Himself in Scripture, Luther tells the reader to pay close attention because "the Holy Spirit is no fool or drunkard, who
14Preus, "Luther and Biblical Infallibility," 125-127.
15Luther's understanding of the Word of God is multifaceted. According to Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther had at least a seven-fold description of the Word of God. The Word of God could refer to the creative speech of God, the second Person of the Trinity (Jesus Christ), the redemptive acts of God in history, verbal communication from God, the gospel (as the central content of Scripture), church proclamation, and the Bible itself. This full understanding, claims Pelikan, is essential for understanding Luther's doctrine of Scripture correctly; for when Luther speaks of God's Word, he does not mean only Scripture. Scripture is God's Word, to be sure, but God's Word has a much fuller meaning that encompasses more than one thing. See Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther the Expositor: Introduction to the Reformer's Exegetical Writings, in Luther's Works, 55:48-70.
16Martin Luther, Luther's Works, 12:288. Luther also states that some things in Scripture are to be accepted even though they appear contradictory to us because "the Holy Spirit does not contradict himself." See Martin Luther, Luther's Works, 15:313. In this context, Luther is trying to reconcile the fact that Scripture speaks of both Yahweh and Christ being present with the Israelites in the wilderness. Another example can be seen in Luther's commentary on Galatians where Paul discusses the role of works with respect to faith. Luther anticipates critics' argument that Paul teaches a works righteousness; however, Luther goes to great lengths to reconcile several of Paul's statements that could be interpreted contrary to the clear teaching of justification by faith alone. In answering each anticipated question, Luther reasserts his belief that Scripture would never contradict itself. See Martin Luther, Luther's Works, 26:265-70. When Luther encountered problems with the text as it lay before him, he sought to explain them or leave them alone. He never admitted error in the text, other than possible errors of textual transmission.
17Hence the truthfulness of Scripture, for Luther, is a matter of faith. It is not merely a statement of facticity, though it is not completely divorced from facticity either. Ultimately, the truthfulness of Scripture consists in its capacity to reveal Jesus Christ, the living Word of God. 26 would speak one iota, much less a word, in vain." In his commentary on Psalm 73,
Luther takes great pains to convey the intensity with which the Psalmist speaks. In his attention to the finest exegetical detail, Luther calls the reader to notice "the order and number of words, since all words of God have their weight, number, and measure."19
Luther likened Scripture to a tree with every word a tiny branch that was worthy of exploration.20 Luther even attributed seemingly minor historical details in the patriarchal narratives as carefully given by the Holy Spirit for the edification of the believer.
Given Luther's statements concerning Scripture's inspiration, authority, and truthfulness, it is no wonder that some would claim Luther ascribed to an inerrantist position.22 After all, certain aspects of Luther's description do seem to be articulated in terms familiar to those debating inerrancy. But while Luther espoused these high views of
Scripture, he also believed in the principle of accommodation wherein God has graciously lowered himself to reach humanity at its own level. For Luther, God's accommodation to us in Scripture points us to Jesus Christ. Scripture in and of itself has no glory. In a famous question asked of Erasmus, Luther states, "Take Christ out of the
Martin Luther, Luther's Works, 15:280.
19Martin Luther, Luther's Works, 10:428.
20Martin Luther, Luther's Works, 54:165.
21Martin Luther, Luther's Works, 6:123.
22Examples, in addition to Preus (noted above) include M. Reu, Luther and the Scriptures (Columbus, OH: The Wartburg Press, 1944), 38-59 and Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 4 vol. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1950), 1:276-297.
23The primary example of accommodation is the Incarnation itself. That God himself would send His Son "in fashion as a man," suffer, and die for our sins is the highest example of accommodation. For Luther, accommodation did not mean that God was diminished; accommodation was a way to understand why God would choose to use human efforts in Scripture to reveal the living Word, Jesus Christ. 27
Scriptures, and what will you find left in them?"24 The clear implication here is that Jesus
Christ is the content of revelation. In his preface to his translation of the Old Testament,
Luther states the following: "Here you will find the swaddling-clothes and the manger in which Christ lies, and to which the angel points the shepherds (Luke 2:12). Simple and lowly are these swaddling clothes, but dear is the treasure, Christ, who lies in them."25
Scripture, for Luther, is the crude package in which the gospel is presented to us. While
God has authored a marvelous text for us, the real gift is the savior that lies inside.26
Luther's affirmation of divine accommodation in Scripture evidences his concern to guard against making Scripture an object of worship. Just as Jesus Christ came in less than desirable form, Scripture also comes with no external appeal. To take Scripture as
God's Word requires faith, for without it one can reject Scripture on account of its plain language and simplicity. In writing to Erasmus, Luther comments on those who are unable to see the plain truth about God and Jesus Christ in Scripture because they are disillusioned by its simplicity. He states, "It is true that for many people much remains abstruse; but this is not due to the obscurity of Scripture, but to the blindness or indolence of those who will not take the trouble to look at the very clearest truth." What is absurd for Luther is not that God would give such a plain and simple text; rather, what is absurd is that some excuse their hard-heartedness because of the text's simplicity.
24Martin Luther, Luther's Works, 33:26.
25Martin Luther, Luther's Works, 35:236.
26This is a key point for those arguing against inerrancy in Luther. See Rogers and McKim, Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, 77-79 and footnote 5 above. That Luther would speak this way of Scripture seems, to some, to negate any possibility of an inerrantist position in Luther. However, it must be remembered that Luther is comparing Scripture to Christ, the treasure inside. While it may be true that this statement runs counter to most inerrantist expressions, it certainly does not mean Luther affirmed errancy.
27Martin Luther, Luther's Works, 33:27. 28
The principle of accommodation in Scripture also shows that Luther did see a distinction between the form and function of Scripture. The form of Scripture, no doubt, was important to Luther. He was a careful exegete who sought after the sensus literalis of each text.28 Yet the form of Scripture was subordinate to the actual content and function of Scripture, which is to set forth Jesus Christ (content) as God reconciling the world to
Himself (function).29
John Calvin
Whereas Luther's doctrine of Scripture involves several statements in a variety of contexts, Calvin's view seems much more accessible. The Institutes are arranged more systematically with several sustained treatments of Scripture. Yet Calvin's understanding of Scripture is not confined to the Institutes. Calvin's commentaries also provide a wealth of insight into his understanding of Scripture because in them we can see Calvin engaged in actual exegesis of the text.
Calvin was no exception to the Reformation consensus that Scripture was of divine origin. In fact, it is precisely the intensity with which Calvin confessed the divine origin of Scripture that has caused many to view him as an inerrantist. Most notably,
28Much of Luther's argument with Zwingli over the presence of Christ in the Eucharist rests on careful attention to the literal interpretation of the text. Luther continually calls upon Zwingli to consider the plain, literal truth that "this is my body."
29Luther's longing for reconciliation with God was what initiated his return to Scripture. That longing, coupled with the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, allowed Luther to see the gospel of Jesus Christ clearly and respond appropriately. Hence, the function of Scripture was what caused him to hold it so highly in his theological and exegetical work.
30Jean Calvin, Jean Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., Library of Christian Classics 20-21, trans. Ford Lewis Battles and ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960). 29
Calvin's description of Scripture as "dictated by the Holy Spirit" has given rise to this opinion.31 Brian Gerrish offers a summation of Calvin on this point: "For Calvin, in fact, the whole Bible is the 'Word of God.' The expressions 'Scripture says' and 'The Holy
Spirit says' are used synonymously. In the Scripture God 'opens his own sacred mouth.' .
.. The human agents are 'amanuenses'.... The real author is God Himself.... In a word, Scripture is produced by the dictation of the Holy Spirit." These statements leave no question that Calvin believed in the divine origin of Scripture, as well as a notion of inspiration that renders it a characteristic of the text itself.
However, such statements can be misleading, for they can leave the impression that Calvin believed in a rigid dictation theory of inspiration. This would be a mistaken view, given that Calvin recognized the individuality of the human authors and spoke of
God's providence working with the human authors' free movements. The notion of
"dictation" does have significance for Calvin, not as an indicator of the precise mode of inspiration but as an indicator of the results of inspiration. In other words, for Calvin, the text of Scripture is as if God had dictated it. Calvin states the following in his comment on 2 Timothy 3:16: "Neither Moses nor the prophets brought to us by chance the things we have received at their hands; they spoke as moved by God and testified with
31 Jean Calvin, Calvin: Commentaries, ed. Joseph Haroutunian, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1958), 84. On II Tim. 3:16, Calvin states, "Any man then who would profit by the Scriptures, must hold first of all and firmly that the teaching of the law and the prophets came to us not by the will of man, but as dictated by the Holy Spirit."
32Brian A. Gerrish, "Biblical Authority and the Continental Reformation," Scottish Journal of Theology 10 (1957): 353ff. Here, Gerrish is stringing together several statements from the Institutes, l.vi- viii.
33J. T. McNeill, "The Significance of the Word of God for Calvin," Church History 28 (1959), 131-46. McNeill notes that Calvin's notion of'dictation' refers to God's putting the messages into the minds of the human authors, not that the human writers were "automatons." In other words, "the context speaks explicitly of doctrine and not of words." (140-41). From this view, McNeill notes that "to interpret this as an assertion of inerrant verbal inspiration or dictation is to press Calvin's meaning too far" (141). 30 confidence and courage that God's very mouth had spoken."34 While reserving an important place for the human authorship of Scripture, Calvin places the priority of
Scripture's authorship on the Holy Spirit and His work of inspiration.
Not only is Scripture's divine origin essential for Calvin, Scripture's doctrina
(teaching) is also of paramount importance. For Calvin, Scripture is supremely authoritative because its teaching is the content of the gospel. This gospel content is the description of God's relationship to human beings, culminating in the advent, person, and work of Jesus Christ. Initially, God's doctrina was given to individuals, but it has now been written down in Holy Scripture and divinely recorded. Calvin states, "Now, in order that true religion may shine upon us, we ought to hold that it must take its beginning from heavenly doctrine and that no one can get even the slightest tast of right and sound doctrine unless he be a pupil of Scripture. Hence, there also emerges the beginning of true understanding when we reverently embrace what it pleases God there to witness of himself." In this statement, Calvin's primary concern is that Scripture's readers do not miss its content.
Calvin builds upon these assertions about the form and content of Scripture in his articulation of Scripture's sufficiency. The sufficiency of Scripture is seen and made efficacious through the work of the Holy Spirit. Calvin states, "Those whom the Holy
Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-
Calvin, Calvin: Commentaries, 85. In summary, Calvin states, "So, the first point is that we treat Scripture with the same reverence that we do God, because it is from God alone, and unmixed with anything human."
Calvin, Institutes, 1.6.2. 31 authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning."36 The Holy Spirit works within people's hearts and reveals the sacred content of Scripture to them. The
Spirit then brings assurance to the believer that is qualitatively different from assurance gained from argumentation and human reasoning. Thus the authority of the written
Word, Christ, and the Holy Spirit should not be seen as being in conflict. Jesus Christ is
God's true revelation, the content of the gospel. Scripture is authenticated by the use
Christ makes of it in authenticating himself. The Holy Spirit moves in the life of the reader of Scripture to authenticate the content of Scripture, namely, Jesus Christ. While the reader of Scripture begins with the written Word, its authority is confirmed by contact with Christ through the Spirit.
For Calvin, the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit was absolutely essential for
Scripture to be understood and received authoritatively. This need for the Spirit implies that Scripture is not to be held subject to human demonstration or proof in order to command submission to it. On the contrary, the fact that Scripture cannot be proven to be perfect (in itself) is what God desires, because it is through faith alone that people are united to God in salvation. Calvin states, "The Word itself is not quite certain for us unless it be confirmed by the testimony of the Spirit.... For by a kind of mutual bond the
Lord has joined together the certainty of his Word and of his Spirit so that the perfect
36Calvin, Institutes, 1.7.5.
37J. I. Packer states that "the authority of Scripture [for Calvin] was formally the authority of God instructing us and materially the authority of what God teaches—that is, of God's doctrina, which Scripture presents to us embedded in and illustrated by the flow of events of which God's particular verbal revelations were part." See J. I. Packer, "Calvin and the Inerrancy of Holy Scripture," in Inerrancy and the Church, ed. John Hannah (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), 171. (parenthesis mine).
38This is the case even though, for Calvin, Scripture does authenticate itself as authoritative. He states, "Indeed, Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste." See Calvin, Institutes, 1.7.2. 32 religion of the Word may abide in our minds when the Spirit, who causes us to contemplate God's face, shines."39 Calvin would reject any obsessing over the form of
Scripture to the detriment of its content. He would insist that the focus remain on its saving function.
While the content and function of Scripture took priority over its form, Calvin did not altogether ignore issues relating to Scripture's form. A noted example can be seen in
Calvin's comments concerning Paul's "misquote" of Psalm 51:4 in Romans 3:4. Calvin states, "We indeed know that the Apostles in quoting Scripture often used a freer language than the original; for they counted it enough to quote what was suitable to their subject: hence they made no great account of words."40 Here we see that Calvin does not expound a modern inerrantist understanding. On the other hand, he does not concede that
Scripture is in error. He simply explains the difficulty in an ad hoc manner, declares his faith in the authority of God's written Word, and moves forward in his exegesis.
Another example of Calvin's explaining an apparent error in Scripture is found in his commentary on Genesis 1:14-16. In this text, Moses states that the sun and moon were created as the two "great lights." It was well known that Saturn was much larger and brighter than the Moon. Hence, the question arose concerning what to do with
Moses' statement. Calvin's explanation is as follows: "Moses does not speak with
39Calvin, Institutes, 1.9.3. This statement demonstrates that Calvin is not a rationalist. He would disapprove of suggestions that Scripture's authority is rationally evident or apologetically grounded. Cleary, this demonstrates a doctrine of Scripture set firmly in the theological context of Christology and Pneumatology.
40John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, trans. Rev. John Owen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 61. Also, in commenting on Hebrews 10:5, Calvin states die following: "They were not over-scrupulous in quoting words provided that they did not misuse Scripture for their convenience. We must always look at the purpose for which quotations are made." See John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries: The Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Hebrews and The First and Second Epistles of St. Peter, trans. William B. Johnson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 136. 33 philosophical acuteness on occult mysteries, but relates those things which are everywhere observed, even by the uncultivated, and which are in common use." Moses operated this way, Calvin states, because "he had respect to us rather than to the stars."41
For Calvin, this was an example of divine accommodation,42 of God's graciously speaking in understandable language. That Calvin chose to wrestle with apparent errors in the text and that he attempted to protect the text from accusations of error and contradiction indicates his desire to approach Scripture as a fully trustworthy and reliable revelation from God.4
Surely Calvin, more than Luther, gives detailed attention to the text of Scripture itself. Calvin explicitly describes the God-given character of Scripture's form, even while placing the priority on Scripture's content.44 Because Calvin reflects more systematically on Scripture, the doctrinal points that give rise to the inerrantist position can be seen more clearly in his work than in Luther's work. Also, because of the detailed and systematic nature of Calvin's commentaries, it seems that he acts as more of a "textualist" than
Luther. Therefore, the detailed discussion of the inerrantist position in subsequent
41Calvin, Calvin: Commentaries, 356.
42Calvin espoused a principle of "accommodation" much like that of Luther. Calvin believed that God condescended to mankind in order to speak through human language. The fact that God "lowered himself is not to be understood as God becoming diminished. On the contrary, the principle of accommodation shows majesty of God's grace.
43This could also be seen as evidence that Calvin allowed for "error" in Scripture while maintaining its full authority with respect to its function. See Rogers and McKim, Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, 98-100. It should be noted, however, that Calvin never explicitly says anything like this in his reflection. Rather, he consistently approaches the text believing it to be completely accurate. While modern notions of inerrancy are not completely consistent with how Calvin viewed Scripture, they are not completely inconsistent either. It is no surprise that some see an inerrantist position in Calvin.
In comparison, Luther does seem to have a stronger form/content distinction in his doctrine of Scripture, all the while retaining a high view of the text in his own right. chapters will find itself more at home in the Reformed tradition than in the Lutheran
tradition.45
Ulrich Zwingli
While the preceding overview of Luther and Calvin sufficiently represents the
Reformation perspective on Scripture, Ulrich Zwingli's sermon, On the Clarity and
Certainty of the Word of God,46 adds some key components for a fuller understanding.
Zwingli confessed Scripture to be of divine origin, and he believed Scripture to be
infallible in guiding people to the truth of God.47 Yet given Zwingli's high view of
Scripture, there is ambiguity concerning what Zwingli meant by the "Word of God." For
Zwingli, Scripture always means "Word of God" (at least one aspect of it) while "Word
of God" can often mean more than Scripture. This subtle distinction makes Zwingli consistent with Calvin and Luther.48 But in his sermon, all of Zwingli's examples of the
Word's certainty (power) are examples of the power of the spoken Word.49 For Zwingli,
45The distinction here between Calvin and Luther also helps explain the decisions of scope and limitation of this thesis, articulated in the Introduction. The following chapters will be a distinctly Reformed investigation, given that the inerrantist tradition is more clearly expounded there. However, this is not meant to be an argument that the Lutheran tradition lacks inerrantist adherents. On the contrary, there is good reason, as will be seen, to locate Melanchthon (Lutheran) with Turretin (Reformed) in the next section of this chapter, rather than in the current section.
"^Jlrich Zwingli, On the Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God, in Zwingli and Bullinger: Selected Translation with Introduction and Notes, ed. G.W. Bromiley (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953).
47Zwingli, Clarity and Certainty, 68.
48Geoffrey Bromiley, "Introduction," in Zwingli, Clarity and Certainty, 49-57.
49 The emphasis on the spoken word can also be seen in the Second Helvetic Confession, the work of Zwingli's successor in Switzerland, Heinrich Bullinger. In Section 4, Chapter 1, the heading reads, "The Preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God." Bullinger's description is as follows: "Wherefore when 35 the power of God's Word is predicated on the fact that it is God Himself who speaks the
Word. Scripture, then, is absolutely necessary and effective, but it does not possess effectiveness independently from the power of God Himself.50
In addition to the power of God's Word, Zwingli also discusses its clarity
(perspicuity). In this section, Zwingli articulates a carefully nuanced relationship between the spoken Word and the written Word. While the power of God's Word is predicated on
God's speech, the clarity of God's Word, for Zwingli, applies directly to the written
Word. While commentaries and "opinions of men" may be helpful, they are not necessary,51 for "he who comes to the Scriptures with his own opinions and interpretation and wrests the Scriptures into conformity with it, do you think that he has anything?
No."52 While the Word of God has various senses for Zwingli, it is evident that the content of Scripture is clear.
Based on Scripture's certainty and clarity, Zwingli prescribes a method for studying Scripture that will keep its readers in conformity with its purpose. He states,
"You should (first of all) reverently ask God for his grace, that he may give you his mind and Spirit, so that you will not lay hold of your own opinion by way of his. And have a this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; for even if he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God remains still true and good" (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/helvetic.htm).
50Zwingli, Clarity and Certainty, 72.
5'By noting the commentaries are not necessary, Zwingli is not negating the necessity of rigorous biblical study. He means that the "opinions of men" are not necessary for Scripture to be clear in itself. God has given the written Word in a way that can be understood.
52Zwingli, Clarity and Certainty, 74. One of Zwingli's primary concerns is the attitude with which we come to Scripture. He espouses the view that we should not come to the text with an attitude of one searching for self-verification but rather of one who humbly awaits the ministry of the Holy Spirit in his or her life. firm trust that he will teach you a right understanding, for all wisdom is of God the Lord.
And then go to the written word of the Gospel."53 As God uses Scripture to conform his people into the image of Christ, believers are more apt to appreciate the essential role
Scripture plays in personal sanctification.
At the end of his sermon, Zwingli summarizes his thoughts concerning the Word of God. He states, "We should hold the Word of God in the highest possible esteem— meaning by the Word of God only that which comes from the Spirit of God—and we should give to it a trust which we cannot give to any other word. For the Word of God is certain and can never fail. It is clear, and will never leave us in darkness. It teaches its own truth. It arises and irradiates the soul of man with full salvation and grace."55
Zwingli's view of Scripture, like that of Luther, is difficult to ascertain because he never developed a full bibliology. What is clear, however, is that Zwingli avoids a co terminous identification of the Word of God with Scripture. Furthermore, he affirms that the clarity and certainty of Scripture is dependent upon the work of God, rather than a quality of the text in and of itself. Given these characteristics of Zwingli's understanding, reading a contemporary notion of the inerrantist position into his work would fail to account for the clear emphasis Zwingli placed on God Himself above Scripture.
Zwingli, Clarity and Certainty, 88-89. 54Zwingli further testifies that it was not until he asked God for wisdom that he was able to understand Scripture rightly. Once he received wisdom fromGod , he was able to state the following: "For it is not for us to sit in judgment on Scripture and divine truth, but to let God do his work in and through it, for it is something which we can learn only of God. Of course, we have to give an account of our understanding of Scripture, but not in such a way that it is forced or wrested according to our own will, but rather so that we are taught by Scripture:" Zwingli, Clarity and Certainty, 92.
55Zwingli, Clarity and Certainty, 93. For Zwingli, Scripture is given by inspiration of the Spirit, thus "coming from the Spirit," yet it is never effective apart from the working of the Spirit. 37
Summary of the Reformation Doctrine of Scripture
In the Reformation, Scripture had not become a systematic doctrine unto itself.
Rather than being an independent topic of study, Scripture was privileged with informing the study of all theological topics. All the high views of Scripture overviewed above
served pastoral purposes for individuals and church communities in specific social and ecclesiastical contexts. Because of its nuanced and (largely) non-theoretical nature, the doctrine of Scripture in the Reformation maintains a complexity not easily navigable, particularly in a brief overview. However, given the preceding discussion, several points can be made concerning a general position on Scripture. Out of this general picture emerge the "roots" of the inerrantist position.
First, it is clear that for the Reformers, Scripture is given from God. It is not the case that God merely "approved" a particular human work, nor has Scripture been used by God only occasionally. The Reformers affirm that the Holy Spirit has acted directly through the human authors to ensure that what God wished to have written was indeed written. This direct divine action makes Scripture unique from other avenues through which God may be revealed (nature, conscience, church tradition, etc.). The God-given nature of Scripture would act as one of the roots of inerrancy. As the inerrantist tradition would later develop, a clear starting point in arguing for inerrancy as a property of the text would be that the text itself is God-breathed. This notion of the direct involvement of
God in the production of Scripture fits in principle with the Reformers' understanding. 38
Second, the Reformers recognized the work of the Holy Spirit as an essential component in the process of Scripture becoming effective in people's lives. The
Reformers never divorced the work of the Spirit from their reflection on the power or clarity of Scripture. When the Reformers, particularly Zwingli and Calvin, assured their readers of the certainty of Scripture over that of church tradition, they relied heavily on a
Pneumatological understanding of God's involvement with the believer in the reading, understanding, and appropriation of the text. This strong Pneumatology in the doctrine of
Scripture would also act as one of the roots of the inerrantist position. Later inerrantists would make a logical connection between the fact that the Holy Spirit chooses Scripture through which to effect change in people and the notion that, therefore, the text itself must have a quality worthy of the Holy Spirit's use. That quality would be articulated in terms and concepts associated with the inerrantist position. While the Reformers heightened the role of the Holy Spirit vis-a-vis Scripture, they did not develop that into an understanding of the text as inerrant. However, by locating the work of the Spirit specifically within the text of Scripture, inerrantist developments were not far behind.
Third, the Reformers held their high views of Scripture within a Christological understanding of biblical authority. Also, the person and work of Jesus Christ was the central focus of Scripture's content, which informed its overall purpose (salvation) as
God's written Word. Because of Christ's use of Scripture in authenticating Himself as
God's revelation, the Reformers returned to Scripture as the supreme authority in the life of the church. The Reformers' recovery of Christology in their doctrine of Scripture would also act as a root of the inerrantist position. If Christ Himself used Scripture authoritatively in His ministry, it would seem reasonable that there must be something 39 uniquely special about Scripture for it to be what it is. As the inerrantist tradition developed, a key argument for inerrancy would be that Christ would not have used an authority or have submitted to an authority that contained errors.
The Reformers, in sum, had a deeply Trinitarian understanding of Scripture. God gave his written Word and ensured its content by direct involvement. The Holy Spirit was the agent of Scripture's production (inspiration) and continues to act as the agent of
Scripture's efficacy (illumination). Jesus Christ validates the authority of Scripture through His own use of it and because Scripture ultimately points to Him as the true content of the gospel. This close association between God, in all three Persons, and the written Word set a foundation for what would become the inerrantist position.
The Consolidation of Protestant Bibliology
The focus of this historical overview now turns from the Reformation to the
Protestant Scholastic period. While there are elements of both continuity and discontinuity between the Protestant Scholastic understanding of Scripture and that of the
Reformers, it is specifically in the Protestant Scholastic period that the intense theological focus on Scripture as a doctrine unto itself develops into a clear and essential inerrantist position. While this section focuses primarily on the work of Francis Turretin, a few points in Philip Melanchthon's doctrine of Scripture are instructive to show how quickly the emphasis in the doctrine of Scripture moved from the Trinitarian one in the
Reformers to an intense focus on the text itself. Melanchthon is placed in this section of the chapter not because he is a Protestant Scholastic but because his "systematizing" work is representative of a very early attempt to consolidate Protestant bibliology. After the brief treatment of Melanchthon, the rest of this section will be comprised of a detailed analysis of the doctrine of Scripture in Turretin.
Philip Melanchthon
Philip Melanchthon's Loci Communes Theologici was the first "systematic theology" of the Protestant Reformation. In his Preface to the Loci, Melanchthon describes what he believes to be an appropriate view of Scripture. At the outset of his reflection, Melanchthon states, "There is nothing I should desire more, if possible, than that all Christians be occupied in greatest freedom with the divine Scriptures alone and be thoroughly transformed into their nature. For since the Godhead has portrayed its most complete image in them, it cannot be known from any other source with more certainty or accuracy."56 This statement reveals two important points concerning Melanchthon's view of the form and function of Scripture. First, Melanchthon wanted his readers to be transformed into the nature of Scripture, which is itself something to be desired.57
Second, Melanchthon found Scripture alone to be the "source" of the complete image of
God, and he believed that Scripture surpasses all other sources of potential knowledge of
56Philip Melanchthon, Loci Communes Theologici, in Melanchthon andBucer, ed. Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969), 19. Later, Melanchthon states, "The Holy Spirit is the one and only teacher, the most simple and most definite, who expresses himself most accurately and most simply in the Holy Scriptures. When your mind has been transformed, as it were, into these Scriptures, then you will comprehend absolutely, simply, and exactly what is behind this fundamental point and other theological matters as well" (54). Here is a clear statement not only of the divine origin of Scripture, but also of its perspicuity. While Scripture has the power, through the Holy Spirit, to transform the mind, it is also clear in its purpose, particularly for those willing to be transformed by its teaching.
570f course, that Scripture should be desired is predicated on the fact that Scripture reveals the Godhead; however, Melanchthon does indicate that Scripture, in a sense, partakes of this divine nature itself, making it worthy of desire in its own right. 41
God because of its accuracy and certainty. This latter point clearly provides a setting for an inerrantist position in that it implies an epistemic "foundationalist"58 understanding of
Scripture.
For Melanchthon, not only does Scripture reveal the image of the Godhead most clearly, it also surpasses all else in conveying the essential truths of Christianity. He
states, "Anyone is mistaken who seeks to ascertain the nature of Christianity from any source except canonical Scripture. For how much of its purity the commentaries lack! In
Scripture you will find nothing unworthy of honor; in the commentaries how many things depend on philosophy, on the judgment of human reason!"5 Melanchthon found
Scripture to surpass human reason; and even though Scripture was written by human beings, its particular status as God's Word ensures its superiority as a source of truth. As people, in faith, embrace Scripture, God accomplishes His work in them through His
Spirit. Melanchthon called his readers to embrace the "literature through which the Spirit flows"60 in order that they might be rightly related to God.
Though there is not an explicit statement of inerrancy in Melanchthon's work, there is a hint of it that is worth noting. In a discussion concerning the relative value of
"human laws," Melanchthon demonstrates that despite the best attempts of the church, some of its councils and doctrines have erred.61 After explaining some of the difficulties
This is not to say that Melanchthon represents a thoroughly modern "foundationalism" as articulated in post-Enlightenment philosophy. However, by speaking of Scripture as a sure source of knowledge, due to its accuracy and certainty, Melanchthon does move the doctrine of Scripture toward the realm of epistemology.
59Melanchthon, Loci, 19.
60Melanchthon, Loci, 20.
Melanchthon, Loci, 65. with the church councils and their errors, he states the following: "Since it is obvious that
councils can err, why are their decrees not scrutinized in the light of Scripture? Far be it
from the Christian mind to think that an article of faith is established by a person about whom there is uncertainty as to whether he cannot deceive or err!" The implication is that in Melanchthon's view, Scripture, at least in comparison to the church councils, will not err concerning the articles of faith. Insofar as the church councils have been helpful, they are only so in direct proportion to their adherence to Scripture.
Melanchthon's doctrine of Scripture points more directly toward an inerrantist direction when compared with the viewpoints of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. While not forsaking the ultimate authority of Jesus Christ and the necessary work of the Spirit in and through Scripture, Melanchthon states that Scripture itself possesses authority and efficacy for the believer. Melanchthon seemingly narrows the concept of "Word of God" to mean Scripture, not exclusively but perhaps mainly. At the very least, Melanchthon's perspective moves the doctrine of Scripture in a more cognitive, "foundationalist" direction that allowed for later Protestant Orthodox theologians, namely Turretin, to describe Scripture in inerrantist terms.
62Melanchthon, Loci, 66.
63Here Melanchthon is giving a practical outworking of Sola Scriptura. While retaining a certain value for church councils, Scripture must stand in judgment over them because, in Scripture, there is a more sure way to arrive at an accurate understanding of right doctrine. 43
Francis Turretin
As the theology of the Reformation developed into the seventeenth century, the
polemics between Protestants and Roman Catholics increased in intensity. Each side
claimed they were the true recipients of the Holy Spirit's presence in the body of Christ.
The focus of this Pneumatological battle had much to do with the doctrine of Scripture.
Roman Catholic leaders claimed the Holy Spirit was with them, mediating an infallible
tradition through Scripture. While Scripture was indispensible, theological truth was to be
found in tradition, and the Spirit-led church was tasked with interpreting Scripture for the
masses. On the other hand, the Protestants claimed they were specially graced with the
Holy Spirit working in the lives of individuals through the teachings of Scripture. The
church's tradition was helpful but fallible, and regardless of the church's unity,
theological error was never far away when tradition, not Scripture, was the norm. The
Protestants claimed that the way to avoid erroneous theology was to immerse oneself in
God's written Word, the particular location of the Spirit's illumination.65
A helpful description of the Roman Catholic-Protestant debate, in its Pneumatological context, is found in Ephraim Radner, The End of the Church: A Pneumatology of Christian Division in the West (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Radner argues that Luther's Sola Scriptura set the foundation for the inevitable Roman Catholic-Protestant division. Specifically, because each side of the debate argued its position on the basis of a particular Pneumatology, both sides believed themselves to be the true church while also believing the "other" church to be apostate. States Radner, "With the Reformers' denial of the autiiority of the institutional Church in defining the right interpretation of Scripture in favor of various forms of individual pneumatic illumination, Protestants and Catholics were set against each other in a dizzying and always fruitless effort to justify their canons of interpretive criteria" (11). Concerning Luther, Radner states, "With the theory of Scripture's perspicuous meaning effected through the Spirit's anointing in the Christian believer [rather than the Church], Luther had—in theory, if not in practice—cleanly disposed of the historical teaching tradition of the Church as an authoritative guide" (14).
65Cf. Radner, The End of the Church, 15-19. Later, Radner summarizes, "But according to both accounts, the genuine existence of the other as a truly Christian church constitutes a pneumatological contradiction. From the Protestant point of view, either Catholic interpretation of Scripture is unspiritual or the principle of pneumatic illuminatio is itself invalid, along with the Christian communities formed by the aggregates of its objects. Similarly, from the Catholic side, either Protestants are not members of the true Church, and hence are defective in their teaching about Scripture, or the principle of die pneumatic unity of The Roman Catholics had a clear advantage in this debate. They could appeal not
only to the unity of their tradition but also to its sophisticated presentation of theology.
Protestants, while experiencing marked success in converting individuals to their side,
eventually sensed a need to establish a theological system comparable in scope to the
work of Thomas Aquinas, primarily for the purpose of answering Roman Catholic
theology in all areas of disputation. Those undertaking this task intended to offer a better
alternative to the established and, as they saw it, unbiblical tradition of the Roman
Catholic Church. As Protestant theologians had more time to analyse and synthesise fully
the teachings of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc., it was natural that systematization would
be applied to the articulation of Reformation theology.66
Francis Turretin was one such "systematizing" theologian who sought to
articulate Protestant theology via scholastic methodology. He represents the high point of
Protestant Scholasticism, employing a scholastic method similar to that of Aquinas in his
processes of argumentation. 8 Turretin's treatment of Scripture is among the most
concrete caritas is likewise mistaken. In each case, respective pneumatologies can be sustained only by ruling out the other as objects of pneumatic operation" (22).
66It has already been noted that Melanchthon and Calvin represent the first "systematic" theologies of the Reformation period. Yet neither of these attempts to match the Roman Catholic system in comprehensiveness, nor do they employ scholastic methods or terminology. For both Melanchthon and Calvin, the formal reflection on theology was to be limited to explicit teachings of Scripture. See Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 2:162.
67Francis Turretin, Institutes ofElenctic Theology, trans. George Geiger, ed. by James T. Dennison, Jr., 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994).
68Richard Muller warns against two common generalzations about theologians who employ the scholastic method. First, one should not automatically assume that "scholasticism" is identical with Aristotelian philosophy itself. Furthermore, one should not assume that all scholastics are rationalists. Muller asserts that Turretin's employment of the scholastic method is simply a methodological move, not a placement of reason over faith. See Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 2:100-101, contra Jack Rogers, "The Church Doctrine of Biblical Authority," in Biblical Authority, ed. Jack Rogers (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1977), 15^6. 45
detailed and lengthy in the history of theology.69 Furthermore, Turretin's Institutes were the primary systematic theological textbooks at Princeton Theological Seminary from its beginning in 1812 until Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology eventually replaced
Turretin's work in 1872. Therefore, the importance of Turretin's treatment of Scripture
cannot be overstated, particularly for the purposes of this thesis.
Turretin begins his treatment of Scripture with a question of its necessity. To answer whether Scripture is necessary, he distinguishes between two senses of the notion of Scripture. The first is the material sense or the doctrine that Scripture reveals. The second is the formal sense or the writing and "mode of delivery" of the text itself. For
Turretin, Scripture is necessary in terms of the doctrine it reveals, but because God has chosen to disclose himself at times through spoken means, the necessity of a written word is only relative.71 Turretin argues for the relative necessity of the written word by noting
God's decision to give the "canon of true religious faith" to the church in order for it to remain constant and unmoved. Scripture, then, is God's way of preserving the church and keeping it from error. Because the church needs to remain faithful to Jesus Christ and
For example, Augustine never wrote a treatise on Scripture. Aquinas makes many strong claims about Scripture, indicating a lofty view of it; yet he never devoted large portions of the Summa Theologica to it. Even Calvin's Institutes, being an early "systematic theology" in Reformed thought, devotes little attention to a "doctrine" of Scripture. Karl Barth's treatment of Scripture in the Church Dogmatics is lengthy, but it is couched in a much larger discussion of the doctrine of the Word of God which is, for Barth, principally Jesus Christ. Even Charles Hodge, the great systematic theologian of the Old Princeton School, has a relatively small section on the doctrine of Scripture compared to Turretin's full treatment of 115 pages.
70James W. Alexander, The Life of Archibald Alexander, D. D. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1854), 368.
71Francis Turretin, Institutes ofElenctic Theology, 1:57. because it must defend the truth against attack, God has given Scripture in order for the
church to accomplish this task successfully.
Turretin asserts not only that God made Scripture necessary for our guidance,
preservation, and salvation, but that Scripture was given by God's own command. Here
Turretin appeals to 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21 to argue for Scripture's inspiration
and to call attention to a command of God for the writing of the text. Turretin states that
if Scripture is inspired, the divine command behind the inspiration and writing of
Scripture is plainly implied. He states that the "immediate inspiration and the internal
impulse of the Holy Spirit by which the writers were influenced was to them in the place
of command.... Now it would be absurd to say that the apostles wrote as God inspired
and moved them and yet that he did not command them." By directly relating God's
command to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Turretin claims that the production of
Scripture was something that was under the direction of God at all times.
From a reflection on God's involvement in giving Scripture, Turretin next considers Scripture's universal authority. The question, for Turretin, is whether Scripture
is credible in itself and divinely authoritative. Turretin answers in the affirmative: "The authority of Scripture is nothing else than the right and dignity of the sacred books, on account of which they are most worthy of faith with regard to those things which they propose to be believed and of our obedience in those things which they command us to omit or to do. The divine and infallible truth of these books (which have God for their author) is the foundation because he has the highest right to bind men to faith and
72Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:58-59. Clearly, Turretin is attempting to set forth the priority of Scripture over church tradition in contradistinction to the Roman Catholic understanding.
73Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:60. duty." In this statement, Turretin collates Scripture's divine origin, its infallibility of purpose, and its power in commanding submission.
Corresponding to Scripture's authority is its reliability. Though Scripture is given by God, Turretin anticipates that some may still question whether Scripture presents a reliable set of truths. Turretin believes that everything narrated historically in Scripture is reliable yet not everything narrated is to be understood as true. After all, the Devil speaks, and it is recorded in Scripture. The kings, prophets, apostles, and numerous others spoke falsely and were in error, yet Scripture records these things accurately. However, when
Scripture is communicating doctrine, it is fully reliable at all times.75
Turretin concludes his discussion of the authority and reliability of Scripture by considering whether the text of Scripture is free from error. Turretin understood that the apostles and prophets could err even as men influenced by the Holy Spirit. Yet, states
Turretin, "the question is whether in writing they were so acted upon and inspired by the
Holy Spirit (both as to the things themselves and as to the words) as to be kept free from all error and that their writings are truly authentic and divine." Turretin answers this question in the affirmative, claiming that the writers were kept free from all error in the very words they wrote.
Furthermore, Turretin sees "free from error" as applying only to the original autographs, not to the copies and translations. With reference to the copies, Turretin states that "the providence of God watched over the copying of the sacred books, so that
74Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:62.
75Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:62. Communicating truthful facts is not the only function of Scripture for Turretin, but it is the primary function.
76Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:62. 48 although many errors might have crept in, it has not so happened but that they can be easily corrected by a collation of others." Hence, current translations and copies are
• 77 reliable insofar as they accurately render the meaning of the original, inspired text.
Turretin defends his inerrantist position by appealing to several characteristics that God has given the text. He states that God has allowed Scripture to endure the test of time. As enemies of the gospel have sought to destroy the Word, God has providentially ensured the Scripture's preservation. For Turretin, this implies that the text must be above reproach, since God has protected it in this way. Turretin continues the defense of his position by noting that God preserved the text in such a way that Scripture remains a marvel. It possesses a remarkable combination of lofty mysteries and beautiful poetry while also being able to communicate God's truth about Himself with remarkable simplicity.78 The glory for this belongs to God alone because by His grace Scripture has 7Q been preserved from error.
Turretin then provides qualification to the notion of Scripture being without error and completely certain. Turretin states that Scripture does not possess mathematical
Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:106. Turretin refers to these reliable texts as "apographs" which are "so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit." While errors of various kinds have occurred in the processes of textual transmission, none have been of a nature to negate the fully truthful, reliable presentation of the faith as found in Scripture. This view is a key point to note in Turretin, for the appeal to the 'original autographs' was a key factor in the Princetonian articulation of inerrancy. See Rogers and McKim, Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, 302—5.
78Cf. Calvin, Institutes, 1.8 on Scripture's remarkable "beauty yet simplicity."
79 Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:68-69. Unlike the Reformers, Turretin went to great lengths to give evidence for the characteristics that he ascribes to Scripture. Turretin defends his lengthy presentation of evidence for Scripture's inerrancy: "Although faith may be founded upon the authority of testimony and not upon scientific demonstration, it does not follow that it cannot be assisted by artificial arguments, especially in erecting the principles of faith. For before faith can believe, it must have the divinity of the witness to whom faith is to be given clearly established and certain true marks which are apprehended in it, otherwise it cannot believe." (1:64-65). certainty in that it "belongs to first principles known by nature of themselves and to
conclusions demonstrated by principles of this kind." Turretin also states that Scripture
does not possess moral certainty in that it is not dependent on "historical assent" or a
majority consensus for its truth.81 The type of certainty that Scripture possesses is
theological certainty. Theological certainty "attends those things, which although they
cannot be demonstrated or known of themselves and by nature, are nevertheless founded
not only upon probable grounds and moral arguments, but upon truly theological and
divine (viz., upon divine revelation). Therefore, this gives them not merely a moral and
conjectural certainty, but a truly divine faith." Scripture, states Turretin, has
"theological and infallible certainty, which cannot possibly deceive the true believer
illuminated by the Spirit of God."83 There is no question that Turretin, more than any
theologian considered thus far, argues for an inerrantist position congruent with the one
defined in the introduction to this thesis.
Following his explanation of Scripture's inerrancy and certainty, Turretin
attempts to show that Scripture's apparent contradictions are answerable.84 He painstakingly works his way through several discrepancies that are commonly referenced
Of by those denying the inerrancy of Scripture. Turretin believed that resolving apparent
80Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:68.
81Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:68.
82Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:69.
83Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:69.
^Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:70-71. He claimed that "these various contradictions are only apparent, not real and true; that certain passages are hard to be understood, but not altogether inexplicable."
85Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:72-85. Some examples include problematic New Testament quotations of Old Testament texts, problems of harmonizing Gospel narratives, numerical discrepancies in parallel accounts, differences in Chronicles and Kings regarding Israel's history, and even seemingly 50
contradictions of Scripture was necessary because to avoid this would be to sacrifice the
foundation of the Christian faith. He states that "The Scriptures are inspired of God. The
word of God cannot lie; cannot pass away and be destroyed; shall endure forever; and is
truth itself. For how could such things be predicated of it, if it contained dangerous
contradictions, and if God suffered either the sacred writers to err and to slip in memory,
or incurable blemishes to creep into it?" For Turretin, error in God's Word is
impossible because God has given his people a firm foundation for their faith.
Turretin concludes his doctrine of Scripture by discussing its perfection and
perspicuity. By perfection Turretin means that Scripture "makes itself known to us"°' in
that it sufficiently leads to reconciliation with God. Turretin states, "The design of the
Scriptures demand such a perfection for they were given that we might have salvation
and life from them (Jn. 20:31; I Jn. 5:13; Rom. 15:4), but how could that end be answered unless they were perfect and contained all things necessary to salvation?"88 Yet in
addition to being perfect, Turretin also argues for the perspicuity of Scripture. The question for Turretin is "whether the Scriptures are so plain in things essential to
salvation (not as to the things delivered, but as to the mode of delivery; not as to the subject, but the object) that without the external aid of tradition or the infallible judgment
contradictory commands in the text such as "Honor thy Father and Mother" (Exodus 20:12) and "if any man hate not his father" (Luke 14:26).
86Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:115. For Turretin, it seems, even one error admitted in the inspired text would call into question the reliability of Scripture as a whole as well as its efficacy in guiding people to faith in God.
87Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:135.
Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:138. 51
of the church, they may be read and understood profitably by believers."89 Provided the
Holy Spirit's illuminating work, one can understand Scripture efficaciously.90
Turretin clearly espoused a position on Scripture that comes remarkably close to
contemporary notions of inerrancy. The sheer amount of space he devotes to the doctrine
of Scripture is unparalleled in earlier authors. In Turretin's understanding, the concept of
the "Word of God" is narrowed to refer to Scripture almost exclusively. For Turretin it is
clear that inspiration and inerrancy are the primary qualities of Scripture. In other words,
Turretin's emphasis shifts from Scripture's content to its form, which is why many point to him as the origin of the inerrantist position. In his theological construction, Scripture
acts as the epistemic foundation upon which the entire theological system is built.
Inerrancy as the Answer to Critical Scholarship
Thus far it has been argued that while it is possible to find the roots of inerrancy in the Reformers' treatment of Scripture, the position itself was not made explicit until the Protestant Scholastic period. Once the Protestant system of theology was established, the inerrantist position on Scripture was a crucial feature of that system. The inerrantist position in Protestant Scholasticism is that which Charles Hodge would see as his inherited tradition. Therefore, in one sense, it would be appropriate to immediately undertake the analysis of the Old Princeton School's inerrantist position.
Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:144.
90Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 1:145-47. In comparison to the Reformers, Turretin gives little attention to the necessary work of the Spirit in conjunction with the written Word. However, he does affirm its necessity. 52
However, rather than moving directly from Turretin to Hodge, a brief overview of
the doctrine of Scripture in the Enlightenment is necessary because in the Enlightenment,
the inerrancy of Scripture is that which undergirded a conservative response to the full-
fledged theoretical challenge concerning the reliability of Scripture, a challenge leveled
by the "liberal" approach to Scripture arising from historical-critical biblical scholarship.
In the period of the Enlightenment (c. 1650-1800), scholars began to examine
Scripture from a rationalistic philosophical standpoint. It was no longer assumed that the
reference of authority for truth claims lay in divine revelation, for the truest source of
authority had become one's own reasoning. Those accepting this shift in thought began to
question Scripture in ways that were not part of the theological landscape previously.
Most of these questions concerned the historical facticity of biblical events, down to the
smallest detail. Orthodox theologians, in order to defend their traditional commitment to
the reliability and truthfulness of Scripture, sensed the need to proffer answers to these
questions. In doing so, they separated—at least theoretically—the issue of the historicity
of the biblical narratives from the actual theological meaning of those narratives.
Scripture had attained "doctrinal" status, and those both attacking and defending
Scripture's veracity laid the groundwork for an intensification of the inerrantist position.
This heightened attention to inerrancy caused the inerrantist position in Protestant
Scholasticism to be regarded as an inerrantist tradition in the Old Princeton School.
Because inerrancy was one of the most important tools used to combat the attacks of
"liberal scholarship," the inerrantist position on Scripture became a tradition of its own.
For this overview of the Enlightenment period, it is not necessary to work through
specific proponents and critics of Enlightenment thought concerning Scripture. The historical primary-source analysis necessary to understand the position of the Old
Princeton School is in place. As such, the forthcoming analysis will rely heavily on key
secondary sources to summarize the important developments that shaped the doctrine of
Scripture in this period. This will be sufficient to account for the intensification of the
inerrantist position, providing the necessary context for the analysis in the next chapter.
Biblical Narrative and Questions of Historicity
In his masterful work, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative?1 Hans Frei ably
describes different approaches to Scripture in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,
giving insight into how the Enlightenment and its new ways of thinking shaped the later
inerrantists' thoughts on Scripture. Though Frei's purpose in the Eclipse is not to recount
the development of the inerrantist position, one can trace the trajectory of it in Frei's
description of what happened to Scripture when it was brought under the rationalistic
scrutiny of Enlightenment philosophers and theologians. Through an understanding of
these developments, the inerrantist responses can be identified to understand better how
the inerrantist position became "traditioned" by the time of the Old Princeton School and
her representative theologians.
Frei begins his work by offering a brief review of what so-called hermeneutics
looked like in the pre-critical era. First, if the text spoke of an event, a conversation, a miracle, or a person, the reader of Scripture naturally assumed that the text was to be understood realistically as well as literally (within its genre and purpose). The biblical
91Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974). story "referred to and described actual historical occurrences. The true historical reference of a story was a direct and natural concomitant of its making literal sense."
Second, because the biblical story referred to the real world and its events, theologians and hermeneuticians sought to unify this narrative into a cohesive whole by way of typology and figuration. Yet the typological method was "a natural extension of literal interpretation. It was literalism at the level of the whole of historical reality."93 Third, the pre-critical reader of Scripture naturally assumed that his or her present experience would be embraced by the narrative of Scripture. The direction of biblical interpretation was always moving toward "incorporating extra-biblical thought, experience, and reality into the one real world detailed and made accessible by the biblical story—not the reverse."94
The narratives of Scripture continually were adapted to the present day with remarkable creativity and freshness, but in the process the biblical narrative "remained the adequate depiction of the common and inclusive world until the coming of modernity."95 Hence, there existed during this time a grounded presupposition that Scripture's teaching conformed to reality while at the same time the text was free to be adaptable to each situation.
Yet as early as the seventeenth century, according to Frei, the "seeds of disintegration" were planted that would eventually give rise to the historical critical method, resulting in the eclipse of the biblical narrative. While many have noted this
Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 2.
'Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 2.
'Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 3.
'Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 3—4. 55 phenomenon in the likes of Spinoza, Deists, and historical critics (skeptics), Frei notes that conservatives were also responsible for the eclipse. He states, "Johannes Cocceius in the seventeenth century and Johann Albrecht Bengel in the eighteenth, devout Christians both, signal a subtle transformation.... [They] tried to locate the events of their day vis a-vis the narrative framework of biblical story and history, and to locate by means of biblical sayings the present stage of the actual events we experience and predict future stages as well as the end of actual history."97 This transformation brought about a
"breakup of the cohesion between the literal meaning of the biblical narratives and their reference to actual events." Though committed to the realistic nature of the biblical narratives and their correspondence to actual history, there was a separation of the 'real' historical world from its description in the biblical narratives. Now, actual history becomes an autonomous entity with God's providence fitting in at various times and places. Thus, the biblical narratives "verify" historical events. The accuracy, dependability, and realistic nature of the Bible are predicated on the so-called objective course of history. In short, history confirms Scripture. According to Frei, when scholars began thinking this way, there was "a logical distinction and a reflective distance between the stories and the 'reality' they depict. The depicted biblical world and the real historical world began to be separated at once in thought and in sensibility, no matter whether the depiction was thought to agree with reality (Cocceius and Bengel) or disagree with it
(Spinoza)."99
'Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 4.
Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 4.
!Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 4. 56
As the separation between the biblical world and the real historical world grew, some from both conservative and liberal perspectives began extensive inquiries into the factual truth or falsehood of the stories of Scripture, while others devalued an actual coherence between the two worlds and emphasized the importance of meaning above all else. With reference to the latter, Frei notes that it was no longer an important issue whether the biblical story meshed with the real world of history as long as the proper meaning was understood. So, to ask the question, "Is Genesis 1-3 allegory or fact?" is irrelevant. What is important is the meaning of the story, and that meaning can be
"detachable from the specific story that sets it forth."100 As Frei notes, even for those committed to the text's historicity, the meaning of the narratives became "referable to an
"Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 5. See Johann Albrecht Bengel, New Testament Word Studies, trans. Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent, 2 vol. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1971). In his "Preface," Bengel states the importance of a doctrine of Scripture which affirms truthfulness and accuracy in all parts. He states, "The Scriptures, therefore, of the Old and New Testaments, form a most reliable and precious system of Divine testimonies. For not only are the various writings, when considered separately, worthy of God, but they together exhibit one complete and harmonious body unimpaired by excess or defects." (xii). Furthermore, Bengel states that every book as originally written "referred to the existing state of things" (xiii) and that the writers of Scripture "exhibit, not only an exact knowledge of the Truth, but also a systematic arrangement of their subject, a precise expression of their meaning, and a genuine strength of feeling''' (xxiii). Finally, throughout his work, Bengel refers to his Harmony of the Gospels (1736, 1747) in which he seeks to answer questions of historical accuracy, particularly when there appear to be chronological discrepancies in the biblical narratives. See xxvii-xxviii in his "Preface" for a listing of specific harmonies. By way of contrast, see Benedict De Spinoza, The Chief Works of Benedict De Spinoza, trans. R. H. M. Elwes, (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1951). In his Theologico-Political Treatise (1670), Spinoza argues throughout that Scripture is to be seen as not conforming to "real" events. Particularly when it comes to miracles, we must understand that "Nothing, then, comes to pass in nature in contravention to her universal laws, nay, everything agrees with them and follows from them, for whatsoever comes to pass, comes to pass by the will and eternal decree of God" (83). Given this basic presupposition, Spinoza denies the historical facticity of many events in the biblical narratives that involve miracles. His denial is not because he desires to undermine faith in God. For Spinoza, he wants those studying Scripture to avoid having everything explained scientifically and focus on obeying God's teachings. Spinoza states, "God has required nothing from man but a knowledge of His Divine justice and charity, and that not as necessary to scientific accuracy, but to obedience" (181). Frei's point is demonstrated by the above comparison. Both those fighting for the scientific and historic facticity of Scripture as well as those denying it ended up doing the same thing at a theoretical level. They separated the events of Scripture from the reality they depict. The clear implication of this is that an inerrantist position would become an absolute necessity for those who wished to take Scripture at face value. In other words, even if a theologian of this period had reservations about some of the strong, inerrantist statements, what other choice was available if they wished to remain "orthodox"?
Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 6. 57 external more general context, and the story now has to be interpreted into it, rather than that external pattern of meaning being incorporated—figurally or in some other way— into the story."101 The realistic nature of the biblical narrative was lost as both conservatives and liberals focused on either making the biblical story verify the autonomous realm of real history (conservative) or cultivating the meaning of the story apart from its realistic nature (liberal).
Because of the separation of the biblical narrative from the actual historical world,
Frei notes that "figural interpretation became discredited both as a literary device and as a historical argument."102 Because the question of historicity dominated theological inquiry, the text either became allegory or myth for more liberal interpreters or, for the conservative, a literal account only. As Frei states, literal reading meant "grammatical and lexical exactness in estimating what the original sense of a text was to its original audience, and the coincidence of the description with how the facts really occurred."103
Furthermore, realistic reading "consisted of matching the written description against the reconstruction of the probable historical sequence to which it referred."104 So while before this time, the realistic (literalistic) narrative could incorporate figuration and typology as a means of unifying the biblical story, now that was impossible. The question of "historicity" was raised, and one had to use the biblical narratives either to verify that
Bible history was the same as real history or to convey meaning only with no necessity of the Bible story being a part of actual history.
101Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 6.
102Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 6.
I03Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 7.
104Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 7. 58
The literal (realistic) and figural (typological) methods each went their separate ways and resulted in two distinct approaches to Scripture: the historical-critical method and biblical theology. The historical-critical method diverted interpreters from the text's meaning in its own right and, in turn, directed their focus on whether the events described in Scripture actually happened. On the other side, when biblical theology was employed, there was a complete ignoring of history which caused the text and its "meaning in its own right" to be ignored just the same.105 Frei then claims that while a realistic character of the text was obvious to everyone handling the text, that characteristic came to be ignored for the sake of a "method" to render the realism meaningful. Some explained the realistic characteristic by "claiming that the stories are reliably or unreliably reported history. Others insisted that they are not, or only incidentally history and that their real meaning is unconnected with historical reporting. In either case, history or else allegory or myth, the meaning of the stories was finally something different from the stories or depictions themselves, despite the fact that this is contrary to the character of a realistic story."106
Frei notes that once the questions of historical veracity overshadowed the realistic character of the text, the realistic feature could only be recognized (and preserved) by dichotomizing between "literal sense" and "historical reference." The literal sense was the place to discover meaning while the historical reference was basically unnecessary.
Yet when commentators recognized the literal sense, they "thought this was identical with affirming not only the history-likeness but also a degree of historical likelihood of
'Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 8.
'Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 11. 59 the stories." The result was that "those who wanted to affirm their historical factuality used the realistic character or history-likeness as evidence in favour of this claim, while those who denied the factuality also finally denied that the history-likeness was a cutting feature." The result for both parties was "the confusion of history-likeness (literal meaning) and history (ostensive reference), and the hermeneutical reduction of the former to an aspect of the latter."108 This confusion skewed the real meaning of the biblical stories and provided for a more philosophical and methodological reason for affirming inerrancy.
Frei concludes by saying that the "history-like quality of biblical narratives, acknowledged by all, instead of being examined for the bearing it had in its own right on meaning and interpretation was immediately transposed into the quite different issue of whether or not the realistic narrative was historical."109 Once this happened, an inerrantist position was inevitable because those denying the historicity of biblical events effected a reaction from those affirming Scripture's complete historical accuracy.110
10 Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 11-12.
108Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 12.
109Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 16.
110The Reformers held Scripture in high regard without delving into multiple questions of factuality. Why, then, have questions of historical facticity been pre-eminent since the Enlightenment? It seems that those affirming that biblical narratives referred to real historical events would not have developed the intensified inerrantist position they did were it not for the "skeptical" theologians raising these questions initially. John Woodbridge claims that those holding a skeptical perspective on Scripture were the ones who shifted from the traditional view. In the Enlightenment and earlier in the Counter- Reformation, there were many supposed Christians who began to deny the truthfulness of Scripture in areas where it was previously assumed Scripture corresponded to objective reality. This shift was perceived to be a dangerous development by those holding to the Reformers' teaching. Thus, the inerrantist position became even more foundational in this period because those holding to the traditional view needed to defend it against these new attacks. See John Woodbridge, "Some Misconceptions of the Impact of the 'Enlightenment' on the Doctrine of Scripture," in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, ed. D. A. Carson and John Woodbridge, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 241-70. Scripture Translation and the Development of Theological Systems
While Frei's account stands as a landmark in this particular discussion, Jonathan
Sheehan has contributed to the understanding of how the question of Scripture and its authority was molded and cast in Enlightenment culture. His work, The Enlightenment
Bible,,m reaches beyond the typical defense or critique of the Enlightenment and shows how the Enlightenment fostered (whether intended or not) a return to biblical scholarship that allowed the Bible to flourish as a source of study. Sheehan's description deserves some brief comments in the consideration of the inerrantist position.
Sheehan argues, first, that the account of the status of Scripture in any given period is directly proportional to the activity of translation work. The Reformation was marked by a flurry of translation activity, to the point where seemingly each and every
Reformation "flavor" had a Bible to match. The reason for this, and the theological emphasis underlying it, was that the true authority of Scripture lay in the notion that the originals (and the originals more so or alone) were inspired of God. Because of this, the
Reformation could only hope to retain its authority by producing new translations that were better than current ones, i.e., more faithful to the original text. Thus, for the adherents to the Reformation, "translations were ... a tool to establish retroactively the authority of the very tradition from which they derived."113
Jonathan Sheehan, The Enlightenment Bible: Translation, Scholarship, Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).
u2Sheehan, Enlightenment Bible, 16.
113Sheehan, Enlightenment Bible, 22. 61
Once the Reformation's Sola Scriptura manifested itself in a multiplicity of vernacular Bibles, the orthodoxy of the post-Reformation period continued along this trajectory and building on the usefulness of the Protestant translations, fossilized the tradition based upon the newly authoritative texts. Sheehan proves his argument by noting the sudden discontinuance of translation work with a turn toward the systematization of the theology which the new Bibles taught.114 The new translations were not perfect, yet they were useful for the construction and teaching of the "new" tradition. What happened here, according to Sheehan, was that scholarship turned its attention largely toward Ancient Near Eastern culture and tradition as well as toward theology itself. Translation work was separated from scholarship, and translation did not receive the attention it had in the Reformation period.115
Nearly simultaneous with this development in religious communities was the rise of new ways of thinking in the general culture. Deism in particular sought to challenge the faith in revelation generally and Scripture specifically. Atheism, rationalism, and an overall secularist tint to the humanism of the Renaissance began to form, challenging what had been a nearly universal adherence (both for Catholics and Protestants alike) to
Scripture. This rising secularism inevitably produced new challenges to the Christian faith. Most specifically, according to Sheehan, the New Testament doctrines of the
Trinity, incarnation, and resurrection were all being challenged anew, not to mention every miraculous event and story. These attacks, then, placed theological scholarship in a difficult position of having to defend (or recover) the text for its own purpose. Prior to the
114Sheehan, Enlightenment Bible, 45.
115Sheehan, Enlightenment Bible, 49. Enlightenment challenges, biblical scholarship could move freely from translation to theology to Ancient Near Eastern study and back again. Now, it was forced to defend itself against something from the outside.
The response to the attacks of the Enlightenment came in two distinct forms. In
England, according to Sheehan, "scholars like [Richard Bentley] incisively turned their scholarship, for the first time in many years, onto the text of the New Testament in an effort to confirm or, better, to prove the authenticity and stability of the Christian
Bible."117 In Germany, the approach was different in that the "defense" of Scripture
(more so Christianity itself) eventually brought forth the development of liberal theology.
This development involved the relocation of the authoritative referent to the inner thought of man first and only then to the text of Scripture. The English defense, namely the attempt to prove the authenticity of Scripture, is that part of the religious response to the
Enlightenment that intensified the inerrantist position to the prominent place it has in the work of the Princetonian theologians.118
In the accounts of Frei and Sheehan, one can see how the inerrantist position moved from an essential component of Protestant bibliology to the prominent platform from which conservative theology would be articulated. For Turretin, inerrancy was essential, but once the task of proving Scripture's historicity became a top priority for orthodox theologians, inerrancy went from being essential to being the first thing to be said of Scripture, at least from an epistemic standpoint. Further, once the text of Scripture
'Sheehan, Enlightenment Bible, 73.
Sheehan, Enlightenment Bible, 28 (parenthesis mine).
Sheehan, Enlightenment Bible, 92. 63 had to be defended for its own purpose of supporting entire theological systems, inerrancy also was forced to "first place" in order to provide the cognitive foundation for theological construction. As inerrancy moved from one point of bibliology (among many) to a methodologically necessary foundation for entire theological movements, it moved from being a position on Scripture into a bibliological tradition of its own.
From Inerrantist Roots, to Inerrantist Position, to Inerrantist Tradition
As noted early in this chapter, the question of the precise origin of the inerrantist position on Scripture is complex and impossible to answer definitively. While this analysis identifies a close resemblance to contemporary notions of inerrancy in the work of Turretin, scholars will continue to debate the origin of the inerrantist position on
Scripture. With every point of view there will be evidence compiled in favor of a given scholar's commitments. In turn, every argument will engender a counter-argument with evidence in favor of a contrary viewpoint. As Richard Muller indicates, most of the
"historical surveys of the doctrine and interpretation of Scripture ... fall into the category of theological treatises that offer a particular construction of history as a basis for the formulation of doctrine in the present."119 As such, "they frequently miss the issues and problems of the past in their quest for advocacy of present-day doctrinal and interpretive positions." For this reason, the analysis in this chapter has sidestepped this particular question for the purpose of tracing the trajectory of the inerrantist position from its roots to its becoming a tradition.
Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 2:27.
,20Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 2:27. 64
In the Reformers' doctrine of Scripture, the roots of inerrancy can be seen in the strong connection made between the triune God and His revelation in Scripture. That God specifically superintended the text, that God oversaw its production via direct involvement of the Holy Spirit, and that God in Jesus Christ brought Scripture's authority to bear on everyone, including Himself—all this produced, in the Reformers, a high view of Scripture out of which some inerrantist notions would eventually come. However, the
Reformers' doctrine of Scripture was not articulated within an inerrantist tradition.
Instead, the Reformers' doctrine of Scripture was articulated in a Trinitarian,
Christological, and Pneumatological tradition that proclaimed God Himself as the source of revelation and authority. This fully theological tradition emphasized the saving and sanctifying work of God on behalf of humanity. Scripture was respected and even defended not for its own sake and not even for the sake of supporting theological articulation (though it did that in many particular instances). Rather, Scripture was held in high esteem by the Reformers because of its content, because of Who was revealed within it and because of to Whom one relates through it.
In Turretin's doctrine of Scripture, an inerrantist position is clearly seen in
Turretin's claim that Scripture is "free from all error." Operating within an intense polemical situation where Protestant theology was burdened with constructing a theological superstructure to compete with that of the Roman Catholics, Turretin placed upon Scripture the heavy burden of proving all doctrinal affirmation. This inevitably led to an inerrantist position that would be a key component in the Protestant bibliology of this period and beyond. However, though a clear inerrantist position is present, Turretin was not operating within an inerrantist tradition. Rather, Turretin articulated his doctrine 65
Scripture within a particular tradition of biblical authority that emphasized Scripture as the God-given source of theological content. Notions of inerrancy, as important as they were, did not have "first place" in Turretirfs doctrine of Scripture. His inerrantist position remained predicated on Scripture's divine origin and its revelatory authority as the medium through which the Holy Spirit effects change in people. Clearly, Turretirfs doctrine of Scripture was not nearly as pastoral as the Reformers', but the inerrantist position had not yet become the primary characteristic of Protestant bibliology.
In the Enlightenment doctrine of Scripture (among conservatives), the inerrantist position finds itself as the first and most important characteristic of bibliology, particularly when seen in the intense apologetical and polemical context of the ongoing battles with historical-critical scholarship. One can see that this was likely inevitable, given the particular questions toward and attacks on the understanding of Scripture that had developed from the Reformation through the Protestant Scholastic period. As noted in the Introduction to this thesis, a living tradition is characterized by a historically extended, socially embodied argument about the goods of that particular tradition. As the inerrantist position became the prominent feature in'tonservative" bibliology, it took on the very characteristics of a living tradition noted here. It began to argue for the goods offered in itself, so to speak. For this reason inerrantist adherents in the Enlightenment period, according to Frei and Sheehan, sensed the need to focus attention and energies on defending Scripture for its own sake. The inerrantist position was now the tradition worth preserving. It was the tradition in which Charles Hodge would begin to develop the
Princetonian doctrine of Scripture, which is the focus of the next chapter.
121See page 9 in Introduction. Cf. Maclntyre, After Virtue, 222. CHAPTER TWO INERRANCY ACCORDING TO THE OLD PRINCETON SCHOOL
In Chapter One, we noted the historical-theological development of the inerrantist position on Scripture in the Reformation, Protestant Scholasticism, and the
Enlightenment. The roots of inerrancy were present in the Reformers, given their affirmation of Sola Scriptura and close association of God with the text of Scripture. In the Protestant Scholastic period, theologians systematized Reformed doctrine and based their teaching upon an explicit inerrantist view of Scripture. The Protestant Scholastics made Scripture epistemically foundational to counter the Roman Catholic synthesis of
Tradition and Scripture, bringing inerrantist questions to the forefront in Protestant theological construction and giving occasion for an explicit inerrantist position. Later, when the veracity of the Christian faith was called into question by Enlightenment rationalistic and naturalistic philosophical constructs, the method for defending the faith was, for some, grounded in an unrelenting commitment to the full authority and verbal inerrancy of Scripture. In this period, the inerrantist position became a tradition in which the doctrine of Scripture was characterized.
The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the Old Princeton SchooFs doctrine of
Scripture with particular attention to its infallibilist/inerrantist position,1 continuing the
'As will become evident in this chapter, it appears that for the Old Princeton theologians, the notion of "infallibility" is basically synonymous with the notion of "inerrancy." Charles Hodge does not use the word "inerrancy" in his Systematic Theology, but he does describe Scripture as "infallible" with the
66 historical-theological overview of inerrancy begun in the previous chapter, and to provide
a description of the inerrantist tradition at its fullest expression.2 Numerous scholars have commented on the Old Princeton theologians and their work, with several giving detailed attention to the Princetonians' doctrine of Scripture and their articulation of inerrancy.
While noting that the Princetonians were concerned with more than the doctrine of
Scripture, these scholars maintain that the doctrine of Scripture is the Old Princeton
School's most distinguishing theological characteristic, due mainly to its detailed articulation and defense of inerrancy. Hence, to understand the inerrantist position of Carl
implication that it is "without error." B. B. Warfield explicitly uses the term "inerrancy," and for him, it seems that the terms "infallibility" and "inerrancy" are generally interchangeable.
2While more attention will be given to specific details within the Princetonians' doctrine of Scripture than was given for those discussed in the previous chapter, the analysis here will remain broad, keeping in view the yet more specific task of analyzing Carl Henry's inerrantist position in comparison with that of the Old Princeton School.
3Some representative works include the following: Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800-1930, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970), 103- 31; Ernest Sandeen, "The Princeton Theology: One Source of Biblical Literalism in American Protestantism," Church History 3\ (September, 1962): 307-21; Randal Balmer, "The Princetonians and Scripture: A Reconsideration," Westimnster Theological Journal 44 (1982): 352-65; George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 109-18; Mark Noll, "Introduction," in The Princeton Theology 1812—1921: Scripture, Science, and Theological Method from Archibald Alexander to Benjamin Warfield, ed. Mark Noll (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001), 11^18. Mark Noll, "A Brief History of Inerrancy, Mostly in America," in Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1987), 9-25; Daryl Hart, "A Reconsideration of Biblical Inerrancy and the Princeton Theology's Alliance with Fundamentalism," Christian Scholar's Review 20, no. 4 (1991): 362-75; John H. Gerstner, "The Contributions of Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, and J. Gresham Machen to the Doctrine of Inspiration," in Challenges to Inerrancy: A Theological Response, ed. Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce Demarest (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), 347-81; L. Russ Bush, "The Roots of Conservative Perspectives on Inerrancy (Warfield)," in The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy 1987, (Nashville: Broadman, 1987), 273-88; D. Clair Davis, "Princeton and Inerrancy: The Nineteenth-Century Philosophical Background of Contemporary Concerns," in Inerrancy and the Church, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), 359-78. D. Clair Davis, "Inerrancy and Westminster Calvinism," in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 35-46; Moises Silva, "Old Princeton, Westminster, and Inerrancy," in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 67-80; John Woodbridge and Randall H. Balmer, "The Princetonians and Biblical Authority: An Assesment of the Ernest Sandeen Proposal," in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 251-79. See also John Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 119-40; Jack B. Rogers and Donald McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), 263-322. 68
Henry, which will be detailed later in the thesis, one must first become familiar with the
Old Princeton School's doctrine of Scripture as expressed within the inerrantist tradition.
This chapter will begin with a description of Charles Hodge's attempt to
distinguish his theological position from Rationalism, Mysticism, and Roman
Catholicism. After describing this context for the Princeton theology, the analysis will
shift to an examination of the theological method undergirding the Old Princeton
School's doctrine of Scripture. Within the analysis of the Old Princeton doctrine of
Scripture, specific attention will be given to inspiration as the theological key for the Old
Princeton defense of the inerrantist tradition. Most of the attention will be given to the contributions of Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield,4 while some crucial references to A.
A. Hodge's work will also be made.5 After the detailed account of the Princetonians' inerrantist position, the chapter will conclude with a general evaluation of the Old
Princeton inerrantist tradition.
"Though many individuals contributed to the Princeton theology, the formal doctrinal constructs primarily came from those who held the chair of systematic theology from 1812-1920: Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, Archibald Alexander (A. A.) Hodge, and Benjamin Breckinridge (B. B.) Warfield. Archibald Alexander founded Princeton Theological Seminary in 1812 and was the only full- time professor for the first several years of the seminary's existence. While he reflected theologically on Scripture, his task was to teach across the curriculum and handle most of the academic administration. A. A. Hodge, Charles's son, only held the position for a short time before his health failed, and B. B. Warfield stepped into the position after the latter Hodge. The most prolific Princeton theologians, on the doctrine of Scripture, were Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield. To give an adequate treatment of the Princetonians' position on Scripture, yet to appropriately narrow the analysis, attention will be focused on Charles Hodge's doctrine of Scripture set forth in his Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (1871; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001) and B. B. Warfield's doctrine of Scripture set forth in several of his most prominent works on Scripture, most of which have been compiled into the single volume, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1948). It is in these works that we see the Old Princeton School's inerrantist position most fully expressed, defended, and applied.
5In particular is the following: A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, "Inspiration," Presbyterian Review 2 (1881): 225-60. A helpful reprint of this work, with a concise introduction and helpful appendices, has been given by Roger Nicole, ed., Inspiration (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979). Future references to this article will be cited in the Nicole reprint as A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, "Inspiration." This article is probably the best-known statement on the Old Princeton School's doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. 69
The Princeton Theology in Context
The Princetonians gave careful attention to those systems of philosophy and theology that competed with what they believed to be biblical truth. Specifically, Charles
Hodge attempted to position the Old Princeton theology as the biblical alternative to the philosophical and theological systems of Rationalism, which gave primary authority to reason; Mysticism, which gave primary authority to intuition or experience; and Roman
Catholicism, which articulated its view of authority in terms of a synthesis between
Tradition and Scripture. As Hodge delineates his view of authority, as distinct from the above alternatives, he sets an instructive context for the analysis of the Old Princeton
School's doctrine of Scripture and inerrantist tradition.
In his Systematic Theology, Hodge's first polemic is directed toward
Rationalism.6 Against Rationalism's denial or diminishment of supernatural revelation,
Hodge appeals to the fact that "every man feels he needs" supernatural revelation from
God.7 This feeling, states Hodge, is given by God and each person senses it in their soul.
God meets this intuitive need by giving Scripture. That one can believe Scripture is a supernatural revelation from God is due to its remarkable consistency with its own teaching, its revelation of truths of the "highest order, not elsewhere made known," and
^odge does not single out any particular "rationalist." He does, however, mention numerous works ranging from philosophical rationalists, such as Descartes, to deists, such as Voltaire, to empiricists, such as Hume. Hodge seems to place all three Enlightenment philosophical contributions—Rationalism, Empricism, and Skepticism—into the "Rationalism" category. Even empiricists are considered rationalists because in the sense that human reason is placed above revelation; knowing is placed above faith.
7Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:36. It is interesting that Hodge's first statement against rationalism consists of an existential appeal. 70 its unified message as an "organic whole." Scripture also attests to historically verified facts of fulfilled prophecy, and it has been instrumental in the changing of lives worldwide.
Yet according to Hodge, refuting Rationalism involves more than simply accepting Scripture as a supernatural revelation of God. Hodge states that in fact the most dangerous form of Rationalism is that which allows for supernatural revelation yet places human reason above it. Hodge describes this as follows:
The Bible, (the rationalist) admits, contains a Divine revelation. But this revelation was made to fallible men under supernatural guidance in communicating the truths revealed. They were men whose mode of thinking, and manner of arguing, and of presenting truth, were modified by their culture, and by the modes of thought prevailing during the age in which they lived. The Scriptures, therefore, abound with misapprehensions, with inconclusive arguments, and accommodations to Jewish errors, superstitions, and popular beliefs. It is the office of reason to sift these incongruous materials, and separate the wheat from the chaff. That is wheat which reason apprehends in its own light to be true; that is to be rejected as chaff which reason cannot understand, and cannot prove to be true. That is, nothing is true to us which we do not see for ourselves to be true.9
Rather than confessing Scripture to be revelation, Rationalism speaks of Scripture containing revelation. For Hodge, this is unacceptable because ultimately it is left to the reasoning individual to determine what is "wheat" and "chaff." In this system, human reason has usurped revelation as the highest authority.
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:37-39. See also Charles Hodge, The Way of Life, (1841; reprint, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1959), 11^10.
9Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:40. While Hodge does not mention him specifically, this is a basic description of the "ugly ditch" described by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. See Lessing, "On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power," in Lessing's Theological Writings, trans. Henry Chadwick (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1956), 51-56. Lessing states, "If no historical truth can be demonstrated, then nothing can be demonstrated by means of historical truths. That is: accidental truths of history can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason" (53). Therefore, Lessing argues that those who expect him to leap from accepting historical truth to accepting moral trutli—based on the affirmation of historical truth—are asking him to cross a ditch that he cannot (54-55). In Hodge's description, the rationalists were willing to admit the Bible contained revelatory ideas and basic moral instruction compatible with rational thinking. Yet, they wanted to sift out of Scripture anything that could not be confirmed by their own reason. Hodge saw this as a clear threat to the Christian faith. 71
For Hodge, placing reason above revelation fosters an elitism whereby the only ones who know truth are those who know more than all others. Hodge states, "If we must understand what we believe, even on the principles of the Rationalists, only philosophers can be religious."10 Having to comprehend something fully to know it truly removes authority, trust, and ultimately faith from one's knowledge. This results in Nihilism or
"universal negation."11 Hodge states, "Nothing, therefore, can be more opposed to the whole teaching and spirit of the Bible, than this disposition to insist on philosophical proof of the articles of our faith. Our duty, privilege, and security are in believing, not in knowing; in trusting God, and not our own understanding." For Hodge, any system which elevates human reason beyond these limits is unfit for theology. While some theological truth may be discovered via reason, Scripture is demoted from its status as the unique, God-revealed collection of facts to a source of truth placed alongside other, equally authoritative, sources.13
While Hodge rejects reason as a sufficient basis for theology, he and the other
Princetonians do not reject the appropriate use of reason altogether. On the contrary, they place substantial confidence in reason and logic in the discovery of truth. Hodge recognizes that "reason is necessarily presupposed in every revelation."14 Insofar as revelation contains prepositional content and truth claims, reason will always be used in the development of theology. Thus while reason is not the final ground of authority in
10Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:41.
"Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:41.
12Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:48.
13Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:6.
14Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:49. 72 matters of religion or revelation, its use is expected nonetheless. For Hodge, all revelation, if true, will have external evidences attached. Hodge states that the nature of faith itself is "an intelligent reception of the truth on adequate grounds" rather than a
"blind, irrational assent."15
This acceptance of reason and rational thinking in theology is a well-known feature of the Princetonians' work. Most of the scholars listed above (footnote 3) argue that the Princeton theologians accepted many characteristics of Scottish Common Sense
Philosophy, also known as Common Sense Realism. The Old Princeton theologians melded aspects of this philosophy with their Reformational commitments. For them, the
Scottish Common Sense Philosophy seemed to serve as an adequate explanation for the ability of all mankind, regenerate or unregenerate, to think rationally and make sound decisions based upon evidence. While not altogether denying total depravity and the noetic effect of sin on mankind's reason, the Princetonians adopted a Common Sense approach by assuming that, though influenced by sin, humanity's rational capacity was able to discern spiritual truth.16
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:53. Hodge also claims that "Everything is conceded to philosophy and science, which they can rightfully demand." (59) Hodge states that in the course of history, science (philosophy in the broad sense) has discovered things that have forced the Church to reconsider certain entrenched interpretations of Scripture. The classic example is the Copernican revolution where Christians had to admit that their literalist understanding of passages which spoke of the sun rising and setting needed to be understood metaphorically. Hodge thus states, "It may, therefore, happen in the future, as it has in the past, that interpretations of the Bible, long confidently received, must be modified or abandoned, to bring revelation into harmony with what God teaches in his works" (59). However, though these changes may be difficult for some, "it does not in the least impair the authority of the Scriptures. They remain infallible" (59).
16A very helpful analysis of the Old Princeton Theology's indebtedness to Scottish Common Sense Philosophy is John C. Vander Stelt, Philosophy & Scripture: A Study in Old Princeton and Westminster Theology (Marlton, NJ: Mack Publishing Company, 1978). In this insightful analysis, Vander Stelt analyzes the development of Scottish Common Sense Philosophy, traces its movement to America, describes its influence in Presbyterian institutions such as Princeton College, and details its influence at Princeton Theological Seminary. He argues that the Princetonians accepted Scottish Common Sense Philosophy, contradicting the theology (Calvinistic, Reformed) they claimed to uphold. Vander Stelt states 73
Hodge also sought to distinguish the Old Princeton theology from Mysticism.
Hodge states that in Mysticism, "The Scriptures, as a rule of faith, have no authority.
They are of value only as means of awakening in us the religious life experienced by the
Apostles, and thus enabling us to attain like intuitions of divine things."17 Hodge identifies Frederich Schleiermacher's system of theology as the most elaborate manifestation of Mysticism in the Church.18 He states that in Schleiermacher's thought,
Christianity is a life to be lived rather than a doctrine and revelation "consists in the providential dispensations connected with the appearance of Christ on the earth."19
Religion consists in a feeling of absolute dependence on God, of which Christ was the perfect example in his life and ministry. Hence, revelation communicates to our internal consciousness, and inspiration is "the inward state of mind which enables us to apprehend truth."20
their acceptance of the scholastic dualism of supernatural/natural and body/soul caused them to see the image of God in man in purely rationalistic terms, thereby failing to recognize the holistic nature of God's works in the world and of mankind's relationship to Him. Vander Stelt also argues that the Princetonians adapted Scottish Common Sense epistemology for themselves, thus making truth subjectivistic in the reduction of everything to rational propositions that could be determined to be true by private judgment. Furthermore, the Princetonians unwittingly tried to do apologetics on the terms of their opponents, without recognizing the different presuppositions they had from their opponents, thereby reducing truth to a rational defense of what was being attacked—and reducing the truly essential doctrines of the faith to basically a robust commitment to Scripture as an infallible and inerrant locus of truthful propositions. Vander Stelt concludes that the Princetonians' good intentions to defend truth were thwarted in the long term by an uncritical acceptance of this unbiblical philosophy. See also, Sydney Ahlstrom, "The Scottish Philosophy and American Theology," Church History 24 (1955): 257-72. Vander Stelt relies heavily on this article.
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:66.
18Hodge believes that Schleiermacher's view, while mystical, is ultimately naturalistic in that it presupposes "a philosophy which precluded all intervention of the immediate efficiency of God in the world." (173)
19Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:174.
20Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:175. Hodge lists several objections to Schleiermacher's theology. First, since it "denies that [religion] is a form of knowledge, or involves the reception of any particular system of doctrine,"21 Christianity loses its claim to absolute truth. Second, Schleiermacher's theory conflicts with Scripture's own teaching concerning revelation which states that
"God presents truth objectively to the mind, whether by audible words, by visions, or by the immediate operations of the Spirit."22 Third, Hodge states that this theory wrongly argues that the knowledge we need is only intuitive. Fourth, Hodge asserts that this theory strips the Bible of any truly objective authority, for it reduces the writings of the prophets and apostles to the reflections of religious men who thematized their own religious consciousness more effectively than most. The fifth argument that Hodge offers against Schleiermacher's theory is that it contradicts not only the teaching of
Scripture on revelation itself but also the teaching of Scripture concerning the dependability of our feelings and intuitions. Hodge states, "The Bible makes truth of the greatest importance. It pronounces those blessed who receive the doctrines which it teaches, and those accursed who reject them. It makes the salvation of men to depend upon their faith." Hence, the priority of truth is not only in accordance with Scripture, it is also the basis for our salvation. Ultimately, then, the theory of Schleiermacher leads many into a faulty dependence on their own subjectivity and feelings.
21Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:176.
22Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:177.
23Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:177.
24Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1: 177-78.
25Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:178. 75
Hodge does, however, recognize that there appear to be mystical elements in orthodox Christian teaching, particularly regarding to the work of the Holy Spirit in individuals. Hodge thus clarifies the orthodox teaching to ensure his readers see the difference between it and mysticism. First, Hodge explains what he calls the "Doctrine of
Spiritual Illumination." Whereas Mysticism claims illumination for the understanding of truth independent of Scripture, biblical illumination is where the Spirit enables us "to discern the truth and excellence of what is already revealed in the Bible."26 Whereas
Mysticism is passive in its reception of truth, the biblical illumination of the Spirit involves prayer, study, and meditation. Finally, whereas Mysticism produces increased self-understanding, biblical illumination effects greater understanding of and wisdom in
97 the Word that indwells us.
Hodge also distinguishes between Mysticism and the "leading of the Spirit." The leading of the Spirit in the life of the believer is always, according to Hodge, in full agreement with Scripture. If the Holy Spirit's supposed "leading" is clearly contrary to
Scripture, then that "leading" is inauthentic because the Word of God is infallible in its teachings.28 Hodge states that when mystics "claim that the Spirit is given to every man as an inward teacher and guide, whose instructions and influence are the highest rule of faith, and sufficient, even without the Scriptures, to secure the salvation of the soul,"29 the
Christian should reject that assertion because of its marginalizing of Scripture.30
'Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:67.
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:68.
'Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1: 68-69. The Princetonians, though obviously accepting the role of reason in theology, also consistently exhibit an appreciation for the role of experience. Mark Noll states that the "same [Charles] Hodge who in 1850 so powerfully chastised Edwards A. Park for promoting a theology of the feelings could in 1872 argue in his systematics for the propriety of a religion of 'the heart.'"31 Insofar as one's religious feelings were consistent with explicit Scriptural teaching, the Old Princeton theologians encouraged their readers to trust them; for in so doing, the illumination of the Holy Spirit is made effective. One cannot, therefore, focus entirely on the seemingly rationalistic acceptance of Scottish
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:98. Hodge believed that the moral conscience is more dependable than reason because it "is much less liable to err than reason; and when they come into conflict, real or apparent, our moral nature is the stronger, and will assert its authority in spite of all we can do." (7)
30Not only did mysticism conflict with the teaching of Scripture, according to Hodge. It also was inconsistent with true experience, being grounded in misunderstood feelings (101). Hodge knows that God is free to move amongst His creation. However, Hodge indicates that when this mystical encounter is the only revelation present, truth suffers. He states, "All experience shows that without the written Word, men everywhere and in all ages, are ignorant of divine things,—without God, without Christ, and without hope in the world" (101). Though mysticism seems surer due to its immediate experience, the written Word is the more sure way. Hodge further declares, "As right apprehensions of God, and holiness of heart and life, are nowhere found where the Scriptures are unknown, it is plain that the Scriptures, and not an inward light common to all men, are, by the ordinance of God, the only source to us of saving and sanctifying knowledge" (101). Though the Spirit does witness to our spirit the things of God, it does not do so apart from the presence of the written Word.
31Noll, The Princeton Theology, 33. See also Daryl G. Hart, "A Reconsideration of Biblical Inerrancy and the Princeton Theology's Alliance with Fundamentalism," Christian Scholar's Review 20, no. 4 (1991:362-75).
32 Hodge states that we must acknowledge "the controlling power over our beliefs exercised by the inward teachings of the Spirit, or, in other words, by our religious experience." {Systematic Theology, 1:15) These beliefs will never contradict Scripture provided that they are authentically given to us through the internal testimony of the Spirit who is "an invaluable guide in determining what the rule of faith teaches." (1:16) Hodge states, "All the truths taught by the constitution of our nature or by religious experience, are recognized and authenticated in the Scriptures. This is a safeguard and a limit." (1:15) The Scriptural limit is necessary because it provides an authoritative context for interpreting the experiences we have. Hodge states that "this inward teaching or demonstration of the Spirit is confined to truths objectively revealed in the Scriptures ... not a revelation of new truths, but an illumination of the mind, so that it apprehends the truth, excellence, and glory of things already revealed." (1:15) The inward teaching of the Spirit ought to take its rightful place in the development of theology, and "the facts of religious experience should be accepted as facts, and when duly authenticated by Scripture, be allowed to interpret the doctrinal statements of the World of God." (1:16) Common Sense Philosophy of the Old Princeton School without accounting for the fact that experience was given substantial attention as well.
In addition to Rationalism and Mysticism, Hodge also rejected Roman
Catholicism. Hodge saw within Roman Catholicism the same underlying characteristic found in Rationalism and Mysticism, namely, that Scripture was an authority predicated on another source of authority. While the Romanists reject Rationalism and Mysticism, they add Tradition and the Church to their definition of external divine revelation, claiming them to be infallible teachers and guides alongside Scripture.34
Hodge accuses the Romanists of viewing the Scriptures as incomplete because he believes that so many of their unique doctrines come primarily from sources outside
Scripture (e.g., the Apocrypha), thus implying that Scripture itself is insufficient to teach all necessary truth about God. Hodge states, "Tradition is always represented by
Romanists as not only the interpreter, but the complement of the Scriptures. The Bible therefore is, according to the Church of Rome, incomplete. It does not contain all the
Church is bound to believe; nor are the doctrines which it does contain therein fully or
3jThe tendency in much of the scholarship on the Old Princeton School is to focus entirely on the former to the detriment of the latter. Those who agree with the Princetonians' view of Scripture tend to celebrate the rationalistic leanings as indicative of a clear distinction between the Old Princeton theology and the "liberalism" of Schleiermacher. For them, to be rationalistic (within appropriate theological commitments) protects one from placing undue authority in religious feelings and experience. Those who disagree with the Princetonians' view of Scripture also emphasize the rationalistic leanings to show how over-trusting the Old Princeton theologians were in the power of reason. For them, a rationalistic theology, while avoiding the errors of Schleiermacher, ultimately dissolves into die same human-centered approach that characterizes liberalism. The result of this narrow perspective, from both sides, is that the Princetonians are often "used" to serve other agendas rather than presented in a balanced manner. See Noll, The Princeton Theology, 33-34. See also W. Andrew Hoffecker, Piety and the Princeton Theologians: Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, and Benjamin Warfield (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1981).
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:104. 78 clearly made known." Concomitant with this concern is that the Romanists implicitly render Scripture unclear in its teachings.36 For the Romanists, it is the Tradition that determines the "other" necessary to clarify and supplement what is found in Scripture.
Hodge succinctly contrasts the Protestant and Romanist views on the subject:
Protestants hold that the Bible, being addressed to the people, is sufficiently perspicuous to be understood by them, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; and that they are entitled and bound to search the Scripture, and to judge for themselves what is its true meaning. Romanists, on the other hand, teach that the Scriptures are so obscure that they need a visible, present, and infallible interpreter; and that the people, being incompetent to understand them, are bound to believe whatever doctrines the Church, through its official organs, declares to be true and divine.
•30
Hodge respects the role of Tradition in theology and notes that Scripture itself is a tradition of teaching that was handed down from patriarchs to the prophets, from Christ to the apostles. Hodge maintains, however, that Tradition should be submitted to rigorous critique by Scripture. Hodge states, "Hence the wisest and best of the fathers insisted on abiding by the written word, and receiving nothing as of divine authority not contained therein." For Hodge, any tradition, even the Tradition, is to be judged according to its adherence to the Sola Scriptura principle.
Hodge further claims that like Tradition, the Romanists elevate the status of the
Church and consider it an infallible guide. For Hodge, Scripture is the only infallible
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:106. Some of these unique doctrines include penance, purgatory, veneration of icons, and other sacraments that are not compatible with Reformed theology.
36Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:106.
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:106.
38Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:108. It seems Hodge is making a distinction here between the 7radition as a formal source of authority and ffadition as a necessary human construction in service to the Church.
39Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:109. 79 guide. Scripture itself attests to this, but beyond that, the Church has erred many times throughout its history. For Hodge, to render the church infallible is to equate Tradition and Scripture, with usually disastrous results.40 Thus, while Hodge appreciates the role of
Tradition and the Church, he believes that Scripture calls both into conformity with itself, acting as the arbiter between truth and falsehood.41
In sum, for Hodge, Scripture is that which keeps one from either extremes of depending entirely on reason or depending entirely on feelings. Scripture, as the primary source of authority, must judge the Tradition of the Church for faithfulness to the inspired text. One can submit to Scripture in this way because it is not capable of error as are all other sources of authority. When Scripture is made subservient to reason, philosophy, emotion, feelings, experience, Tradition, or the Church, the resultant theological system will diminish the truths of God's written Word and offer an erroneous system of doctrine.
The Princetonians believed that nothing less than the Christian faith itself was at stake in each of these competing systems of thought. In particular, the options of Rationalism and
Mysticism, coming forth from post-Enlightenment Protestantism, were particularly deceptive because they employed familiar Protestant terminology. Only a rigorous commitment to a high doctrine of Scripture could eschew these variegated heresies.
40Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:143-47. Hodge points to the Arian controversy as an example of a large portion of the Church in obvious error.
41Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:115—16. Hodge later summarizes, "The real status quaestionis, on this subject, as between Romanists and Protestants, is not (1) Whether the Spirit of God leads true believers into the knowledge of the truth; nor (2) whether true Christians agree in all essential matters as to truth and duty; nor (3) whether any man can safely or innocently dissent from this common faith of the people of God; but (4) whether apart from the revelation contained in the Bible, there is another supplementary and explanatory revelation, which has been handed down outside of the Scriptures, by tradition. In other words, whether there are doctrines, institutions, and ordinances, having no warrant in the Scriptures, which we as Christians are bound to receive and obey on the authority of what is called common consent. This Romanists affirm and Protestants deny" (1:120). Scripture and the Inductive Theological Method
In his first chapter, Hodge briefly describes the task of theology. For Hodge, theology is a science because it (1) gives knowledge of facts and (2) explains the
"internal relation of those facts, one to another, and each to all."43 In that it seeks to systematize facts, theology shares characteristics with astronomy, chemistry, and history.
Hodge states that in Scripture the theologian gathers the essential facts for theological construction because it "contains the truths which the theologian has to collect, authenticate, arrange, and exhibit in their internal relation to each other."44 Theology, in its biblical form, explains the facts; in its systematic form it takes those facts, determines
"their relation to each other and to other cognate truths ... vindicates them, and shows their harmony and consistency."45 Hodge believes that those seeking an intimate knowledge of God will seek to organize the facts of Scripture into a cohesive system.
While much of what follows involves Hodge's understanding of how theology "works," he does offer a formal definition of theology as follows: "We have, therefore, to restrict theology to its true sphere, as the science of the facts of divine revelation so far as those facts concerning the nature of God and our relation to him, as his creatures as sinners, and as the subjects of redemption. All these facts, as just remarked, are in the Bible. But as some of them are revealed by the works of God, and by the nature of man, there is so far a distinction between natural theology, and theology considered distinctively as a Christian science" (1:21). With reference to natural theology as mentioned in this quote, Hodge believes that Scripture attests that "the works of God reveal his being and attributes" (1:24). This revelation amounts to the clear presentation of God's "eternal power and Godhead" (1:25). However, Hodge states that while natural theology exists and does reveal certain truths about God, it is ultimately insufficient because it does not lead to salvation (1:25)
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:1.
^Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:1. The key point here is that Scripture contains the facts—it is, itself, not a theological system. God has so designed that human beings arrange those facts into an orderly whole.
45Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:2. See also B. B. Warfield, "The Task and Method of Systematic Theology," in Studies in Theology, ed. John E. Meeter (New York: Oxford University Press, 1932), 91-105 and B. B. Warfield, The Right of Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1897). 81
Hodge states that God desires that we "study his Word, and learn that, like the stars, its truths are not isolated points, but systems, cycles, and epicycles, in unending harmony and grandeur."46 Theological construction, then, is an act of worshipping God.
Hodge argues for what he calls the "inductive method," named such because of its relationship with the inductive method employed in science.47 He claims that the theologian's task parallels scientific investigation in that the theologian (1) comes to the theological task with certain assumptions, (2) attempts to combine many facts into a systematized whole, and (3) develops laws and principles to explain the interrelationships between those facts.48 The basic difference between the scientist and the theologian is that the scientist explores nature while the theologian explores Scripture. Hodge further describes the parallel as follows: "The Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the man of science. It is his storehouse of facts; and his method of ascertaining what the Bible teaches, is the same as that which the natural philosopher adopts to ascertain what nature teaches."49
Hodge concedes that some truths concerning God are revealed in God's works, in human nature as created in God's image, and in the experiences of believers. However, because God's works could be misinterpreted, Scripture offers a clearer revelation of the truth. Because the conscience does not always lead to proper understanding, Scripture has
46Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:3.
47The inductive scientific method of Francis Bacon was closely associated with the Scottish Common Sense Philosophy. However, Hodge accepted it more because of its orderly approach to reasoned investigation of data, not because of an aggressive commitment to Scottish Commons Sense Realism. See Peter Hicks, The Philosophy of Charles Hodge: A 19th Century Evangelical Approach to Reason, Knowledge and Truth (Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1997), 166-69.
48Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:9.
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:10. already revealed everything one can know from the moral conscience. In addition, because one can attribute "natural affections" to the teaching of the Spirit and therefore misunderstand spiritual experience, Scripture acts as "the norm and the standard of all genuine religious experience."51 Hodge believes that "everything revealed in nature and in the constitution of man concerning God and our relation to Him, is contained and authenticated in Scripture."52 For Hodge, one must look chiefly to Scripture because it is not liable to err as are the other sources of facts.
Since the theologian has a "great liability to error," a comprehensive induction is crucial to avoid arbitrary selection in gathering the facts of Scripture. If the induction is not comprehensive, the theologian could use the facts of Scripture to support his or her own presupposed system rather than heeding the actual teaching of the text.54 Hodge states, "We must take the facts of the Bible as they are, and construct our system as to embrace them all in their integrity."55 In doing so, the theologian is less liable to err, reducing the likelihood of faulty doctrine. Hodge writes:
It would be easy to show that in every department of theology, in regard to the nature of God, his relation to the world, the plan of salvation, the person and work of Christ, the nature of sin, the operations of divine grace, men, instead of taking
50Cf. Aquinas' argument for the necessity of sacra doctrina. Aquinas states, "It {sacra doctrind) is more certain, since the certainty of other sciences depends on the natural light of human reason, which is liable to err, whereas its own certainty is founded on the light of divine knowledge, which cannot be deceived." Aquinas on Nature and Grace: Selections from the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, trans. A. M. Fairweather (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954), 40.
51Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:11.
52Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:11.
53Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:11.
54Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:12.
'Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:13. 83
the facts of the Bible, and seeing what principles they imply, what philosophy underlies them, have adopted their philosophy independently of the Bible, to which the facts of the Bible are made to bend. This is utterly unphilosophical. It is the fundamental principle of all sciences, and of theology among the rest, that theory is to be determined by facts, and not facts by theory.56
For Hodge, everything in theological methodology relates to Scripture. Scripture
contains all the facts of theology, which, inductively discovered, are the source of the
theologian's deductions that become principles of a theological system. In the process,
the facts of Scripture orient the theologian's mind toward the correct principles, rather
than the theologian's imposing principles from his or her own mind onto the facts
themselves. Hodge summarizes as follows:
The true method of theology is, therefore, the inductive, which assumes that the Bible contains all the facts or truths which form the contents of theology, jast as the facts of nature are the contents of the natural sciences. It is also assumend that the relation of these Biblical facts to each other, the principles involved in them, the laws which determine them, are in the facts themselves, and are to be deduced from them, just as the laws of nature are deduced from the facts of nature. In neither case are the principles derived from the mind and imposed upon the facts, but equally in both departments, the principles or laws are deduced from the facts and recognized by the mind.57
The Princetonians' Doctrine of Scripture
The Question of Historical Continuity
The Old Princeton theologians claimed that they were not trying to state anything new in their doctrine of Scripture, for they believed novelty to be an indicator of error.58
'Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:14.
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:17. 84
They saw themselves as preserving a tradition that was not only biblical, but faithful to the historic Reformed faith. They identified themselves as Calvinists, and they saw a bold, unmistakable line of continuity from the Reformed doctrine of Calvin through the
Protestant Scholastic constructs of Turretin and ultimately to themselves. Noll writes,
"For the Princetonians, Calvin, the great lights of Puritanism, the Westminster standards, and the influential dogmaticians of seventeenth-century Europe all spoke with united voice in setting out the Reformed tradition."59
Because of this, one finds an absolutizing quality to their dogmatic statements concerning Scripture. Though some may interpret this dogmatism as naive or arrogant, it must be remembered that because of their opposition to Rationalism, Mysticism, and
Roman Catholicism, they sensed the need to make forceful statements in defence of the perceived historical continuity between themselves and the theologians of their heritage.60 The Princetonians believed that losing their historical connection with the
Reformers would undermine their theological proposals. They saw themselves as keepers of a tradition characterized by, among other things, an inerrantist position on Scripture.
They saw this position as constituent of a tradition within the Reformed faith. To demonstrate this unity of belief, Hodge compares the confessional statements on
58At the celebration of his semi-centennial year as professor of theology in 1872, Charles Hodge comments on his predecessors at the seminary and the theological tradition therein: "Again, Drs. Alexander and [Samuel] Miller were not speculative men. They were not given to new methods or new theories. They were content with the faith once delivered to the saints. / am not afraid to say that a new idea never originated in this Seminary. Their theological method was very simple. The Bible is the Word of God. That is to be assumed or proved. If granted; then it follows, that what the Bible says, God says. That ends the matter" (emphasis mine). See A. A. Hodge, The Life of Charles Hodge (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1880), 521.
59Noll, The Princeton Theology, 27-28.
60A clear tool employed by the Princetonians in their arguments against their opponents was to claim not only that they had invented new "doctrine" that was unsupported from Scripture, but that they had left the tradition of those most faithful to biblical teaching. 85
Scripture in the Smalcald Articles (Lutheran), the Formula of Concord (Lutheran), the
Reformed Confessio Helvetica II (Reformed), the Thirty-Nine Articles (Church of
England), and the Westminster Confession (Reformed/Presbyterian).61 While each
confession has its particular description of Scripture, Hodge notes that they all agree with the essential points listed above—that Scripture is inspired, infallible, authoritative,
inerrant, sufficient, and perspicuous.
Like Hodge, B. B. Warfield affirms historical precedent for a verbal-plenary doctrine of inspiration that implies infallibility and inerrancy. He states that the doctrine of Scripture in the history of the church is "that it looks upon the Bible as on oracular book—as the Word of God in such a sense that whatever it says God says—not a book, then, in which one may, by searching, find some word of God, but a book which may be frankly appealed to at any point with the assurance that whatever it may be found to say, that is the Word of God."63 Warfield demonstrates the historical continuity of this
1 Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:151-52.
62 Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:152. "Protestants hold, (1.) That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are therefore infallible, and of divine authority in all things pertaining to faith and practice, and consequently free from all error whether of doctrine, fact, or precept. (2.) That they contain all the extant supernatural revelations of God designed to be a rule of faith and practice to his Church. (3.) That they are sufficiently perspicuous to be understood by the people, in the use of ordinary means and by the aid of the Holy Spirit, in all things necessary to faith or practice, without the need of any infallible interpreter." Hodge's structure of explaining his doctrine of Scripture follows the pattern here, but with the overwhelming focus on the first point—inspiration. Under that theme of inspiration is where Hodge discusses infallibility, authority, and inerrancy. Note that while the term inerrancy is not explicitly stated, Hodge uses the expression, "free from error" as a clear implication of it.
63B. B. Warfield, "The Church Doctrine of Inspiration," in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 105-128 (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948), 106. Warfield states elsewhere, "This, then, is what we understand by the church doctrine: - a doctrine which claims that by a special, supernatural, extraordinary influence of the Holy Ghost, the sacred writers have been guided in their writing in such a way, as while their humanity was not superseded, it was yet so dominated that their words became at the same time the words of God, and thus, in every case and all alike, absolutely infallible." See B. B. Warfield, "Inspiration and Criticism," in The Inspiration and Authority of position by citing statements in Origen, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Augustine, Martin Luther,
John Calvin, Samuel Rutherford, Richard Baxter, and finally, Charles Hodge.64
Warfield points to the Westminster Confession's statement as uniquely binding
and authoritative, particularly to those closely associated with the Reformed tradition. He
states that the Westminster Confession is "the most complete, the most admirable, the
most perfect statement of the essential Christian doctrine of Holy Scripture which has
ever been formed by man."65 After making this laudatory statement, Warfield offers his
own interpretation of it. He states that "the Scriptures are declared to be the word of God
in such a sense that God is their author, and they, because immediately inspired by God,
are of infallible truth and divine authority, and are to be believed to be true by the
Christian man, in whatsoever is revealed in them, for the authority of God himself
speaking therein."66 It was the Westminster Confession that provided the necessary link between the teaching of the Reformers and the Old Princeton theologians.67
the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 419-442 (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948),
422.
^Warfield, "The Church Doctrine of Inspiration," 108-109.
65 Warfield, "The Church Doctrine of Inspiration," 111. s6Warfield, "The Church Doctrine of Inspiration," 111. Warfield also states elsewhere that the Church "has always recognized that this conception of co-authorship implies that the Spirit's superintendence extends to the choice of the words by the human authors (verbal inspiration), and preserves its product from everything inconsistent with a divine authorship—thus securing, among other things, that entire truthfulness which is everywhere presupposed in and asserted for Scripture by the Biblical writers (inerrancy)." See B. B. Warfield, "The Real Problem of Inspiration," in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 169-226 (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948), 173. (parenthesis original). Thus, for Warfield, inerrancy is not to be seen as an imposition upon the historical view of Scripture, for it is clearly implied.
67The Princetonians spent considerable effort in interpreting and applying the Westminster Confession in their own context. Both A. A. Hodge (the theology professor immediately preceding Warfield) and B. B. Warfield wrote extensive commentaries on the Westminster confession. See A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith: A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding the Westminster Confession (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1961), 25^5 and B. B. Warfield, "The Westminster 87
Inspiration as the Foundation of Inerrantist Bibliology
The Princetonians maintain that a proper understanding of inspiration, what it means as well as what it does not mean, is the most important feature in an orthodox and biblical doctrine of Scripture. Charles Hodge defines inspiration as follows in his
Systematic Theology: "Inspiration was an influence of the Holy Spirit on the minds of certain select men, which rendered them the organs of God for the infallible communication of his mind and will. They were in such a sense the organs of God, that what they said God said."68 A. A. Hodge, in the 1878 edition of his work, Outlines of
Theology, offers his own definition of inspiration: "The sacred writers were so influenced by the Holy Spirit that their writings are as a whole and in every part God's word to us— an authoritative revelation to us from God, indorsed by him, and sent to us as a rule of faith and practice, the original autographs of which are absolutely infallible when interpreted in the sense intended, and hence are clothed with absolute divine authority."69
A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, in their 1881 article "Inspiration" define inspiration as
"God's continued work of superintendence, by which, his providential, gracious and supernatural contributions having been presupposed, he presided over the sacred writers in their entire work of writing, with the design and effect of rendering that writing an
Doctrine of Holy Scripture," in The Westminster Assembly and Its Work, ed. John E. Meeter (New York: Oxford University Press, 1931), 155-257.
68Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:154. Charles Hodge further states that inspiration "is to secure infallibility in teaching." (1:155) Revelation renders its recipients wiser, whereas inspiration "was to preserve him [the human author of Scripture] from error in teaching" (1:155). For Hodge and the other Princetonians to follow, the clear purpose of inspiration is to ensure an errorless text.
69 Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 2nd ed. (1880; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 66. 88
errorless record of the matters he designed them to communicate, and hence constituting
the entire volume in all its parts the word of God to us."70 From these definitions, it is
clear that Scripture as "inspired" implies that it is given by God, authoritative, infallible,
71
and inerrant in the original autographs.
Given this understanding of inspiration, Charles Hodge anticipates the accusation
that a mechanical or dictation theory of inspiration is implied. Hodge answers that when
God uses creaturely instruments for His purposes, He does so in accordance with their
natures. Hodge states that God used the prophets' and apostles' unique characteristics and
natural abilities to record what He wished written: "Moreover, as inspiration did not
involve the suspension or suppression of the human faculties, so neither did it interfere
with the free exercise of the distinctive mental characteristics of the individual." Hodge
articulates an understanding of inspiration that takes into account the human elements of the text while affirming the divine activity that guided the process.
Like Hodge, Warfield offers his understanding of the divine-human relationship in the production of Scripture. He states first concerning the human author's role that
"their messages are given them, given them entire, and given them precisely as they are
70A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, "Inspiration," 17-18.
71The emphasis on the original autographs was seen previously in Turretin, but with the Old Princeton theologians, this emphasis becomes essential for setting forth the criteria for proving an error. These criteria will be explained later in the chapter.
2Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:156.
73Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:157. A. A. Hodge and Warfield echo the same sentiment in their 1881 article. Speaking of the process of inspiration, they claim, "In all this process, except in a small element of prophecy, it is evident that as the sacred writers were free and active in their thinking and in the expression of their thoughts, so they were conscious of what they were doing, of what their words meant, and of the design of their utterance. Yet, even then, it is no less evident that they all, like other free instruments of Providence, 'builded better than they knew.'" See A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, "Inspiration," 16-17. given out by them. God speaks through them: they are not merely His messengers, but
'His mouth.'"74 However, lest one think that Warfield implicitly negates a human element in the production of the text, he qualifies his statement: "But at the same time their intelligence is active in the reception, retention and announcing of their messages, contributing nothing to them but presenting fit instruments for the communication of them—instruments capable of understanding, responding profoundly to and zealously proclaiming them."75 Thus, the human authors participate in and contribute to the process, and this does not impinge on God's superintendence of the final product.
Warfield anticipates that because there is a human component to the authorship of
Scripture, some may argue for the necessity of fallibility. Warfield counters that "there is no ground for imagining that God is unable to frame His own message in the language of the organs of His revelation without its thereby ceasing to be, because expressed in a fashion natural to these organs, therefore purely His message."77 While it may be expected that anything authored by humans will be tainted with sin and error, there is no warrant for denying God the possibility to choose to ensure perfection in Scripture through the work of the Holy Spirit. The human element in Scripture does not necessitate the presence of error.
74B. B. Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Revelation," in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 71-102 (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 194), 91.
"Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Revelation," 91.
76This notion of Scripture being as if"Go d dictated it is similar to Calvin's thought as discussed in Chapter One.
"Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Revelation," 93.
78Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Revelation," 95, explains that "Although the circumstance that what is done is done by and through the action of human powers keeps the product in form and quality in a true sense human, yet the confluent operation of the Holy Spirit throughout the whole process raises the result above what could by any possibility be achieved by mere human powers and constitutes it expressly The Meaning of Theopneustos
Having defined and explained the theological concept of inspiration, the
Princetonians investigate the meaning of the Greek term for inspiration, theopneustos.
Hodge argues that theopneustos indicates a movement of God ("breathing out") upon a person or group as to render their words His words. Hodge states that "an inspired man was one who was the organ of God in what he said, so that his words were the words of the god of which he was the organ. When, therefore, the sacred writers use the same words and forms of expression which the ancients used to convey that idea, they must in
SO all honesty be assumed to mean the same thing." Hence, for Hodge, the meaning of theopneustos fits with the description of inspiration given above.
Warfield adds to Hodge's thoughts on the meaning of theopneustos, seeking to correct the misconception that theopneustos refers to something God does to an already- existing product. Warfield's contends that theopneustos refers to the development of
Scripture rather than an enhancement of Scripture as such. He states, "The Greek term has, however, nothing to say of mspiring or of mspiration: it speaks only of a 'spiring' or
'spiration.' What it says of Scripture is, not that it is 'breathed into by God' or is the a supernatural product." Warfield elsewhere explains that "(T)he human factors have acted as human factors, and have left their mark on the product as such, and yet cannot have fallen into that error which we say it is human to fall into, because they have not acted apart from the Divine factors, by themselves, but only under their unerring guidance." See B. B. Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 131-166 (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948), 162-163.
79Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:158.
i0Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:158. 91
product of the Divine 'inbreathing' into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by
God, 'God-breathed,' the product of the creative breath of God."81 If theopneustos were
something that happened to Scripture "after the fact" of its writing, there would be reason
to see it as only occasionally inspired, a thoroughly human product that contains God's
revelation but is not God's revelation itself. For both Warfield and Hodge, since
theopneustos means that God "breathed out" rather than God "breathed into," Scripture is
to be considered a divine product rather than a human product which God occasionally
inspires to accomplish His purposes.
Textual Evidence for Scripture's Inspiration
To demonstrate that Scripture teaches its own inspiration, Warfield examines in
detail the traditional proof-texts for the doctrine. He begins with a consideration of 2
Timothy 3:16. Warfield offers his own interpretation of the verse as follows: "Every
Scripture, seeing that it is God-breathed, is as well profitable." Warfield insists that this
paraphrastic rendering captures the authorial intent and avoids the faulty view that Paul is
saying only parts of Scripture are inspired.83 Warfield further explains, "In that case, what
81 Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," 133. Warfield elsewhere states that "The traditional translation of the word by the Latin inspiratus a Deo is ... discredited, if we are to take it at the foot of the letter. [Theopneustos] does not express a breathing into the Scriptures by God ... What it [theopneustos] affirms is that the Scriptures owe their origin to an activity of God the Holy Ghost and are in the highest and truest sense His creation. It is on the foundation of Divine origin that all the high attributes of Scripture are built." See B. B. Warfield, "God-Inspired Scripture," in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 245-296 (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948), 296.
82Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," 134.
83 Hodge also cautions against the "partial inspiration" theory, whether it manifest itself in the notion that only parts of Scripture were inspired, that inspiration refers to the doctrinal content only, that inspiration refers to the thoughts of the writers only, or that inspiration happened in degrees, thus producing some more and some less inspired portions of the text. Against this, Hodge states the following: "If our 92
the apostle asserts is that the Sacred Scriptures, in their every several passage—for it is just 'passage of Scripture' which 'Scripture' in this distributive use of it signifies—is the
product of the creative breath of God, and, because of this its Divine origination, is of
supreme value for all holy purposes."84 The plenary quality of inspiration is seen by
Warfield to be proven by the pasa graphe (translated "Every Scripture") at the beginning
of the verse. According to 2 Timothy 3:16, each portion of Scripture, no matter how
mundane or common its subject matter, carries the quality of having been breathed out by
Warfield next analyzes 2 Peter 1:21 for insight into how God breathed out the text. Warfield states, "It was through the instrumentality of men who 'spake from him.'
More specifically, it was through an operation of the Holy Ghost on these men which is described as 'bearing' them."86 Concerning this "bearing" of the Holy Spirit, Warfield
Lord and his Apostles declare the Old Testament to be the Word of God; that its authors spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; that what they said, the Spirit said; if they refer to the facts and to the very words of Scripture as of divine authority; and if the same infallible divine guidance was promised to the writers of the New Testament, and claimed by themselves; and if their claim was authenticated by God himself; then there is no room for, as there is no need of, these theories of partial inspiration. The whole Bible was written under such an influence as preserved its human authors from all error, and makes it for the Church the infallible rule of faith and practice." {Systematic Theology, 1:181—82)
84Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," 134.
85 That the inspiration of Scripture applies to all its parts is affirmed by Hodge as well. He states that "all the books of Scripture are equally inspired. All alike are infallible in what they teach" (Systematic Theology, 1:163). Concomitant with this is that "inspiration extends to all the contents of these several books. It is not confined to those moral and religious truths, but extends to the statements of facts, whether scientific, historical, or geographical. It is not confined to those facts the importance of which is obvious, or which are involved in matters of doctrine. It extends to everything which any sacred writer asserts to be true." Since the human authors of Scripture were organs of God and what they say, God says, all "their assertions must be free from error." What God would intend to have written would certainly not be erroneous. Jesus himself stated that "the Scriptures cannot be broken" (John 10:35), which Hodge interprets as "The Scriptures cannot err." For Hodge, inerrancy is a necessary implication of the Scriptural notion of inspiration.
86Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," 137. Hodge also states that the very word "prophet" affirms the supernatural character of Scripture, particularly the idea that the words of the prophets were actually the words of another. (Systematic Theology, 158-59) Hodge argues that all of Scripture was written by those who were, in effect, prophets. Given this truth, Hodge states that the very people involved 93 states, "It is not to be confounded with guiding, or directing, or controlling, or even leading in the full sense of that word. It goes beyond all such terms, in assigning the effect produced specifically to the active agent. What is 'borne' is taken up by the
'bearer,' and conveyed by the 'bearer's' power, not its own, to the 'bearer's' goal, not its own."87 For Warfield, the "bearing" of the Holy Spirit ensures that the final product of
Scripture is precisely what God intended.
For further textual support that Scripture teaches its own inspiration, Warfield notes Christ's quote of Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:4. Here, Jesus attributes the verse in
Genesis to God with the expression "He says." Warfield states that nowhere in Genesis
2:24 do we see that God is speaking; "Thus clear is it that Jesus' occasional adduction of
Scripture as an authoritative document rests on an ascription of it to God as its author.
His testimony is that whatever stands written in Scripture is a word of God." This is one example, for Warfield, of an interchangeable expression of Scripture as the voice of God and the words of God as Scripture. After listing myriad texts where Scripture's speaking and God's speaking are interchangeable, Warfield states that, "When we take the two classes of passages together, in the one of which the Scriptures are spoken of as God, while in the other God is spoken of as if He were the Scriptures, we may perceive how
in the writing of Scripture are repeatedly said to have spoken on behalf of God. Hodge states, "Prophecy, i.e., what a prophet said, was not human, but divine. It was not the prophet's own interpretation of the mind and will of God. He spoke as the organ of the Holy Ghost" (Systematic Theology, 159). Because those writing Scripture were properly fulfilling the prophetic office, Hodge believes that this further demonstrates that Scripture should bear the marks of something whose words are the very words of God.
87Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," 137. Warfield concludes his reflection on 2 Peter 1:21 with the following statement: "Because this is the way every prophecy of Scripture 'has been brought,' it affords a more sure basis of confidence than even the testimony of human eyewitnesses." (137)
'Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," 143. 94 close the identification of the two was in the minds of the writers of the New
Testament."89
Warfield also cites John 10:35, where Jesus says "The Scriptures cannot be broken," as further biblical evidence for inspiration and, subsequently, inerrancy. That
Jesus would make such claims about Scripture demonstrates for Warfield that the entire corpus of Scripture is inspired of God and therefore infallible. He states concerning this text, "The movement of thought is to the effect that, because it is impossible for the
Scripture—the term is perfectly general and witnesses to the unitary character of
Scripture (it is all, for the purpose in hand, of a piece)—to be withstood, therefore this particular Scripture which is cited must be taken as of irrefragable authority."90 Warfield notes that in the immediate context of this statement, Jesus is proving his point to the
Pharisees using an emphasis on a minor detail in the text of Scripture. Warfield notes
Jesus's attention to detail and states that "in the Savior's view the indefectible authority of Scripture attaches to the very form of expression of its most casual clauses. It belongs to Scripture through and through, down to its most minute particulars, that it is of indefectible authority." Based on Jesus's own words in Scripture, Warfield believes he
Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," 146. Some of Warfield's examples include Hebrews 3:7 quoting Psalm 95:7; Acts 4:25 quoting Psalm 2:1; and Acts 13:34 quoting Isaiah 55:3 and Psalm 16:10.
90Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," 139.
91Hodge also references John 10:35, showing that when Jesus famously claimed "The Scriptures cannot be broken," he was referring to a single word that was the subject of debate. {Systematic Theology, 1:164) Jesus' concern for the very words of the text demonstrates that inspiration extends to every word.
Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," 140. 95 has given ample evidence that verbal-plenary inspiration is Scripture's teaching concerning itself.
How Biblical Figures View the Biblical Text
Hodge states that Christ and the apostles regularly "quote the Pentateuch, the historical books, the Psalms, and the Prophets, as all and equally the word of God."94
They seem to make no distinction between "important" and "mundane" portions, and all books and sections of books were treated as infallible. Hodge claims further that Christ and the apostles assumed the facts of Scripture to be historically true, understanding them in a literal way and thus affirming them to be without error. Hodge states that not only doctrinal facts were referred to as "truth," such as the creation, fall of man, the covenants, and the giving of the law, but historical facts such as the flood and the crossing of the
Red Sea are described as actual events that happened just as Scripture describes.95
Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," 140. Concerning the way the apostles and Christ used Scripture, Warfield states, "Everywhere, to Him and to them alike, an appeal to Scripture is an appeal to an indefectible authority whose determination is final; both He and they make their appeal indifferently to every part of Scripture, to every element in Scripture, to its most incidental clauses as well as to its most fundamental principles, and to the very form of its expression." Warfield also notes that in Matt. 22:29 and Mark 12:24, Jesus infers that error is caused by not knowing the Scriptures with the implication that knowing Scripture would have prevented error. (143) Warfield also indicates that Christ based arguments on specific phrases of Scripture (Jn. 10:34), the tense (Mt. 22:32), or a single word (Mt. 22:43). (149)
94Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:163.
95Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:163. Hodge further states that even "incidental circumstances" were taken to be true, just as they appeared in their description by Scripture. Instances such as "that Moses lifted up a serpent in the wilderness; that Elijah healed Naaman, the Syrian, and was sent to the widow in Sarepta; that David at the shew-bread in the temple; and even that great stumbling-block, that Jonah was three days in the whale's belly, are all referred to by our Lord and his Apostles with the sublime simplicity and confidence with which they are received by little children." (163-164) Warfield also maintained that the way in which the apostles and Christ used
Scripture attests that they believed it to be the very Word of God written. He writes,
The lofty titles which are given to Scripture, and by which it is cited, such as "Scripture," "the Scriptures," even that almost awful title, "the Oracles of God"; the significant formulae by which it is quoted, "It is written," "It is spoken," "It says," "God says"; such modes of adducing it as betray that to the writer "Scripture says" is equivalent to "God says," and even its narrative parts are conceived as direct utterances of God; the attribution to Scripture, as such, of divine qualities and acts, as in such phrases as "the Scriptures foresaw"; the ascription of the Scriptures, in whole or in their several parts as occasionally adduced, to the Holy Spirit as their author, while the human writers are treated as merely his media of expression; the reverence and trust shown, and the significance and authority ascribed, to the very words of Scripture; and the general attitude of entire subjection to every declaration of Scripture of whatever kind, which characterizes every line of the New Testament.96
Reflecting further, Warfield notes, "Under the force of their conception of the Scriptures as an oracular book, it was all one to the New Testament writers whether they said 'God
says' or 'Scripture says.' This is made very clear, as their real standpoint, by their double identification of Scripture with God and God with Scripture." Again Warfield continues, "The Old Testament Scriptures, as such, were esteemed by the writers of the
New Testament as an oracular book, which in itself not merely contains, but is the
'utterance,' the very Word of God; and is to be appealed to as such and as such deferred
QO to, because nothing other than the crystallized speech of God." In using language such
^Warfield, "The Church Doctrine of Inspiration," 119.
97B. B. Warfield, '"It Says:' 'Scripture Says:' 'God Says'," in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 299-348 (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948), 348. This is one of Warfield's strongest statements concerning the divine quality of Scripture, virtually equating Scripture's speech with God's speech.
98B. B. Warfield, "The Oracles of God," in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 351^107 (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948), 406. as "the crystallized speech of God," Warfield reveals his belief that infallibility and
inerrancy are necessarily implied from verbal-plenary inspiration."
Warfield argues that we can only trust what the biblical writers teach about the
inspiration of their own work when we are disposed to see them as trustworthy teachers
of doctrine. He states, "If they are trustworthy teachers of doctrine and if they held and taught this doctrine, then this doctrine is true, and is to be accepted and acted upon as true by us all."100 In the logical development of his position, Warfield begins with the human authors' trustworthiness as a foundation for accepting biblical evidence in favor of the doctrine of inspiration. The apparent circularity of appealing to Scripture itself for proof of inspiration does not trouble Warfield. He states that all Christians consider the biblical writers trustworthy to teach doctrine about things such as justification by faith, the deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, and many other doctrines. So, Warfield asks rhetorically, why should one not trust them when speaking on Scripture?101
"Note, in another instance, how strongly Warfield asserts this identification of Scripture with the Word of God: "We content ourselves at this time, however, with merely pointing out that the designation of the Scriptures as ta logia tou theou fairly shouts to us out of the pages of the New Testament, that to its writers the Scriptures of the Old Testament were the very Word of God in the highest and strictest sense that term can bear—the express utterance, in all their parts and each and every of their words, of the Most High—the 'oracles of God.' Let him that thinks them something other and less than this, reckon, then, with the apostles and prophets of the New Covenant—to whose trustworthiness as witnesses to doctrinal truth he owes all he knows about the New Covenant itself, and therefore all he hopes for through this New Covenant." See Warfield, "The Oracles of God," 407.
100Warfield, "The Real Problem of Inspiration," 174.
101 Warfield, "The Real Problem of Inspiration," 174. Warfield also states that "even those writers who cannot bring themselves to admit the truth of the doctrines, yet not infrequently begin by admitting that the New Testament writers claim such an inspiration as is in it presupposed." See Warfield, "Inspiration and Criticism," 423. 98
The Princetonian Defence of Inerrancy
Answers to Common Objections
For the Princetonians, inerrancy was more than a characteristic of Scripture
logically deduced from their concept of inspiration. Once inerrancy was logically
deduced, it became essential for Scripture to be considered an absolutely authoritative
deposit of revelation. Hodge and Warfield rigorously defended their view of inerrancy against multiple objections because they were defending a tradition and not just one position in their doctrine of Scripture among many.
In his defence of the inerrantist position, Hodge addresses many common objections. Some objections "arise from the rejection of one or other of the presumptions" which are necessary for faith in revelation generally and the inspiration of
Scripture specifically.103 Hodge states that if one will not grant the presuppositions of
Christian belief concerning God, his relation to the word, the working of miracles, his providence in human affairs, and his self-disclosure in Scripture; then there is no purpose in trying to convince that person of the truth of inspiration and inerrancy. Additionally, some object to inerrancy based on a misunderstanding of the "correct statement of what
Hodge asserts, "It is impossible duly to estimate the importance of this subject. If the Bible be the word of God, all the great questions which for ages have agitated the minds of men are settled with infallible certainty. Human reason has never been able to answer to its own satisfaction, or to the assurance of others, the vital questions ... Without the Bible, we are, on all these subjects, in utter darkness." (Systematic Theology, 1:171)
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:168. the Church believes on the subject" of inspiration.1 4 These objectors will not accept the appropriate position on Scripture unless they are given an accurate presentation of it.105
Hodge specifically addresses those who believe the human authors of Scripture contradict each other. He states that most of the perceived errors of contradiction concern numbers and dates, relatively insignificant particulars. And, many of the contradictory errors are only apparent and when examined closely, reveal themselves to be reconcilable. Furthermore, Hodge argues that many supposed errors likely happened in the translation or copying process. Hence, they are not errors in the original autographs, where Hodge believes the qualities of inspiration and infallibility lie.106 Finally, Hodge claims that none of these supposed errors of contradiction concern significant doctrine.
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:168.
105The most typical misunderstanding, Hodge notes, is the assumption that if inerrancy is true, God must have used the human authors of Scripture as if they were machines. Hodge states that this misunderstanding is easily overcome, for God's providence is seen working with human volition in many circumstances. "If God, without interfering with a man's free agency, can make it infallibly certain that he will repent and believe, He can render it certain that he will not err in teaching. It is in vain to profess to hold the common doctrine of Theism, and yet assert that God cannot control rational creatures without turning them into machines." (Systematic Theology, 1:169)
106 Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:169. See B. B. Warfield, "The Inerrancy of the Original Autographs," in Selected Shorter Writings Vol. 2, ed. John E. Meeter (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1973), 580-87. In this brief article, Warfield states the following based on his understanding of the Westminster Confession: "Of translations, it declares that they competently transmit the Word of God for all practical purposes. Of the transmitted text, it affirms that it has been providentially kept so pure as to retain full authoritativeness in all controversies of religion. Of the original text, it asserts that it was 'immediately inspired of God'—a technical term in common theological use at the time, by which the idea of divine authorship, in the highest sense of the word, is conveyed. To this original text alone, therefore, it is to be understood, are attributed, in their fullest sense, the various 'qualities' of Scripture which are ascribed to it in the Confession, on the ground of its being the Word of God—such as divine authority, perfection, perspicuity, entire trustworthiness, and the like" (580-81). And later, he states, "Of course, every man of common sense from the beginning of the world has recognized the difference between the genuine text and the errors of transmission, and has attached his confidence to the former in rejection of the latter" (585).
107 This argument seems to contradict what Hodge had just stated concerning inspiration and infallibility pertaining to all parts of Scripture equally. (Systematic Theology, 1:169-170) However, Hodge here is not making a positive statement concerning inspiration and infallibility. Rather, he is answering the objector, allowing their accusations to hypothetically stand. He states that even if he does this, the integrity of Scripture still withstands such criticism. He states, "The errors in matters of fact which sceptics search out bear no proportion to the whole."108 Just as no one would deny "the Parthenon was built of marble, even if here and there a speck of sandstone should be detected in its structure," Hodge states that it is no less unreasonable "to deny the inspiration of such a book as the Bible, because one sacred writer says that on a given occasion twenty-four thousand, and another says twenty-three thousand, men were slain. Surely a Christian may be allowed to tread such objections under his feet."109 Because of the remarkable unity of Scripture throughout its books, Hodge, even allowing for a minor imprecision, still affirms the complete inerrancy of the text. Hodge's belief in a completely inerrant Bible is not shaken because he is unable to answer every apparent contradiction. He is confident that the true facts, if ever completely known, will support his position.
10SHodge, Systematic Theology, 1:170.
109Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:170. This famous statement by Hodge has been used to claim that Hodge preferred the notion of infallibility' over 'inerrancy', allowing for minor errors in the text. See Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800-1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 125-27. However, Hodge makes this statement in the context of finding apparent errors in Scripture which "with our present means of knowledge, we are unable to satisfactorily explain" (Systematic Theology, 1:170, the preceding sentence of the one cited above in the main text). Though it may indeed appear that Hodge is giving significant ground on this issue, he is discussing errors that are only apparent. See also Roger Nicole, "Charles Hodge's View of Inerrancy," in A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, Inspiration, ed. Roger Nicole, 93-95 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979). Nicole states, "The quotation advanced above does not conclusively prove that Charles Hodge admitted some slight original errors in Scriptures. Its meaning in keeping with the context must be simply that he was not deterred from confessing the infallibility of the Bible by his inability to provide a fully satisfactory explanation in every one of the cases where a discrepancy is alleged" (95).
110 Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:170. Hodge also maintains that there is "a distinction to be made between the Bible and our interpretation. The latter may come into competition with settled facts; and then it must yield" (1:171). Hodge notes that scientific facts, as they have been established as such, have often forced the church to adjust her interpretation of Scripture. However, no shift in interpretation has rendered Scripture errant. When the Church needed to shift from a Ptolemic understanding of Earth's position in the solar system to the Copernican understanding, it was scandalous for some. However, today we understand that Scripture did not err in this matter—it is describing certain phenomena from our earthly perspective. Hodge offers another, more contemporary, example in claiming that if geologists prove the earth is ages old versus a few thousand years, the interpretation of Genesis 1 will have to change. Yet, he states, the fact of its inerrant teaching will not (1:171). Hodge believes the inerrantist position can withstand even changes in our fallible and inadequate interpretations of the text. 101
For Warfield, to believe that Scripture is inspired, inerrant, and completely
authoritative is a presupposition of faith.111 Warfield also recognizes that the general
belief in the trustworthiness of Scripture is a "presumption, [that stands against] the
reality of any phenomena alleged to be discovered which make against its testimony."112
Yet even though this belief is a presupposition, we cannot easily dismiss it. He states that
this "is the theory of the apostles and of the Lord, and that in abandoning it we are
abandoning them as our doctrinal teachers and guides, as our 'exegetes,' in the deep and
rich sense of that word."113 When Warfield confronts objections to inerrancy, he readily
admits that he comes to the study of Scripture with a "very strong presumption that these
mWarfield also readily admits that his view needs to be presupposed to be fully accepted. His chosen method, he states, "proceeds by obtaining first the doctrine of inspiration taught by the Bible as applicable to itself, and then testing this doctrine by the facts as to the Bible as ascertained by biblical criticism and exegesis." ("The Real Problem of Inspiration," 223) The second method, asserts Warfield, "proceeds by seeking the doctrine of inspiration in the first instance through a comprehensive induction from the facts as to the structure and contents of the Bible, as ascertained by critical and exegetical processes, treating all these facts as co-factors of the same rank for the induction." (223) Warfield argues that if the second method is chosen, it is "liable to danger of modifying the teaching by the facts without clear recognition of what is being done; the result of which would be the loss fromobservatio n of one main fact of errancy, viz., the inaccuracy of the teaching of the Scriptures as to their own inspiration." (224) Should this happen, the entire process is vitiated. Hence, claims Warfield, the only way to avoid this is "by ascertaining separately the teaching of Scripture as to its own inspiration, and by accounting the results of this ascertainment one of the facts of the induction. Then we are in a position to judge by the comparison of this fact with the other facts, whether this fact of teaching is in accord or in disaccord with those facts of performance." (224) In other words, we ought to, according to Warfield, begin with verbal-plenary inspiration as a fact that is taught, and then compare that fact with other facts we find. If we operate this way, claims Warfield, "we approach the phenomena with the question whether they will negative this doctrine, and we find none able to stand against it, commended to us as true, as it is, by the vast mass of evidence available to prove the trustworthiness of the Scriptural writers as teachers of doctrine." (225) However, if we begin with the phenomena that we see, rather than the explicit teaching, "it may easily happen with us, as it happened with certain of old, that meeting with some things hard to be understood, we may be ignorant and unstable enough to wrest them to our own intellectual destruction, and so approach the Biblical doctrine of inspiration set upon explaining it away." (225) Often, the chosen method is a matter of one's presupposed doctrine. Warfield is keenly aware of this, and his concern is to, at the very least, force the critics of verbal-plenary inspiration to admit their own presupposition against the doctrine.
112 Warfield, "The Real Problem of Inspiration," 175. (parenthesis mine).
U3Warfield, "The Real Problem of Inspiration," 180. Warfield's use of the term 'theory' here is not suggesting a lack of certainty in the apostles and Jesus Christ. In Warfield's day and context, the term 'theory' was largely synonymous with 'belief.' His use of this term fits well with what he is arguing in this section—that Scripture's inspiration and inerrancy are believed presuppositions of faith. Scriptures contain no errors, and that any 'phenomena' apparently inconsistent with their
inerrancy are so in appearance only: a presumption the measure of which is just the
whole amount and weight of evidence that the New Testament writers are trustworthy as
teachers of doctrine."114 For Warfield, rejecting inspiration and inerrancy is simply
denying truth.115
The Criteria for Proving an Error
One of the most distinguishable features of the Old Princeton School's inerrantist
position is the attention its theologians gave to setting forth the conditions necessary for
proving an error in Scripture. They did not do this because they thought finding an error
was likely; rather, they painstakingly set forth this criteria in order to show how
inerrancy, as deduced from inspiration, can withstand any attack levelled against it. In
giving this much attention to the impenetrability of inerrancy, the Princetonians clearly
demonstrate that they perceived themselves to be defending a tradition, not just a position
on Scripture. For the Princetonians, insulating inerrancy from falsification was essential.
114Warfield, "The Real Problem of Inspiration," 215.
115 While Warfield boldly states his case for inerrancy, in other places he notes some necessary (and typical) qualifications to his position. He states, "It is to be remembered, again, that no objection touches the question that is obtained by pressing the primary sense of phrases or idioms." ("Inspiration and Criticism," 438). In other words, the traditional notion of inerrancy allows for figures of speech and poetic (even imprecise) language. Warfield's further qualifies inerrancy by noting that "we must remember again that no objection is valid which is gained by overlooking the prime question of the intentions and professions of the writer. Inspiration, securing absolute truth, secures that the writer shall do what he professes to do; not what he does not profess." (438) If the biblical writers are trying to give a general sense of an OT text, or if they are giving a general chronology, arranging events to fit their narrative purpose, then they cannot be rightly accused of error, even if their quotations are not literal or if their chronology is constructed rather than historically precise. Hodge concedes that if errors in Scripture could be proven true, then all
dependence on Scripture would be called into question.116 Though it seems this
admission places Scripture "at risk," Hodge assures his readers that the burden of proof
lies with the one who denies Scripture's inerrancy. Hodge argues, "The question,
therefore, is a question of fact. Do the sacred writers contradict each other? Do the
Scriptures teach what from any source can be proved not to be true? The question is not
117
whether the views of the sacred writers were incorrect, but whether they taught error?"
Here Hodge establishes two qualifiers for those who would claim Scripture is errant.
First, the supposed error must be demonstrated to be present against all possible
explanations. Second, the supposed error must be concerning something the human
authors explicitly taught. In other words, while it is possible (and probable) that the
prophets and apostles held errant views of some things, due to their ancient worldview, it • 118
does not necessarily mean that their teaching is erroneous.
Warfield also insists that the burden of proof lay upon the one objecting to
inerrancy. He claims, "If it would be a crime to refuse to consider most carefully and
candidly any phenomena of Scripture asserted to be inconsistent with its inerrancy, it
would be equally a crime to accept the asserted reality of phenomena of Scripture, which,
if real, strike at the trustworthiness of the apostolic witness to doctrine, on any evidence of less than demonstrative weight."119 The reality of scriptural phenomena that truly
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:169. "If the Scriptures abound in contradictions and errors, then it is vain to contend that they were written under an influence which precludes all error."
117Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:169.
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:169. 104 contradicts verbal-plenary inspiration "cannot be logically or rationally recognized unless the evidence for it be greater in amount and weight than the whole mass of evidence for the trustworthiness of the Biblical writers as teachers of doctrine."120 For Warfield, while there may seem to be errors in the text, to conclusively prove it will be difficult, given the need to overcome the weight of the entire biblical teaching.
The clearest articulation of the criteria necessary for proving an error comes from the 1881 article, "Inspiration," by A. A. Hodge and Warfield. In this article, A. A. Hodge and Warfield claim that all must follow what the evidence proves to be true in the matter of inerrancy.122 However, in order for an error to be legitimately proven, it must meet three criteria. First, it must "be proved that each alleged discrepant statement certainly
19^ occurred in the original autograph of the sacred book in which it is said to be found."
As noted earlier in the chapter, for the Princetonians, the locus of inerrancy is in the original autographs of Scripture. Because these originals no longer exist, the one seeking Warfield, "The Real Problem of Inspiration," 218. The necessity of "demonstrative weight" to prove an error is significant for Warfield. In another context, he states, "For if the inaccuracies are apparent only,—if they are not indubitable inaccuracies,—they do not raise the slightest presumption against the full, verbal inspiration of the book. Have such errors been pointed out? That seems the sole question before us now. And any sober criticism must answer categorically to it, No!" See Warfield, "Inspiration and Criticism," 439. See also A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, "Inspiration," 27.
120Warfield, "The Real Problem of Inspiration," 219.
121 Warfield states, "Those [errors] which seemed most obvious and intractable a generation or two ago, remain today as only too readily forgotten warnings against the ineradicable and inordinate dogmatism of the opponents of the inerrancy of the Bible, who over-ride continually every canon of historical and critical caution in their eager violence against the doctrine that they assail... The matter has come to such a pass, indeed, in the progress of discovery, mat there is a sense in which it may be said that the doctrine of die inerrancy of the bible can now be based, with considerable confidence, on its observed 'phenomena.'" ("The Real Problem of Inspiration," 221) Concomitant with this confident statement of the proven success of inerrancy, Warfield professes the failure of biblical criticism: "We repeat, then, that all the fierce light of criticism which has so long been beating upon their open pages has not yet been able to settle one indubitable error on the New Testament writers. ... Modern criticism has absolutely no valid argument to bring against the church doctrine of verbal inspiration, drawn from the phenomena of Scripture. This seems indubitably true." See Warfield, "Inspiration and Criticism," 440.
122A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, "Inspiration," 36.
123A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, "Inspiration," 36. to demonstrate an error in Scripture must first show that the passage under investigation clearly reflects the original autograph accurately. Only then can the argument for errancy be continued.124
Second, it must "be proved that the interpretation which occasions the apparent discrepancy is the one which the passage was evidently intended to bear." A. A. Hodge and Warfield argue that many supposed errors in Scripture have been purported based on a wrong interpretation of the text at hand. Therefore, one must be able to present a clear explanation of the right interpretation of a given passage, with assurance of authorial intent, and only then can that text be brought into question by some supposed evidence of error. As A. A. Hodge and Warfield state, "The true meaning must be definitely and certainly ascertained, and then shown to be irreconcilable with other known truth."126
The third criterion for proving an error is that it must "be proved that the true sense of some part of the original autograph is directly and necessarily inconsistent with some certainly known fact of history or truth of science, or some other statement of
Scripture certainly ascertained and interpreted." Not only must the one seeking to
A clear objection can be raised to the Princetonians here in that they believe they can claim inerrancy without the original autographs; yet they claim the errantist must be able to make certain appeal to the original autographs. However, the Princetonians regularly claim that while the original autographs are no longer available, there is enough manuscript evidence to believe that the present texts are reliable, at least reliable enough to support an inerrantist position. So, unless they are being willfully inconsistent, it would seem that the Princetonians would have to admit that the first criterion is attainable with a sufficient amount of manuscript evidence.
125A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, "Inspiration," 36.
126A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, "Inspiration," 36. Hodge and Warfield do not suggest any particular standard by which the correct interpretation of a text could be certainly known, but they do insist that the one attempting to prove errancy must possess it.
A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, "Inspiration," 36. prove error be correct concerning the text and its interpretation, he or she must also be correct about the competing evidence brought to bear upon the text in question.
With all these criteria in place, A. A. Hodge and Warfield confidently proclaim that no alleged error of Scripture has successfully met the above criteria, thus demonstrating the strength of the inerrantist viewpoint. They state, "We believe that it can be shown that this has never been successfully done in the case of one single alleged instance of error in the WORD OF GOD."128 Since the real question of inerrancy versus errancy is one of truth, not of style or form or perceived difficulties, the Princetonians argue for an impenetrable certainty for their inerrantist belief. That inerrancy be impenetrable is important for the Princetonians because they believe "the accurate conveyance of truth" to be the true purpose of inspiration.
With this superstructure for proving error, the Princetonians basically render inerrancy non-falsifiable. Even if an alleged error actually met the above criteria, the likelihood that it would acceptably meet the criteria for the Princetonians is doubtful.
What this proves is that the Princetonians held to an inerrantist understanding of
Scripture as a presupposition of faith. Their view of inspiration, based on a close relationship of God with the text of Scripture, logically led them to this particular understanding of inerrancy. Inerrancy, then, became the "end" of their bibliology, the true result of their doctrinal affirmations. This end, it seems, explains why they sensed the
A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, "Inspiration," 36. (Emphasis original)
'A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, "Inspiration," 42. need to rigorously defend their inerrantist tradition to the point that they made refuting it practically impossible.
Dissenting Voices Concerning the Old Princeton Inerrantist Position
The inerrantist position of the Old Princeton School was dominant in American
Presbyterianism, particularly during the late 1800s and early 1900s. However, not all within the Presbyterian denomination agreed with the views of the Princeton theologians.
Though a lengthy analysis is beyond the scope of this chapter, two contrary positions will suffice. The first is from Charles Briggs, professor at Union Seminary in New York from
1876-1893.131 Briggs's disagreement with the Princetonians was controversial to the point that he was removed from ministry in 1893 by the Presbyterian General Assembly because of his rejection of inerrancy. In his work, Whither?, Briggs bases his objection to the Princetonian inerrantist position on two key points of contention. First, Briggs argues that A. A. Hodge and Warfield overstated their case when they claimed direct continuity from the Reformed creeds, particularly the Westminster Confession, to their
It is precisely because of this rigorous defense of inerrancy that the majority of scholars accuse the Old Princeton theologians of being rationalist in some sense. Clearly, there is warrant to this accusation, based on Hodge and Warfield's statements above. However, there is also a sense in which, because inerrancy was such a "given" for the Princetonians, there was little chance of them ever considering "evidence" against their position. At least, if evidence was to be considered, it would have to meet the aforementioned criteria. Therefore, it seems that at the very point the Princetonians seem most "rationalist"—this is the point at which they were unashamedly basing their position on a presupposition of faith. Of course, there is a rational explanation and logical process behind the arrival at such a presupposition. The very criteria listed above are obviously based on a logically deductive process. Yet, once inerrancy had become a presupposition, it was held tenaciously, with no possibility of being retracted.
131A succinct overview of Briggs' career and his relationship to the Princetonians is found in Rogers and McKim, Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, 348-361.
132Charles Augustus Briggs, Whither?: A Theological Question for the Times (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1889). 108 own view. States Briggs, "Dr. Hodge had no authority to define the faith of the
Presbyterian Church and of evangelical Christians. The faith of the Church is contained in the creeds; and no confession of faith or catechism of recognized standing in the
Reformed or Lutheran Church, teaches that the Scriptures are inspired in their verbal expression."133 Briggs argues that in the confessions, inspiration has a broader sense that includes ideas and concepts, not exclusively words.
Second, Briggs argues that by limiting inspiration to the "verbal expression," the
Princetonians were forced to limit inspiration to the original autographs alone. While they thought this helped bolster their inerrantist position, Briggs argues that the results are devastating. He states, "Verbal inspiration makes the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Greek documents as they came from the hands of their writers, the only inspired Word of
God."134 Furthermore, because no translation can perfectly render the original, "It therefore results in the denial that there are inspired thoughts in the English Bible. It cuts off the Christian people from the real word of God and gives them a human substitute."135
Briggs believes that the Princetonians' unfortunate insistence on the unique character of the original autographs is due to their strong defense of the inerrantist position. Particularly, Briggs denounces an appeal to the original autographs for inerrancy, even when it is admitted that the best translations contain errors. Because all one has before them is errant copies, "It is sheer assumption to claim that the original documents were inerrant. No one can be persuaded to believe in the inerrancy of
Briggs, Whither?, 64.
'Briggs, Whither?, 65.
'Briggs, Whither?, 65. Scripture, except by a priori considerations from the elaboration of the doctrine of verbal inspiration."136 Briggs argues that here, the Princetonians have gone beyond the
Reformers' teaching on Scripture as well as that of the Westminster Confession.
Another dissenting voice is from James Orr, a Scottish minister and theologian who rejected inerrancy but was highly influential in American Fundamentalism and maintained a friendly relationship with Warfield through the end of his career. His critique was more irenic in that while he thought Warfield and the other Princetonians had gone too far in their inerrantist position, they were still to be considered comrades in the battle against liberalism.139 In his work, Revelation and Inspiration,1 ° Orr argues that inerrancy "can never be demonstrated with a cogency which entitles it to rank as the foundation of a belief in inspiration. It must remain to those who hold it a doctrine of faith; a deduction from what they deem to be implied in an inspiration established independently of it; not a ground of belief in the inspiration."141 Here Orr is not
136,Briggs , Whither?, 68-69.
137Briggs, , Whither?, 69.
138For a succinct overview of Orr and his relationship to the Old Princeton theology, see A. T. B. McGowan, The Divine Authenticity of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 126-39. See also Rogers and McKim, Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, 385-88. Even though he denied inerrancy, Orr contributed four articles to The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, ed. A. C. Dixon, L. Meyer and R. A. Torrey, 12 vols. (Chicago, 1910-1915; reprint, 4 vols., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970). Orr's articles (as found in the 1970 reprint) are as follows: "The Holy Spirit and Modern Negotiations" (1:94- 110); "The Early Narratives of Genesis" (1:228-40); "Science and Christian Faith" (1:334-47); and "The Virgin Birth of Christ" (2:247-60).
139McGowan states, "Even specifically on the matter of Scripture it was clear that their differences over inerrancy did not cause a breach between them, as evidence by the fact that, as editor of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Orr invited Warfield to contribute the articles on "Inspriation" and "Revelation." (126) See James Orr, ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Chicago: Howard-Severance, 1915).
140James Orr, Revelation and Inspiration (repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952).
Orr, Revelation and Inspiration, 199. 110 necessarily refuting the inerrantist position, but he cautions against making it the primary aspect of one's doctrine of Scripture. For him, the only legitimate way in which one can be inerrantist is via a logical deduction from inspiration, something that is true of the
Princetonians' view.
However, Orr does raise objection to the notion that "inerrancy in every minute particular is involved in the very idea of a book given by inspiration of God."142 Orr states that this notion "is a violent assumption which there is nothing in the Bible really to support."143 In fact, the inerrantist theory itself, claims Orr, "may be stretched, moreover, by qualification, admission, and explanations, till there is practically little difference between the opposite views [i.e., views against inerrancy]."144 However, Orr quickly notes that in a general sense, inerrantists still find themselves "in the line of apostolic belief, and of the general faith of the Church, regarding Holy Scripture."145 Here one sees the irenic nature of the debate in that Orr, a non-inerrantist, recognizes the value of the inerrantist position, at least in terms of its resultant general approach to Scripture. While
Orr concludes that the proof of inspiration lies "in the life-giving effects which that message has produced,"146 rather than a characteristic of an original autograph, he maintains an appreciative perspective on his near opponents.
It can be seen from these critiques that theologians who cared deeply about the
Christian faith, held to conservative Christian commitments, and had high views of
1420rr, Revelation and Inspiration, 213.
143Orr, Revelation and Inspiration, 214.
144Orr, Revelation and Inspiration, 214. (Emphasis original)
145Orr, Revelation and Inspiration, 217.
146Orr, Revelation and Inspiration, 217. Ill
Scripture in their own right, nevertheless had difficulty with the Old Princeton School's position on inerrancy. Neither Briggs nor Orr would have been rightly placed in any one of the three heretical groups discussed earlier in the chapter (Rationalist, Mystic, Roman
Catholic). In reality, their dissenting voices came from "within"—not within the Old
Princeton School as such but within conservative Presbyterianism. Therefore, while the purpose of this chapter has been to detail the Princetonian position, it must be recognized that there were other options concerning the doctrine of Scripture at the same time.
Toward Inerrancy in Christological Context
In the midst of these intra-denominational battles and dialogues, Warfield does admit that God could have revealed Himself to mankind without Scripture. Faith's foundation is the fact of revelation itself, not a particular kind of revelation. Warfield states, "The fact that Christianity is a supernatural religion and the nature of Christianity as a supernatural religion, are matters of history; and are independent of any, and of every theory of inspiration."147 Yet Warfield rejoins that Scripture is still needed in the practical sense for the common Christian's knowledge and understanding.148 While inspiration may not be necessary hypothetically, God has, in fact, chosen to inspire His written
147Warfield, "The Church Doctrine of Inspiration," 121. Warfield states elsewhere, "Inspiration is not the most fundamental of Christian doctrines, nor even the first things we prove about the Scriptures. It is the last and crowning fact as to the Scriptures. These we first prove authentic, historically credible, generally trustworthy, before we proved them inspired." ("The Real Problem of Inspiration," 210) Warfield then adds, "We accept Christianity in all its distinctive doctrines on no other ground than the credibility and trustworthiness of the bible as a guide to truth; and on this same ground we must equally accepts its doctrine of inspiration." (214)
148 Warfield, "The Church Doctrine of Inspiration," 123. "The historical vindication of Christianity as a revelation from God, vindicates as the truth of God all the contents of that revelation; and, among these contents, vindicates, as divinely true, the teaching of Christ and his apostles, that the Scriptures are the very Word of God, to be trusted as such in all the details of their teaching and promises." 112
Word, a decision for which we ought to be thankful. Warfield summarizes, "... whatever
might possibly have been had there been no Bible, it is actually to the Bible that you and
I owe it that we have a Christ,—a Christ to love, to trust and to follow, a Christ without
us the ground of our salvation, a Christ within us the hope of glory."149
Warfield's hint at the priority of Christ in the doctrine of Scripture was fleshed
out more fully later in his career. Specifically in his articles for James Orr's International
Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, (both set in 1915, 34 years after the famous 1881 article
with A. A. Hodge) Warfield sets forth an explicitly Christological notion of the need for
inerrancy. Warfield claims that Jesus Christ Himself, not Scripture, is the supreme
revelation of God. He states, "He [Jesus Christ] does not so much make a revelation of
God as Himself is the revelation of God; He does not merely disclose God's purpose of
redemption, He is unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and
redemption"150 Obviously, Scripture is not co-equal with Christ. However, Christ is not
currently physically present; thus Scripture becomes the means by which mankind is to
know God. Warfield further states, "Nevertheless, though all revelation is thus summed
up in Him, we should not fail to note very carefully that it would also be all sealed up in
Him—so little is revelation conveyed by fact alone, without the word—had it not been thus taken by the Spirit of truth and declared unto men. The entirety of the New
Testament is but the explanatory word accompanying and giving its effect to the fact of
Warfield, "The Church Doctrine of Inspiration," 127.
'Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Revelation," 96. 113
Christ."151 While Warfield maintains throughout all his works that Scripture is itself
God's Word, he does employ a notion of Scripture as "witness" here.
Though Scripture is merely "an explanatory word," it is the Word of God's choosing to reveal His Son, the Savoir of mankind. This is crucial for believers, continues
Warfield, in that they receive infinite benefit for themselves from Scripture:
The value of "inspiration" emerges, thus, as twofold. It gives to the books written under its "bearing" a quality which is truly superhuman; a trustworthiness, an authority, a searchingness, a profundity, a profitableness which is altogether divine. And it speaks this Divine word immediately to each reader's heart and conscience; so that he does not require to make his way to God, painfully, perhaps even uncertainly, through the words of His servants, the human instruments in writing the Scriptures, but can listen directly to the Divine voice itself speaking immediately in the Scriptural word to him.152
Scripture gives that immediate Word from God which allows believers direct access to knowledge of God Himself. Warfield is not saying that Scripture usurps the preeminent place of Jesus Christ as Revelation. However, the supremacy of Scripture cannot be denied either, given that God has chosen it to be the instrument for revealing Jesus
Christ.153
151Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Revelation," 96.
152Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," 158. Note here that Warfield also seems to be referencing the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit as that which makes scriptural witness effective.
153 As well, the supremacy of Scripture is due to its salvific purpose as a result of revealing Christ. Warfield states, "If the 'inspiration' by which Scripture is produced renders it trustworthy and authoritative, it renders it trustworthy and authoritative only that it may the better serve to make men wise unto salvation. Scripture is conceived, fromth e point of view of the writers of the New Testament, not merely as the record of revelations, but as itself part of the redemptive revelation of God." ("The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," 161). 114
Summary and Evaluation
In this chapter, the historical-theological analysis of the inerrantist position has
continued, with a detailed analysis of the position as understood in the Old Princeton
School, particularly in the work of Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield. For the
Princetonians, Scripture, as verbally-plenarily inspired and inerrant, is epistemically
foundational to Christian theology. The truth of inerrancy—known by virtue of an
implication from inspiration and by virtue of no errors having been demonstrated—gives
assurance of Scripture's reliability. Hodge and Warfield demonstrate awareness of the
dangers of Rationalism, Mysticism, and Romanism, and their chief polemic against these
systems of thought was based on the other systems' rejection of the true doctrine of
Scripture. Within this apologetical and polemical task, the Princetonians speak of their
high view of Scripture as (at once) based (1) on a presupposition of faith, (2) on the best
understanding of the biblical data, (3) on a necessary, logically sound implication from
the meaning of inspiration, (4) on the most biblical expressions of the historic Reformed
faith, and (5) on the example of Jesus Christ's own attitude toward and use of the text.
It is in the work of the Princetonians that the inerrantist position on Scripture is
given its fullest explanation and defence. They demonstrate that they were operating in an
inerrantist tradition, painstakingly defending inerrancy itself in order to preserve their bibliological heritage. Inerrancy, in their system, was the true "end" of biblical inspiration. This is most clear in what many believe to be the apex of the inerrantist tradition, the 1881 article "Inspiration" by A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield. In this singular work, the inerrancy of Scripture is described in terms that make it nonfalsifiable. 115
While in one sense this represents a significant intellectual achievement for inerrantist adherents, in another sense it represents inerrancy having attained a status inappropriate to a theologically contextualized doctrine of Scripture. The aforementioned article by A.
A. Hodge and Warfield seems quite removed from not only the Reformed understanding of Scripture, with its strong emphasis on Pneumatology and Christology, but also from
Turretin's own "scholastic" bibliology where inerrancy is strongly affirmed while not necessarily the pinnacle of bibliology. Had this 1881 article by A. A. Hodge and Warfield been the Princetonians last word on Scripture and the inerrantist position, the common critiques levelled against the Princetonian position would rightly render their inerrantist tradition problematic and, perhaps, beyond recovery.
However, in several of his works after 1881, B. B. Warfield began to articulate a fuller theological context for the Princetonian position on Scripture. For Warfield, verbal- plenary inspiration is not the ground of Christianity; the trustworthiness of the Bible is.
Inspiration is one of those things that are trustworthy as taught by the biblical writers. As such, inspiration does become the basis for an appropriate doctrine of Scripture. And, based on a proper understanding of inspiration, one can deduce verbal inerrancy as a necessary result of Scripture's being "breathed out by God." But here, Warfield does seek to locate inerrancy as "coming after" other points of bibliology. The direction of
Warfield's thought is as follows: (1) the trustworthiness of the apostles and prophets as teachers of doctrine; (2) inspiration as part of that trustworthy communication of doctrine; and (3) inerrancy (and infallibility) as an essential result of inspiration.
While this is not sufficient to insulate Warfield from criticism, he further demonstrates a desire to place inerrancy within a fuller theological understanding of 116
Scripture in his articles written for the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia.
These articles, written late in his career, clearly make the person and work of Jesus Christ central to the doctrine of Scripture. The status of Scripture as inspired by God, and even inerrant, seems to fade slightly in favor of its providentially ensured clarity for presenting the gospel of Jesus Christ. In these articles, while the defense of the inerrantist tradition remains, Warfield's statements are in greater continuity with the doctrine of Scripture as taught by the Reformers than had previously been the case. While many rationalistic arguments do comprise the vast majority of Warfield's theology of Scripture, his later work demonstrates an improvement.
Hence, even when the inerrantist tradition had reached its "climax," the theology behind it was in the ongoing process of development and articulation. As such, the inerrantist tradition still manifested itself as a true "living tradition," being restated in each new context. It is upon the improved "later Warfield" that J. Gresham Machen would construct his own understanding of the doctrine of Scripture and the inerrantist position. As will be seen in the next chapter, Machen further develops Warfield's initial recognition of the need to recover the larger theological context necessary for inerrancy and seeks to recover a more Reformational understanding in his own context. CHAPTER THREE INERRANCY ACCORDING TO J. GRESHAM MACHEN
In the previous chapter, we surveyed the doctrine of Scripture in Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield, paying particular attention to their inerrantist position. While their formal statements regarding Scripture were similar to those found in Francis Turretin, they clearly articulated inerrancy as not only an essential position on Scripture but also as a worthwhile tradition unto itself. For Hodge and Warfield, Scripture was to be seen as epistemically foundational, and Scripture's inerrancy was to be seen as the key component that afforded theological certainty. However, while this understanding of inerrancy reflected a rationalistic theological methodology, Warfield, later in his career, sought to fit the inerrantist position within the larger theological context of Reformed Christology and Soteriology.
J. Gresham Machen, professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological
Seminary from 1915-1929, perpetuated the Old Princeton doctrine of Scripture and inerrantist position. As George Marsden notes,"Machen stood in the Old School Old
Princeton doctrinal tradition. He was heir to the tradition of Charles Hodge and B. B.
Warfield, and was in fact a protege of the latter.... This was a venerable heritage, and
Machen owned it entirely!* Machen's commitment to this tradition became more pronounced as he aged, even as Princeton Seminary developed an indifferentist position
'George Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 185.
117 118 regarding Protestant liberalism. As those around him (Seminary colleagues and denominational leaders) accepted "lower" positions on Scripture than his theological mentors, Machen's convictions led him to fight for what he believed to be true. His commitment to preserve the Hodge and Warfield tradition ultimately led him to found
Westminster Theological Seminary. As the battles within his denomination continued,
Machen eventually founded the Orthodox Presbyterian Church denomination.3
Yet in Machen's own doctrine of Scripture, he moves beyond a simple restatement of the positions in the Old Princeton School. While retaining the substance of
Hodge and Warfield's doctrine of Scripture, Machen seeks to de-emphasize inerrancy to allow the theological significance of the person and work of Jesus Christ its due pre eminence. As such, Machen's position represents a "recasting" of inerrancy, wherein the inerrantist tradition remains upheld, but the more significant theological commitments of the larger Reformed tradition make their way to the foreground. Instead of arguing inerrancy for its own sake (as Hodge and Warfield were prone to do), Machen's adherence to the inerrantist tradition is due to reasons that are more theologically significant than a perceived need to defend a particular bibliology.
2Machen shared with Hodge the view that theology was "just as much a science as is chemistry." Machen often articulated his belief in the importance of the "facts" of the Bible. Machen also affirmed the capability of mankind's reason to understand God's revelation. Machen states, "So our reason is certainly insufficient to tell us about God unless he reveals himself, but it is capable (or would be capable if it were not clouded by sin) of receiving revelation when once it is given." Though there is optimism in the Princetonian tradition regarding mankind's rational capacity, there is a clear recognition that mankind's sinful condition hinders this capability. Thus Machen makes the qualification concerning our reason being "clouded by sin." See J. Gresham Machen, "What Fundamentalism Stands for Now," in Selected Shorter Writings of J. Gresham Machen, ed. D. G. Hart (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 117-18.
3For Machen's biographical information, with specific attention to his battles within Presbyterianism, see D. G Hart, Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995) and Ned Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954). 119
This chapter will begin with a brief analysis of Machen's doctrine of Scripture generally and his statements concerning inerrancy specifically. Then, I will describe the theological and cultural context in which Machen sought to locate inerrancy, highlighting his battle with theological liberalism and his loyalty to the Reformed theological tradition.4 In this section, features of Machen's inerrantist position will be noted that make him a non-typical inerrantist, particularly for one affirming the position in the
1920s and 1930s. Finally, I will conclude that Machen's inerrantist position represents a
"recasting" of inerrancy that displays continuity in substance with the bibliology of
Hodge and Warfield as well as a helpful development in further locating inerrancy in a
Christological and soteriological context.
Machen's Doctrine of Scripture and Inerrantist Position
Machen never wrote a treatise on Scripture specifically, and the subject never dominated his theological career. Yet he often made statements disclosing his doctrinal position on Scripture. Machen argues that the prophets and apostles were prepared by
God for their task, and what they recorded was supernaturally intended by God. Machen states that the "the Bible, is in all its parts the very Word of God, completely true in what it says regarding matters of fact and completely authoritative in its commands."5 For
4The approach taken in the previous chapter was to treat the Princetonians' theological and cultural context before treating their formal bibliological statements. However, in this chapter, the discussion of context and formal theological statements is reversed. By describing the continuity of Machen with Hodge and Warfield before delineating items of discontinuity, the discontinuity will be that which is emphasized in the chapter. This emphasis is necessary to adequately defend the argument that Machen represents a "recasting" of inerrancy in that he de-emphasizes it and places it into the larger theological context of Christology and Soteriology. Machen, the supernatural activity of the Holy Spirit is not only an occurrence in the lives of the biblical writers but a condition of the text itself. Inerrancy, then, is a logical implication from the fact that inspiration is a quality of the text. For Machen, inspiration not only renders the facts of Scripture important but also implies that God intends to communicate true facts, with the result that "the Book is the 'infallible rule of faith and practice.'"6
Machen defends his view of Scripture by claiming that it corresponds with Jesus
Christ's own view. Machen lamented what he perceived to be an inconsistency in liberal theologians who would claim affinity for the teachings of Christ yet reject Christ's own view of Scripture. Machen states, "Jesus, who is to be held as the supreme and sole authority, placed at the very basis of His own life and teaching that view of the authority of the whole Bible which is here [in liberalism] so lightly abandoned." Machen argues that both liberal and conservative biblical scholars have recognized that Jesus viewed
Scripture as God's inspired Word. Noting such texts as John 10:35 ("The Scriptures cannot be broken") and John 17:17 ("Thy Word is truth"), Machen argues that Jesus maintained the full truthfulness of the Old Testament Scriptures and by implication even
5J. Gresham Machen, The Christian Faith in the Modern World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 36-37.
6J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (New York: Macmillen, 1925), 73. The phrase "infallible rule of faith and practice" is a quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1. The quality of "being inspired," according to Machen, is only true of the original autographs. While God has providentially overseen the process of transmission from generation to generation, the supernatural character of Scripture is in the original writings only. Machen states, "What we do believe is that the writers of the Biblical books, as distinguished from scribes who later copied the books, were inspired. Only the autographs of the Biblical books ... were produced with that supernatural impulsion and guidance of the Holy Spirit which we call inspiration." See Machen, Christian Faith in the Modern World, 39-41.
7 J. Gresham Machen, What Is Faith? (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), 105-6. 121 those Scriptures which would come later.8 For Machen, to espouse the same doctrine of
Scripture as Jesus Christ espoused one must affirm that the text of Scripture is inspired of
God and has been preserved from all error.
Machen anticipated some common objections to his view of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. While critics had argued that the Old Princeton view of inspiration denied the humanity of the text, Machen counters that the only thing denied by a verbal- plenary doctrine of inspiration is the presence of errors in the text.9 Machen distanced himself from a dictation theory of inspiration wherein the biblical writers lost their humanness in the process of recording Scripture. He affirmed the humanity of Scripture, and he even admitted that "to err is human." However, for Machen, while "erring" is something humans do, this does not render impossible that God could providentially keep the biblical writers from error while they wrote Scripture. Noting Scripture's remarkable unity of teaching in the midst of authorial diversity, Machen maintained that the writers were at once both preserved from error and allowed to bring their unique human characteristics into their work.10
Non-inerrantists also argued that while the Bible was perhaps "inerrant" in doctrinally significant matters, it was not in peripheral matters such as the historical truthfulness of supernatural events, scientific precision, and literal fulfillment of prophecy. Machen would not concede this point and affirmed his belief that Scripture was without error in all matters. He states that the effect of inspiration on the human
8Machen, Christian Faith in the Modern World, 70—71.
9Machen states, "But of course all such caricatures are without basis in fact, and it is rather surprising that intelligent men should be so blinded by prejudice about this matter as not even to examine for themselves the perfectly accessible treatises in which the doctrine of plenary inspiration is set forth." {Christianity and Liberalism, 73—74).
10Machen, Christian Faith in the Modern World, 49. writers "consisted not only in the invariable prevention of error in maters where uninspired writers might in any individual case have avoided error, but also in the prevention of error in matters where uninspired writers could not possibly have avoided error."11 This plenary view of inerrancy was necessary for Machen for it ensured that
Scripture would be completely trustworthy.
Machen further argues that because the Bible is inspired, completely authoritative on the basis of Christ, and inerrant in all its teachings, it is "the supreme textbook on the subject of faith."12 For Machen, the Bible as "textbook" was not a lifeless list of rules and propositions but rather a living organism that speaks to the heart. He claims that Scripture pictures God's willingness to condescend to humanity in order to reveal Himself.
Scripture's textbook-like quality indicates the importance of its truth, and its appeal to believers is due to the fact that it is a witness to Jesus Christ.
Machen exhorted his students at both Princeton and Westminster to regard
Scripture as their primary tool for ministry. He notes that while the students' studies would be varied and involve much reading around a variety of themes, "it is with the
Holy Scriptures, and not merely with the human phenomenon of religion, that candidates for the ministry should learn to deal."14 Machen believed that the textbook-like quality of
"Machen, Christian Faith in the Modern World, 49.
12Machen, What Is Faith?, 4.
13J. Gresham Machen, "Westminster Theological Seminary: Its Purpose and Plan," in Selected Shorter Writings of J. Gresham Machen, ed. D. G. Hart (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 190. Machen also states the following with regard to the value of Scripture as a "textbook" of faith: "It is God's Book, not man's book. It is a message from the King. Read it, study it, trust it, live by it. Other books will deceive you, but not this book. This book is the Word of God." (Christian Faith in the Modern World, 44)
14Machen, "Westminster Theological Seminary," 188. See also J. Gresham Machen, "The Minister and His Greek New Testament," in Selected Shorter Writings of J. Gresham Machen, ed. D. G. Hart 123
Scripture served a pastoral purpose that edified all believers and focused the task of the
Christian minister.
Another implication from Machen's doctrine of Scripture is that we must not deem certain parts of Scripture more valuable than others. According to Machen, liberal theologians claimed that the teachings of Christ, recounted in the gospels, were to be considered more significant than the apostolic writings which came later. Machen claimed that this "liberal" position had less to do with their love for Jesus and more to do with their desire to minimize the significance of Paul's strong teaching on justification by faith alone. Hence, while agreeing that Christ's words did have great importance, Machen argues that if Scripture is completely inspired and inerrant, we must view all parts as equally authoritative. He states, "But the seat of authority for the historic Church has been not merely the teachings of Christ, but the whole Bible.... To isolate Christ from the Bible is to dishonor Christ and reject His teaching."15 Rejecting some parts of
Scripture in order to give priority to the teachings of Christ reflects an inconsistent exegetical method and ignores the fact that the Holy Spirit is the one who teaches through the apostles.16
Machen affirms the priority of Christ over Scripture in the sense that one's faith, one's spiritual life, is in Jesus, not in Scripture. However, according to Machen, viewing the whole of Scripture as equally authoritative is necessary because it is through Scripture
(Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 212, where he states that Scripture is not "merely one of the sources of the preacher's inspiration, but the very sum and substance of what he has to say."
15Machen, What Is Faith?, 105-106. Machen further states, "Thus we reject this notion that the teaching of Jesus as distinguished from the Bible is the seat of authority. It is profoundly dishonoring to the teaching of Jesus itself. It degrades Jesus to the level of a mere religious teacher, the founder of one of the world's religions." (Christian Faith in the Modern World, 80-81).
16Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 76-77. that anyone learns of Christ. Furthermore, Scripture is necessary to know the facts concerning Christ that are essential for salvation. Machen argues that "We need to know, for one thing, that he has risen from the dead and that he is still alive; and then we need to know how, if he is still alive, we can come into his presence."17 To obtain this knowledge, all of Scripture is essential, and Scripture must be a trustworthy source of information from God. For Machen, the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture were foundational to the Christian faith, and he firmly believed the evidence brought forth by biblical criticism would prove that, in fact, Scripture's inspiration and inerrancy were true.18 While Jesus Christ is the personal foundation for the Christian life, Scripture, as that which points us to Jesus Christ, is an essential cognitive foundation.
The depiction of Scripture giving "facts" was not a new development by Machen.
Hodge had made a similar point when he described Scripture as a "storehouse of facts" two generations previously. Yet for Machen, Scripture as a storehouse of facts meant more than just its accuracy. The facts themselves must be accurate, he believed, because the content of those facts held deep meaning and significance concerning the condition of
J. Gresham Machen, "What the Bible Teaches About Jesus," in Selected Shorter Writings of J. Gresham Machen, ed. D. G. Hart (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 29.
18 Machen argues the following in a well-known paragraph from one of his lectures: "Now that we have Jesus, they say, we can be indifferent to the Bible. We have the present Christ; we care nothing about the dead documents of the past. You have Christ? But how, pray, did you get him? There is but one answer; you got him through the Bible. Without the Bible you would never have known so much as whether there were any Christ. Yet now that you have Christ, you give the Bible up; you are ready to abandon it to its enemies; you are not interested in the findings of criticism. Apparently, then, you have used the Bible as a ladder to scale the dizzy height of Christian experience, but now that you are safe on top you kick the ladder down. Very natural! But what of the poor souls who are still battling with the flood beneath? They need the ladder too. But the figure is misleading. The Bible is not a ladder; it is a foundation. It is buttressed, indeed, by experience; if you have the present Christ, then you know that the Bible account is true. But //the Bible were false, your faith would go. You cannot, therefore, be indifferent to Bible criticism. Let us not deceive ourselves. The Bible is at the foundation of the church. Undermine that foundation, and the church will fall. It will fall, and great will be the fall of it." See J. Gresham Machen, "History and Faith," in Selected Shorter Writings of J. Gresham Machen, ed. D. G. Hart (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 108. one's soul. Machen valued Scripture as being a record of facts because, as he states,
"There is one good thing about facts—they stay put. If a thing really happened, the passage of years can never possibly make it into a thing that did not happen." Machen despised the apparent concession made by conservative scholars to both theological liberals and non-Christian skeptics that science and historical investigation were incompatible with faith. He maintained that any religion allowing science and historical investigation to own objective truth exclusively could not be Christianity because
Christianity's uniqueness and power is found in its claim to be exclusively true, according to the facts.20 To relegate Christianity to the "realm of ideas" is to espouse an
91 entirely different religion altogether.
For Machen, the Scriptural facts of greatest significance were historical facts concerning the events in first-century Palestine surrounding Jesus Christ. These events
J. Gresham Machen, "What Is Christianity?" in Selected Shorter Writings of J. Gresham Machen, ed. D. G. Hart (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 95.
20Machen, Christian Faith in the Modern World, 57-58, states the following: "Here is a rule for you, my friends: no facts, no good news; no good news, no hope. The Bible is quite useless unless it is a record of facts. Thank God, it is a record of facts. The Spirit of God, in infinite mercy, was with the writers of the Bible not merely when they issued God's commands, but also and just as fully when they wrote the blessed record of what God had done. What a dreadful erroneous thing it is to say merely that the Bible contains the Word of God. No, it is the Word of God. It is the Word of God when it records the facts. It is the Word of God when it tells us what we must do."
21Machen, "What is Christianity?" 242. Machen further states the following concerning the relationship between Christianity and science: "If the testimony [of Scripture] is true, then the rejection of it is just as unscientific and the acceptance of it just as scientific as the rejection or acceptance of assured results in the field of the laboratory sciences.... We shall have to reject, therefore, I think, the easy apologetic for Christianity which simply declares that religion and science belong in independent spheres and that science can never by any possibility contradict religion. The Christian religion is founded not merely upon truths but also upon facts, and in any complete science all fact must be brought into some kind of relation." See J. Gresham Machen, "Faith and Knowledge," Unpublished Lecture, Machen Archive, Westminster Theological Seminary. Hence, what Christianity needs, for Machen, is more academic attention to facts rather than less. Machen states, "Our religion is really founded upon words of soberness and truth. It suffers just now not from an excess of thinking, but from a woeful deficiency of it; and a true broadening of knowledge would lead again into faith" (What Is Faith? 242-43). have to do with the good news, the gospel, upon which the Christian faith rests. Machen argues that "if that message is false, then the religion that is founded on it must of course be abandoned; but if it is true, then the Christian church must still deliver the message faithfully as it did on the morning of the first Easter Day."23 For Machen, the question of whether the historical facts surrounding the gospel actually happened was legitimate because it would determine the truthfulness or falsehood of Christianity's most central claims. Contrary to the notion that historical facticity was unimportant, Machen argues that the essence of the gospel is the authenticity of the message that the events of Jesus
Christ actually happened. The truthfulness of the historical accounts in Scripture concerning Jesus Christ is essential for any assurance of a right relationship with God.
The inerrancy of Scripture fits into Machen's system of thought as a culmination of his apologetic efforts and as a foundation in his theological construction. In an address defending Princeton Theological Seminary's historically conservative position on
Scripture, Machen specifically addresses the issue of inerrancy and tries to place it in its proper context. In an argument where he calls for a fair hearing from his liberal opponents, Machen notes that inerrancy is not the first point in defense of one's belief in
Machen, What Is Faith?, 241. In Christianity and Liberalism, 70, 72, Machen states the following elsewhere: "For Christianity depends, not upon a complex of ideas, but upon the narration of an event... Thus the revelation of which an account is contained in the Bible embraces not only a reaffirmation of eternal truths—itself necessary because the truths have been obscured by the blinding effect of sin—but also a revelation which sets forth the meaning of an act of God."
23Machen, "What Is Christianity?" 95.
24 J. Gresham Machen, "The Witness of Paul," in Selected Shorter Writings of J. Gresham Machen, ed. D. G. Hart (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 33. The particular facts most concerning Machen are as follows: "Jesus of Nazareth, according to the Bible, was no product of this world, but a Savior come voluntarily into this world from without. His entrance into the world was a stupendous miracle. While he was on earth he manifested a wondrous control over the forces of nature. His death was no mere holy martyrdom, but an event of cosmic significance, a sacrifice for the sins of the world. His resurrection was no mere vain aspiration in the hearts of his disciples, but a mighty act of God." God or in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For Machen, one should argue from more general truths that even those with a non-inerrantist position will accept, finding points of agreement with them in certain theological truths and then building on that agreement.
Then, as one arrives at points of disagreement, Machen argues that it is important to allow the evidence, both biblical and external, to determine which point of view is correct.26
In the tasks of apologetics and polemics, Machen seeks common ground with his opponents, regardless of their positions on Scripture. Concerning Scripture specifically,
Machen prefers to begin with the general truthfulness of the Bible, noting its value as a religious text. Then, he argues for the divine quality of Scripture as that which is inspired of God. Only then, believes Machen, can one begin to argue for Scripture's complete truthfulness. Once it is granted that the Bible is generally true and once one affirms its supernatural character, Machen believes the acceptance of an inerrantist position is the next logical step.27 For Machen, the apologetical task is complete when the full truthfulness of the Bible—inerrancy—is affirmed. Once there, Machen claims that there
J. Gresham Machen, "The Attack on Princeton Seminary: A Plea for Fair Play," in Selected Shorter Writings of J. Gresham Machen, ed. D. G. Hart (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 295- 324. Machen states, "We do not, indeed, begin with that conviction [inerrancy] in our defense of the Christian religion, and so we can find common ground for discussion with many whose view of the Bible is very different from ours" (312).
26Machen, "The Attack on Princeton Seminary," 312. Machen states, "Or when we defend our belief in the resurrection of our Lord, again our argument is independent of the question whether the Bible is infallible or not. Even prior to any belief in the infallibility of Scripture, a scientific treatment of the sources of information will, we think, lead the historian to hold that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead on the third day."
27Machen, "The Attack on Princeton Seminary," 312-313. Machen states, "First the general truth of the Bible in its great outlines as a historical book, and the supernatural origin of the revelation that it contains, then the full truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God—that is the order of our apologetic." is a cognitive foundation upon which theological constructions can be built. Having come to an inerrantist position at the end of his apologetic, the inerrancy of Scripture, in turn, offers a beginning point for systematic theology, whose task is to expose what
Scripture says about God, mankind, Jesus Christ, salvation, and the church.
Machen's Inerrancy in Theological and Historical Context
Machen's inerrantist position is best seen as arising from the following concern that dominated his career: to preserve and protect his Reformed/Presbyterian theological heritage from the theology of Protestant liberalism. His own theological context was that of the Reformed tradition, begun with John Calvin, continued through the Westminster divines, and handed to him via Hodge and Warfield. Like Hodge and Warfield, Machen did not see himself as an innovator but rather as a preserver of a body of truth. Even when Machen discussed inerrancy, he "prodded the Presbyterian church (as well as other denominations) to be true to its confessional standards, the Westminster Confession of
Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms." His historical context was the external pressure of theological liberalism which denied, redefined, or rendered insignificant basic truths of the Christian faith. Machen used his inerrantist position to combat what he
28Machen, "The Attack on Princeton Seminary," 313. Machen states, "Nevertheless, although we do not begin with the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture, we do come to it in the end; and when we have come to it, we build upon it our orderly exposition of the Christian faith."
29Machen, "The Attack on Princeton Seminary," 313. Machen states, "Systematic tiieology, we think, logically begins at the point where apologetics has left off. Apologetics establishes the full truthfulness of the Bible, and then systematic theology proceeds to set forth the teaching that the Bible contains."
30D. G. Hart, "When is a Fundamentalist a Modernist?: J. Gresham Machen, Cultural Modernism, and Conservative Protestantism," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 65:3 (1997), 617. 129 perceived to be a "low" view of Scripture in liberalism and thereby protect his own theological tradition.
But Machen's affirmation of and use of inerrancy served a more significant purpose than establishing a certain doctrinal position on Scripture. He did not call for an acceptance of inerrancy merely in an attempt to secure an epistemic foundation for the
Christian faith. Rather, he argued for inerrancy because he believed it was consistent with his tradition. And an inerrantist position provided him the best approach to Scripture, particularly its claims that the historical facts of the Christian faith were objectively true.
Machen believed that affirming inerrancy was crucial because the facts of doctrine and historical trustworthiness of Scripture were at stake. If inerrancy were a non-issue, there could be no certainty about the event of Christ and the possibility of salvation in Him.
Hence, whether the events surrounding Christ actually happened was a crucial question
"3 1 because one's salvation depended on it.
Machen's theological tradition offered more substance than a set of positions within a doctrine of Scripture, such as verbal-plenary inspiration and inerrancy. The
Reformed/Presbyterian tradition taught that mankind was hopelessly separated from God by sin and that according to God's sovereign grace, He sent Jesus Christ to atone for sin through His death on the cross. Machen's tradition also affirmed that God raised Jesus
jl Liberal theologians such as Nolan Best and Benjamin W. Bacon (see below) had argued that the Bible was merely a record of religious experiences, so there is no need to assert its inerrancy (or even address the question). Against liberalism's tendency to avoid these questions, Machen states, "If the liberal preacher objected to the doctrine of plenary inspiration on the ground that as a matter of fact there are errors in the Bible, he might be right and he might be wrong, but at any rate the discussion would be conducted on the proper ground." (Christianity & Liberalism, 74) Machen was willing to allow the evidence to decide whether or not there were errors in Scripture. He was confident that a true academic investigation of the evidence would ultimately support his inerrantist position. So, rather than avoid the issue altogether, Machen argued that we not only should address the issue but also welcome any and all evidence to be brought into the discussion. 130
Christ from the dead on the third day, validating Christ's claims and work and providing a blessed hope in which all who believe can share. The importance of inerrancy was seen, for Machen, in light of its implications for Christology and Soteriology more than epistemology. Affirming the truthfulness of Scripture in its historical account of the gospel was crucial for Machen's tradition to make the claims it made. For Machen, inerrancy for its own sake or even for the sake of a "high" view of Scripture was not sufficient—the concern of people's salvation meant exceedingly more. D. G. Hart notes the pastoral motives behind Machen's theology in the following statement: "Machen's struggle against liberalism, as much as it might have involved Presbyterian Church politics, differing conceptions of truth, or divergent theological emphases, was finally pastoral. He was concerned that liberals were leading people astray."
Because of his unswerving commitment to his theological tradition, Machen fought liberalism vehemently. A significant fault of liberalism with respect to Scripture, according to Machen, was a lack of intellectual rigor concerning the historical truthfulness of the text, evidenced by an unwillingness to enter into debates over such issues. In particular, Machen argued that theological liberals redefined the goal of exegesis as an attempt to uncover personal meaning, thereby spiritualizing Scripture into a set of general religious postulates.33 Even worse, for Machen, was that they tried to
32D. G. Hart, "J. Gresham Machen, Inerrancy, and Creedless Christianity," Themelios 25:3 (2000), 30.
33Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 74. Machen was also disturbed by liberal scholars' distortion of previously clear terms. In a review of a book entitled, Inspiration, by Nolan Best, Machen observes that by taking the word "infallible" as something distinct from "inerrant," liberals were distorting terminology and avoiding the issue at hand. Machen accuses Best of using "infallible" with reference to Scripture to mean something "not that which is always true in matters of fact but that which will never fail to accomplish the result of which it was intended." Machen opposes this view and argues that "infallible" always meant "inerrant" (per the seemingly synonymous interchange of terms in Warfield). For Machen, 131
argue that their interpretations were intellectually rigorous. Machen asserted the need to
return to "common sense" exegesis and hermeneutics. He states, "Scientific historical
method in the interpretation of the Bible requires that the Biblical writers should be
allowed to speak for themselves."34 Forsaking the textual-critical process and abandoning
grammatico-historical exegesis had and would continue to lead to doctrinally heretical
positions.
Another problem with the liberal approach to Scripture emerged when the liberal
scholar mixed a subjectivist hermeneutic with a rejection of supernatural occurrences
generally and the miracles surrounding Christ specifically. Machen argues that when this
happens, the critic "is retaining as genuine words of the historical Jesus only those words which conform to his own preconceived ideas." Then, they claim that their own contrived interpretation is now the only one possible, which is exactly what they criticize
Machen and other conservatives for doing. Machen calls for a return to textual-critical methodology that takes the text at face value and attempts to discern authorial intent. He states, "The only interpretation you have a right to hold is the interpretation which is true—not an interpretation which changes from generation to generation but the interpretation which was held by the original author of the books."36
this represents an intentional avoidance of legitimate questions concerning Scripture's truthfulness in matters of fact. Princeton Theological Review, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1923): 674-75.
34 Machen, What is Faith? 24. In a review of He Opened to Us the Scriptures, by Benjamin W. Bacon, Machen called for exegetes to go beyond looking for things that had meaning to them personally and to seek to understand what the author intended by his statements. Criticizing Dr. Bacon's reading of Paul, Machen states, "Paul had a message which he believed not merely to be useful but to be true. So long as that fact is obscured by modem pragmatism there can be no real grammatico-historical exegesis of the Epistles." Princeton Theological Review, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1923): 642.
35Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 77.
36J. Gresham Machen, "The Bible Teacher and Biblical Facts," Christian Expositor (December, 1924), 101, 103. 132
Machen argues that the natural conclusion to the liberal exegetical and critical method was nothing less than a denial of Christ's authority. Rather than Jesus Himself as the authority, the "modern principle by which the selection within Jesus' recorded teaching has been made" takes His place. In the end, the principles the liberals choose to accept from Christ's teaching are accepted "not at all because they are teachings of Jesus, but because they agree with modern ideas."37 The solution to this problem, for Machen, was to defend the Bible as the Word of God—not in order to have a certain doctrine of
Scripture but to allow for the employment of the grammatico-historical-critical method in a genuine way. As D. G. Hart notes, "Without defending the Bible as the very word of
God, notions of scripture's infallibility and authority eventually became so shrouded in equivocation as to be virtually meaningless. The doctrine of inerrancy was an effort to preserve the divine character of scripture while providing boundaries for the study of the phenomena of scripture."
Yet more importantly than theological liberalism's approach to and use of
Scripture, Machen spoke against his opponents because he believed they were unwittingly propagating an entirely new religion, not just an alternate expression of
Christianity. Liberalism's denial of miracles and its selectivity in determining Jesus's true teaching did not just reflect a poor view of Scripture (important as that was). For Machen, the more severe result of liberalism's teaching was that it diminished the gospel itself.
This result was the primary reason Machen fought liberalism, not because it had a faulty view of Scripture.
37Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 78.
38Hart, "Fundamentalism, Inerrancy, and the Biblical Scholarship of J. Gresham Machen," Journal of Presbyterian History 75:1 (Spring, 1997), 26. 133
D. G. Hart, noting that Machen cared more about the central truths surrounding the gospel than a correct understanding of inerrancy, argues that Machen probably would not have combated liberalism's teachings with such vigor if the main concern had been whether inerrancy was true. Hart states that "Liberalism was a religion of abstractions and principles. But in Machen's estimate, Christianity took concrete form in the historical figure, Jesus Christ, and what he did to redeem sinners."39 While inerrancy was important for Machen in terms of having "any permanency or consistency in Christian belief,"40 the real issue between Machen and the liberals was in the answer to the question, "Was the
Christian religion fundamentally subjective or objective?"41 Hart explains Machen's concern as follows:
To escape the intellectual difficulties raised by modern thought, Machen argued, liberalism relegated Christianity to religious experience, thereby making the Bible as well as Christian creeds the product of this experience. But by distorting Christianity in this way liberalism made the gospel independent of history. "The outstanding fact about Paul", he wrote, "is that he had a message or a gospel about something that had happened a few years before, and that he was interested above all things else in getting the message straight".42
Machen's adherence to an inerrantist position resulted from his desire to take a straightforward approach to the teaching of the New Testament and its historic truth claims.
Machen's inerrantist position is further distinguished by the fact that he differed from most of his fellow inerrantists on key volatile issues prominent in the early
39Hart, "Machen, Inerrancy, and Creedless Christianity," 26.
40Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 118.
41Hart, "Machen, Inerrancy, and Creedless Christianity," 27.
42Hart, "Machen, Inerrancy, and Creedless Christianity," 27. Quotes from Machen are from Christianity and Liberalism, 118-119. twentieth century. For example, Machen differed from most inerrantists concerning the
appropriateness of critical methodology to the study of Scripture. By the height of
Machen's career in the 1920s and early 1930s, most inerrantists aligned themselves with
a new movement in conservative Christianity called Fundamentalism. Many fundamentalists argued against the need for and the place of critical scholarship in the
study of Scripture, declaring it to be a corrupting influence rather than a helpful enterprise. Machen did not follow many of his inerrantist peers, boldly affirming that what was needed was more scholarship, not less.43 This rigorous scholarship allowed
Machen to embrace modern scholarship, not so much in its conclusions, which were often faulty for Machen, but in its methodology. Hart states that for Machen, "To study the humanity of scripture then was in no way a denial of the book's divine origin or inerrant message. Thus, Machen and the Princeton tradition he represented endeavored to apply the innovative tools of modern scholarship to traditional Protestant convictions about the authority and infallibility of the Bible."44
Not only did Machen disagree with some fellow inerrantists on the place of critical scholarship in biblical studies, he also disagreed with many of his fellow inerrantists over such issues as a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation and dispensationalist eschatology. In a letter to William Jennings Bryan on July 2, 1925,
Machen refused an invitation to testify at the Scopes trial, noting that while he supported
J Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 1-16. Hart also states that "Sometimes dismissed as rigid, scholastic, and alien to traditional Protestant views, many have assumed that Princeton's teaching on inspiration and inerrancy, resting as they did upon a commitment to the divine origin of the Bible, restricted analysis of the book's human qualities. Yet, Princetonians attempted to demonstrate that a zealous defense of inerrancy and critical scholarship were compatible." See Hart, "Fundamentalism, Inerrancy, and the Biblical Scholarship of J. Gresham Machen," 17.
""Hart, "Fundamentalism, Inerrancy, and the Biblical Scholarship of J. Gresham Machen," 18. Bryan's overall agenda, he was not convinced of the position of the "scientific
creationists."45 Machen affirmed a position closer to Warfield's understanding of a theistic-evolutionist-like position than a six-day creationist position. Concerning
Dispensationalism, Machen would not accept what had become the fundamentalist
position of the pre-millennial return of Christ. In a letter to R. A. Torrey dated December
18, 1924, Machen expressed concerns over an invitation to speak at the 7th Annual World
Council on Christian Fundamentals. The World Council's doctrinal statement affirmed the pre-millennial position, and Machen would not sign the statement, technically disqualifying him from speaking at the conference. Hence, while Machen affirmed inerrancy, the theological implications for him were different than most because Machen believed the entire Reformed tradition to be significant, not just the tenet of inerrancy.
While he affirmed the substance of the inerrantist tradition, his greater commitment was to the fuller theological tradition in which he ministered.
Summary and Conclusion
Machen did not defend inerrancy to the extent that Hodge and Warfield did, even though he participated in similar polemics against liberalism. Machen's relative lack of reflection on inerrancy is surprising for someone who worked intricately with the New
Testament claims concerning Jesus Christ, with particular focus on the historicity of the
'Machen Archive, Westminster Theological Seminary.
'Machen Archive, Westminster Theological Seminary. events involving Him. Yet for Machen, questions of inerrancy were important primarily
because of the content within the questions themselves, not because of their implications
for a doctrine of Scripture. Hence the inerrancy of Scripture, though affirmed, is "de-
emphasized" in favor of an emphasis on the gospel content of Scripture. Machen's
position within conservative Presbyterianism in the 1920s and 1930s provided many
opportunities to restate and develop the inerrantist epistemology offered by his mentors.
By not doing so48 and by continuously shifting the focus from Scripture to the gospel
content of Scripture, Machen represents a legitimate recasting of inerrancy that reflects
his theological tradition and theological acumen such that he offers an improvement over
the contributions of his theological forbears.49
Machen's description of Christianity in objective terms was due in part to his
acceptance of the epistemology of Hodge and Warfield. But more concretely, Machen's
insistence on objectivity had to do with the nature of salvation itself. If sinners were
Hart, "Machen, Inerrancy, and Creedless Christianity," 23. Hart notes that Machen, "pays little regard to inerrancy in Christianity and Liberalism or other writings. The chapter on the Bible is the shortest in the book and he devotes only two pages to the topic itself." George Marsden, "Understanding J. Gresham Machen," 194, summarizes as follows: "Even more significant than inerrancy was the question of historicity for Machen. Either traditional Christianity was true to the facts and historical investigation would confirm it, or Christianity's traditional historical claims as to who Jesus was and what he had done were false. In that case one should face up to the facts and abandon the claim to be Christian. Modernist theologies, said Machen, were evading this simple commonsense issue with fancy language about interpretation and the like. Hence they should be exposed for what they were and for denying simple claims as to matters of fact that Christians in every other generation had made."
48Hart states, "So instead of countering the epistemology of liberalism with a better one, or arguing for the propositional nature of truth, Machen played to his strength, namely the teaching of the New Testament. And here he attempted to show that the Bible did just the reverse of what liberalism claimed; theology preceded experience, not the other way around." See Hart, "Machen, Inerrancy, and Creedless Christianity," 29.
49Of course, critics of Machen will argue that he does not use inerrancy to develop a Christian epistemology because he had no need. The task was already accomplished by Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield. Hence, Machen's recasting of inerrancy is not a substantial shift but rather a shift in the focus of his work. While conceding the fact that Machen retains the substance of the inerrantist tradition of Hodge and Warfield, this writer sees Machen's "de-emphasizing" of inerrancy as a legitimate "recasting" of the position. alienated from God, needing Jesus Christ, and if the gospel involves claims that certain
events have happened in history, then Machen's emphasis on the objective character of
Christianity is not naive. It is theologically informed and pastoral in its motivation to
offer assurance to Christian believers of their reconciliation to God.
Machen was at liberty to de-emphasize and therein recast inerrancy because he
was part of a theological tradition that offered more than philosophical-theological
defenses for certain characteristics of Scripture. His rich commitment to the Reformed
tradition allowed him to affirm inerrancy while accepting aspects of textual-critical
methodology in his own study of the text. His affirmation of the miraculous work of God
in inspiration, thereby rendering Scripture completely true, allowed him to operate in the
mainstream of critical scholarship with confidence that the evidence would support his theological commitments. Finally, his tradition informed his positions on the issues of his
day, even more than inerrancy itself, thus allowing him to hold some views that would have been rejected by most of his fellow inerrantists.
Machen's contribution demonstrates that when engaging questions of bibliology, it is essential for theologians to have their theological tradition close at hand. The lack of a sense of one's tradition fosters a scholastic epistemology, which, when applied to theology, can force the inerrancy of Scripture to become the theological linchpin that holds one's entire theological system together. When this happens, inerrancy itself becomes the tradition in need of preservation.
Hodge and Warfield worked in the Reformation tradition but were too close to
Enlightenment thought to escape the scholastic tradition. Hence, their doctrine of
Scripture reflects the elevation of inerrancy from an essential position to a theological tradition all its own. Machen's recasting of inerrancy demonstrates that while he stood in
continuity with the substance of Hodge and Warfield's bibliology, he was also able to
bring forth a needed emphasis on a true strength of his Reformed tradition's teaching,
namely, a Christ-centered Soteriology. Machen accomplished this emphasis, all the while
retaining a fundamental commitment to the full truthfulness of Scripture, and he
unashamedly articulated this in inerrantist terms.
Thus Machen preserves the inerrantist tradition, but he appropriately de-
emphasizes the position itself in favor of a deeper commitment to the most crucial aspects
of his theological tradition. Hart's summary of the value of Machen's position offers a helpful concluding statement: "Machen's defense of biblical infallibility and creedal
Christianity no doubt looks wooden, rationalistic and perhaps outdated. But from the perspective of his larger concern to preserve the good news of the gospel, namely, that
Christ really did pay the penalty for sin, Machen's argument emerges as one of the more profound made in the twentieth century."50
50Hart, "Machen, Inerrancy, and Creedless Christianity," 34. Hart states elsewhere, "As rationalistic and elementary as the doctrine of inerrancy appeared to be, the Princetonians did appear to have a point, namely, the difficulty of retaining the Bible's authority and trustworthiness if the book was wrong in its statement of certain beliefs or historical events. Machen especially emphasized the importance of history for a proper understanding of Christianity, arguing that it was impossible to separate the religion of Christ from the details of Jesus' life. From the perspective of the Princeton theology, then, liberal Protestant efforts to preserve the uniqueness and hence, the authority, of the Bible by appealing to its ethical teachings or its inspirational qualities dodged the weightier issue of the book's truth." See D. G. Hart, "Fundamentalism, Inerrancy, and the Biblical Scholarship of J. Gresham Machen," 17. CHAPTER FOUR SCRIPTURE AND INERRANCY ACCORDING TO CARL F. H. HENRY
In the previous chapter, we surveyed J. Gresham Machen's doctrine of Scripture and inerrantist position. While Machen identified himself as a proponent of inerrancy and an adherent to the basic substance of the inerrantist tradition set forth in Hodge and
Warfield, he argued for inerrancy in a theological context where Christology and
Soteriology were prominent. The inerrancy of Scripture, for Machen, is not merely an epistemic foundation that renders the text factually reliable. Rather, inerrancy is confessed because of the significance of Scripture's gospel content and the nature of the
God who gave it. By setting inerrancy in this context, Machen recast the position by de- emphasizing it in favor of more important doctrinal tenets within his confessional tradition. At the end of the chapter, it was concluded that Machen improved upon the entrenching of inerrancy seen in his theological forbears.
In North America, Machen's work was significant for the continued defense of the inerrantist position, particularly in the Christian Fundamentalist movement. Though
Machen never self-identified as a fundamentalist,1 it was this group that largely carried the inerrancy banner forward. However, with the fallout from the Scopes Trial in 1925, most theological conservatives were retreating and reinventing their ministries during the
'On the prevalence of inerrancy in Fundamentalism and Fundamentalism's relationship to the Old Princeton School (including Machen), see Ernest R. Sandeen, "Toward a Historical Interpretation of the Origins of Fundamentalism" Church History 36, (1967), 66-83; Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800-1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970); George Marsden, "Defining Fundamentalism," Christian Scholar's Review, (1971), 141-51; George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980).
139 1930s and 1940s. With this retreat, the fundamentalists' militant stance became more focused on drawing lines of separation from fellow members of their own broad movement, rather than on the battle with theological liberalism. This stance eventually resulted in a split between militant fundamentalists and more progressive, culturally- engaged fundamentalists who called themselves "new evangelicals." While both groups propagated the inerrantist tradition, it would be the latter that would continue the tradition's development into the latter part of the 20th century.4
The leading theologian of these new evangelicals was Carl F. H. Henry.5 Henry's first significant theological contribution was a short treatise entitled, The Uneasy
Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism? In this work, Henry criticized his fellow
2While the fundamentalist retreat is well-documented in Sandeen and Marsden (above), the fundamentalist re-invention is often overlooked or dismissed. A notable exception can be found in the work of Joel A. Carpenter, Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
3On the rise of new- or neo- evangelicalism (as a development out of Fundamentalism), see George Marsden, ed., Evangelicalism and Modern America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984); George Marsden, ed., Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991); Mark Ellingsen, The Evangelical Moment (Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988); Martin E. Marty, ed., Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, vol. 10, Modern American Protestantism and Its World (New York: K. G. Saur, 1993); Mark A. Noll, David W. Bebbington, and George A. Rawlyk eds., Evangelicalism: Comparative Studies of Popular Protestantism in North America, the British Isles, and Beyond, 1700-1990 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994); Douglas A. Sweeney, The American Evangelical Story: A History of the Movement (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005).
4Not that those who retained the "Fundamentalist" label discontinued arguing for inerrancy. However, since the fundamentalist/new- (neo) evangelical split at mid-20thcentury, it has been those coming from the "neo-evangelical" movement who have been most prominent in carrying forward conservative scholarship, and therein, offering further defenses of the inerrantist tradition.
5John Woodbridge, a noted evangelical scholar and personal friend of Henry, reflects at lengdi on Henry's influence in "Carl F. H. Henry: Spokesperson for American Evangelicalism," in God& Culture: Essays in Honor of Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 373-93. Bob Patterson, a biographer of Henry, indicated that Henry gave the most reasonable voice to many tenets of evangelical thought. See Bob Patterson, Carl F. H. Henry (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1983). Patterson states that Henry was evangelicalism's "theological spokesman" (18). Henry's six volume theological work, God, Revelation, and Authority, 6 vols., (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), was the standard for evangelical theological scholarship in the late twentieth century and remains highly influential today. 141
conservatives, noting their lack of social concern in favor of a "fortress" mentality.
Henry's treatise set the stage for his future as a theological and societal leader of the new
evangelical movement in America. He joined the founding faculty of Fuller Theological
Seminary in 1947 and there taught systematic theology and philosophy of religion. In
1956, Henry became the founding editor of Christianity Today, where his own
evangelical voice was heard broadly through numerous articles and editorials. After nearly twelve years at the magazine, Henry taught in various schools and eventually became lecturer-at-large for World Vision, where he traveled, lectured, and wrote many works, including God, Revelation, and Authority. Through these activities, Henry exercised extensive influence as he represented the intellectual voice of American evangelicalism.
In his most significant work, God, Revelation, and Authority, Henry details his own doctrine of Scripture, offering a thorough treatment of the inerrantist position.
Therein, Henry defends the inerrantist tradition as articulated in the Old Princeton School and gives specific criticism to the "neo-liberal" position of Karl Barth.9 Yet while Henry sees himself in continuity with the position of Hodge and Warfield, he also argues, like
6Carl Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).
7Henry's autobiography, Confessions of a Theologian (Waco, TX: Word, 1986), recounts these and many other events.
8Patterson, Carl F, H. Henry, 162, assesses that Henry "far surpasses most other American evangelicals in contemporary philosophy and theology."
9 Carl Henry, GRA, 4:162-219. Henry's formal critique of Barth and neo-orthodoxy in general seems to have begun in the early 1950s. Two addresses delivered in the UK in September and October of 1953 demonstrate Henry's early polemics against Barthian theology. See "Revelation and Inspiration— Modern Problems," delivered at the Free Church School in Theology, Glasgow, Scotland, September 15, 1953; and "Special Revelation as Truth and Event" delivered at the Theological Society of Free Church College, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 28, 1953. Both addresses were accessed at the Henry Archive, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. 142
Machen, that inerrancy is something predicated on the doctrines of revelation, God, and
Jesus Christ. Even within the doctrine of Scripture itself, inerrancy is predicated on
Scripture's authority and inspiration.10 As noted in the thesis introduction, Henry was
often discouraged with the heated debates concerning inerrancy within evangelicalism11
because he thought these divisive polemics extracted inerrancy from its rightful
theological context. Henry desired to take a more reasoned, balanced, and theologically-
informed approach to this disruptive issue. In so doing, Henry retains a commitment to
the inerrantist tradition of Hodge and Warfield while, at the same time, fleshing out the
recasting of inerrancy seen in the work of Machen.
Henry's commitment to the inerrantist position stemmed from his belief that God
graciously revealed Himself to His image-bearers clearly, rationally, and objectively. An
affirmation of inerrancy, believed Henry, was a consistent implication of this fact about
revelation. As a true description of God's written revelation, inerrancy was a helpful tool
to liberate us to apply Scripture to the issues of our day. Yet, while firmly committed to
This can be seen from the fact that inerrancy specifically is not treated fully until the fourth volume of God, Revelation, and Authority. This treatment comes after a lengthy prolegomena (Vol. 1), an extended discussion of revelation (Vol. 2) with some reflections on the doctrine of God intermixed (2:151- 226), and a development of the doctrine of Jesus Christ as the supreme revelation of God with reference to his authority as God's living Word (3:9-247). After this, Henry discusses propositional revelation (3:248- 488), out of which comes his explicit doctrine of Scripture. After describing the authority and inspiration of Scripture in detail (4:7-161), Henry finally addresses the inerrancy issue specifically (4:162-219), followed by a treatment of biblical infallibility (4:220-55). This arrangement speaks volumes concerning the context in which Henry believed inerrancy should be discussed.
uFor the non-inerrantist position, see Edward J. Carnell, The Case for Orthodox Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959). Also note Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Inspiration of the Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979). For the inerrancy position, specifically addressing the Rogers-McKim proposal, see John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982). Other defenses of inerrancy in light of the Rogers/McKim proposal include D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, eds., Scripture and Truth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983) and D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, eds., Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1986). In polemical context, see Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976); and Harold Lindsell, The Bible in the Balance (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979). 143
inerrancy, Henry did argue against those who tried to make inerrancy the one and only
necessary element of doctrine to unite a theological movement. He was also
uncomfortable with those who espoused it as the distinguishing characteristic between
those who were truly evangelical and those who were not. Thus, Henry articulated his
inerrantist position with a certain tension, at times staunchly defending inerrancy, and at
other times appearing to downplay its importance for the sake of evangelical unity or to
free himself to focus on matters he deemed more important.
While Henry's theology is known widely, his specific nuances concerning
inerrancy have gone largely unnoticed. In this chapter, Henry's doctrine of Scripture and
inerrantist position will be considered. I will first analyze his theological context and
follow with a description of his theological method, his epistemology, and his theology of
revelation. These analyses will provide needed background for a survey of Henry's
doctrine of Scripture. In the analysis of Henry's doctrine of Scripture, I will discuss his
view of Scripture's authority, inspiration, and inerrancy. I will then describe Henry's own
"recasting" of inerrancy and conclude with an evaluation of Henry's position.
12While inerrancy was not to be a test of evangelical authenticity for Henry, "a specific view of Scripture" was a significant part of evangelical identity. States Henry, "Evangelicals as a body of believers have stood traditionally not for a truncated definition of the good news, but provide an overwhelming precedent for the view that a consistent and complete statement of the gospel embraces also the truthfulness of the Scripture." See Carl F. H. Henry, "Who Are the Evangelicals?" in Evangelical Affirmations, ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 78.
13Nathan O. Hatch, "Response" to Henry, "Who Are the Evangelicals?" in Evangelical Affirmations, 96. Hatch states, "Mr. Henry takes what might be called a moderate view of inerrancy: defending its importance as a staple of evangelical identity, but critiquing those for whom the disclaimer of biblical error becomes the primary statement about Scripture... Henry calls for proclaiming the whole counsel of God rather than remaining fixed upon certain fundamentals." I would agree with Hatch's assessment of Henry's position. Henry's Polemical Context: Answering Karl Barth
As with each theologian discussed so far, Carl Henry's position is best understood
when seen in its polemical and/or apologetic context. Since Henry believed Christian
theology was obligated to answer all rival truth claims, he regularly articulated his own
positions in juxtaposition to others outside his own evangelical community. Concerning
the doctrine of Scripture, Henry's primary focal point was to answer the theology of Karl
Barth. Henry found Barth's doctrine of Scripture detrimental to any objective reality of
Christian truth. While there were certainly others14 with whom Henry quibbled over the
doctrine of Scripture, Henry specifically sustained a focus on Barth's position because
that was the one making the deepest inroads into evangelical theology.15
According to Barth,16 Scripture is one of three forms of the Word of God. The
Word of God itself, Jesus Christ (the Living Word), is to be distinguished from the Bible
(the written Word) and preaching (the proclaimed Word). As the Revelation of God,
Jesus Christ engenders Scripture as that which points to himself.17 As a witness to
Revelation, Scripture becomes the Word of God through the work of the Spirit. It does
not become the Word of God because it is an infallible witness.
14Most notably besides Karl Barth, Henry interacted heavily with James Barr. See James Barr, Fundamentalism (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977); James Barr, The Bible in the Modern World (London: SCM Press; New York: Harper & Row, 1973).
15Henry regularly criticizes the views of James Barr; however, it was Barth's view that was most insidious for Henry. Barth's position had many commendable components to it that it was becoming attractive to many conservative evangelicals. Henry even agreed with many things Barth said, but he believed Barth's overall position to be dangerous.
16The following description of Barth's doctrine of Scripture is not meant to cover all relevant aspects of his position. It is for the sole purpose of clarifying Henry's polemical context.
17Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vols. 1/1 and 1/2, trans. G. W. Bromiley and ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, 2nd ed. 1975 (repr., Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 1/1:113. 145
Yet Scripture, by the work of the Spirit, does indeed become the Word of God.
Thus, to say Scripture is not the Word of God in itself does not render Scripture optional.
As Barth notes in the Barmen Declaration, "Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy
Scripture, is the one Word of God."18 God speaks to us through the specific text of
Scripture, and reveals the true content of all revelation—Jesus Christ. Hence, for Barth,
an understanding of and commitment to the exegesis of Scripture was central to the
theological task.19
Barth understood "inspiration" (theopneustia) to mean "of the Spirit of God."
Hence, to say Scripture is "inspired" is not to make an assertion about a particular quality
of the text; rather, it is to affirm that the Spirit has and still can speak to humanity through
it. For Barth, Scripture is "given and filled and ruled by the Spirit of God."20 God is
before, above, and in Scripture and is therefore free to "inspire" Scripture at any given
time. Therefore, 2 Tim. 3:16 is not a statement about Scripture's quality as a text. It is a
declaration of the activity (ongoing) of the Holy Spirit's work in and through the text for
Karl Barth, Barmen Declaration, http://www.creeds.net/reformed/barmen.htm, last accessed November 17, 2008. (emphasis mine)
19Francis Watson, regarding the importance of Scripture in Barth's Church Dogmatics, states, "Barth's biblical interpretation is not a particular item, but the foundation and principle of coherence of his entire project..." As well, Watson states that for Barth, "In its proper context within a theology of the divine communicative action ... the Bible is fundamentally unlike any other book, and a biblical interpretation that is appropriate to its object will never forget this for a moment." See Francis Watson, "The Bible," in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 57, 62.
Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1/2:504. the benefit of those who read it in faith. Barth understood the inspiration of the Bible as
that indescribable work of the Spirit which guarantees God's authority over the text.
Given this fundamental distinction between Revelation and Scripture, and given
his understanding of inspiration, Barth offers several statements or "propositions" to
summarize his position. First, Barth states that we must not transform "the statement that
the Bible is the Word of God from a statement about the being and rule of God in and
through the Bible into a statement about the Bible as such."23 As noted, for Barth, the
entire concept of inspiration declares to us the supreme authority of God over His
revelation. For Barth, "to say 'the Word of God' is to say the work of God."24 As a work
of God, the authority of His revelation is found not in the text itself but only in His free
act of speaking through the text.
Second, because God's revelation is an ongoing event through the text and not
•ye coterminous with the text, the Word of God is "the miracle of God." As miracle, it has
Barth notes that "theopneustia" is difficult to grasp at all since it is this term which "can consist only in an underlining and delimiting of the inaccessible mystery of the free grace in which the Spirit of God is present and active before and above and in the Bible." (Church Dogmatics, 1/2:504).
22 Theopneustia is also defined by Barth in terms of the effect it has on us—this is his circle of inspiration, so to speak. Theopneustia, "in the bounds of biblical thinking cannot mean anything but the special attitude of obedience in those who are elected and called to this obviously special service." (1/2:505). It refers to the apostles and prophets as they wrote Scripture—they were inspired. But we who hear Scripture today are also inspired in terms of what the Spirit does for us and how God speaks to us through the text. Barth adds, "the theopneustia of the Bible, the attitude of obedience in which it is written, the compelling fact that in it true men speak to us in the name of die true God: this—and here is the miracle of it—is not simply before us because the Bible is before us and we read the Bible. The theopneustia is the act of revelation in which the prophets and apostles in their humanity became what they were, and in which alone in their humanity they can become to us what they are" (1/2:507-8). For Barth, the doctrine of inspiration describes the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Bible in such a way that "the whole reality of the unity between the two is safeguarded no less than the fact that tiiis unity is a free act of the grace of God, and for us its content is always a promise" (1/2:514).
23Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1/2:527.
'Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1/2:527. 147 been provided to us, not for our ownership, but as a manifestation of God's grace. Hence, we cannot demand its presence to us whenever we wish. We anticipate the event of revelation, all the while recognizing that the Word of God belongs to the authority of God
alone.26
Third, because the Word of God is a miraculous work of God given by His grace
in the moment of His choosing, "we must not compromise either directly or indirectly the humanity of its form and the possibility of the offense which can be taken at it." The text of Scripture itself remains a fallible human witness that God miraculously works through to effect change in the life of the believer. Notions of infallibility and inerrancy are aberrant because they diminish (even destroy!) the miracle of revelation. In an extended statement against the inerrantist position, Barth states:
To the bold postulate, that if their word is to be the Word of God they must be inerrant in every word, we oppose the even bolder assertion, that according to the scriptural witness about man, which applies to them too, they can be at fault in any word, and have been at fault in every word, and yet according to the same scriptural witness, being justified and sanctified by grace alone, they have still spoken the Word of God in their fallible and erring human word. It is that fact that in the Bible we can take part in this real miracle, the miracle of the grace of God to sinners, and not the idle miracle of human words which were not really human words at all, which is the foundation of the dignity and authority of the Bible.29
2 Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1/2:528.
26Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1/2:528.
27Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1/2:528.
28Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1/2:529. Barth states that "every time we turn the Word of God into an infallible biblical word of man or the biblical word of man into an infallible Word of God we resist that which we ought never to resist, i.e., the truth of the miracle that here fallible men speak the Word of God in fallible human words—and we therefore resist the sovereignty of grace, in which God Himself became man in Christ, to glorify Himself in His humanity."
Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1/2:529-530. Barth argues that when inerrancy is affirmed, there is a concomitant attempt to control the Bible. If we try to control revelation, we end up making an idol of Scripture.
Barth anticipates the objection that without inerrancy we may not have a reliable text.
The solution to this dilemma, for Barth, is to trust in God's work, not something we can contrive ourselves. Since God desires to speak to us through the text of Scripture, we can be sure that He will—but in His own time and place. Therefore, it is for the believer to walk by faith, anticipating this event. Barth states that "if God was not ashamed of the fallibility of human words of the Bible ... we do not need to be ashamed when He wills to renew it to us in all its fallibility as witness, and it is mere self-will and disobedience to try to find some infallible elements in the Bible."
Barth concludes his formal discussion of Scripture by underscoring the necessity of faith in the event of revelation and the freedom of God who produces this event.
Because the inspiration of Scripture is not a feature of the text itself, the true work of the
Spirit depends on the "actual presence" of the Word of God. This actual presence can only be known in faith, and it is more than an experience of God's presence. In other words, the faith of the believer is essential for the efficacy of the Spirit's work in speaking through Scripture. While God freely engenders the event of revelation, it is within the life of the Church as she listens to the Living Word through the Written Word
30Barth argues that the rise of the "orthodox" view of inspiration arose during the time that natural theology became prominent within Protestantism. "This new understanding of biblical inspiration meant simply that the statement that the Bible is the Word of God was now transformed from a statement about the free grace of God into a statement about the nature of the Bible as exposed to human inquiry brought under human control. The Bible as the Word of God surreptitiously became a part of natural knowledge of God, i.e., of that knowledge of God which man can have without the free grace of God, by his own power and with direct insight and assurance." (1/2:522-523). For Barth, both natural theology and the so-called "orthodox" view of Scripture must be rejected.
31Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1/2:531.
Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1/2:533. 149
that God's presence is realized.33 However, though faith is a vital aspect of this process,
Barth concludes his reflection on Scripture with the reminder that ultimately it is still God
alone who is Lord over the miracle of revelation. Barth concludes, "The Bible must be
known as the Word of God if it to be known as the Word of God."34
While Carl Henry found many commendable points in Barth's position, he could
not accept its fundamental starting point of driving a wedge between Revelation and
Scripture. For Henry, this abolished any objective, cognitive (epistemic) link between
God and humanity.35 Henry claims that "Barth's insistence that error belongs to Scripture
as Scripture in effect undermines every effort to find an authoritative norm in Scripture as
Scripture."36 Though Barth proposes a "revive[d] theology of the Word of God," no
binding appeal to Scripture's authority can be made, particularly given that the errancy of
Scripture is theologically presupposed by Barth from the outset.37 While God can use
fallible means to accomplish his purposes, because Scripture is God-breathed, errancy of
-30 the text is impossible.
3 Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1/2:533.
34Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1/2:535. (emphasis original)
35Henry states, "Of the transcendence of the God of the Bible, His epistemological transcendence included, there can be no doubt. But when the revolt against the exaggerated liberal doctrine of divine immanence swings to the opposite extreme of an exaggerated neo-orthodox doctrine of divine transcendence, then the cost of error in Christian theology is equally high." See Carl F. H. Henry, "The Nature of God," in Christian Faith and Modern Theology, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (New York: Channel Press, 1964), 90.
36Henry, GRA, 4, 196.
37Henry, GRA, 4, 196-197. Henry asks, "If the Bible is thus humanly fallible, and necessarily so, as Barth contends, what sense does it make to insist, as he does, on its divine infallibility? Why should the church accept the Bible as a God-given canon?"
'Henry, GRA, 4, 197. Barth's insistence on a confrontation with the Spirit of God in order for Scripture to become God's Word is problematic for Henry because, in his view, Barth seems to insist on an either/or proposition rather than accepting a both/and possibility. Henry claims that Barth has thus imposed a false dichotomy between an inspired text and the act of Spirit illumination. States Henry, "Barth attempts the impossible feat of simultaneously riding two uncoordinated moving horses on a merry-go-round." By insisting on a denial of inspiration, Barth renders the "authority of Scripture in an atmosphere of mystery."40 Ultimately, for Henry, the separation of a personal, non-verbal revelation that stands above or behind the verbal and propositional is unnecessary and dangerous to any notion of the objective authority of the text. Henry concludes as follows:
The axiom that the Bible contains errors and contradictions cannot be reconciled with the axiom that the prophetic-apostolic writings are the Word of God. Barth, in other words, develops his theology in terms of irreconcilable axioms. By trying to maintain these positions side by side, or emphasizing now one view and then the other, Barth burdens his Church Dogmatics with confusion. By respecting the law of contradiction he could and would have avoided irrationalist tendencies. The difficulties of Barth's exposition can be overcome only by closing the gap, as Scripture itself does, between divine revelation and the prophetic-apostolic writings, between the Word of God and the Bible.41
39Henry, GRA, 4, 199.
40Henry, GRA, 4, 199.
41Henry, GRA, 4, 200. 151
Henry's Theological Methodology
At the opening of God, Revelation, and Authority, Henry states that he sought
theological education for the purpose of "pit[ting] and test[ing] Christian claims against
rival religious and philosophical views."42 Henry begins his theology by describing what
he sees as a grand conflict between Christianity and pagan philosophy. Summarizing the
philosophical problem pitted against Christianity, Henry states,
The modern understanding of man is rationalistic in the Greek idealistic sense; the revelational activity of the transcendent Logos, on which the Bible insists, is no longer in view ... Reason as a human a priori is independent of transcendent divine revelation as a special source of knowledge and now confidently speculates about reality on its own.43
Given this conflict, the task of Christian theology is to "recall reason once again from the
vagabondage of irrationalism and the arrogance of autonomy to the service of true
faith."44 Henry seeks to present theology as supremely rational—the only true rationality,
Henry, GRA, 1, 9. Gary Dorrien, The Remaking of Evangelical Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 107 summarizes Henry's "clearing the fieldo f alternatives" to Christianity. Dorrien states that Henry "taught that mysticism hopelessly shrouds the divine revealer in incomprehensible ineffability, that empiricism is incapable of findingtrut h because it is committed to an unending search on secular presuppositions, and that non-Christian rationalism subordinates the truth of revelation to its own master concepts."
43 Henry, GRA, 1, 37-38. Elsewhere, Henry summarizes this contrast: "If the nature of God is rationally disclosed and rationally apprehended, the assertion of universally valid knowledge of God's nature (including His transcendent and immanent relations to the world of man) can be vindicated—as by historic Christian theology through its appeal to intelligible divine disclosure and to die inspired Scriptures. But if man's ideas and concepts of the divine are simply products of his own creative consciousness, and imply no claim to literal truth about the objective nature of God, is there anything compelling reason to regard the moral transcendence of God any less than His metaphysical (or indeed His epistemological) transcendence as anything other or more than symbol or myth? The renunciation of rational divine revelation can only lead to moral as well as theoretical agnosticism about God-in-Himself." See Carl F. H. Henry, "The Nature of God," 86-87.
'Henry, GRA, 1, 43. 152
and he claims theology's main purpose is to call the "world" to account for its
irrationality.
For Henry, one's theological method is basically one's description of the
epistemological and apologetical foundation of theology as well as a description of how
Christian theology can be thought to be rational.45 Henry's overarching methodological
statement for theology is as follows:
Divine revelation is the source of all truth, the truth of Christianity included; reason is the instrument for recognizing it; Scripture is its verifying principle; logical consistency is a negative test for truth and coherence a subordinate test. The task of Christian theology is to exhibit the content of biblical revelation as an orderly whole.
The first part of the above statement is the most crucial. Henry believes
Revelation to be the "ultimate criterion of all evangelical doctrine."47 Here, Henry is
using the term "revelation" to refer to the Bible predominantly. Henry argues for the
primacy of Scripture because, while religious feeling could be revelatory, and while Jesus
Christ is truly the revelation of God, feelings often cannot be thematized and Jesus Christ
is not walking and talking among people. What people do have that is objective is
Scripture. While God is the "cause" of revelation because it is His self-disclosure, the
source of this revelation is clearly first and foremost the Bible.
After Henry's explication of the primacy of revelation, he reiterates that "Human reason is a divinely fashioned instrument for recognizing truth."49 Since God created
45Henry, G&4, 1,213-214.
46Henry, GRA, 1, 215. (Italics original)
41Remy,GRA, 1,215.
48Henry, G&4, 1,216-222. 153
reason, He is the author of rationality. Therefore, we need not shy away from affirming
the rationality of divine revelation. If indeed revelation accounts better for the totality of
truth, then revelation should make sense to us, because this is how God intended it to
be.50 Henry, while not denying some noetic consequence of the Fall, argues, "The forms
of reason and the laws of logic as a creation-endowment survive the fall."51 For Henry,
the human will has suffered more damaging consequences from the fall than human
reason. Thus Henry is optimistic concerning mankind's ability to reasonably accept the
truths of Christianity.52
After affirming mankind's rational capacity for understanding revelation, Henry
turns to emphasize the primacy of Scripture in his theological method. Because, for
Henry, "The Bible is the Christian's principle of verification," Scripture acts as both the
source of revelation as well as the epistemic foundation of revelation itself. Henry insists
that this is proper because Scripture is God-given. Henry states, "To summarize, inspired
Scripture is the divinely authorized attestation of God's speech and acts, and as such is
normative in all matters of religion and ethics."54 Therefore, for Henry, Scripture takes
the preeminent epistemic position in all theological methodology.55
4yHenry, G/L4, 1,225.
50Henry, GRA, 1,226.
51Henry, GRA, 1, 228.
Dorrien, Remaking of Evangelical Theology, summarizes, "To Henry, it was the human will, not human reason, that stands utterly in need of divine regeneration. He explained that while there are two kinds of human will—regenerate and unregenerate—it is misguided to speak of human reason as either regenerate or unregenerate." (108)
"Henry, GRA, 1,229.
54Henry, G/L4, 1,232. 154
Henry concludes his discussion of theological method by stating, "The proper task
of theology is to exposit and elucidate the content of Scripture in an orderly way."56 If
Scripture is the source of revelation as well as the norm of theology, it also must act as
the procedural format for theology. For Henry, "The ideal procedure would be to arrange
all the truths of Christianity logically by summarizing and systematizing the texts and
teaching of Scripture and supplying an exposition of the logical content and implications
of the Bible on its own premises."57 This is how theologians can be most faithful to
God's revealed truth—by recognizing Scripture as the primary source of revelation and
by allowing Scripture to be the sole norm of all theological construction.
Henry's Epistemology
Throughout God, Revelation, and Authority, Henry repeatedly states that
epistemology is the primary theological concern. Understanding Henry's epistemology is
therefore crucial for understanding his doctrine of Scripture and inerrantist position.
Given the options of intuition, experience, and reason as primary ways of knowing,
Henry opts for reason as the best choice. However, he carefully distinguishes between
Anticipating the objection that if Scripture is the sole norm, there will be divergent opinions on what Scripture actually teaches, Henry argues that logical consistency and coherence are appropriate to test revealed truth. Henry believes in the full logical consistency and coherence of Christian theology. (See Henry, GRA, 1,235-37) Further, Henry argues, "In appealing to transcendent revelation as its basic epistemic axiom, Christianity casts its truth claim comprehensively over all areas of human life. The fact that Christianity postulates first principles and affirms fixed core beliefs does not rule out the propriety of rational tests. Neither does the appropriateness of a rational test imply that Christianity must be regarded as only hypothesis." See Carl F. H. Henry, Toward a Recovery of Christian Bel ief(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990), 53.
56Henry, GRA, 1, 238.
Henry, GRA, 1,239. 155 philosophical rationalism and the rational nature of Christian revelation. Henry argues for a synthesis between faith and reason, both being guided by Scripture.59
Henry affirms a sort of "apriorism"60 whereby, based on God's "revelation within the mind," all human beings have access to this rational relationship.61 Describing what he calls the Augustinian-Calvinist position, Henry argues that God has illumined all
ft,*) people because He has created them in His image. Hence, rational reality is accessible to everyone, though not all will interpret reality correctly. Because of the noetic effects of
5SHenry, GRA, 1, 92-95.
59Henry's position is that the two are not mutually opposed, that we can construct a synthesis, and that faith has the priority both methodologically and epistemologically. Henry summarizes his "synthesis" in the following statement: "Reason and faith are not antithetical. Faith without reason leads to skepticism and reason without faith does so also. Human knowledge is possible only on the basis of divine revelation; Augustine rightly held that all knowledge is faith. Empiricism and rationalism both go astray because they ignore revelation as the source of truth. Rationality permeates the revelational outlook: the Logos is at the beginning and center and climax of divine disclosure. Christianity has never offered itself as a refuge from rationality; rather it emphasizes the rational difficulties and inconsistencies of alternative views of reality and life." (Henry, GRA, I,200) Henry refutes rationalism as an opposing system to Christianity, one that does not give place to revelation.
60Henry anticipates the objection that an insistence on a priori axioms—ontologically, the existence of God and epistemically, the fact and truth of divine revelation—is an improper starting point for theology. Henry argues, however, that "What distinguishes Christian axioms from rival axioms is not that Christian axioms are a priori; all axioms are." Hence, Christians should not begin with God's non-existence in order to authentically arrive at God's existence. Henry states, "Belief in God is basic to the Christian view, and no inductive argument from the not-God is necessary to justify it. An intellectual may well be within the bounds of epistemic propriety if he subscribes to God's existence even in the absence of any empirical evidence." See Carl F. H. Henry, Toward a Recovery, 65, 68, 78. Here, Henry is heavily dependent on the work of Gordon Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952).
61Henry, GRA, 1, 322. "In both its philosophical and its theological transcendent forms the uncompromisable thesis of apriorism is that truth is only God's revelation within the mind. Superhuman reason is the presupposition of the intelligibility of things, and man penetrates that intelligibility in virtue of rational relationships with the divine mind."
62Henry states that "a theistic view places a rational God behind man in time and thought behind language. Augustine emphasized the central features of this view of language in his De Magistro. Christ the Logos of God, he said, is the rational light that illumines the minds of humankind, so that they are born neither mentally vacuous nor morally neutral. Made in God's image, the human person has the idea of God as an a priori endowment." (Henry, GRA, 3, 388) See also Henry, Toward a Recovery, 49, 57. sin, people are prone to misunderstand and misinterpret God's revealed truths.
However, this propensity for misunderstanding does not necessitate an exclusive reliance on mere intuition or experience. God still reveals Himself through rational means, and He makes Himself known as He wills.
Anticipating the objection that this is nothing more than rationalism with God-talk added, Henry argues that the Augustinian position—that all truth is known by virtue of the apriority of revelation—actually keeps one from both rationalistic and empiricist trappings.65 The fact that all rational thought is dependent upon God's revelation means that no human being can possess this truth completely. While truth is rational, this does not give anyone the basis for self-reliance. Rather, everyone is dependent entirely upon
God's revelation for knowing anything. Henry argues that since God created humankind's rational capabilities, people can have assurance not possible in the typical human-centered self-dependence that characterizes rationalism.66
Henry recognizes as well that even pre-fall, human reason depended on revelation. Post-fall, this dependence is more pronounced. States Henry, "Yet even in an uncorrupted state, human reasoning according to the Hebrew-Christian view was not independent of revelation, because of the immeasurable gulf between the infinite Mind and the finite mind. With the entrance of sin, however, the case is worsened; the competence of human reason is vitiated, the divine image in man is distorted." See Carl F. H. Henry, Remaking the Modern Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 58.
""Henry, GRA, 1,322.
65Henry, Remaking the Modern Mind, 233, states, "Augustine started from revelation and went on to a fully informed reason, something that no Greek philosopher could ever have done, because God had not delivered special revelation to the Greeks. But where God has spoken, revealed truth becomes the starting point of consistent knowledge; revelation is the test of truth, furnishes the framework and corrective for natural reason, and introduces consistency into fragmentary human knowledge." Patterson, Carl F. H. Henry, 70, offers the following summation of Henry's understanding of Augustine: "For Augustine the laws of the mind, the principles of thought, the standards of right and wrong, numbers and beauty, were inborn. They had a real existence in the order of things, they were innate, they were a priori, they were a part of the created order of the cosmos, they were given and sustained by God. They were not invented by man, they were discovered by man.... The knowledge of God was implicit within the self all the time."
'Henry, GRA, 1,328. 157
For Henry, then, the doctrine of creation is the true foundation for epistemic certainty.67 Scripture is "addressed to men for whom knowledge of the living God is everywhere in some sense already a possession on the basis of creation, even if now held in disobedience."68 Yet the authority and epistemic certainty Scripture provides is predicated on the dependence all humanity has on God as its Creator. Because God as
Creator is the epistemic foundation, faith must be a part of all knowledge, not just religious knowledge. Since "man's knowledge is set continually and always in a context of revelation and faith," argues Henry, "man's knowledge carries assurance only in and through God's immanence; amid his sinfulness, it embraces fuller reliable information concerning God and his purposes only in and through divine special revelation in Christ and the Bible."69 Scripture, then, is God's gracious provision to fallen creatures that lack the necessary faith to properly interpret the general knowledge of God given through creation.70
Henry believes that the Augustinian model of epistemology overcomes the pitfalls of secular philosophy, namely the separation of noumenal and phenomenal worlds by
Henry, GRA, 1, 330. Henry states, "But the prime a priori factor in the discussion of knowledge experience is God the Creator. Knowledge in all its ramifications is a divine gift to man for the sake of spiritual fellowship and moral obedience. Whether man holds knowledge in spiritual obedience or disobedience is the question which overarches all epistemological discussion. Christian apriorism therefore leads on indispensably to the exposition of special redemptive revelation."
68Henry, G&4, 1,329.
69Henry, GRA, 1, 331. Henry further states, "Human knowledge is never simply a human achievement. In all of it God meets man, whose creaturely experience as a knower is made possible by a divine stooping or accommodation. Only this divine initiative spans the gulf between creature and Creator in terms of knowledge; through divine revelation. This accounts both for man's knowledge as finite by creation and in sin as his accidental condition. God in self-accommodation is unveiled to man universally in general revelation; in further self-accommodation he is unveiled to man as sinner in special revelation in the Word written and the Word incarnate." (335)
70For more on Henry's view of reason and revelation, see Kevin Neal Jones, "Revelation and reason in the theology of Carl F. H. Henry, James I. Packer, and Ronald H. Nash," (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1994). 158
Kant. Because our relationship with God is based on His self-disclosure, all knowing by
human beings is real and objective, not constructed within the mind alone. This provides
an a apriori for the Christian that is both epistemic (we know things for certain because
God has revealed them) and ontic (the one revealing Himself is the Creator God). Henry
states that Kant's separation of the transcendental and objective ultimately places finite
human beings in the position of epistemic authority, thereby rendering certainty
impossible.71 Yet, counters Henry, because God created humanity with the capacity to
know spiritual things, one can have certainty of what God has revealed both through
creation in general revelation and through Jesus and Scripture in special revelation.
Henry's epistemology clearly implies that revelation is "the central pillar of
biblical religion."73 It is in the context of God's revelation (considered as a whole) that
one must understand the crucial role that Scripture plays. Scripture becomes central in
Henry's theology only because God has revealed Himself through it. Hence, before we
consider Henry's doctrine of Scripture and inerrantist position, we must understand his
view of revelation.
71 Henry, GRA, 1, 345.
72 Henry, GRA, 1, 392. Henry then summarizes his epistemology with the following statement: "The transcendent God makes intelligible human experience possible as the sovereign Creator and Preserver of all things. Both the human mind and external reality have their basis of intelligibility in the Logos of God who structures nature and sustains man in the divine image. Reality is knowable because the categories of knowing are applicable to things-in-themselves; human knowledge has ontic significance. Things outside ourselves have an independently real existence, and stand in ontological and epistemic relationship to our cognition and sensory perception on the basis of the intelligible creative activity of the Logos of God. The dependence both of mankind and of the cosmos on the divine Logos vouchsafes not only the necessary character and validity of human knowledge, but its objectivity as well. The possibilities of valid and objective knowledge of God and of the universe lie in these facts, that by creation man bears the divine image rationally and morally, and that the fall of man was not completely destructive of this image, so that even in sin man is proffered revelation objectively communicated by the Creator-Redeemer God" (Henry, GRA, 1, 393-94).
Henry, GRA, 1,409. 159
Henry's Theology of Revelation
The Place of Scripture in Revelation
Henry generally accepts the belief that revelation comes to humanity in both general and special form, but he maintains that all revelation comes from a living God who acts of His own initiative. Hence, Henry sharply distinguishes between general revelation and natural theology.74 Whereas in natural theology, one posits truths about
God apart from revelation, in general revelation, some things can be known of God through creation itself. Thus, natural theology is impossible, for Henry, because mankind is in sinful rebellion against its Creator.75 On the other hand, general revelation acts as a presupposition for the necessity of special revelation, due to the fact that human beings have improperly understood general revelation in their sinful rebellion.
God has given His special revelation in Jesus Christ and Scripture. In his theology of revelation, Henry focuses specifically on Scripture, but not to the intentional detriment of Jesus Christ himself.76 The uniqueness of Scripture as special revelation is that it
"objectively communicates in propositional-verbal form the content and meaning of all
74Henry, GRA, 2, 62.
75Henry, GRA, 2, 117. Henry states, "God's universal disclosure in nature, history and to the human mind and conscience is not in dispute. What is rejected rather is the expectation that fallen man will translate general divine revelation into a natural theology that builds a secure bridge to special revelation."
76Henry asks, "Does the affirmation by evangelical orthodoxy that Scripture is God's Word then encroach upon and conflict with recognizing Jesus Christ as supremely the Word of God? There is no question here of equating the Bible with Jesus of Nazareth, or vice versa, for God wills each and every variety of revelation for a distinct purpose. Therefore, neither the revelation in Jesus nor that in the Bible nor that in conscience nor that in nature can replace one another. Each is an indispensable and individual facet of God's comprehensive disclosure." (Henry, GRA, 2:87-88) God's revelation." As will be seen, the "propositional-verbal" form of revelation is
important for Henry because the gospel is fundamentally good news about events and people in real, objective historical settings. Special revelation dispenses with the vagueness and ambiguity of general revelation and sets forth the cognitive content for which God holds humankind accountable.
In light of special revelation's emphasis on cognitive content, Henry places high importance on the historical reality of biblical events. Henry argues, "the distinctive nature of the Christian revelation of God rests upon the historical life of Jesus of
Nazareth."79 While Henry does not attempt to base Christianity solely on historical evidence, he cautions his readers against ignoring the importance of history and the Bible
on itself as a "historical sourcebook."
Like Machen, Henry rejected both the rationalistic bias against supernatural events in natural history81 as well as the neo-Protestant attempt to develop the notion of
"Henry, GRA, 2, 87.
78Henry, GRA, 2, 90. "The relation of general to special revelation is, first, that general revelation is the presupposition of redemptive revelation. This interdependence of revelation is a unique feature of God's disclosure; the final eschatological revelation presupposes the Old and New Testaments, and special revelation in its entirety presupposes general revelation. Through scriptural revelation the content of general revelation in all created reality can be properly comprehended even by man in revolt. Indeed, it is the Bible alone which enables man to assess fully the revelation in God's created works."
79Henry, GRA, 2, 255.
80States Henry, "The Old Testament, and the New Testament no less so, are at the same time a primary resource of redemptive faith and a historical sourcebook. That sourcebook speaks of history as a moral arena in which the God of creation and redemption and final judgment is even now rewarding righteousness and judging evil in anticipation of an irreversible end time" (Henry, GRA, 2:256). One of the most important reasons why inerrancy was affirmed by the Old Princeton theologians was because they insisted on the truthfulness and factual objectivity of the historical redemptive acts of God, not only in Israel's history but especially in the revelatory events surrounding the person and work of Jesus Christ. Henry, in continuity with his inerrantist predecessors, also affirmed this position.
81Henry, GRA, 2, 311. Henry states, "Evangelical Christians maintain that the object of biblical faith can be historically investigated, at least to some extent. Their apologists, J. Gresham Machen among 161
"super-history" {Geschichte) to legitimatize their faith in the events surrounding Jesus
Christ.82 Representing what he believed to be the evangelical view of the relationship of revelation and history, Henry argues that the teaching of the New Testament is clear that events, even supernatural ones, have actually happened. Henry argues against the view that "disproof of the empty tomb would not at all affect the case for the resurrection of
Jesus of Nazareth" and states that "divine revelation is given in identifiable historical acts."83 If, in fact, there were definitive disproof of the resurrection, Henry admits that the credibility of Christianity would legitimately be in question.
Yet, instead of solely predicating revelation on history, Henry also argues that no historical event of any kind can be evidentially verified completely. Nearly all events of
"secular" history are accepted as historical with far less circumstantial evidence available than for the biblically attested historical events. Therefore, historical investigation cannot prove or disprove the claims of biblical revelation. Historical investigation can only offer probability. Thus, while Henry is willing to admit that a preponderance of historical evidence against the events surrounding Jesus Christ would damage Christianity's them, have emphasized, and rightly, that orthodox theism has nothing in common with a faith that sacrifices either sound historical method or intellectual honesty."
82Henry states that, in particular, Barth "surrenders the revelational-miraculous in the sense of historical factuality (Historie) and shifts it instead to the realm of superhistory (Geschichte). In short, redemptive events for Barth occur, not internally as says Bultmann, but externally; contrary to evangelical theology, however, Barth places them, not in objective temporal history (the data historians investigate), but in a "historical" sphere of a different kind (Geschichte) that is accessible to believers only. No one will be surprised, therefore, that for all of his warning against hurried dismissal of Gospel accounts of the empty tomb, and his reminder that historical investigation cannot "verify" either the empty tomb or the postresurrection appearances, Barth apparently cannot bring himself to say also that God's raising Jesus from the tomb was a historical (belonging to Historie) actuality." (Henry, GRA, 2:289)
83Henry, GRA, 2, 311. Henry argues that if theology "excludes the resurrection of Jesus Christ as an objective historical event in deference to positivistic views of science or history, then the Easter kerygma must be explained as a historical development either on the basis of Jesus' attitude or self- understanding, or of the disciples' self-understanding, or of contemporary Christian self-understanding." (Henry, GRA, 2, 285)
'Henry, GRA, I, 385-386. credibility, he also affirms that Christianity does have adequate evidence to at least offer historical probability.85 Hence Henry, though appearing to be evidentialist in his understanding of the relationship of revelation to history, actually appeals to revelation for his view of history. In so doing, history remains vitally important for revelation; yet revelation stands over history as its master. History provides evidence congruous with revelation rather than providing evidence to validate revelation.
The Centrality of the Logos
Having articulated the relationship between revelation and history, Henry reflects on the primacy of the Logos in revelation. Distinguishing himself from those who begin their theological systems with Scripture alone, Henry reminds his readers that Jesus
Christ stands before Scripture as the Word made flesh, mediates Scripture to us, and stands as the focal point of Scripture's content. Henry affirms that "The Word of God
Henry, GRA, II, 313-315. Henry relies heavily on Gordon Clark and his discussion of historical verifiability and probability. See Gordon Clark, Historiography: Secular and Religious (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1971).
86Henry, GRA, 2:313. Attempting to forge a path between ignoring historical questions and resting too strongly upon historical evidence, Henry sates, "Orthodox Christianity does not postulate "superhistorical" revelation (myth, saga, Geschichte) to compensate for supposedly subhistorical narratives. But neither does it promote historical improbabilities together with divine revelation. In no sense does it combine revelation and historical skepticism" (321).
87Henry, GRA, 2:321-322. Henry anticipates the question of how one can have certainty if one cannot and should not seek scientific historical verification. Henry argues that believers affirm, first and foremost, the truth of revelation (apart from history) and the full authority of God-given Scripture as the reliable record of historical redemptive acts. Henry states that the believer "knows the logic that illumines the meaning of biblical and secular history in relation to the comprehensive purpose of God." The believer, knowing this on faith, recognizes the inability of historical investigation to either "demonstrate or demolish the biblical or any other event-claims." Hence, the certainty of the believer comes from God, rather than empirical historical verification. for apostolic Christianity is both a doctrine or verbal formulation—a conceptual theology—and is also present in the person and work of Jesus Christ in whose flesh and blood the full authority of God is present. Even doctrinal truth that is not revealed prior to the apostolic writings is known to be the enfleshed Logos (cf. John 16:12; 14:26) and is to be comprehended in the person of Christ."89 As the Living Word, the Logos is
"personal and self-revealed, transcendent to man and the world, eternal and essentially divine, intrinsically intelligible, and incarnate in Jesus Christ."90 On this basis, Scripture takes its "mediatorial role" as an instrument through which Jesus Christ is known.
The Logos brings together both general and special revelation and makes "logic" central91 because the Logos is "both the light that lights every man (John 1:9) and the incarnate Redeemer (1:14); he is both the Light of the world (12:46) and the Light shining within the redeemed to reveal God's glory in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor.
4:6)." Jesus Christ, for Henry, is more than a particular form of revelation. He stands in complete uniqueness as the One who unifies the revelation of God.
Henry Archive, Unmarked Box, 1976 Folder. In a June 30, 1976 letter to Rev. David Petty of Prestwick, Scotland, Henry succinctly explains, "I agree with you that Jesus of Nazareth is the supreme revelation of God. But we have no other source of information about him than the inspired writings; he entrusted the proclamation of the facts and meaning of his life and mission to his apostles (John 14:26). I hesitate to identify the Word of God wholly with Scripture; that would do violence to John 1:1-3. But I don't hesitate to identify Scripture with the Word of God."
89Henry, GRA, 3, 166.
90Henry, GRA, 3, 194. In its mediatorial role, states Henry, Scripture is "creative, epistemic, salvific and judgmental—and is the rational and moral ground both of what is cosmically and historically unique and of what is constant." (194)
9'Henry, Toward a Recovery, 95. "Unless we are talking about a universe whose substance is nonmental, there is no reason why a logical system may not also at the same time constitute and express the very nature of reality. In a universe where the Logos is the source and support of created existence, logic is the form of reality."
Henry, GRA, 3, 209. The Necessity of Prepositional Truth
Having described the Logos as the central figure in revelation, Henry turns his
attention to the Written Word as God's revelation. However, before his discussion of
Scripture's authority, inspiration, and inerrancy, Henry discusses the importance of propositional-cognitive truth as intrinsic to revelation. Henry believes that all revelation
contains mental/rational content to be believed. The realities of creation, Scripture, or
even Jesus Christ himself are not truly "revelation" until there is propositional content
associated with them.94 While not all revelation is stated propositionally, Henry affirms that all true revelation has the possibility of disclosing content that can be placed in propositional form.95 Insofar as the revelation of God, in any form, communicates truth content, there must be propositions associated with it.96
Henry, GRA, 3, 209. Here, Henry seems to actually depersonalize the Logos: "The Logos is the mind of God incarnate in Jesus Christ whose very speech is truth and spirit and life, the written Scriptures (to logia tou theou, Rom. 3:2; Heb. 5:12; ta logia, Acts 7:38; 1 Pet. 4:11) whereby the eternal Christ now rules in truth over the family of faith. The Christian revelation faces us with the reality of man's universal and continuing Word-illumination by mis Logos, the historical once-for-all Word-incarnation by the Logos, and the scripturally permanent Word-inspiration by the Logos through the Spirit." (215) Note particularly in this statement that Henry seems to distinguish between the Logos and the "Word-incarnation."
94Defining what he means by a proposition, Henry states, "As generally understood, a proposition is a verbal statement that is either true or false; it is a rational declaration capable of being either believed, doubted or denied." (Henry, GRA, 3,456)
95Henry, GRA, 3, 173. "The Word of God is personal and rational, and the truth of God, whether given in general or in special disclosure, including the climactic revelation of the Logos in Jesus of Nazareth, can be propositionally formulated."
96Henry adds a further qualifier in the following: "By its emphasis that divine revelation is propositional, Christian theology in no way denies that the Bible conveys its message in many literary forms such as letters, poetry and parable, prophecy and history. What it stresses, rather, is that the truth conveyed by God through these various forms has conceptual adequacy, and that in all cases the literary teaching is part of a divinely inspired message that conveys the truth of divine revelation. Propositional disclosure is not limited to nor does it require only one particular literary genre. And of course the expression of truth in other forms than the customary prose does not preclude expressing that truth in declarative propositions." (Henry, GRA, 3, 463) The importance of propositional truth is emphasized by Henry because he believes revelation must be intelligible.97 According to Henry, God seeks to impart knowledge of himself that is typical of any human knowledge, so that people can have
assurance of their knowledge of God.98 To speak of events and persons as revelation makes no sense to Henry if there is not propositional content given with the persons and
events being revealed.99 Henry criticizes the Barthian position on propositional revelation in that while it seems to rightly transfer revelation's significance from propositions to persons and events, it ultimately results in a lack of biblical authority, a lack of objectivity, and a lack of any possibility of intelligible revelation from God. Henry states that "the nonpropositional revelation espoused by neo-Protestant theologians leads consistently if not inevitably to the loss of the full reality of God, let alone of knowledge about him."100 For Henry, this is unacceptable since the entire purpose for revelation is to convey knowledge about God.
Henry realizes the danger in overstating the importance of propositional revelation to the detriment of other forms of revelation. He states that one must guard
Henry, GRA, 2, 64. "The revelation of the living God is disclosed in the form not of disjointed mantras but in intelligible sentences or propositions that require mental assent and voluntary appropriation. The revealed Word of God is openly published in Scripture and can be known by all who read or hear. Christianity emphasizes that transcendent mystery is intelligibly revealed in Christ the creative and redemptive center of the universe, and that the Word of God given in Scripture is not to be artificially apportioned but made universally available and recognized as universally valid."
98Henry, GRA, 3:431-32. He states, "That the truth of revelation rests upon the disclosure of a personal God in no way threatens the propositional character of divine revelation. It is when the rational and objective facets of revelation are obscured and God's personal disclosure is represented as noncognitive and internal that the very reality of God as a truth-claim is jeopardized. Indeed, unless the objective intelligibility of God is recognized, even the contention that God is Truth, or that he is personal Subject, has no universal validity, but is merely an assertion of intense individual conviction."
"Henry, GRA, 3, 430. "The only significant view of revelation is rational-verbal revelation; indeed the only adequate alternative to skepticism about God is divine revelation in propositional form."
100Henry, GRA, 3,478. against forcing propositions into every part of revelation to the extent that there is "a rationalistic reconstruction of the biblical representation of revelation."101 However, in spite of this danger, one must not concede to the non-propositional position on revelation.
Henry states that evangelicals "need not tremble and take to the hills whenever others charge us with rationalism, since not every meaning of that term is objectionable; those who glory in the irrational, superrational or subrational ought to be challenged head- on."102 While Henry understands the threat of rationalism, he uses rationalistic tools to overcome what he believes to be a greater problem.
For Henry, because revelation is basically propositional, Scripture is the focal point for any discussion of the knowledge of God. While personal experience
(event/encounter) may be valid, authority rests with the revelation of Jesus Christ mediated through the inspired writings of the prophets and apostles. Scripture is the primary vehicle through which people know God. Henry summarizes as follows:
Evangelical Christians affirm therefore that God reveals himself, that he does so in the cosmos and through historical events. He speaks directly and universally to human beings through conscience and reason that are remnants of the created divine image, and he speaks person-to-person to chosen prophets and apostles whom he instructs in the meaning of redemptive history and enlightens concerning his nature and purposes. In whatever mode God speaks, his divine revelation is a mental act, for it seeks to convey to the mind of man the truth about the Creator and Lord of life, and to write upon the spirit of man God's intelligible holy will. Every mediating alternative not only sacrifices the cognitive
'"'Henry, GRA, 3,480.
102Henry, GRA, 3, 480.
103Henry, GRA, 3:452—53. "The historic Christian view is that divine revelation takes the form of propositionally given truths set down in the linguistic form of inspired verba. The locus of the meaning and truth of Christian language is to be found, not in the empirical correlates of words, nor in an inner existential response to which words are said to point, but in the Bible as an inspired literary deposit of divinely revealed truths." significance of divine revelation, but also dissolves revelation itself into a vaporous and insignificant concept.
With this statement in hand, Henry constructs his understanding of the doctrine of
Scripture, outlining its authority, inspiration, and inerrancy.
Henry's Doctrine of Scripture
Authority
Henry notes that for centuries, Christianity "found in the canonical Scriptures the normative exposition of God's revealed truth and will."105 Confessing the uniqueness of
Scripture, "the church preserved Christ alone as its head and declared the Spirit-inspired writings to be superior in authority to the opinions of even the most revered churchmen."106 Yet in recent neo-Protestant theology, a radical transformation has been made that transfers authority from Scripture (at least in part) to personal experience.
While this transformation seemed necessary to protect against an idolatrous view of
Scripture, the turn to the personal rather than the propositional introduced unprecedented subjectivism in theology. Henry thus begins his doctrine of Scripture by considering
Scripture's authority.107
imKenry, GRA, 3,271.
105Henry, GRA,4, 15.
106Henry, GRA, 4, 17. Here, Henry again quotes Karl Barth: "Scriptural exegesis rests on the assumption that the message which Scripture has given us, even in its apparently most debatable and least assimilable parts, is in all circumstances truer and more important than the best and most necessary things that we ourselves have said or can say." (Church Dogmatics, 1/2:719) Henry's model for Scripture's authority is Jesus Christ. Henry argues that while
Jesus rejected many of the religious traditions of his day, "at the center of Jesus' earthly life and ministry remains the unquestioned authority of God and the appeal to
Scripture."108 Henry states that "What imparts a special value to the witness and work of the prophets and apostles alike is the authoritative Word of God; divine authorization binds them both to proclaiming the divinely disclosed message."109 Jesus, as the incarnate
Word, is the source of this authority as He promised the presence of the Holy Spirit to the apostles, that they would be guided into all truth. Henry summarizes the position of
Jesus Christ concerning Scripture's authority:
The incarnate Christ, whose personal word is authoritative, not only acknowledged the derivative divine authority of the Old Testament prophetic proclamation but, as risen Lord in whom is vested all power and authority, he also dispatched apostles; in his name and as divinely authorized representatives they were to teach and expound the significance of his ministry and mission.111
Henry cautions against two extremes that could distort a proper understanding of prophetic-apostolic authority in relationship to the authority of Jesus Christ. On the one hand, one must not falsely equate prophetic-apostolic authority with that of Jesus. As the
Henry, GRA, 4, 27. "The first claim to be made for Scripture is not its inerrancy nor even its inspiration, but its authority. Standing in the forefront of prophetic-apostolic proclamation is the divine authority of Scripture as the Word of God. The main emphasis of the apostolic kerygma in its use of Scripture is that it is divinely authoritative. As in proclaiming the incarnate Word, so in regard to the epistemic Word, the fact of a divine reality holds center stage." Henry later states, "However important the fact of divine inspiration is for the commanding importance of the Bible, the apostles like the prophets before them focus attention first and foremost not on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture but rather on its authority: what is crucially important for the human race is that they speak God's Word and not their own." (41)
108Henry, GRA, 4, 11.
109Henry, GRA, 4, 29-30.
noHenry understands passages such as John 14:24-27 and John 16:14-16 as referring to Jesus preparing the disciples for their eventual writing of Scripture.
11'Henry, GRA, 4, 36. incarnate Logos, Jesus Christ is completely unique. The prophets and apostles always
speak of themselves as ones who follow and submit to another. Conflating prophetic- apostolic authority with Christological authority diminishes the particular role the incarnate Logos plays in the transmission of revelation. On the other hand, there should not be such a large distinction between prophetic-apostolic authority and Jesus's authority that one fails to recognize what God through the incarnate Logos and further through the human witnesses has revealed.
While the authority of Scripture is such because of divine inspiration,114 one cannot know of Scripture's inspiration until it is confessed that Scripture authoritatively teaches truth.115 Hence, from a logical standpoint—from the standpoint of how one comes to know these truths—the authority of Scripture comes first, while inspiration of the text (not just the writers) is a necessary correlative.116
112Henry,Gft4,4, 37.
113Henry, GRA, 4, 40. Henry states that while it may be counter-intuitive that God would use mortal men to record his written Word, one need only consider the scene of the almighty Messiah riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. Henry states, "Alongside God and his Christ, these earthly bearers of divine authority are, as it were, but lowly asses. But the omnipotent God can surely speak his Word through human messengers." Henry's picture here is reminiscent of Luther's likening Scripture to the manger in which Jesus was laid.
114Henry, GRA, 4, 71. Discussing the "correlative" relationship between Scripture's authority and inspiration, Henry states, "The Bible is authoritative because God the revealer of divine truth and redemptive grace authorized selected spokesmen to communicate his specially disclosed word to mankind. These authoritative spokesmen, however, affirm their message to be God-breathed, that is, given by the Spirit through them."
115Henry, GRA, 4, 69. Henry cites Warfield for the correct relationship between authority and inspiration: "For Warfield, the doctrine of plenary inspiration rests logically on the authority of Scripture, and not vice versa. Warfield argues that whatever doctrine is taught by Scripture is authoritative. Scripture is self-reflexive; it teaches even its own inspiration, and in regard to inspiration teaches biblical inerrancy."
'Henry, GRA, A, 93. Inspiration
Having set forth his view of Scriptural authority, Henry next turns to his view of inspiration. In Henry's theological argument, inspiration is predicated on the authority of
Scripture as attested by Christ and his trustworthy witnesses. Yet, though predicated on authority, the inspiration of Scripture is centrally significant because it is both a happening (phenomenon) as well as a property (characteristic) of the text.117 For Henry, inspiration is the ground for the whole doctrine of Scripture. Without it, talk of authority
(coming logically before) or inerrancy (coming logically after) is useless.
Building on the teaching of Warfield, Henry draws an important distinction between competing understandings of inspiration. While some have understood inspiration to mean that God gives divine life to the human product, Henry counters that inspiration refers more properly to "the God-breathing of Scripture itself as a divine activity."118 This distinction is crucial for Henry because on the former view, the inspiration of Scripture is occasional, occurring only when God chooses to act through it.119 On the latter view, God superintends the very words of the product itself so that
Henry defines inspiration as "a supernatural influence upon divinely chosen prophets and apostles whereby the Spirit of God assures the truth and trustworthiness of their oral and written proclamation." (GRA, 4, 129) This influence of the Spirit goes beyond an influence upon their persons and reaches to the written product itself. Henry notes that "Inspiration is primarily a statement about God's relationship to Scripture, and only secondarily about the relationship of God to the writers." (143) The result of inspiration, then, is that the Bible stands as "the essential textbook" because "it inscripturates divinely revealed truth in verbal form." (129)
1,8Henry, GRA, 4, 130.
119Henry, GRA, 4, 130. While here, Henry is attacking the view of Alan Richardson ("Scripture, Authority of in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible), this is precisely the way Henry understands the teaching of Barth on the subject. Scripture is the very Word of God. Henry argues for the importance of seeing Scripture
as God-breathed (as a product), rather than seeing Scripture as occasionally enhanced.
Henry recognizes that the Greek term for inspiration, theopneustos, is difficult to
define in that it only occurs once in Scripture. However, he also notes that the English
term "inspiration" is taken from the Latin term, inspiratio ("breathing into"), rather than
the original Greek.120 Like Warfield, Henry claims one needs to take the original term,
theopneustos, rather than reading the understanding of a Latin term back into the original
text. Because theopneustos literally means "God-breathed," Henry understands Scripture
to be a product of divine "spiration" rather than the conventional "inspiration."121 This
essentially implies that God is directly responsible for the verbal product itself.
Just as Henry bases his view of Scriptural authority on the authority of Jesus
Christ, he bases his view of inspiration on the way Jesus and the apostles handled
Scripture and viewed its authority. Citing passages where Jesus and the apostles referred
to Scripture as God's Word, used the formula "it is written" to speak authoritatively,
proclaimed Scripture's indestructibility, and equated what "God says" with what
"Scripture says," Henry purports that "Jesus Christ viewed written Scripture as divinely
uuHenry, GRA, 4, 129.
mHenry, GRA, 4:131. Commenting on 2 Timothy 3:16, Henry states, "Paul derives the special value of Scripture from its divine foundation, and uses the term theopneustos to express God's relationship to the sacred writings. The Scriptures in their written from are a product of their unique reality to the life- giving breath of God (cf. Gen. 2:7), even as man himself owes to it his distinctive existence. In this way Paul moves beyond simply apostolic oral instruction and asserts the permanent validity and value of the inspired writings." The analogy Henry makes to the Genesis 2 passage has been used in support of the Barthian position as well. However, Henry uses it as an analogy for his position because without God breathing into the dust, there is no life. The "breath of God," then, is not something added to an already existing life—it is a characteristic of the very product itself.
,22Henry also claims that the perfect passive tense ofkata to gegrammenon (according to what has been written) in 2 Cor. 4:13 "implies that divine inspiration is a fixed quality of the text itself." See Henry "Who Are the Evangelicals?", 78. given (John 10:35) and that the apostles viewed it not only as produced by the Spirit (2
Pet. 1:21) but also as providing—in the form of a permanent verbal record—information necessary to man's salvation (2 Tim. 3:16)."123 Therefore, claims Henry, the only view of inspiration that corresponds with the view of Jesus and the apostles is the verbal inspiration view in which the quality of "God-breathed" is a feature of the text itself.
After his synopsis of biblical inspiration, Henry describes what he claims to be the
"biblical-evangelical view." Herein, Henry offers two denials and eight affirmations concerning inspiration. The first denial is that Scripture is "a product of mechanical divine dictation."124 While Henry affirms that inspiration is verbal (pertains to the writings themselves), this does not necessitate divine dictation to the prophets and apostles. Henry aligns himself with the Calvinistic, Warfieldian position that Scripture is as z/God had dictated it but that in fact it is God's providence operating on the human authors in such a way that they wrote every word God intended. To insist against a dictation theory of inspiration is crucial for Henry, because he seeks to dispel the myth that evangelicals actually worship the Bible. While Scripture is held in high regard, no biblical evangelical has ever promoted the worship of the text.
Henry, GRA, 4:133-34. Henry continues, "There is no need to regard these several passages as anything but a mirror of what the apostles routinely assert and exemplify in their appeal to Scripture, and as being in full accord with the express teaching and evident implication of Jesus himself. Scripture is invariably invoked as bearing an inherent divine authority" (134).
124Henry, GRA, 4:138. Henry later clarifies, "While it is not quite correct to speak of a dual authorship or of a divine-human co-authorship of Scripture, the sacred writers were more than simply divine amanuenses, penmen or secretaries.... The Holy Spirit's inspiration of the chosen writers involves a special confluence of the divine and human" (142).
125Henry, GRA, 4, 139. States Henry, "Evangelicals have never worshiped the Bible by transferring to it attributes that belong only to God. One does not exhaust everything that can be said about the Word of God when one speaks about Scripture, nor can one equate the prophets and apostles with the Holy Spirit." 173
The second denial concerning inspiration is that "inspiration consists primarily of
God's heightening of the psychic powers or creative energies of prophets and
apostles."126 From 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21, it is seen that Scripture is an
initiation and product of God himself, not simply a divine enhancement of a natural
"genius" within special human agents. For Henry, Scripture is not merely an example of
"grace perfects nature" in the sense that God inspired something already in place
(whether it be text or persons). Rather, Scripture is something produced by God.127
Having given the above denials concerning the biblical view of inspiration, Henry turns to eight affirmations that are commonly shared among evangelicals. First, Henry
affirms that inspiration "connects God's activity with the express truths and words of
Scripture."128 Beyond only inspiring people, God ensured that his revealed truth would take inscripturated form. Henry claims that liberal theologians denying verbal inspiration do so because of their presuppositions against propositional revelation, not because of anything stated in the text itself.129
126Henry, GRA, 4, 142.
127For more on Henry's understanding of the human role in inspiration, see Boxter Kharbteng, "A Critical Study of Carl F. H. Henry's Portrayal of the Human Role in Revelation and Inspiration," (PhD diss., Andrews University, 1997).
128Henry, GRA, 4, 144.
129Henry, GRA, 4, 144-148. Here, Henry takes considerable time to refute much of Barr's thoughts in Fundamentalism. Specifically, Henry notes that Barr has erroneously accused evangelicals of affirming the inspiration of propositional truths simply to avoid having to confront issues raised by biblical criticism. Henry says that this accusation is unfair and argues, "The historic evangelical view of inspiration does not at all deny the fact that the text may have passed at times through a complex contributory process. But it affirms that, in the broad stream of tradition, the Spirit of God has vouchsafed one authentic tradition, the inspired prophetic-apostolic writings." (147) Second, Henry affirms that "Inspiration does not violate but is wholly consistent with the humanity of the prophets and apostles."130 Verbal inspiration is precisely what explains the diversity of writing styles, perspectives, and vocabulary usage among the various authors of the books. While some reference this diversity to deny verbal inspiration, Henry counters that because there is a variety of authors concomitant with doctrinal consistency, this evidences that inspiration is a quality of the text.131
Henry's third affirmation is closely related to the second. That God used the human authors of Scripture with their human personalities and styles does not mean that the prophets and apostles were thereafter infallible. On the contrary, a significant tenet of inspiration as a theological truth is that God overcame the tendency for human error and so intended the words of the biblical authors as to preserve them from it.
Fourth, Henry argues that inspiration, as pertaining to the human authors, is
"limited to a small company of messengers who were divinely chosen to authoritatively communicate the Word of God to mankind."133 Inspiration is not an ongoing event that occurs in the lives of those who are especially devoted to God. Henry claims that erroneous theological understandings have arisen precisely because there has been a confusion of the Holy Spirit's ongoing work of illumination and the Spirit's work of inspiration in the inscripturation process. Henry argues that inspiration is to be seen as a
130Henry, GRA, 4, 148.
131Henry, GRA, 4, 149-151.
132Henry, GRA, 4, 151.
133Henry, GRA, 4, 152. unique phenomenon which establishes the particular authority of the prophetic and
,. . . 134 apostolic writings.
Fifth, Henry affirms that in inspiration, "God revealed information beyond the reach of the natural resources of all human beings." The individual, experiential, and personal encounters with God that people have cannot be rightly identified as events of inspiration.136 While these experiences may indicate the Holy Spirit's work in individual lives, biblical inspiration has to do with the conveying of information from God, mediated through the biblical writers, onto the printed page in Scripture.
Henry's sixth affirmation concerning inspiration is that "God is the ultimate author of Scripture."137 Henry rejects an understanding of dual-authorship whereby God enters as he chooses and simply enhances or adds to the human content in order to make his truth known. Therefore, it is incorrect to call Scripture both divine and human. The priority, for Henry, is on the divine authorship of Scripture. While being careful to avoid a docetic view of the text, Henry argues that the emphasis should be on the divine Author * -jo because that is what renders the text completely trustworthy and infallibly true.
134Henry, GRA, 4, 154. Henry states, "According to the evangelical view, special revelation and divine inspiration pertain only to prophetic and apostolic proclamation; the phenomenon of inspiration does not continue into the present day, even on a sporadic basis."
135Henry, GRA, 4, 155.
136Henry, GRA, 4,155. Henry states, "The doctrine of revelation has proper and necessary correlations with divine redemptive acts and with the spiritual illumination of the believer. But neo- Protestant theological revisionism deprives the Bible of objective textual authority and substitutes personal encounter for propositional revelation or replaces the normative written record with cognitively ambivalent historical disclosure-situations." Specifically against Barth, Henry states, "By separating the Scriptures from the Word of God and subsequently appealing to sporadic events in which they are said to unite, and by his correlated limitation of the truth and authority of the Bible to man's subjective response, Barth in principle destroys not only a significant view of Scripture, but also the revelation of the Word of God attested by Scripture." (157)
Henry, GRA, 4, 159. Henry's seventh affirmation is that Scripture is inspired "as a whole and in all its parts."139 Henry employs the common term, "verbal-plenary," as a descriptor of what he means by inspiration because "since it is written Scripture that is in view (in inspiration), inspiration extends to the very words as authoritative."140 Scripture's entire content, regardless of whether it is moral, historical, instructional, or theological, is given by inspiration of God.
Henry's final affirmation concerning biblical inspiration is that the verbal-plenary view of inspiration is "the historic doctrine of all denominations."141 Henry states that only in recent times has there been tremendous slippage from this position. This slippage results from the influence of liberalism rather than from a positive development in the history of doctrine.142
138Henry, GRA, 4, 159-160. Here, Henry also critiques the "incarnation" analogy applied to Scripture: "To make an analogy between incarnation and inscripturation is not wholly helpful either, for while each involved divine and human, each does so in distinctive ways; the God-man and God-book are not equivalent analogues. In the incarnation one divine person assumes sinless human nature alongside his eternal divine nature; in inscripturation the divine Spirit selectively superintends fallible and sinful human beings in the inerrant oral and written proclamation of God's message." (160)
139Henry, GRA, 4, 160.
140Henry, GRA, 4, 160.
141Henry, GRA, 4, 160.
142Henry, GRA, 4, 160-161. Henry concludes this section by borrowing a quote from Geoffery Bromiley. He states, "As Bromiley puts it, inspiration of Scripture 'is part of the essence of Christianity. To confess it is part of being a Christian... Scripture proclaims its own inspiration as part of what it says about God the Holy Spirit' ... He emphasizes that 'any work of the Spirit is a breathing, a 'spiration,'" and the Spirit's ongoing work must not be denied as a vital aspect of a divine ministry. But, he continues, 'in an important sense inspiration, like Christ's atonement, is a finished work. The breathing took place in history, on the authors' (ibid., p. 14)." 177
Inerrancy
Having stated his denials and affirmations concerning inspiration, Henry sets forth his understanding of biblical inerrancy. The first issue, for Henry, is whether
Scripture teaches its own inerrancy. Henry notes the position of Warfield again, saying that Scripture does in fact teach such, though not as explicitly as it teaches its own authority and inspiration.143 Yet, Henry maintains that inerrancy is a correct position on
Scripture because it "is implicitly taught, is logically deducible, and is a necessary correlate of Scripture as the inspired Word of God."144 Hence, while the term itself may not be present in the biblical material, there is a theological compulsion to adhere to it.
Henry believes that the majority of those rejecting inerrancy do so based on an inductive, phenomenological approach to Scripture.145 That is, rather than presupposing verbal inspiration (which, for Henry, is explicitly taught), they immediately note what appear to be errors in the text, such as varying historical accounts, chronological differences, imprecision in numbering or ordering, etc. Instead of considering first what
Scripture actually teaches, they consider the problems and objections to the inerrantist position at the outset.146 Still others base their rejection of the inerrantist position on the
What Henry means by this is that Warfield himself believed "that the Bible explicitly teaches its own inerrancy," yet he "left open the possibility that inerrancy is not a correct biblical interpretation ..." (Henry, GRA, 4, 168).
144Henry, GRA, 4, 168.
145Henry states, "To counter the claim that inerrancy is a necessary implicate or correlative of plenary inspiration, some scholars emphasize the priority of an inductive over a deductive approach in formulating the doctrine of Scripture.... the nature and scope of scriptural inspiration, it is said, should be determined by inductive examination of the textual phenomena. The biblical teaching is said to disclose the 'why' of inspiration, whereas the 'what' and 'how' are referred to empirical observation." (Henry, GRA, 4, 171) 178 simple claim that Scripture does not explicitly teach the position. Henry argues that this is inconsistent with the logical implication of verbal inspiration, and he notes that those denying inerrancy inevitably deny the explicit Scriptural teaching of verbal inspiration.148
Henry also notes that some have argued for "partial" inerrancy, claiming
Scripture's inerrancy on matters of soteriological or faith/practice importance while denying inerrancy concerning matters of history, science, geography, etc. While Henry recognizes this view as well intended, he states that it ultimately falls short of a consistent understanding of Scripture's teaching.149 Also, some argue that Scripture's inerrancy must be limited to that which it explicitly teaches; hence Scripture may "contain error, but teach[es] none."150 In other words, to account for the phenomena of the text, some say that the errors in the text are not part of authorial intent. While this qualification does aid in reconciling apparent contradictions in the text, Henry insists that inerrancy need not be
Henry argues that beginning with the presupposition of errancy is less logically justified than beginning with a presupposition of inerrancy. (Henry, GRA, 4, 170, 173-174)
I47Here Henry has in mind the position of Bernard Ramm (Special Revelation and the Word of God) who emphasizes that God's primary purpose in Scripture is to lead us to a salvific knowledge of God. While Henry agrees with this basic purpose of God's inspiration of the text, he does not see it as a basis for rejecting inerrancy. (Henry, GRA, 4, 163)
148Henry, GRA, 4, 181. Daniel Fuller is Henry's target here (Fuller Theological Seminary Bulletin 18, March, 1968). Henry further states, "The inevitable consequence of insisting on biblical authority and inspiration on the one hand and on an errant Bible on the other is, of course, that inspiration ceases to be a guarantee of the truth of what the Bible teaches; the authority of Scripture must then somehow be divorced from the truth of its content." (193)
149Henry, GRA, 4:192. Henry argues against Jack Rogers's view that Scripture is inerrant in matters of faith and practice (in accordance with its salvific purpose) but not in matters of history, science, etc. Henry notes that even more left-leaning theologians like James Barr see the deficient logic in this view. He states, "Those critics who would partition Scripture into errant and inerrant segments have never achieved a logically persuasive division; those who venture to take this course disagree radically among themselves [about what parts are inerrant and which parts are not inerrant]." See Jack Rogers, "The Church Doctrine of Biblical Authority," in Biblical Authority, ed. Jack Rogers (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1977), 15-46.
'Henry, GRA, 4, 179. 179 defended by nebulous appeals to authorial intent. For Henry, inerrancy is strongly implied and a necessary logical corollary of the explicit teaching of the text.151
For Henry, the inerrancy of Scripture is a deductive conclusion from Scripture's authority and inspiration. Rather than basing inerrancy on an inductive result of examining Scriptural phenomena, Henry claims that one can arrive at this position via
"faithful exegesis of an inspired record."152 While textual phenomena must be wrestled with, harmonizing various accounts is, as was for Warfield, a "second-order concern."
If an analysis of Scriptural phenomena is given precedent over the actual exegesis of
Scriptural statements, one risks importing preconceived commitments into the text. What one believes concerning Scripture must flow from the teaching of the text itself. If
Scripture does not teach inspiration in a way that logically necessitates inerrancy, inerrancy must be abandoned. However, one must not reject inerrancy because there may be a discrepancy in the text that cannot be satisfactorily explained to all critics.154 To
151 Henry is against Clark Pinnock here. However, Henry himself will make the qualification that inerrancy refers to "express teaching of the text" only. It is difficult, at times, to see the basic difference between Pinnock and Henry, but it is this: in Henry's view, the Bible does not even contain error—the writers were providentially preserved from making mistakes. In Pinnock's view, the Bible could contain error—the writers perhaps misunderstood or misreported certain events; yet Scripture never actually teaches these errors—they just happen to be present in the text. For Henry, Pinnock's view inevitably leads to speculation concerning what exactly the text intends to teach, particularly if we must make these decisions every time we see a difficult passage (Henry, GRA, 4:179-81). See Clark Pinnock, "Inspiration and Authority: A Truce Proposal for Evangelicals," Mennonite Brethren Herald, 17 September 1976, 1-3. Even in personal correspondence, Henry challenged Pinnock to reassess his position. In a July 18, 1978 letter to Pinnock, Henry writes, "On the inerrancy issue in recent years your comments seem to ping-pong, and you seem here (in a review of James Barr's Fundamentalism in the TSF Bulletin) decisively to disavow the view, or almost so, except by the way of semantic salute." See Henry Archive, Box 7, Folder 1.
1S2Henry, G&4, 4, 172.
I53Henry, GRA, 4, 172. Describing Warfield's position, Henry states, "... he opposed any attempt to derive the doctrine of inspiration by the inductive method. The significance of inspiration, he insisted, is to be deduced from the didactic teaching of the apostles." 180 reject inerrancy because of textual difficulties is to locate the reference of authority in oneself, rather than allowing the text to speak to its own quality.155
After generally answering typical criticisms of the inerrantist position, Henry then turns to his denials156 and affirmations concerning inerrancy. Henry's first denial is that inerrancy demands the kind of technological, historiographic, or scientific precision expected in the modern era. Henry argues that the reader of the text has "no right to impose upon the biblical writers methods of classifying information that are specifically oriented to the scientific interests of our time." To do so is to violate authorial intent and sound attention to historical context. While some opponents of inerrancy have tried to denounce the position based upon a lack of modern precision, Henry argues that the
Bible never claims this kind of precision for itself.
Henry further denies that, due to inerrancy, the authors of Scripture were prohibited from using "a wide range of figurative language and many literary forms, such
This is not to say that there should be no attempts at harmonization. In fact, says Henry, because inerrantists insist that "revelation is intelligible and propositional" they cannot cast aside the task of "harmonizing precepts and phenomena." Henry, GRA, 4, 174.
155 While Henry does not work through specific problem passages, he states that if one considers the number of errors espoused by the critics, the supposed errors in Scripture seem miniscule (Henry, GRA, 4:353). Henry adds, "Critics do not bother to present us with an account of the mistakes of the modern critics; they are far more eager to fault Moses and Isaiah and Paul at a distance of scores of centuries" (356). In light of this, Henry argues that "The evangelical verdict seems completely justified, that those who subdivide the content of Scripture into that which is true and that which is false have been unable to produce an objective norm agreeable to the critics themselves by which to distinguish supposedly true and false content" (361). However, Henry also argues that problem passages should not be ignored via an appeal to an inerrant original text: "The evangelical who is face-to-face with a problem passage must not immediately and always take refuge in an inerrant original. Where the best ancient manuscripts convey an agreed text that nonetheless poses a problem, it is best simply to acknowledge the problem." (358).
156Patterson, Carl F. H. Henry, 117, states that by including "disclaimers" in his position, "Henry tries to correct the error of overbelief. In evangelical circles these 'what inerrancy is not' qualifiers are just as significant as positive statements, and they separate Henry from some of his fellow evangelicals such as [Harold] Lindsell."
157Henry, GRA, 4,201.
'Henry, GRA, 4, 202. 181 as parable, poetry and proverb."159 Henry notes that all language is in some sense symbolic, and even non-technical language in figuration is perfectly capable of communicating truth. If truth is ruled out from any language that is non-technical, there is little possibility of language communicating any truth whatsoever.
Third, Henry denies that inerrancy demands "verbal exactitude ... in New
Testament quotation and use of Old Testament passages."1 l Many non-inerrantists point to the "loose" exegesis sometimes employed by the New Testament writers as indications of biblical errancy. However, Henry counters that to demand literal and exact quotation is to, again, wrongly impose modern standards on the biblical writers. While some of their exegeses seems to take liberties with the texts, there is a theological coherence to their work that reflects their high view of Scripture.
Henry's fourth denial concerning inerrancy is that "personal faith in Christ is dispensable since evangelicals have an inerrant book they can trust."163 Critics of inerrancy have argued that with an inerrant text, there seems to be a denial of the importance of the Living Word. They claim that when faith is placed in the Written
Word, the primary importance of a true, spiritual relationship with the Living Word is diminished. Henry makes the following statement as to the indispensability of both:
There is no justification for ranging the Living Word and the Written Word in absolute antithesis. The Written Word itself demands personal faith in Christ
159Henry, GRA, 4, 202.
160Henry, GRA, 4, 202. Henry states that anyone who "argues that language cannot convey literal truth, disadvantages biblical teaching no more seriously than any and all other communication."
161Henry, GRA, 4, 202.
162Henry, GRA, 4, 203.
,63Henry, GRA, 4,203. 182
(John 20:31). But the indispensability of personal faith in Christ in no way implies the dispensability of the Scriptures as the Word of God written; apart from Scripture we can say nothing certain either about Jesus Christ or about the necessity of personal faith in him. To displace the truth of Scripture would of necessity lead to heretical if not idolatrous views of God and Christ; without the truth of the prophetic-apostolic word we would not know which of the many "christs" we should honor (cf. John 5:43). It is Scripture that preserves the demand for trust in the life and work of the incarnate, crucified and risen Logos of God as the ground of our redemption (John 5:39).164
Henry's fifth denial concerning inerrancy is that adherence to inerrancy ensures orthodox doctrine. Many Christian groups, and even some cults, affirm the inerrancy of
Scripture. But that does not automatically engender sound exegesis and theological constructs.165 However, Henry states, "While a priori commitment to the inspiration of
Scripture does not of itself preclude all deviation from the truth of revelation, it does provide an objective norm for settling theological disputation."1 6 While an inerrantist position cannot guarantee correct theological understanding, it remains preferred over an errantist position.
Moving from denials to affirmations concerning inerrancy, Henry first claims that inerrancy pertains not only to "the theological and ethical teaching of the Bible, but also to historical and scientific matters insofar as they are part of the express message of the inspired writings." The importance of this statement is the qualification that inerrancy is applied to the express teaching of the text. If the text's purpose is to teach matters that
'Henry, GRA, 4, 203.
'Henry, GRA, 4, 204.
THenry, GRA, 4, 204.
'Henry, GRA, 4, 205. 183 pertain to scientific or historical concerns, it will be inerrant. Particularly in the realm of history, notes Henry, the text claims to communicate accurate historical facts.169
Henry's second affirmation is that inerrancy is a statement about truth present in the words of the text, the "propositions or sentences of the Bible, and not merely in the concepts and thoughts of the writers."170 Slippage on inerrancy, according to Henry, often begins when inspiration is said to refer to broad concepts or theological generalizations alone. The problem with this idea is that the broad concepts are matters of extrapolation from exegesis itself, thus placing the reader of Scripture as arbiter of what is inerrant. By locating inerrancy in the very words,171 Henry is not committed to a rigorous literalism whereby Scripture cannot be variously applied. However, a commitment to inerrant inspiration is the best way to ensure that Scripture remains an absolute authority.
Third, Henry states that inerrancy refers properly only to the original writings of the prophets and apostles. Inspiration is a quality of the originals directly but only indirectly of the copies and subsequent translations. Henry considers the objection that because the originals are not extant, there is no need for inerrancy. Building on the
168Henry, GRA, 4, 205. Henry states, "While the Bible is not intended to be a textbook on scientific and historical matters, it nonetheless gives scientifically and historically relevant information. Express teaching that falls into these realms is not to be set aside as culturally conditioned and historically contingent. The inspired wording of Scripture is indeed accommodated to the language and vocabulary of the sociocultural environment in which the writings appear, but the sense of revelation is intelligible to readers in all times and places."
169Henry, GRA, 4, 183. Henry asks, "If belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is necessary to salvation, and if the resurrection is historical, how can the historical aspects of biblical teaching be detached from revelation as not making us wise unto salvation? Scripture nowhere suggests a divine restriction of inspiration that provides inerrant information on salvation but leaves the sacred writers to fend for themselves in respect to all other concerns."
170Henry, GRA, 4,205.
171Henry, GRA, 4, 206.
Henry, GRA, 4, 207. 184 statements of Machen, Henry notes that inerrant originals are necessary for the copies to have a basis upon which they can be evaluated for their accuracy in rendering the original. Through the preponderance of available manuscripts, there is sufficient certainty that copies of Scripture, insofar as they are accurately translated, are legitimate reflections of the inerrant originals.173 Henry notes that while the inerrantist cannot produce an original to be evaluated, so too the errantist cannot produce an original by which errancy can be demonstrated.174 Thus Henry claims, "In both instances the purity or impurity of the autographs rests on an inference from data and doctrine that are considered to be decisive. The supposed errant originals are as hard to come by, if not more so, than the inerrant originals."175 Thus, while inerrancy cannot be empirically demonstrated, neither can errancy; so inerrancy does not need to be denied simply because it cannot be empirically proven.
Henry's final affirmation is that inerrancy, because it is only a quality of the originals, should not lead to a sense of finality with any translation or copy. While good copies are necessary, they are not the final location for inerrancy and should not be venerated as such.176 While the problem of not having the original texts of Scripture can be overcome, a more likely problem is that one may distil inerrancy into a preferred
Henry, GRA, 4, 208. Further, the possible use of amanuenses does not, according to Machen, run contrary to an inerrantist position; for it is quite plausible that in those instances, the apostles dictated the content to the amanuenses. (208).
174Henry, GRA, 4, 208.
175Henry, GRA, A, 209.
176Henry, GRA, 4, 233. Henry states that while the original manuscripts are inspired (and therefore inerrant) because they were given by the Spirit of God, "copies of the originals, and copies of the copies, on the other hand, share in the theopneustic quality of the originals only to the extent that they faithfully reproduce the autographs." 185 version of the text at hand. A biblically sound inerrantist position will avoid this
1 77 tendency, recognizing the uniqueness of the original manuscripts.
Henry concludes his discussion of inerrancy by addressing two typical objections offered by critics of the position. The first is that inerrancy has not been the historic understanding of the church. While Henry is aware that the term itself has not always been employed, he argues that no quotation from the church fathers on Scripture allows
"for error in the inspired writings."178 Those who that claim inerrancy is a Protestant
Scholastic invention or an Enlightenment construct are mistaken, claims Henry, because while the Reformers never developed a bibliology, they consistently affirmed that inspired Scripture was without error.179 Henry also argues that appealing to theologians' struggles over the canon or their emphasis on divine accommodation and therein inferring a denial of inerrancy is to confuse the matter. Henry maintains that it was not until the heightening of the three major battles over inerrancy (the Old Princeton School, the work of J. Gresham Machen, and the contemporary evangelical debate) that the term itself was 1 80 debated. But that does not mean the issue was unimportant prior to these battles; nor
Henry draws a distinction between "inerrant" originals and "infallible" copies. Henry defines inerrant as "without error" and infallible as "not prone to err." (Henry, GRA, 4:220, n.l) By infallibility, Henry does not mean that inspiration or inerrancy extends to the copies, that infallibility extends to the copyists, or that infallibility renders all text families equally helpful. Henry does mean that the copies are as epistemically significant as the originals, that they accomplish God's redemptive purpose, that the Holy Spirit speaks through them, that they are perspicuous, and that they are to be considered the "only sufficient divine rule of faith and conduct" (244-53). Henry summarizes that "an inerrant copy of a false document is hardly to be compared with a reliable, albeit not inerrant, copy of a true one" (351).
178Henry, GRA, 4:370. Elsewhere, Henry notes the famous statement of Augustine to Jerome (Epistolas 32, i): Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them." See Henry, "Who Are the Evangelicals?" 82.
179Henry, GRA, 4:375-78. Henry particularly attacks Jack Rogers, "The Church Doctrine of Biblical Authority," where Rogers denies that the Reformers held to, implicitly, an inerrantist position. Henry counters that Rogers has undertaken his study with the denial of inerrancy already in mind. does it mean that those prior denied inerrancy. For Henry, the inerrantist position on
Scripture has always been the general view of the inspired text in the history of the church.
The second common objection to inerrancy raised by critics is that inerrancy renders the present-day role of the Holy Spirit, in relation to the text of Scripture, unnecessary. If the text itself is inerrant, then why should we live in dependence upon
God's speaking to us through the Spirit? Henry, aware that this is a possibility, reminds his readers that the role of the Holy Spirit working in and through Scripture remains significant. Henry credits Barth for elevating "the long-neglected role of the Holy Spirit to new significance."181 He argues that Barth's position has helped evangelicals see that the Holy Spirit "remains no less active in relation to the authority and the interpretation of Scripture than in its original inspiration." Yet this ongoing activity is better described as illumination183 rather than inspiration. Because Barth conflates the two, he has "a broken biblicism while he professes to exalt the Spirit."184 For Henry, the Spirit's illumination is governed by the authority of Scripture and never operates apart from it.
The Holy Spirit "empowers us to receive and appropriate the Scriptures, and promotes in
180Henry, GRA, 4, 380.
181Henry, GRA, 4,256.
182Henry, GRA, 4, 258.
183Henry, GRA, 4, 282. Henry states, "The Bible does not use the specific term illumination; it does, however, refer to that special activity of the Holy Spirit by which man can recognize that what Scripture teaches is true, and can accept and appropriate its teaching."
184Henry, GRA, 4, 286.
185Henry, GRA, 4, 259. Henry states, "While the Spirit retains an expositing ministry within the church, that role is predicated on the divine authority of Scripture and does not involve the communication of new truths as was the case in the inspiration of the biblical autographs." us a normative theological comprehension for a transformed life." Without the Holy
Spirit, Scripture is not efficacious, regardless of its inerrancy.187
Henry's Recasting of Inerrancy
From the above analysis, it is clear that Henry adhered to the inerrantist tradition of Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, and B. B. Warfield. Henry's own position includes many distinct features found in the Old Princeton School's position, such as attention to the correct understanding of theopneustos, the location of inerrancy in the original autographs alone, and the setting forth of criteria for proving "error" in Scripture such that inerrancy is rendered non-falsifiable.188 These features, among others, reflect particular continuity with the inerrantist tradition at its fullest expression.
However, Henry's inerrantist position also reflects continuity with what was seen in the work of J. Gresham Machen. Like Machen, Henry sought to locate inerrancy in what he believed to be a more appropriate position on the theological hierarchy of truths.
In his doctrine of Scripture, Henry de-emphasizes inerrancy while still insisting on its importance. For Henry, the inerrancy of Scripture follows Scripture's authority and
186Henry, GRA, 4, 273.
187Patterson, Carl F. H. Henry, 126, offers the following evaluation: "One of Henry's primary concerns is the 'prepositional errorlessness' of Scripture, but his plea for rational consistency does not cause him to lose sight of the mystery of the truth of faith. For him, the decisive role of the Spirit in communicating the intent and purpose of the biblical message may play a subordinate role in his writings, yet I feel that the reader will come away with the conviction that the Holy Spirit looms large in Henry's personal experience."
188Henry does not set forth criteria for proving error as explicitly as A. A. Hodge and Warfield do in their 1881 "Inspiration" article; but in his affirmations and denials concerning inerrancy, it is clear that proving an error in Scripture is rendered basically impossible. 188 inspiration.189 Inerrancy is not Scripture's chief characteristic, and adherence to
Scripture's full authority and verbal inspiration are more crucial than an affirmation of
190 inerrancy.
The Limits of an Inerrantist Position
While Henry affirmed and upheld the inerrantist tradition, he did warn against making the inerrancy "issue" central to all theology.191 Henry hints at this in the context of his advice on how to approach problem passages in Scripture. In his last point concerning the defense of inerrancy in the face of critics, Henry admits that
"Concentration of interest in the doctrine of Scripture only in regard to the problem of inerrancy reveals a church in theological turmoil." For Henry, the debate over inerrancy had become an almost exclusive focus among evangelicals, a focus which
Henry calls an "unbalanced preoccupation." This unbalance, notes Henry, preempts
189In an undated letter to Rev. Stanley R. Allaby, Senior Pastor of Black Rock Congregational Church in Fairfield, CT, Henry states the following: "... while I champion inerrancy and consider it important, I do not believe it is the first thing to be said about the Bible. I begin with biblical authority, and then biblical inspiration, as explicitly taught; and consider biblical inerrancy a logical implication, consistent corollary and necessary inference from the Spirit's inspiration." (Henry Archive, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, Box 10, Folder 15).
190For Henry, Scripture's authority and inspiration are more crucial primarily because they are explicitly taught, whereas inerrancy is a logical implication from Scripture's explicit teaching.
191Henry, Frontiers in Modern Theology, 140. "If the strength of American evangelicalism rests in its high view of Scripture, its weakness lies in a tendency to neglect the frontiers of formative discussion in contemporary theology." Elsewhere, Henry states, "An abstracted emphasis on inerrancy readily sacrifices an awareness that two competing world views underlie the conflict over the Bible." (Henry, "Who Are the Evangelicals?" 90). For Henry, the greater issue to "fight" over was not inerrancy but rather the Christian theistic world view wherein God's existence and revelation are affirmed.
!Henry, GRA, 4, 365. 189
"the energies of evangelical institutions to the neglect of comprehensive exposition of the
Christian revelation, and of a powerful apologetic addressed to the world."194 Henry longed for a more comprehensive evangelical engagement with society, rather than a largely unproductive wrangling over inerrancy.195 Henry emphasizes that, ironically, those claiming to be most biblical in their affirmation of inerrancy often become least faithful to the text by making inerrancy the most important doctrine.196
Though Henry believed inerrancy was necessary for a biblical doctrine of
Scripture, he was not convinced that a mere assent to the term itself would guarantee an orthodox position on Scripture by those who accepted the term. In some handwritten notes from his archive, Henry expressed concern that Fuller Seminary was considering
Dr. David Hubbard to fill the presidential office. Henry remarked that even though the term inerrancy was still to be found in Fuller's statement of faith, he knew that "Hubbard and [Dan] Fuller refuse to affirm inerrancy or errancy but seek a third way." Henry suspected that these men, as well as some other faculty members, only espoused inerrancy concerning Scripture's central purpose rather than everything Scripture teaches.
""Henry, GRA, 4, 365.
194Henry, GRA, 4, 365. Henry states the following concerning those preoccupied with inerrancy: "Instead of 'uncaging the lion' to sound its roar in the world, they become lion tamers. Biblical inerrancy even becomes a promotional device for attracting financial support, or a polemic tool for impugning rival institutions which, while holding mediating views of Scripture, are often left to carry the major scholarly initiative in wrestling with the Gospel's theological, apologetical and social concerns."
195In his essay, "Who Are the Evangelicals?", 89, Henry states that if inerrancy becomes this singular focus, the church "condemns itself to the task of apologetics as its main activity, and moves from admittedly flawed texts to unavailable autographs rather than from divinely-given originals to dependent copies; it leaves revealed theology and its implications too far in the background and, worse yet, encourages a recasting of dogmatics itself along empirico-inductive lines."
196Henry, GRA, 4, 365. Henry adds, "The New Testament supplies no basis for elevating scriptural inerrancy to kerygmatic superprominence. The apostolic core-message does not inject inerrancy into every proclamation of Christ's incarnation and resurrection, and into the Bible's proffered alternatives of repentance or judgment."
Henry Archive, Unmarked Box, "Hubbard Presidency" Folder. Henry was worried that the board members of the Seminary overlooked (intentionally or
unintentionally, he could not be sure) this generalization of the inerrantist position. He
notes a personal "feeling that more a promotional than evangelical advocacy of
I no
inerrancy" was what lay behind this situation. From Henry's candid reflection, it can
be seen that an affirmation of inerrancy, imbedded in a doctrinal statement without
definition, did not automatically ensure that its proponents held the traditional evangelical
view of inerrancy.
Henry also questioned whether an affirmation of inerrancy could unite people in
any meaningful way, other than to simply affirm inerrancy. Henry lamented when
different groups focused on inerrancy at what he believed to be the expense of other
important tasks such as evangelism, socio-political involvement, and confronting truly
liberal theology. In a November 21,1974 letter to Roger Nicole, Henry vents frustration
over this very concern. He thought the Evangelical Theological Society was preoccupied
with constant reaffirmations of inerrancy, which would never be enough to truly impact
the non-evangelical world. He states, "The Evangelical Theological Society should have
taken a great initiative in loosing the lion and letting it go, rather than merely defending
Henry Archive, Box 3, Folder 59. This is a scathing accusation from Henry not seen in his printed materials. Elsewhere, in an address entitled "How to Lose a Seminary" {Henry Archive, Miscellaneous Folder), delivered September 16, 1988 at Fourth Presbyterian Church in Bethesda, MD, Henry recounts his own version of Fuller Seminary's story and the theological changes that had taken place since it was founded (in part by Henry himself!) nearly 40 years earlier. Henry's story is set against George Marsden's account given in his book, Reforming Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987). Whereas Marsden presented Fuller's move away from inerrancy as a positive broadening of the seminary's place in mainstream evangelicalism, Henry took a decidedly more pessimistic view. In his address, Henry repeatedly blames the move away from inerrancy as the key to Fuller's openness to greater theological diversity concerning such things as the literalness of Hell, the binding nature of Scripture's ethical commands, the present-day manifestation of sign gifts, and others. Henry particularly takes issue with Marsden's claim that the future of Fuller will largely depend on the ability of the administration to relate to its constituents. Henry counters with the following at the end of his own address: "But will not the role accorded Scripture ultimately be more definitive than the personality of a president?" {Henry Archive, Miscellaneous Folder). From this account, it is clear that Henry believed inerrancy to be crucial, yet it alone could not protect the seminary from what he believed to be doctrinal compromise. it. While defending Scripture was part of ETS's purpose from its inception, Henry
believed that eventually the focus should shift to other matters.200
In addition to the Evangelical Theological Society, Henry feared that the
International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) was another group that focused too
singularly on inerrancy, especially since ETS already existed. Though he fully supported
their position and admired their efforts,201 Henry refused to officially join the
organization. In a December 12, 1977 letter to James Montgomery Boice, Henry states
the following:
My reservations about identifying with the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy are multiple. Let me indicate a few: (1) In some areas it duplicates what existing agencies ought to be (or to have) done, e.g., ETS. (2) Its emergence at this time has some ecclesiastical political overtones; that is, scholars, pastors or laymen become suspect (or an embarrassment) if they don't "join" this newly created movement. And the umbrella seems such a distressingly broad one in terms of variety of constituents.
195'Henry Archive, Box 6, Folder 12.
200Ironically, however, Henry was heavily involved with the formation of ETS. In his Confessions of a Theologian, he states that he came up with the name of the society and that he was involved in the creation and approval of ETS's doctrinal basis, which stated the following at that time: "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs" (123). This statement alone formed the entire doctrinal basis until recently.
201Henry did participate in the ICBI Summit II, offering the closing address. In this address, Henry commended the participants in their struggle to defend Scripture generally and inerrancy specifically. He cautioned them not to stop there but to apply Scripture to the concerns of society. He warned that a singular focus on inerrancy may inadvertently bind Scripture to our mere defense of it when all the while an affirmation of inerrancy could be the basis for unleashing Scripture to be used by God to do a powerful work in our world. See Radmacher and Preus, eds., Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible: Papers from ICBI Summit II, 915-21.
Henry Archive, Box 7, Folder 9. 192
Against an Overemphasis on Inerrancy
Related to his belief that inerrancy was insufficient to ensure doctrinal fidelity and that it was harmful when made the object of exclusive focus, Henry also believed inerrancy could be overstated to the point that it became overly foundational in one's theological system. For Henry, this happened when inerrancy was used as a test of evangelical authenticity rather than a test of evangelical consistency. In Henry's view, the primary example of inerrancy being overstated was Harold Lindsell's position outlined in his book, The Battle for the Bible.203 In this work, Lindsell identified "adherence to inerrancy" as a test of who had the right to call themselves evangelical and who did not.
By implication, Henry would claim Lindsell used "adherence to inerrancy" as a test of who was born again and who was damned. From the moment Henry learned of Lindsell's intentions to write The Battle, he feared that Lindsell was making a crucial mistake, putting far too strong an emphasis on inerrancy and ultimately elevating inerrancy to the singular feature of an evangelical doctrine of Scripture.204
Even before Lindsell's book was released, Henry was already expressing his disapproval to those with whom he communicated regularly. In an undated letter to
Ronald Nash concerning Lindsell's book, Henry states the following:
203Harold Lindsell, Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976). See also Lindsell's follow-up book, The Bible in the Balance (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979). In this latter volume, Lindsell blasts Henry for the negative comments he made about the Battle. (31-36). He also argues that Henry's own position was inconsistent—on the one hand Henry wanted to affirm the inerrantist position while on the other he did not want to "make an issue" of it.
204Henry did criticize Lindsell in print as well as in the personal correspondences here. Henry gave an interview for the Trinity Scribe (entitled, "The Battle for the Bible,") in which he attacked Lindsell's strategy. Henry also wrote a review entitled, "The Embattled Bible" in Review of Books and Religion, fall of 1976. In addition to these reviews, Henry also criticizes Lindsell in God, Revelation, and Authority, vol. 4, 163 n.l. From what I hear about Lindsell's book it will be a high tragedy for the evangelical cause ... I told Lindsell that what needed to be done was to confront the non-evangelical views, more than to divide the evangelical camp, and that while inerrancy is important, it should not be used as a polemical weapon ... if what I hear about the volume from various sources is true, I would not only have to review it critically for theological superficiality, but have to indict its forfeiture of principles to which Christianity Today in its strategy was originally dedicated, and may even have to dissociate myself from any part in that.20
Henry was distressed about the forthcoming fallout from Lindsell's book to the extent
that he considered dissociating himself from the journal that he had helped begin.
In a February 25,1976 letter to Dick Kantzer, Henry states the following concerning Lindsell's work:
I'm troubled by reports from various places about Dr. Lindsell's forthcoming book which specializes in identifying sheep and goats among evangelicals on the matter of inerrancy. The non-evangelicals will rejoice that they are making gains; the evangelicals who repudiate inerrancy will be glad to know they have a base in so many places; and those who hold inerrancy will seem to have only a polemical weapon rather than an epistemological arsenal.206
For Henry, a polemical weapon could be used "in house" when testing fellow evangelicals' consistency and when working to preserve important conservative commitments in an evangelical institution. However, concerning the impact evangelicals should be having in a desperately lost world, inerrancy should no longer be seen as a polemical weapon. Rather, it should be seen as a liberating truth that allows God, through Scripture, to address the most crucial concerns of the present day.
Henry Archive, Box 6, Folder 23. 206Henry Archive, Box 6, Folder 24.
207In a crucial statement, Henry summarizes the difficulties with a too exclusive focus on inerrancy and a need for a more positive statement on Scripture's trustworthiness: "The problem with the term inerrancy is not simply that its very prefix conveys a negative meaning, but that it too readily accommodates a shift of emphasis from the comprehensive truth of Scripture to the defense of isolated components supposedly on empirical grounds. In consequence, a deductive derivation of inspiration and inerrancy fromth e living God as the primary theological axiom is replaced by an inductive approach to Scripture. The inerrancy of Scripture—and not its divine authority and inspiration—then is declared the 194
Part of Henry's frustration with Lindsell's overemphasis on inerrancy likely stemmed from his belief that many years earlier, he had argued for a conservative view of
Scripture in a more appropriate way. In a December 16, 1976 letter written to Everett L.
Cattell, Henry makes the following statement about what, in his opinion, should be the primary focal points of a theological discussion of Scripture:
In 1958 ... my symposium on REVELATION AND THE BIBLE appeared with international, interdenominational participation. I urged N.A.E. [National Association ofEvangelicals]to encourage its ministers nationally to meet in discussion groups, using that symposium as a basis, and engage in dialogue with all local ministers on the issue of revelation, inspiration and authority. We could have used C.T. [Christianity Today] to orient the discussion to the fundamental issues and the authority-crisis in Protestantism. There was no interest in the proposal. Now, Lindsell's polemical and academically-disappointing THE BATTLE FOR THE BIBLE becomes the basis for a massive controversy that divides evangelicals rather than making them strong vis-a-vis the neo-Protestant challenge. It is to me a great tragedy.20
Inerrancy De-emphasized yet Important
Because of his pursuit of a more irenic discussion of the doctrine of Scripture,
Henry was criticized for not holding the inerrantist position consistently enough. Yet from the analysis of Henry's formal statements in GRA, it is clear that Henry strongly affirmed inerrancy, whether or not he agreed with Lindsell's approach.209 Yet one could argue that in personal and professional settings, Henry downplayed inerrancy for the sake
first and most important statement to be made about Scripture." See Henry, "Who Are the Evangelicals?" 80.
20iHenry Archive, Unmarked Box, 1976 Folder. See Carl F. H. Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958).
209Dorrien, Remaking of Evangelical Theology, 119, summarizes Henry on this issue as follows: "In effect, (Henry) argued that evangelicalism made no sense without the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, but evangelicalism as a movement was wrong to draw lines and exclude fellow Christians over inerrancy." of evangelical unity. However, Henry did, in fact, fight for inerrancy in settings other
than his own formal theological reflection.
As early as 1956, Henry, having begun his position as inaugural editor at
Christianity Today, expressed concern that Fuller Seminary was beginning to move away
from an inerrantist position. In a September 12, 1956 letter to Wilbur Smith, one of his
colleagues at Fuller, Henry expressed concern over the "apparent drift away from the
91ft
historic evangelical view of inspiration—always the watershed." He questioned then
president Daniel Fuller's capability of leading the seminary in the right direction, because
Fuller himself had confessed an inability to comprehend the difficulties associated with
the battle over inspiration. Henry noted that many in the evangelical camp, both in and
outside of Fuller Seminary, were allowing "the lure of recognition in non-evangelical
circles"211 to supplant their commitment to the inerrantist view of Scripture.
In 1971, five years before Lindsell's Battle for the Bible had been published,
Henry stood for the inerrantist position as a faculty member at Eastern Seminary.212 The faculty and administration were asked by board members to form a committee to address
Eastern's evangelical stance and to offer further definition of Eastern's theological position. Henry was elected chairman of this committee. In the letters circulated throughout this committee, Henry was evidently dismayed that several faculty members considered the inerrantist position non-essential. Specifically, one faculty member stated that inerrancy was an aberration, and another faculty member who espoused inerrancy
Henry Archive, Correspondence Box, Folder 47.
211 Henry Archive, Correspondence Box, Folder 47.
212Henry recounts this story in Confessions of a Theologian, 325-333. did not want to make an issue of it. Though disappointed with his colleagues, Henry
admitted that Eastern's doctrinal statement did not explicitly affirm inerrancy, though he
stated that "it would seem difficult to exegete the statement to mean that the writers
intended scriptural errancy."213
Though fighting a losing battle, Henry recounts his repeated attempts to warn
Eastern of their need to retain their traditional inerrantist stance in spite of the lack of the term "inerrancy" in their doctrinal statement. What Henry does not share in his
Confessions, however, is a personal statement he submitted to his colleagues after the
Seminary's president, J. Lester Harnish, advised the faculty to de-prioritize the inerrancy issue, effectively ending the intramural debate. In this personal statement, Henry warns his colleagues against making inerrancy a non-issue. He states, "In the long run Eastern's permanent commitment to evangelical truth and vitalities may depend, as I see it, upon the very factors that are currently being ignored as second-order issues."214
Henry attempted to defend the importance of the inerrantist position in a patient, theologically informed way. Desiring to ensure his colleagues that he was not condemning them for their hesitation on inerrancy, Henry tried to expose a theological inconsistency behind their denial of inerrancy:
It is not my purpose to question the personal faith or to impugn the sincerity of evangelical scholars and colleagues who insist on the errancy of the Bible. Let us assume for the moment that they are right in their contention that some tracks of the Scriptural teaching are to be regarded as untrue. The obvious question becomes, how can one then logically assert that the Bible as such is trustworthy, inspired and authoritative? ... To attribute supernatural inspiration and Divine
213The doctrinal statement read as follows: "We believe that the Bible, composed of the Old and New Testaments, is inspired of God, and is of supreme and final authority in faith and life." See Carl Henry, Confessions of a Theologian, 329.
Henry Archive, Unmarked Box, "Eastern" Folder. authority to a supposedly errant content is to impugn the very character of God that the guideline seeks to champion. The real issue, then, is how a serious academic institution can convincingly claim to champion the Divine inspiration and unqualified authority of what it also implies or asserts to be errant.2 5
This statement is consistent with what Henry claims repeatedly throughout God,
Revelation, and Authority. The inerrancy of Scripture is a logical position that stems from
the character of God, the nature of revelation, and the Scripture's own inspiration and
authority. Hence, it is an essential position to have logical consistency in one's
theological system.
As he continues his personal reflection, Henry notes that students and laymen
alike were struggling with the seemingly obvious inconsistency of ascribing an erroneous
revelation to a perfect God. Henry reasserts that one can have "evangelical faith" without
espousing inerrancy, and inerrantists themselves can become overly preoccupied with the
issue. However, Henry also argues that the logical burden rests on those espousing
errancy, for it is that view which can be misleading:
An evangelical who erodes all his energies contending for the inerrancy of the Bible and neglects to unsheathe its revelational content has a warped sense of evangelical duty. But no less tragic is the situation of the evangelical who insists that he champions the inspiration and authority of Scripture but readily espouses critical concessions and eagerly adduces "biblical errors." It seems to me that academic responsibility and integrity require such a one to furnish an objective criterion for distinguishing biblical truth from what are alleged to be so-called scriptural errors, else students will be encouraged to receive or reject the biblical materials merely on the basis of subjective prejudice or preference.216
Here again, one can see that for Henry, holding an inerrantist position is a matter of consistency rather than authenticity. Henry concludes his personal reflection as follows:
"What is fundamentally at stake in an academic discussion of the authority of the Bible is
'Henry Archive, Unmarked Box, "Eastern" Folder.
'Henry Archive, Unmarked Box, "Eastern" Folder. not—however it may hurt—protecting human considerations and relationships—but rather the validity of biblical truth, the doctrinal position to be espoused by a religious
917 institution, and the integrity of the classroom."
Even after Henry left the faculty of Eastern in 1973, he still felt the sting of losing this battle over inerrancy. In a February 8, 1975 letter to Gordon Clark, Henry offered his perspective on what he believed were continuing problems at Eastern: Apart from Walter Davis, I know of nobody who subscribes to inerrancy; numbers would ridicule it. There is more sympathy for the notion that revelation is personal than propositional, and Bernie Ramm, who came in as my replacement and is more conservative than most, has qualms about propositional revelation.21
Henry resisted making inerrancy a test of evangelical authenticity. Yet whenever he explained how theological compromise happened, he identified slippage on inerrancy as a leading cause. Henry questioned whether inerrancy was enough to provide an appropriate litmus test for evangelical identification, yet he also feared that, at times, inerrancy was too heightened in its importance in the priority of doctrines. At the heart of his inerrantist position is the desire to recognize that God stands before and above His revelation. What is ultimately theologically true about Scripture is only so because it is
Henry Archive, Unmarked Box, "Eastern" Folder.
21sHenry Archive, Box 6, Folder 17. Henry offered a similar warning to Donald Dayton, a professor at North Park Seminary, in an August 18, 1975 letter. Henry states, "I have never seen anyone champion the unqualified authority of Scripture while insisting on its fallibility and errancy without semantic conjuring. Maybe you can pull it off, but it seems to me a superhuman task that only half of the angels would want to pursue." (Box 6, Folder 19).
219Henry argues the following on how the "too heightened" focus on inerrancy happened: "As destructive higher criticism gained ground, some evangelicals reoriented their presentation of the truthfulness of Scripture from its traditional theological foundations to the empirical vindication of specific textual phenomena. The integrity of Scripture as God's Word was deduced from God's authoritative self- revelation and from the divine inspiration of the canonical writings. But the case for the Bible's truthfulness was now shifted to a defense of critically-disputed passages, a defense that appealed to the same historical methodology that critics invoked in a venture that conservatives themselves characterized as a vindication of inerrancy." See Henry, "Who Are the Evangelicals?" 80. first true of God himself. If and because God has sovereignly ordained Scripture to be
"breathed out" by Him, inerrancy is a logical necessity.221
That Henry struggled with inerrancy—how to describe it, where to locate it within his bibliology, how much to emphasize it, and in what context to fight for it— demonstrates that he was not content to simply repeat the inerrantist tradition as it had come to him. Henry, like Machen, understood the need to avoid making inerrancy the singular foundation to all doctrine. Henry's position, then, displays a further "recasting" of inerrancy. Henry describes inerrancy as a doctrinal implication (rather than an explicit
999 teaching), the third thing to be said of Scripture {after authority and inspiration), a test of evangelical consistency (rather than authenticity), and an important doctrinal tenet that nonetheless was not capable (alone) of ensuring conservative theological commitments.
220Henry, "Who Are the Evangelicals?" 91. "The credibility of Christianity's claim for scriptural authority does not rest on the acceptability of biblical teaching to champions of contemporary empirical observation. Evangelical confidence in the truthfulness of the Bible derives not from empirically-limited observation but from Scripture's theologically-given status as God's supernaturally inspired Word, and its consequent status as the rule of faith and practices by which the living Christ through the Spirit exercises headship over the regenerate church."
221 Joseph Karanja, Inerrancy and Sovereignty, A Case Study on Carl F. H. Henry (Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Dissertation Services, 1990), 157, states that "For Henry, God, in his sovereignty, so pervaded the process of inspiration that in inscripturation of truth in the autographs by the human agents, the possibility of error was totally excluded.... As the sovereign 'author' of Scripture, God 'desired' to disclose himself in Scripture and, as such, it manifests his perfection and goodness." Karanja concludes that in Henry's case, "a keen evaluation of the concept [of inerrancy] is one which considers inerrancy not as a view of the nature of Scripture only but also as one part of a larger context in which the doctrine of God features prominently" (160).
As has been seen, Warfield also hinted at the fact that inerrancy came after authority and inspiration, but Henry places stronger emphasis on inerrancy as the "third thing" to be said of Scripture. Conclusion
Bob Patterson, in his biography of Henry, predicted that within broader
evangelicalism, there would be three reactions toward Henry's inerrantist position. First,
states Patterson, "fundamentalism will reject Henry since he does not make inerrancy his
first confession about the Bible."223 Though rather generalized, this statement has proven
accurate. Harold Lindsell, for example, insisted that Henry's stance for inerrancy was
never strong enough. Lindsell detected a danger of compromise in Henry's willingness to
place inerrancy lower on the priority list of things to be said of the Bible.224
Second, Patterson predicted that some at the "left edge" of evangelicalism would
"say that Henry clings to the older paradigm of evangelical theology when he should have abandoned it for a better one."225 Scholars such as Bernard Ramm, Clark Pinnock, and Donald Bloesch have criticized Henry's position as thoroughly modern and naively rationalistic.226 Many at the evangelical left have moved away from an inerrantist position in favor of a more Barthian stance. From this perspective, inerrancy has been
997 viewed as an aberration to sound bibliology.
223Patterson, Carl F. H Henry, 124.
224See Harold Lindsell, The Bible in the Balance (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979).
225Patterson, Carl F. H. Henry, 124.
226 Bernard Ramm, After Fundamentalism: The Future of Evangelical Theology (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982); Clark Pinnock, The Scripture Principle (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984); Donald Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979). Part of the naivety is due to the plethora of qualifiers attached to inerrancy. For any error to be affirmed in Scripture, it must pass through a series of "tests." Karanja, Inerrancy and Sovereignty, 43, n.4, states that "it appears from the nature of these tests that Henry makes it impossible to falsify anything in the Bible."
227See Millard Erickson, The Evangelical Left (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997), 61-86 for details on the departure from inerrancy among many from within Evangelicalism. Third, Patterson believed that most moderate evangelicals would look to Henry as
a "theological guide" who retained positive contributions from the Enlightenment, held
equally to the humanity and divinity of Scripture, and benefited from a guarded
acceptance of biblical criticism.228 While Patterson believed there would still be
difficulties for many to accept Henry's position, he believed that generally speaking,
Henry had offered a view of Scripture and inerrancy that struck a balance between
"overbelief and underbelief."229
Patterson's predictions have largely come to pass, as inerrantist evangelicals have
noted many positive contributions of Henry's position. First, Henry offers a helpful
attempt at locating inerrancy in its rightful place within a doctrine of Scripture. Henry
repeatedly claims that he is following the position of Warfiled—beginning with
Scripture's authority as a revelation of God, followed by an affirmation of inspiration as
Scripture's witness to itself, and only then arriving at inerrancy. Henry does a more thorough job in emphasizing inerrancy's place as the third thing to be said of Scripture.230
In this sense, he directly builds upon the contributions of the Old Princeton theologians,
228Patterson, Carl F. H. Henry, 124.
229Patterson, Carl F. H. Henry, 125.
230 Dorrien, Remaking of Evangelical Theology, 120-21 affirms something similar in describing Henry's unique position: "Fundamentalism in the generation after Warfield typically appealed to inerrancy as a kind of magic wand of all-purpose trump card.... Verbal inerrancy effectively replaced the resurrection of Christ as the basis of Christianity. Inerrancy was the ultimate warrant for all Christian affirmations and the answer to all critical challenges to Christian belief. Henry's appeal to inerrancy doctrine, in contrast, was closer to the spirit of old Princeton. He observed that for all their commitment to biblical inerrancy, Warfield and Hodges never rested their theology entirely upon it. Warfield's doctrine of Scripture began with the assertion of its divine authority, then moved to the doctrine of biblical inspiration, and then deduced inerrancy from the Bible's testimony to its own inspiration." This is why Henry refused to follow Lindsell's approach. He believed his position was more in line with the preferred Old Princeton School's tradition. and in doing so he offers a full explanation of why inerrancy must be predicated on
Scripture's authority and inspiration.
Second, Henry demonstrates not only a command of the history of theological reflection on Scripture, but he also reveals his deep knowledge of the history of philosophy. In his affirmation of the inerrantist position, Henry challenges his audience to
see beyond the specific debates over textual minutia and recognize the mega-battles taking place between evangelical Christianity and liberalism. Just as Machen insightfully argued that Liberalism represented something entirely different than Christianity (and, hence, could not rightfully be considered an "option" within Christianity), Henry takes the same approach, insisting that the true enemies of evangelicalism are not those rejecting inerrancy, but those rejecting Christianity as revealed in Scripture.
Third, Henry attempts to maintain that God is Lord over His revelation, and Jesus
Christ is the primary Revelation of God as the Living Word. While in this chapter, the primary focus has been on the background and content of Henry's doctrine of Scripture, it has been demonstrated that Henry does not overlook the primacy of God, even when discussing Scripture. While Henry regularly addresses epistemological concerns in his doctrine of Scripture, he wholeheartedly affirms the ontological priority of God. For
Henry, inerrancy is true because God is the one who has graciously superintended the written Word.232
231Henry states, "To be an evangelical is therefore not simply to champion biblical inerrancy rather than papal infallibility or empirical finality. It is to have a theistic mega-view that yields a distinctive role for the Bible as the literary corpus in which the self-revealing God of Judeo-Christian theology expounds his nature and plan for humanity and the nations." (Henry, "Who Are the Evangelicals?" 90)
232Karanja, Inerrancy and Sovereignty, 151, argues that for Henry, inerrancy is inseparable from God's sovereignty. He states, "To detach inerrancy from sovereignty is to remove from it that which renders it epistemologically important and to undermine the ontological base on which it stands. In other 203
Finally, Henry refuses to allow his inerrantist position to devolve into extended
considerations of so-called problem passages. He does not ground his theology in
empirical observation and induction from empirical data. Rather, he insists on a deductive
approach, working from the reality of God and His revelation to an eventual affirmation
of inerrancy. In this, Henry allows for apologetics to have its place, yet he does not make
apologetics the primary task of the inerrantist evangelical. Rather, since inerrancy is logically implied from the notion of inspiration and the authority of the written Word, committed inerrantists are not forced to concede their believing presuppositions to make their case.233
While the aforementioned positive contributions of Henry are significant, there are also significant concerns in a close evaluation of Henry's position. First, as many have noted, one wonders if the overwhelming insistence that biblical revelation is propositional can be sustained. While Henry is correct to note that even the non- propositional statements in Scripture can be put propositionally, it is also true that if, in fact, God superintended every word of the text, then God clearly superintended that many portions of Scripture be non-propositional.234 Henry seems to force his fundamental belief that truth is propositional into his bibliology to such an extent, that if one were to completely follow Henry's prescription, one would inevitably be forced to alter the
words, inerrancy is descriptive of effects of a revelational-inspirational act which God performs in his sovereignty." Karanja then implies, on behalf of Henry, that in order to "justify a rejection of inerrancy, for those who are uncomfortable with the position, requires a concept of sovereignty different from Henry's since, without this, it is not possible to systematically formulate a view of inerrancy."
233Henry seems to believe that if one takes an exclusively inductive approach, he or she must inevitably allow their properly basic presuppositions to be placed into question.
234See Kevin J. Vanhoozer, "The Semantics of Biblical Literature," in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1986), 56-75 for an evangelical critique of propositional revelation. 204
biblical content itself.235 While Henry may have legitimate concerns over the relative
denials of propositional truth by those in the Barthian tradition, his solutions seem to
move to an unhealthy extreme in the opposite direction.
Second, Henry's insistence that human reason remains basically intact, even post-
fall, has been strongly contested by his own fellow conservative theologians. Particularly,
those in the Reformed tradition have accused Henry of not taking the Reformation
understanding of the noetic effects of sin seriously enough. As noted earlier, Henry
believes that the primary effect of the Fall on humanity was in the area of the will. In a
fallen world, mankind is separated from God ethically; and apart from the intervention of
the Holy Spirit, no one willingly seeks after God for reconciliation. This effect of sin on the will is the primary result of the curse. Concerning sin's effect on mankind's reason,
while Henry does affirm that the depraved sinner cannot effectively reason things concerning God, he also insists that mankind's basic rational abilities remain unaffected.
And, a rational presentation of Christian truth can be understood and mentally assented to by unbelievers. While most would agree with Henry that unbelieving persons can
235James White, What is Truth?, 105, wonders if Henry has "joined Enlightenment rationalism too closely" with his emphasis on propositional truth. White's concern is that, in Henry, "Aristotelian categories of logic are used as an artificial hermeneutical grid which the biblical materials are forced to pass through in violence to their nature."
236Henry identifies himself as a presuppositionalist in his view of apologetics. However, his belief that the noetic effects of sin are minimal goes against Van Til's Calvinistic, Reformed approach. For a summary of Henry's apologetical positioning, see Dorrien, Remaking of Evangelical Theology, 108-111. Dorrien notes that Henry's identification as a Baptist allowed him to "be chiefly influenced by Reformed thinkers while claiming independence from the fideistic mainstream of the Reformed tradition." (Ill) For a fuller treatment of Henry's apologetics, see Richard Allen Purdy, "Carl Henry and Contemporary Apologetics: An Assessment of the Rational Apologetic Methodology of Carl F. H. Henry in the Context of the Current Impasse Between Reformed and Evangelical Apologetics," (PhD diss., New York University, 1980). function rationally, Scripture's description of the effect of sin on humanity is that there
are both ethical and rational consequences.
Third, Henry's entire theological methodology seems thoroughly modern. Even
those rejecting much of present-day postmodern approaches to theology will often also
offer their own critiques of Henry's position as well. It seems as if the time for Henry's
position has already passed. Because postmodernity was just beginning to become more
mainstream when Henry's career was nearing its conclusion, Henry interacted very little
with it. Hence, Henry's position seems out of place today, even though it has been less
than 30 years since he articulated it in GRA.
However, the above concerns have more to do with Henry's theological method
and his prolegomenal affirmations rather than his explicit doctrine of Scripture. Hence, a
goal of this chapter has been to offer the examination of Henry's doctrine of Scripture
that his position deserves. When it comes to bibliology and the inerrantist position, Henry
has offered one of the more balanced and well-rounded positions to be found in
inerrantist evangelicalism. His position is theologically based, closely attached to the
doctrine of God. As such, it has the potential to overcome the modernistic tendencies
in Henry's own theological methodology.
Concerning the notion that sin has largely affected the will alone, White asks, "Is it not an enormous burden to place on the fallen will to make it account for the vast compromise of the legitimate and proper use of reason by non-Christian humanity?" (James White, What is Truth? 106)
238This point is more an observation of circumstance than a direct critique. Henry's theological approach, though relatively recently articulated, seems already passe.
239 Karanja, Inerrancy and Sovereignty, 159, summarizes the importance of a theo-logic behind notions of inerrancy. He states that "unless there are basic theological grounds for holding inerrancy ... inerrancy is merely a dogmatic position with little, if any, intellectual significance. If the critics ... wish to charge that inerrancy is a theology-less position, it is this concept of inerrancy which is not undergirded by an appropriate doctrine of God towards [sic] which they need to direct their attacks. While inerrancy may 206
Few scholars have recognized that Henry's explicit doctrine of Scripture
overcomes some of his own methodological problems. This omission is likely due to the
fact that it takes great time and effort to wade through his prolegomenal and
methodological material, which can be tedious and unexciting. Furthermore, unless one is
looking specifically for Henry's doctrine of Scripture and inerrantist position, one will
often never plunge deeply enough into Henry's thought to mine the quality material
therein. The question remains, however, whether one can accept Henry's version of
inerrancy while improving on his theological methodology. This problem seems to be the
challenge set before those in the present day who wish to maintain an inerrantist stance,
while honestly recognizing the difficulties with a modernistic epistemology and
theological method.
be a view held by many conservative evangelicals, a distinction needs to be maintained between inerrancy as a theological concept and inerrancy as a fad of conservative evangelicals in general." CHAPTER FIVE THE INERRANTIST TRADITION IN POSTMODERN CONTEXT
In the previous chapter, we noted that while Carl Henry largely retained a modernist epistemology in his theological method, his unpacking of the inerrantist position was appropriately nuanced. Henry offers an understanding of inerrancy that affirms the priority of Jesus Christ as the living Word of God, argues for the necessary role of the Holy Spirit in making Scripture efficacious, and predicates Scripture's inerrancy on its authority and inspiration. The care with which he articulates his inerrantist position offers a helpful example of an evangelical recasting of inerrancy, one which even non-inerrantists have respected.
Since Henry made his most significant theological contributions, the cultural, philosophical, and theological context for evangelical theology has changed. There has been a shift from a modern, foundationalist epistemology to a range of postmodern, non- foundationalist approaches to the matter of truth and authority. In the current postmodern milieu, Christians from multiple perspectives have reflected on the doctrine of Scripture, seeking to preserve biblical authority as an indispensable part of the Christian faith.
'Some noteworthy titles among the numerous works that could be cited are as follows: From a non-inerrantist perspective, see John Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); N. T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God (London: SPCK, 2005); Telford Work, Living and Active: Scripture in the Economy of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); A. T. B. McGowan, The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007); and Clark Pinnock, The Scripture Principle: Reclaiming the Full Authority of the Bible, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006). From the inerrantist perspective, in addition to the four works discussed in this chapter, see Peter Jensen, The Revelation of God, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002); Brian Edwards, Nothing but the Truth: The Inspiration, Authority and History of the Bible Explained (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2006); and Mark D.
207 Remaining from our study of the inerrantist tradition is the question of how inerrancy might fit into the current postmodern situation. In this chapter, we will briefly overview four particular proposals concerning the doctrine of Scripture from perspectives that are inerrantist, but which also demonstrate awareness of the current postmodern context.2 From this, we will describe the collective prescription for inerrancy today, noting points of continuity and discontinuity from the inerrantist tradition we have examined. Finally, we will ask the question concerning the ongoing necessity of the inerrantist tradition, especially in light of what seems to be a move within evangelicalism toward a more "Barthian" understanding of the text. Throughout this chapter, we will bring the interlocutors considered earlier into dialog with the contemporary perspectives.
Scripture and Inerrancy in a Postmodern Context
Within today's renewed attention to the doctrine of Scripture, of particular significance are the recent works of Kevin Vanhoozer,3 John Franke,4 John Morrison,5
Thompson, A Clear and Present Word: The Clarity of Scripture, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006).
2 My use of the term "postmodern context" does not imply an intention to deal with the variegated issues involved in assessing the current postmodern situation. I use the term to simply refer to the shift in thought from foundationalist epistemology to non-foundationalist approaches to truth and knowledge. In what follows, I do not interact with postmodernity as such. My purpose is to analyze recent inerrantist proposals on Scripture that demonstrate awareness of the postmodern move away from modern, Enlightenment assumptions. The authors surveyed recognize as valid some of the postmodern criticisms of modernity; but none of them offer a fully developed Bibliology that addresses the full range of postmodern concerns. For more on postmodernism and its impact on theology, see Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); James K. Smith, Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, andFoucault to Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006); Nancey Murphy, Anglo-American Postmodernity: Philosophical Perspectives on Science, Religion, and Ethics (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997); idem., Beyond Liberalism & Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996); J. Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh, Truth is Stranger Than it Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995). 209
and Peter Enns.6 Each of these authors write from an inerrantist position, but none of
them is satisfied with the evangelical status quo for an articulation of the doctrine of
Scripture. With the onset of postmodernism and its concomitant critique of modernity,
propositional truth, and the objectivity of knowledge, these authors have sought to restate
the doctrine of Scripture in a way that recognizes the pitfalls of both modern and
postmodern viewpoints. Within their collective statements is an emerging prescription for
the inerrantist position in a postmodern context.
That these authors engage the doctrine of Scripture with a willingness to consider
the postmodern perspective is something that sets them apart from Henry, even while
remaining within the inerrantist tradition. Henry had little use for postmodernity and its
critique of modern assumptions. He was thoroughly foundationalist in his epistemology.
Thus, the following authors' reflections on Scripture represent yet a further "recasting" of
the inerrantist position.
3Kevin Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005); Kevin Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002).
4 John R. Franke, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005). This work is developed from the landmark volume, Stanley J. Grenz and John R. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001).
5John Morrison, Has God Said?: Scripture, The Word of God, and the Crisis of Theological Authority (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2006).
6Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005). Kevin Vanhoozer
Vanhoozer states that while inspiration does refer to the work of the Spirit on the
text in terms of its production, that truth should not be separated from the ongoing work
of the Spirit's illumination.7 While there has always been recognition of these two
elements (inspiration and illumination) in orthodox Christianity, Vanhoozer argues that
they should be seen as so intricately linked that the Spirit's continued speaking is as
necessary as the original speaking. In a poignant statement, Vanhoozer says that "The
Bible is not a fourth hypostasis alongside Father, Son, and Spirit that instantiates and
upholds a divine nature. Attempts to make inspiration into a textual property render the
present work of the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures redundant."8 For Vanhoozer, the
present role of the Spirit should not be diminished via a too-narrow focus on the text
itself.
Vanhoozer also addresses the relationship between the divine and human
authorship of the text. Clearly rejecting any notion of a dictation theory, Vanhoozer
argues that the Spirit performs a sanctifying action in inspiration that results in the human
authors retaining their human agency while at the same time ensuring that whatever they write, down to the chosen words, is intended by God. He states, "Both the theo-drama
Vanhoozer, Drama of Doctrine, 226. He states, "The Spirit is involved in the very messy historical process of producing Scripture—prompting, appropriating, and coordinating human discourse to present God's Word—as well as in the process of bringing about understanding of Scripture among present-day readers."
Vanhoozer, Drama of Doctrine, 227. While it seems from this statement that Vanhoozer is denying that inspiration is a property of the biblical text, he is not. In context, he is arguing that one cannot make inspiration only or merely a property of the text. In other words, inspiration is to be seen as first a work of the Spirit and second as a property of the text. 211 and the script are ultimately the creations of the divine playwright."9 Through his use of the "drama" metaphor, Vanhoozer expands the understanding of the divine and human authorship of the text. God's providence is the guiding factor, while the human authors are free to act in their own uniqueness. This understanding gets beyond modernist notions of "virtual dictation" and prevents (or at least should prevent) the conservative view from being pulled toward Docetism.1
Vanhoozer's concern to highlight the ongoing work of the Spirit in illumination, while at the same time preserving the uniqueness of the inspired text, is ultimately due to his desire to destroy the dichotomy between personal and propositional revelation.11 Most postmodern theologians, according to Vanhoozer, are moving away from propositional notions of revelation and highlighting a Barthian emphasis on personal revelation found in one's encounter with Jesus Christ. Vanhoozer sees value in the personal aspects of revelation, and he affirms the centrality of Jesus Christ as the Living Word. However,
Vanhoozer, Drama of Doctrine, 228.
10 Vanhoozer, Drama of Doctrine, 228. The term "virtual dictation" is mine, not Vanhoozer's. The idea behind it is that conservatives are sometimes fearful of affirming the human authorship of Scripture, and they ultimately focus on the divine authorship alone. While they deny dictation, their doctrinal formulations are "virtually" a more subtle version of dictation theory. For Vanhoozer, this is an instance of Docetism.
1'Early in his reflections on theological method, Vanhoozer states that "Theologians ought to resist the forced choice between reading for propositional knowledge on the one hand and for personal knowledge on the other." See Vanhoozer, First Theology, 37.
12 While many Barthians opt for a nearly exclusively personal notion of revelation, Vanhoozer argues that Barth sought to have both personal and propositional aspects. However, Vanhoozer is not satisfied with Barth's view either. His problem with Barth is that "On the one hand this Word is verbal, but on the other hand it is something that becomes verbal only when God freely and graciously decides that it does so. There is an uncomfortable dualism between the Word of God and the actual words of Scripture which threatens to render each equivocal." Vanhoozer, First Theology, 150. Vanhoozer also maintains that he is not obligated to choose between personal and prepositional revelation, as if they were unable to exist together.
Through his understanding and application of speech-act theory to the doctrine of revelation, Vanhoozer argues that God's speaking is itself a form of personal revelation.
Hence, one should expect to find that revelation is prepositional, though it also has other characteristics. Thus, Vanhoozer argues for a more holistic approach to revelation in general and Scripture specifically that recognizes the "polygeneric" nature of Scripture.14
Vanhoozer therefore affirms the "received" evangelical view of Scripture which affirms the prepositional nature of revelation, inspiration as a quality of the text itself, and Scripture's authoritative infallibility and inerrancy. He does so, however, only because his doctrine of Scripture flows directly from his doctrine of God.15 Because
Vanhoozer affirms God's involvement in creation, Vanhoozer believes it to be possible that God would choose finite human instruments to inscripturate His Word under the direction of His providence. Notions of verbal inspiration and inerrancy, then, do not necessarily lead to bibliolatry. Rather, "Scripture is itself a mighty speech act by which
Vanhoozer, First Theology, 156. "Against the dichotomy between personal and propositional revelation, I am inclined to say that all our encounters with persons are 'propositional,' in the sense of involving communicative action.... [However,] not all propositions need to be characterized as 'rationalistic' Not all propositions are put forward as claims of precise correspondence to reality. To suggest so is to caricature the notion of propositional revelation."
14Vanhoozer, First Theology, 131. Vanhoozer argues that "The notion of a divine speech act addresses both the problem of the nature of God's activity and the problem of the nature of biblical language. Specifically, it explains how God is involved with the production of Scripture and so overcomes the ruinous dichotomy between historical-actualist and verbal-conceptualist models of revelation, that is, the dualism between 'God saying' and 'God doing.' Scripture is neither simply the recital of the acts of God nor merely a book of inert propositions. Scripture is rather composed of divine-human speech acts that, through what they say, accomplish several authoritative cognitive, spiritual and social functions."
l5Vanhoozer, First Theology, 129. "The fundamental issue in the doctrine of Scripture concerns the manner of God's involvement in the words of Scripture and thus the manner of God's activity in the world." God reveals himself in his Son Jesus Christ. The Scriptures do not become a substitute for Christ but are the means by which the memory of Christ is given substance."16 Of course, Scripture, because written by finite, fallible human beings, is a prime example of
God's accommodation to us. Yet this does not negate inerrancy out of hand.17
John Franke
Writing on revelation, John Franke states that "the very means used by God in revelation, the mediums of human nature, language, and speech, bear the inherent limitations of their creaturely character in spite of the use God makes of them as bearers of revelation."18 In Franke's approach, the power of God to reveal Himself through these finite means is not seen in God removing the natural limitations of the finite means.
Rather, the true miracle of revelation is that God is able to be revealed anyway, despite the finite nature of the means. For Franke, this is a better way to understand God's revelation, because God remains the one who controls His revelation.19
16Vanhoozer, First Theology, 157.
17Vanhoozer even allows that this form of divine accommodation is God's revelation in "weakness," much like God's power is revealed in the weakness of Jesus Christ suffering on the cross. Vanhoozer questions, "Need weakness, need humanity for that matter, imply fallibility, and beyond that, actual failure? Perhaps fallibility, but not actual fault. Many books—textbooks, phonebooks, cookbooks— contain no error. Fallibility means only 'capable of making mistakes,' not that mistakes have actually been made." See Vanhoozer, First Theology, 157, footnote 108.
18Franke, Character of Theology, 75.
19As well, for Franke, modernist epistemology, in its quest for certainty, engenders power plays and struggles for superiority rather than a humble seeking after God. Most problematic, modernist epistemology seems to almost entirely disregard the noetic effects of sin. The Christian tradition has always maintained that the effects of the Fall have rendered people incapable of reasoning correctly. Even in regeneration, in the renewing of the mind, human beings never quite rid themselves of the effect of sin on the intellect. Hence, according to Franke, the "postmodern" insistence on the contextual nature of truth, the The rejection of modernist epistemology has also forced theologians to rethink their understanding of Scripture, particularly as an epistemic foundation. In the postmodern context, human language, even "under" inspiration, remains human. The words of the apostles and prophets in Scripture remain "subject to the historical, social, and cultural limitations and contingencies inherent in its creaturely character." Yet, continues Franke, "this does not in any way negate the reality of biblical inspiration as a gracious act of the Holy Spirit or detract from the authority of Scripture." Epistemic dependency on God should be welcome by Christians while at the same time not implying a lesser view of Scripture. God has inspired His word; yet the ongoing work of the Spirit of God is necessary to understand Scripture correctly.
Franke asserts further that Scripture is theology's "norming norm." By this Franke means that "our final authority is the Spirit speaking in and through Scripture" resulting in the situation whereby "Christian belief and practice cannot be determined by appeal to either the exegesis of Scripture carried out apart from the life of the believer and the believing community or to any 'word from the Spirit' that stands in contradiction to biblical exegesis."22 An appropriate doctrine of Scripture cannot be that which "collapses
finitude of knowledge, and the "community-specific" nature of expressions of truth all seem to fit better with the best of the Christian tradition.
20Franke, Character of Theology, 11.
21Franke, Character of Theology, 77. Further, Franke states that on this understanding, Scripture is approached "with an understanding of the infinite wisdom and majesty of God, the limitations of our finite and fallen nature, the economy of God in revelation, and an awareness of our complete and ongoing epistemic dependence on God for knowledge of God."
Franke, Character of Theology, 131. 215
the Spirit into the text and allows human beings to move from a position of epistemic
dependency with respect to the knowledge of God to one of mastery."23
Franke also states that because the authority of Scripture is wrapped in the
authority of the Spirit (without collapsing either into the other), the Spirit's ongoing work
of illumination is essential for the Sprit's speaking through the text. While the text is
completely authoritative, the truth understood therein must be appropriated and applied in
various "contemporary settings" in which the Spirit creates "the world" of that particular
community. Without this, the text, in and of itself, has no greater power than any other
text. The Spirit's activity of world creation is essential for the Christian community to be
what it is, according to Franke. Therefore, more than the text itself is needed.24
The relationship between the Spirit, the text, and theological construction is
circular and provisional rather than linear and conclusive. According to Franke, "the task
of theology is not an attempt to identify and codify the true meaning of the text in a series
of systematically arranged assertions."25 If this happens, the "system" can too easily
become the grid through which Scripture is henceforth and forevermore interpreted. This
methodology "hinders the ability to read the text and listen to the Spirit in new ways."26
Franke, Character of Theology, 131-32. Akin to Karl Barth's rejection of natural theology, Franke is allergic to anything in Christianity that could end up putting the fallen, finite human creature in a position of "owning" God's truth. "Epistemic mastery" for Franke seems to be synonymous with idolatry.
24Franke, Character of Theology, 132-33. Franke is not denying the sufficiency of Scripture. He is pointing out the fact that Bible knowledge alone does not a community of faith make. The present ministry of the Holy Spirit remains essential.
25Franke, Character of Theology, 135.
26Franke, Character of Theology, 135. The Spirit speaking in "new ways" deserves further explanation by Franke. It does not seem that Franke anticipates new inspired revelation (i.e. new "Scripture"). Yet, neither is Franke merely affirming the traditional understanding of illumination (i.e. the Spirit's application of the text to one's personal life). Franke seems to be arguing for openness to the Spirit giving fresh interpretations of the text. The inerrantist tradition has long distinguished between inspiration 216
Accurate information about God, which Scripture does provide, is a blessing, but it is not the end result God has for His people. Obedience to Jesus as observed in the text is the ultimate result for the faithful who embrace Scripture as the Word of God.
John Morrison
Morrison believes the problems faced in the doctrine of Scripture today are due to the modern disjunction between the Word of God and Scripture. Morrison believes that, going back to Spinoza, the rejection of the "identity thesis," that Scripture is God's Word, has been at the root of the current inadequate doctrine of Scripture which prevails in most
Christian communities.27 Specifically, the problems created by the rejection of the identity thesis, for Morrison, include a process-only view of inspiration, a functional-only view of Scripture's authority, and a rejection of biblical inerrancy.28
Morrison's solution to recovering an appropriate identity thesis, interestingly, is what he believes to be a more accurate reading of Karl Barth's position on Scripture, as
(something true of Scripture alone) and application (the Spirit's illuminating work in the reader of Scripture); but typical inerrantists want to keep interpretation as objective as possible—proffering a scientific exegetical methodology. Here, Franke seems to argue for openness to more subjectivity in the understanding of Scripture's meaning, not just its application.
27Morrison describes the central problem as follows: "From Spinoza through Semler and Gabler (with Descartes, Newton, and Kant), the 'mainstream' of Western theology has been caught in an 'upper story'/ 'lower story' mentality. From Friedrich Schleiermacher and Albrecht Ritschl through Rudolf Bultmann and Paul Tillich, even to theologically applied elements of contemporary deconstruction and the larger postmodernism, the same basic dualistic disjunction of a 'transcendentalized,' ahistorical, noncontenful Word of God—a Platonic ideal—from all participation in history and the particular 'textuality of the text' of Holy Scripture (intended as emphatic, not redundant) has plagued modern theology with a core incoherence which, in principle, threatens not only the incarnation but all interactive God-world- human salvific relatedness (via creation and gracious redemption)." Morrison, Hath God Said?, 29.
28For Morrison, the key to retaining his inerrantist position is predicated on the truth of the identity thesis (that Scripture is the Word of God). Verbal-plenary inspiration, cognitive and functional authority, and full inerrancy are logically implied affirmations for Morrison if the identity thesis holds. opposed to the majority readings of Barth's view. Leaning heavily on the work of Bruce
McCormack, Morrison argues that for Barth, "Scripture is authoritative because, in terms of what it is, God inspired it once and for all when he raised up the prophets and apostles to speak and write the primary words of testimony." In Barth's view, says Morrison,
Scripture's authority is not "locked up in human subjectivity," for the work of the Spirit in inspiration renders Scripture as ontologically the Word of God. States Morrison,
"Scripture's 'becoming' the written Word of God to one now by the Spirit is grounded first in its 'being' the past inspired Word of God."
For Morrison, the significance of Barth's position is paramount because in current postmodern evangelical works on Scripture, the Barthian position is where everyone seems to be heading. Hence, by offering a more "accurate" reading of Barth, and thereby pulling Barth over to the inerrantist side, Morrison labels the likes of Bloesch, Fackre, and Work as "Barthian pretenders" who claim to be making progress in the doctrine of
Scripture by giving up on the identity thesis but who, in reality, have not only deviated
Morrison, Hath God Said?, 157. See Bruce McCormack, "The Being of Holy Scripture is in Becoming: Karl Barth in Conversation with American Evangelical Criticism" in Evangelicals and Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, ed. by Vincent Bacote, Laura C. Miguelez, and Dennis L. Okholm (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 55-75. It is unclear whether McCormack would agree with this particular reading of himself and Barth on this matter; however, McCormack is the one Barth scholar who comes closest to arguing that Barth would have affirmed the identity thesis of Scripture.
30Morrison, Hath God Said?, 157. Morrison takes Barth's more provocative statements about Scripture becoming God's Word as referring to Scripture's salvific efficaciousness, not its ontological status. Morrison states further, "Karl Barth's own dynamic, multileveled, interactive view of Holy Scripture, in relation to the Word of God, is grounded in his theological ontology whereby Scripture is the written Word of God so that it may 'become' God's Word to this or that reader in the power of the Spirit. This position on Scripture is to be distinguished from the often truncated 'Barthian' interpretation, and use of Barth's own view, whereby Scripture is regarded as only a human text, which by the Spirit of God can 'become' that which it is not, Word of God, in the moment of encounter' with the risen Christ." (167) 218 from the orthodox position but have at the same time misread their primary historical support for their position.31
This reading is important for Morrison because he believes Barth offers the most promising perspective for the way forward in an evangelical doctrine of Scripture. While
Barth "did clearly and rightly distinguish (but not separate) the incarnate Word from the textual Word," he "did not finally separate 'Word of God' from Scripture."32 This resonates with the concern to allow for the supremacy and priority of the Living Word,
Jesus Christ.
Therefore, according to Morrison, because, for Barth, Scripture's becoming is in its being (rather than its being is in becoming), Barth ultimately affirms the identity thesis. In places where Barth seems to clearly reject the identity thesis, and particularly the notions of verbal-plenary inspiration and inerrancy, Morrison states that we must understand these as Barth giving attention to the existential becoming of God's Word that is necessary for those who ultimately hear the Word in faith. We need not adopt a
Platonic fear that anything human (like the written text) must ultimately be less than the
Word of God. We can delight in the humanity and historicity of the text "as the way the transcendent, triune God has actively, economically and directionally taken to make
3'This is a bold tactic employed by Morrison who seeks to confront evangelicals who have left the identity thesis position for the supposedly greener pastures of Barthian bibliology. The question remains, however, has Morrison understood Barth correctly? Much of the validity of his argument hinges on this question.
32Morrison, Hath God Said? 180.
"Morrison, Hath God Said? 181. Morrison summarizes, "Indeed, despite all philosophical, philological, epistemological and cultural-theological pressures to reject so-called pre-modern, historical 'orthodox' conclusions, Karl Barth still finally asserted that Holy Scripture is the written Word of God, which, by the Spirit, can 'become' the Word of God, the Word of God's redemptive truth, and grace in Jesus Christ, to the one who hears in faith." himself redemptively known to space-time existing persons." Notions of verbal-plenary
inspiration and inerrancy are true because God has so involved himself in the production
of the text. Because "God hath said," the identity thesis stands, and all theological
implications concomitant with this thesis hold as well, including inerrancy.
Peter Enns
Enns states that while it is necessary to maintain that "the Bible is ultimately from
God and that it is God's gift to the church", there is also a need to find "better ways to
account for some of the data, while at the same time having a vibrant, positive view of
Scripture as God's word." It is right to confess Scripture to be inspired of God and a
product of divine providence, but in many instances the "behavior" of Scripture presents
problems for the traditional evangelical doctrine of Scripture.
Enns's suggestion is that Scripture be viewed along the lines of an incarnational
analogy: just as Jesus is both divine and human, so too is Scripture. It "belonged in the
ancient worlds that produced it" and thus the "encultured qualities of the Bible, therefore
are not extra elements that we can discard to get to the real point, the timeless truths."37
One must not simply explain away the "human marks" from Scripture or, worse, ignore
34Morrison, Hath God Said? 223.
35Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 15.
36 This notion of the "behavior" of the text, as employed by Enns, is ambiguous at times, but the point is significant. In short, sometimes the Bible does not "look like" what many believe an inspired, inerrant text should look like. For Enns, many inerrantists expect the text to never present differing accounts of the same stories, never reflect a style at home with an ancient culture, or never "borrow" from other sources. Enns's book, then, is a call for evangelical authenticity in dealing with the real, human qualities of Scripture.
Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 17-18. them altogether. A high view of Scripture can be maintained (in terms of remaining solidly committed to inspiration and inerrancy) along with the recognition that Scripture will often "behave" like a text of the ancient world would be expected to "behave." Enns maintains that an incarnational approach to Scripture helps one "see that the Bible's
'situatedness' is not a lamentable or embarrassing situation, but a positive one ... When
God reveals himself, he always does so to people, which means that he must speak and
-50 act in ways that they will understand." That God does this, then, should result in thanksgiving and praise rather than in anxiety about what may happen to timeless views of inspiration and inerrancy.
After moving through several specific examples in which Scripture behaves rather humanly, Enns offers a modest proposal concerning how evangelicals should view
Scripture in a more honest, yet still God-honoring way. He states that all should maintain the humility necessary to realize that even God's revelation in Scripture, while accommodating the understanding of finite human beings, will still never be fully understood.39 Hence, even the fundamental confession that the Bible is God's Word has a provisional quality to it. Enns states further that "By faith, the church confesses that the
Bible is God's word. It is up to Christians of each generation, however, to work out what that means and what words work best to describe it."40 Even descriptors such as
"inerrancy" can only rightly be asserted within a genuine realization of the provisional nature of all human theological construction. Enns concludes, "We trust the Bible ...
Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 20.
39Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 168.
Tinns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 168. 221
because we believe, by the gift of faith, in the one who gave Scripture to us. We are to
place our trust in God who gave us Scripture, not in our own conceptions of how
Scripture ought to be."41 To finally place one's trust in a particular understanding of
Scripture, and to fail to place one's trust in the God who authored Scripture, is idolatry.
Framing an Emerging Evangelical Consensus
From the aforementioned statements, one can note some points of an emerging
evangelical consensus on Scripture. First, these authors affirm that the postmodern
critique of modernist epistemology is to a very great extent valid.42 Because of this,
discussions of inerrancy and biblical authority must take into account that God's absolute
truth will never be comprehended fully by finite human beings. The inerrantist position in
a postmodern context will be marked by intentional humility rather than the pride of
epistemic mastery.
Second, these authors articulate a greater willingness to recognize and even
embrace the human elements of the text. Because all truth claims, even revelatory ones,
come in contextualized form, the inerrantist need not fear an exploration of these
contexts. An inerrantist commitment must not engender a docetic approach to the text that seeks to minimize the real human authorship of Scripture.
41Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 169.
42 The works of Vanhoozer and Franke offer a significant amount of reflection on this issue. In general terms, Franke accepts more completely the postmodern critique than does Vanhoozer, but both explicitly recognize that many modernistic assumptions must be abandoned by responsible theologians. Morrison, on the other hand, focuses largely on criticizing modernity and postmodernity alike, rather than offering reflection on the validity of the postmodern critique of modernity. The proposal offered by Enns does not touch on this theme in any substantial way, for it is not Enns's purpose to do so. 222
Third, these authors agree that the characteristic of inerrancy has as much or more
to do with God than a specific quality of the text, which is why the modernist discussions
and debates over inerrancy are not as prominent in a postmodern context. When inerrancy
is a statement relating more to the nature of the God who breathes the text than a
statement about the potential for the text becoming epistemically foundational, inerrancy
is more properly located in larger doctrinal structures.
Fourth, what appears to be the prominent concern in these recent proposals is the
Holy Spirit's involvement with the text. Herein, inerrancy is not to be the focal point of
discussion, as attention is turned to reflections on Scripture's authority for the life of the
believing community and the relationship between the text and the Spirit. While there
will always be concerns about the factual truthfulness of the biblical record, the emphasis
is placed on the encounter between the Spirit and the reader of Scripture through the text.
Less attention is given to the ontological or epistemological "status" of the text.
The Emerging Consensus and the Inerrantist Tradition
As the emerging evangelical consensus is placed in dialogue with the inerrantist
adherents discussed in previous chapters, one can see points of continuity and
discontinuity between today's proposals and the earlier inerrantist representatives. First,
concerning the need for humility, the best expressions of the inerrantist tradition have
always stated that inerrancy applies to the text because the text is from God. Inerrancy is not to be applied to one's interpretation of the text, even if it seems to be supported by the
43Vanhoozer and Franke argue that while in one sense, the doctrine of Scripture will always be prolegomenal material, ultimately the doctrine of Scripture more properly comes after the doctrine of God. text. The earlier inerrantists do not dwell on this issue, however, and because of their
modernistic methodology, it seems that intentional humility is, at times, lacking.
However, it has been noted that Warfield was open to restatements of inerrancy later in
his career.44 Machen's raison d'etre for inerrancy was grounded in the need to preserve
the integrity of the gospel, not to construct an epistemic fortress. At times, Henry's
polemical and apologetic agendas result in a portrayal of robust confidence, but even he
understood the provisional nature of human theological construction.45 Thus, on the point
of intentional humility, the earlier inerrantists stand in continuity with the emerging
evangelical consensus.
However, a clear point of discontinuity between the earlier inerrantists and the
emerging consensus is the current authors' partial acceptance of postmodernism's
critique of modernist epistemology. For the Old Princeton theologians, this issue was non-existent. Modern epistemology was the context in which they worked, and they
adopted it for their own theological methodology. Even for Henry, the postmodern challenge to modernistic epistemology was barely beginning to make its way into evangelical thought. Yet in at least two instances, Henry did address postmodernism,46 and he is critical of it. However, in his critique of postmodernism, Henry also criticizes
While restatements as such do not demonstrate humility, Warfield clearly moved from arguing inerrancy for primarily epistemic reasons to arguing inerrancy within a larger Christological context. This would influence Machen's own articulation of the inerrantist position.
45Henry, GRA, 1,15. "Even a theologian who wrestles the case for Christian theism in the context of ultimate truth must on mat very account remain acutely aware of his own finitude and faults."
46Carl F. H. Henry, "Postmodernism: The New Spectre?" in The Challenge of Postmodernism: An Evangelical Engagement, ed. David S. Dockery (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1995), 34-52. modernity and asserts that the only possibility for real theological understanding lies in
the certainty of God's revelation.47
Second, concerning the need to recognize human elements of the text, the former
representatives of the inerrantist tradition would stand in continuity with the current
proposals.48 Hodge and Warfield held high views of science, and even interpreted the
account of creation from a theistic-evolutionary standpoint, based on the human features
of the text. They did not try to explain away what they saw as a clear use of an Ancient
Near Eastern technique in Moses's account of creation. Machen was open to the
contributions of textual criticism. While he rejected the perceived anti-Christian
presuppositions beneath the discipline, Machen did not fear the conclusions proffered by
the critical approach.49 He was confident that the evidence would confirm the inerrantist
stance. Henry takes a decidedly negative stance toward pursuing the human elements of
the text, but this is largely due to his own purposes in defending the "divine"
characteristics of Scripture. Henry never expresses the view that the human elements of
the text should be suppressed. Like Machen, he believed that the evidence produced by
biblical criticism would ultimately affirm an inerrantist position.
Third, concerning the location of inerrancy in the doctrine of God and His
revelation, the earlier inerrantists would agree that what is said of Scripture is predicated
47 Henry, "Postmodernism: The New Spectre?" 48-51. In sum, Henry states, "The collapse of modernity and the instability of postmodernity are a call to reach temporally behind them both to probe again the superiority of the Great Tradition." (50).
48For more on the Old Princeton School's willingness to engage biblical-critical issues, see Marion Taylor, The Old Testament in the Old Princeton School (1812-1929) (Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1992).
49For specifics on Mache's willingness to engage biblical criticism, see D. G. Hart, "When is a Fundamentalist a Modernist?: J. Gresham Machen, Cultural Modernism, and Conservative Protestantism," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 65:3 (1997), 605-633. 225 on what is confessed concerning God. This is not eminently clear, as both Hodge and
Henry treat the doctrine of Scripture prior to the doctrine of God in their systematic works. However, within their constructions, the ground for inerrancy is either the work of
God in inspiration (Hodge) or the authority of God as the giver of revelation (Henry).50
Warfield emphasizes the trustworthiness of God as that which justifies taking Scripture's words as completely true. Machen articulates his understanding of inerrancy and its importance in the contexts of Christology and Soteriology. On this point, there does seem to be continuity between the earlier inerrantists and the current proposals, even though today's contributors reflect more fully on this theme in their works.
Fourth, concerning the emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in and with the text, the earlier inerrantists would agree that there should be attention given to the
Word/Spirit relationship. Hodge affirms the necessity of seeing Word and Spirit together, along the lines of John Calvin's teaching.51 Warfield and Machen do not ignore the role of the Spirit, but it was not an emphasis in their work, due to the fact that they articulated their understandings of Scripture in polemical contexts and not in the course of fuller systematic-theological reflection. Henry explicitly credits Barth for helping evangelicals
50Further with Henry, the ordering of his "characteristics" of Scripture is crucial. By having the order "authority", "inspiration", and then "inerrancy", there is a clear intention to give greater weight to those characteristics of Scripture that flow more directly from the doctrine of God. This is why the so- called "recasting" of inerrancy in Henry is significant. In spite of his rationalistic theological methodology, Henry anticipated the need to have the doctrine of Scripture closely intertwined with the doctrine of God.
5'See Jean Calvin, Institutes, 1.6-9 for an understanding of the necessity of the Spirit in and with the Word. What often occurs in today's discussion of the Word/Spirit relationship is that the emphasis falls either on the propositional nature of revelation (Word) or on the more subjective appropriation of revelation to the individual and the community (Spirit). Rather than taking John Calvin's helpful balance between the two, there is a tendency to choose one or the other. On one hand, some retreat to an emphasis on the Word to preserve the character of Scripture, while ignoring the necessity of the role of the Spirit. On the other hand, some place all emphasis on the present-day work of the Spirit vis-a-vis the text of Scripture, to the extent that notions of verbal inspiration and inerrancy are seen as hindrances to a "spirit-filled" doctrine of Scripture. 226 see their need to give this issue renewed attention. Of course, Henry does not accept
Barth's proposals, but he affirms the need for renewed attention to this area.52
However, while there is clear continuity in the recognition of the importance of the Word/Spirit relationship, one does not see the Word/Spirit relationship treated extensively in the earlier inerrantists. In particular, Henry's treatment of this issue is puzzling. While he recognizes needed attention to this issue, the perceived need to emphasize the importance of the priority of the written Word overwhelms the good intensions he has with regard to the work of the Spirit.53 Because the attention to the Sprit has been lacking in the earlier inerrantists, the intentional emphasis in the current proposals indicates a point of discontinuity.
What Then of Inerrancy?
While there are several points of continuity between earlier inerrantists and recent proposals on Scripture, the two main points of discontinuity are noteworthy. These points of discontinuity are (1) an acceptance (in part) of postmodernism's critique of modernist epistemology and (2) a renewed emphasis on the role of the Spirit working in and with the text. These unique features seem to resonate more with Barth's view of Scripture than the traditional inerrantist position espoused by Carl Henry and the Old Princeton School.
^Kenry,GRA, 4, 256-271.
53This is precisely due to the fact that Barth did raise the issue effectively, and his proposals concerning the issue were convincing for many evangelicals. Because Henry has significant disagreements with Barth concerning Scripture and its status, he constantly reverts to an almost exclusive focus on the Word, even when he gives attention to the role of the Spirit. Henry finds himself limited by his polemical agenda against Barth. Franke clearly expresses appreciation for Barth's contribution, as does Vanhoozer.
Further, as has been noted, Morrison seeks to re-conceive Barth's position in such a way that the "identity thesis" of Scripture and the Word of God is affirmed, with inerrancy as an acceptable byproduct. Thus, while not espousing the Barthian position on Scripture fully, the emerging evangelical consensus on Scripture does indicate a move in a Barthian direction.
In light of this, the question arises as to whether the inerrantist position is necessary or even valid in the current postmodern context. While no one surveyed above seeks to dispense with a high view of biblical authority and while they are not arguing for an explicit affirmation of biblical errancy, their proposals lead one to call into question the profitability of a continued insistence on inerrancy. If modernist epistemology is perceived to be no longer tenable, and if the role of the Spirit in and with the text is more essential to the doctrine of Scripture than Scripture's ontological status, perhaps the inerrantist tradition has served its purpose and reached its end.
Some within traditional evangelicalism seem to be ready to move away from notions of biblical inerrancy and explore other ways of stating a high view of biblical authority.55 Those taking this option will likely continue in a Barthian direction, articulating a relational doctrine of Scripture over a propositional one. For them, the inerrantist tradition no longer serves a necessary purpose. On the other hand, there are those who believe that the inerrantist tradition offers something essential for maintaining
54See Franke, Character of Theology, 76-77 and Vanhoozer, Drama of Doctrine, 65-66.
55Kenton L. Sparks, God's Word in Human Words (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008). Sparks seeks to retain inerrancy as a characteristic of God as Scripture's author but to dispense with inerrancy as something characteristic of the product of the human authors. For Sparks, the Bible is inerrant as given by God, but it does contain human errors. Inerrancy, as it has been articulated by the inerrantist tradition, is no longer necessary or tenable for Sparks. See especially pp. 138-39. 228 particular aspects of sound doctrine.56 Those taking this option will, in accordance with their living tradition, continue to argue for the "goods" of their tradition and present them as points worth preserving for the larger Christian community. These points worth preserving are summarized below as an argument for why the inerrantist tradition continues to make a valid contribution to Christian theology.
First, the inerrantist tradition insists on a correct understanding of theopneustos as
"God-breathed" rather than "inspired." This understanding does not merely set one of the bases for the inerrantist position. It addresses a significant question in Christian theology, the question of Scripture's status. Warfield was among the first to note the significant difference between God "breathing out" the text and God "breathing into" the text. The former places God in direct, causal relationship to the very words of Scripture, whereas the latter is often seen as God working in and through an already existent human book.
Inerrantists believe that God has superintended every word of the text, while the text retains its characteristics of human authorship and style. The discourse of inerrancy is essential for maintaining careful attention to an important term dealing with the nature of
Scripture.
Second, the inerrantist tradition affirms that inerrancy is more reasonably implied from a "God-breathed" view of inspiration than is errancy. This concern is not simply a modern, rationalistic commitment to the superiority of logical reasoning. It is a call to reasoned consistency within one's own theological construction. If one maintains that
Scripture's status is not God-breathed but is in fact something God "breathes into," then
G. K. Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), especially pp. 19-21,267-79. See also Stephen J. Nichols & Eric T. Brandt, Ancient Word, Changing Worlds: The Doctrine of Scripture in a Modern Age (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009). 229
inerrancy may not be the natural, logical implication. However, if one accepts the notion
that Scripture's status is that of being God-breathed, inerrancy is the more reasonable
implication than errancy. Henry in particular maintains that the probability of inerrancy
outweighs that of errancy if one sees a direct relationship between God and the words of
the text as such. Henry's challenge to non-inerrantists to think through the implications of
their understanding of biblical inspiration is a contribution to the ongoing refinement of
Christian theology.
Third, the inerrantist tradition has consistently argued that the best approach to
Scripture's description of historical events is to accept the historicity of these events.
Machen's primary reason for upholding an inerrantist commitment was that sinners must
believe that Jesus Christ did indeed die for their sins and rise again from the dead. For
Machen, this belief is essential to the gospel. While Machen understood that full biblical
inerrancy is not absolutely necessary for one to confess the historicity of the events
surrounding Jesus Christ, he believed that it has been the inerrantist tradition that has
consistently placed this issue in a place of prominence in Christian theology. Of course,
the better expressions of the inerrantist position have not insisted that one base one's
Christian faith on the empirical evidence that may confirm the historicity of biblical
events. Believing Jesus arose from the grave is an act of faith. However, the discourse of
inerrancy does insist that this act of faith is essential to the very acceptance of the gospel.
Fourth, the inerrantist tradition purports that attention must be given to the
cognitive-propositional statements in Scripture. While Hodge's reduction of the Bible to
a "storehouse of facts" is an example of inerrantist commitments carried too far, the arguments of Henry, and even Vanhoozer, that propositional truth is nonetheless a large 230 component of biblical revelation are correct. The language of the inerrantist position calls
Christians to recognize that while much of the biblical revelation is relational, the Bible does teach facts and make truth claims. The propositional truth claims in Scripture need to be engaged purposely and not explained away in favor of notions of encounter or inward experience. While these notions are valid in their own right, they are not the totality of an appropriate approach to Scripture.
Of course, not all these theological tenets offered by the inerrantist tradition will be seen as worthwhile. Those outside the inerrantist tradition may claim that these tenets, if worthwhile, can be found elsewhere. To be sure, the inerrantist position is not without its difficulties. It does seem to engender a rationalistic approach to the text, at times over emphasizing the propositional statements of Scripture to the detriment of personal revelation, resulting in an intense focus on Scripture to the negation of an appropriate focus on God Himself.
Yet the inerrantist tradition has, in its better expressions, offered compelling arguments for its most important commitments. As those commitments touch upon essentials of the Christian faith, the inerrantist tradition has and continues to make important contributions to the broader theological conversations taking place in the life of the Church. The inerrantist tradition demands adequate attention to Scripture's statements concerning itself, and it compels its readers toward logically sound conclusions from those biblical statements. The inerrantist tradition insists that Scripture's statements concerning the mighty acts of God in history, particularly those involving the person and work of Jesus Christ, be taken as having actually happened, for the Christian faith is anchored in the belief that God has indeed entered His creation. These reminders to the Church are essential from wherever they may come. Theologians of any tradition, inerrantist or not, would do well to give attention to what is offered from the inerrantist tradition, regardless of whether they ultimately espouse the view itself. CONCLUSION
As this study was introduced, it was noted that the inerrantist position on
Scripture has come under much scrutiny throughout its history. Yet, those holding to the position find themselves as part of a living tradition that seeks to convey its goods to the larger Christian community. In the first chapter, we saw that the Protestant Reformation,
Protestant Scholasticism, and Enlightenment Philosophy all played contributing roles to the inerrantist position. In the Reformation, the move to sola scriptura led to debates over the status and interpretation of Scripture, of an intensity not seen since the time of
Augustine. While Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli did not develop the kind of bibliological edifices of later centuries, they called all Christians to return to the supreme authority of
Scripture for faith and practice in the church. During the Protestant Scholastic period, there arose a need for Protestants to counter the Roman Catholic position concerning ecclesiastical and papal authority. The natural location for such authority would be
Scripture, and the infallibility of the text became the prominent feature of Bibliology.
Turretin stands forth as one of the primary proponents of an early form of the inerrantist position. Finally, in the Enlightenment, questions surfaced concerning the historicity of the events recounted in Scripture. Those wishing to affirm the historical facticity of
Scripture insisted on the inerrantist position. In so doing, they elevated Scriptural teaching to the level of scientific, empirical certainty.
232 233
In the second chapter, the analysis turned to the doctrine of Scripture in the Old
Princeton School, which more than any other "school" held fast to the inerrantist position against the onslaughts of theological liberalism. Charles Hodge emphasized the propositional nature of the Scripture's content, claiming the Bible to be a storehouse of facts. With this foundation in hand, Hodge produced a doctrine of Scripture beginning with verbal-plenary inspiration and inerrancy as characteristics of the text. From this, he sought to prove all theological doctrine from propositional truth in Scripture. Building on
Hodge's work, yet working in his own context, B. B. Warfield continued the Princetonian tradition of a strong affirmation of Scripture's inerrancy. Along with A. A. Hodge,
Warfield helped erect the criteria for proving error in Scripture, criteria that rendered inerrancy non-falsifiable. Yet later in his career, Warfield more explicitly placed the authority and general trustworthiness of Scripture ahead of the explicit biblical teaching on inspiration and, implicitly, inerrancy.
In the third chapter, we considred the contribution of J. Gresham Machen to the inerrantist position. While Machen did not develop a full doctrine of Scripture in the same vein as Warfield, Machen's ongoing struggle with the theological liberals of his day offered him ample opportunity to comment on important characteristics of Scripture necessary for preserving orthodox doctrine. For Machen, inerrancy was an important feature of the text because Scripture's historicity was vital to assurance of one's salvation. If the events surrounding the person and work of Jesus Christ were false as represented in Scripture, there would be no hope for reconciliation with God. Hence,
Machen's understanding of inerrancy was recast in the larger contexts of Christology and
Soteriology respectively. In the fourth chapter, attention turned to Carl Henry's doctrine of Scripture and his inerrantist position. We argued that while Henry clearly built his own theological understanding on the shoulders of those coming before him—in particular Warfield and
Machen from the Old Princeton School—Henry also offered a further recasting of inerrancy. In Henry's recasting of the inerrantist position, he followed the lead of
Warfield by highlighting Scripture's authority as the first thing to be said. Only then, based on Scripture's authority as Christologically given, may one turn to Scripture itself to find what claims are made concerning the nature of the text. From this, Henry described his position on inspiration and inerrancy, noting that while inspiration was explicitly taught in the text, inerrancy itself is more of a necessary implication that demonstrates theological consistency. While Henry fought tenaciously for the inerrantist position, he refused to build an entire theological superstructure on this one tenet of his doctrine of Scripture. In fact, as was noted in an analysis of some of Henry's personal correspondences, Henry was unwilling to allow the debates over inerrancy to divide the evangelical unity that had flourished during the middle years of the twentieth century.
Henry sought to place inerrancy appropriately in the hierarchy of theological truths, predicating it on the doctrine of God and Scripture's own authority and inspiration.
In the fifth chapter, we surveyed the current landscape of theological contributions to the doctrine of Scripture, demonstrating that inerrantist concerns are being addressed by those within and without the inerrantist tradition. In particular, there seems to be yet another recasting of the inerrantist position in current proposals that seeks to properly articulate inerrantist concerns in a postmodern context. As this has been and is being done, questions of viability and necessity are being raised concerning the inerrantist position. The debate rages even now within evangelicalism as some are ready to leave inerrancy behind and move on to more relevant matters. Others, however, insist that traditional inerrantist commitments ought to be maintained in order to preserve essential commitments and approaches to Scripture.
While critics will continue to argue that inerrancy is a theological aberration, inerrantists themselves believe they can adhere to this position without usurping God's authority, subordinating Jesus Christ's authority, or quenching the Spirit's authority.
Those inerrantists who are willing to concede that much of modernity's epistemological optimism is more myth than reality are in a position to carry the inerrantist position forward. As they do, they must wrestle with the larger theological issue of the Holy
Spirit's relationship to the written Word, forging a means to bring together personal and propositional revelation in a way that does justice to both. Apart from such synthetic work, inerrancy will quickly become but a footnote to the history of theology. By contrast, engaging this task will show the continued fruitfulness of inerrancy for reflecting on Scripture as a testimony to the one God, supremely revealed in His Son
Jesus Christ, and present in the power of the Holy Spirit. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics Vols. 1/1 and 1/2. Translated by G. W. Bromiley and edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. 2nd ed. 1975. Reprint, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999.
. The Word of God and the Word of Man. New York: Harper, 1957.
Barth, Karl, et al. Barmen Declaration, www.creeds.net/reformed/barmen.htm (accessed November 14, 2008).
Bengel, Johann Albrecht. New Testament Word Studies. 2 vols. Translated by Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent. Grand Rapids: Kergel Publications, 1971.
Briggs, Charles Augustus. Whither?: A Theological Question for the Times. New York: Charles Scribnefs Sons, 1889.
Calvin, Jean. Calvin: Commentaries. Library of Christian Classics 23, translated and edited by Joseph Haroutunian and Louise Pettibone Smith. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1958.
. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics 20-21, translated by Ford Lewis Battles and edited by John T. McNeill. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960.
Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries: The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and The First and Second Epistles of St. Peter. Translated by William B. Johnson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Translated by Reverend John Owen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947.
. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966.
De Spinoza, Benedict. The Chief Works of Benedict De Spinoza. Translated by R. H. M. Elwes. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1951.
236 Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.
Franke, John R. The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.
Grenz, Stanley J. and John R. Franke. Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Henry, Carl F. H. "The Authority and Inspiration of the Bible." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary 1, ed. Frank Gaebelein, 3-35. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.
. "The Bible and the Conscience of Our Age." Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 25, no. 4 (1982): 403-407.
. Christian Personal Ethics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.
. Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Great Neck, NY: Channel Press, 1957.
. Confessions of a Theologian: An Autobiography. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986.
. Conversations with Carl Henry: Christianity for Today. Symposium Series 18.
Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1986.
. The Drift of Western Thought. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951.
. "Firm on the Fundamentals." Christianity Today 32, no. 17 (1988): 19.
. "Fortunes of the Christian World View." Trinity Journal 19, no. 2 (1988): 163
176.
. Frontiers in Modern Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.
. God, Revelation, and Authority. 6 vols. 1976-1982. Reprint, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999. . "Narrative Theology: An Evangelical Appraisal." Trinity Journal 8, no. 1 (1987): 3-19. . "The Nature of God." In Christian Faith and Modern Theology, ed. Carl F. H. Henry, 69-93. New York: Channel Press, 1964. . "Postmodernism: The New Spectre?" In The Challenge of Postmodernism: An Evangelical Engagement, ed. David S. Dockery, 34-52. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1995. . "The Priority of Divine Revelation: A Review Article." Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 21, no. 1 (1984): 77-92.
. Remaking the Modern Mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948.
. "Revelation and Inspiration - Modern Problems." Unpublished Lecture, 1953, Carl F. H Henry Archive. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois. . "Special Revelation as Truth and Event." Unpublished Lecture, 1953, Carl F. H.
Henry Archive. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois.
. Toward a Recovery of Christian Belief. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990.
. The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. . "Who Are the Evangelicals?" In Evangelical Affirmations, ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Carl F. H. Henry, 69-93. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.
Henry, Carl F. H., ed. Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958.
Hodge, Archibald Alexander. The Confession of Faith: A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding the Westminster Confession. 1869. Reprint, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1961.
. The Life of Charles Hodge. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1880.
. Outlines of Theology. 2nd ed. 1880. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949.
Hodge, Archibald Alexander and B. B. Warfield. "Inspiration." Presbyterian Review 2, no. 6 (April, 1881): 225-261.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. 1871. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001.
Luther, Martin. Luther's Works. 54 vols., edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1958-1967.
. On the Bondage of the Will. In Luther: Early Theological Works. Library of Christian Classics 17, ed. Philip S. Watson. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969.
. Works of Martin Luther: With Introduction and Notes. 6 vols. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company and General Council Publication Board, 1915-1932. 239
Machen, J. Gresham. "The Attack on Princeton Seminary: A Plea for Fair Play." In J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writings, ed. D. G. Hart, 310-331. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2004.
. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1923.
. The Christian Faith in the Modern World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947.
. The Christian View of Man. 1937. Reprint, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965.
. "Faith and Knowledge." Unpublished Lecture, J. Gresham Machen Archive. Westminster Theological Seminary, Glenside, Pennsylvania.
. God Transcendent, ed. Ned Stonehouse. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982.
. "History and Faith." In J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writings, ed. D. G. Hart, 97-108. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2004.
. "The Minister and His Greek New Testament." In J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writings, ed. D. G. Hart, 210-216. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2004.
. "Westminster Theological Seminary: Its Purpose and Plan." In J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writings, ed. D. G. Hart, 187-194. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2004.
. "What Fundamentalism Stands for Now." In J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writings, ed. D. G. Hart, 116-122. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2004.
. "What is Christianity?" In J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writings, ed. D. G. Hart, 91-96. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2004.
. "What the Bible Teaches About Jesus." In J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writings, ed. D. G. Hart, 23-32. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2004.
. What is Faith? 1925. Reprint, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991.
. "The Witness of Paul." In J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writings, ed. D. G. Hart, 33-44. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2004. 240
Melanchthon, Philip. Loci Communes Theologici. In Melanchthon and Bucer. Library of Christian Classics 19, trans, and ed. Wilhelm Pauck. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969.
Morrison, John. Has God Said?: Scripture, The Word of God, and the Crisis of Theological Authority. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2006.
Orr, James. Revelation and Inspiration. 1910. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.
Turretin, Francis. Institutes ofElenctic Theology. 3 vols., Translated by George Geiger and Edited by James T. Dennison, Jr. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992- 1994.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.
. First Theology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
Warfield, Benjamin B. "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration." In The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 131-166. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948.
. "The Biblical Idea of Revelation." In The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 71-102. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948.
. "The Church Doctrine of Inspiration." In The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 105-128. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948.
. "The Deity of Christ." In The Fundamentals, 4 vols., ed. A. C. Dixon, L. Meyer and R. A. Torrey,. 1910-1915. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970.
. "God-Inspired Scripture." In The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 245-296. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948.
. "The Inerrancy of the Original Autographs." In Benjamin B. Warfield: Selected Shorter Writings. Vol. 2, ed. John E. Meeter, 580-587. 1973. Reprint, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2001.
. "Inspiration and Criticism." In The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 419-442. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948. 241
. " 'It Says:' 'Scripture Says:' 'God Says'." In The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 299-348. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948.
. "The Oracles of God." In The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 351-407. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948.
. "The Real Problem of Inspiration." In The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 169-226. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948.
. The Right of Systematic Theology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1897.
. "The Task and Method of Systematic Theology" In Studies in Theology, ed. John E. Meeter, 91-108. New York: Oxford University Press, 1932.
. "The Westminster Doctrine of Holy Scripture" In The Westminster Assembly and Its Work, ed. John E. Meeter, 155-260. New York: Oxford University Press, 1931.
. The Works of Benjamin Warfield. 10 vols., ed. E. D. Warfield, W. P. Armstrong, and C. W. Hodge. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003.
Zwingli, Ulrich. On the Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God. In Zwingli and Bullinger. Library of Christian Classics 24, trans and ed. G. W. Bromiley. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953. 242
Secondary Sources
Abraham, William J. The Divine Inspiration of Holy Scripture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.
Achtemeier, Paul J. The Inspiration of Scripture: Problems and Proposals. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980.
Ahlstrom, Sydney. "The Scottish Philosophy and American Theology." Church History 24 (1955): 257-272.
Alexander, James W. The Life of Archibald Alexander, D. D. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1854.
Aquinas, Thomas. Aquinas on Nature and Grace: Selections from the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. Translated by A. M. Fairweather. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954.
Ammerman, Nancy Tatom. Bible Believers: Fundamentalists in the Modern World. London: Rutgers University Press, 1987.
Balmer, Randal. "The Princetonians and Scripture: A Reconsideration." Westminster TheologicalJournal 44 (1982): 352-365.
Barr, James. Escaping from Fundamentalism. London: SCM Press, 1984.
. Fundamentalism. London: SCM Press, 1981.
. The Scope and Authority of the Bible. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1980.
Bartkowski, John P. "Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Conservative Protestants and the Hermeneutic Interpretation of Scripture." Sociology of Religion 57, no. 3 (1996): 259-272.
Beale, David O. In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850. Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications, 1986.
Beale, G. K. The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.
Beegle, Dewey M. Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.
Berkouwer, G. C. Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965. 243
Bloesch, Donald. Essentials of Evangelical Theology. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979.
. "The Sword of the Spirit: The Meaning of Inspiration." Reformed Review 33 (1980): 65-72.
Boice, James Montgomery, ed. The Foundations of Biblical Authority. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.
Boone, Kathleen C. The Bible Tells Them So: The Discourse of Protestantism Fundamentalism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989.
Brown, William P., ed. Engaging Biblical Authority: Perspectives on the Bible as Scripture. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007.
Buchan, Thomas. "Inerrancy as Inheritance?" In Evangelicals and Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, ed. Vincent Bacote, Laura C. Miguelez, and Dennis L. Okholm, 42-54. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Bush, L. Russ. "The Roots of Conservative Perspectives on Inerrancy (Warfield)" In The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy 1987,273-288. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1987.
Carnell, Edward J. The Case for Orthodox Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.
Carpenter, Joel. Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Carpenter, Joel, ed. God Hath Spoken: Twenty-five Addresses delivered at the World Conference on Christian Fundamentals, May 25-June 1, 1919. 1919. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Carson, D. A. and John D. Woodbridge, ed. God and Culture: Essays in Honor of Carl F. H Henry. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
. Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon. Grand Rapids: Academie Books,
1986.
. Scripture and Truth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.
Clark, Gordon. A Christian View of Men and Things. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.
. Historiography: Secular and Religious. Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1971. 244
. Karl Barth 's Theological Method. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963.
Coker, Joe L. "Exploring the Roots of the Dispensationist/Princetonian 'Alliance': Charles Hadge and John Nelson Darby on Eschatology and Interpretation of Scripture." Fides et Historia 30 (1998): 41-56.
Conn, Harvie, ed. Inerrancy and Hermeneutic: A Tradition, A Challenge, A Debate. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988.
Davis, D. Clair. "Inerrancy and Westminster Calvinism" In Inerrancy and Hermeneutic: A Tradition, a Challenge, a Debate, ed. Harvie M. Conn, 35-46. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.
. "Princeton and Inerrancy: The Nineteenth-Century Philosophical Background of Contemporary Concerns" In Inerrancy and the Church, ed. John D. Hannah, 359- 378. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.
Davis, Stephen T. The Debate About the Bible: Inerrancy Versus Infallibility. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977.
Delivuk, John Allen. "Inerrancy, Infallibility, and Scripture in the Westminster Confession of Faith." Westminster TheologicalJournal 54, no. 2 (1992): 349-355.
Dixon, A. C, L. Meyer and R. A. Torrey, ed. The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. 4 vols. 1910-1915. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970.
Dodd, C. H. The Authority of the Bible. London: Nisbet & Co., 1929.
Dockery, David S., ed. The Challenge ofPostmoderism: An Evangelical Engagement. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1995.
. Christian Scripture: An Evangelical Perspective on Inspiration, Authority and Interpretation. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995.
Dorrien, Gary. The Remaking of Evangelical Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.
Dulles, Avery. Models of Revelation. 1983. Reprint, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001.
Dunn, James G. "The Authority of Scripture according to Scripture." Churchman 96, no. 3 (1982): 201-225.
Edwards, Brian. Nothing but the Truth: The Inspiration, Authority and History of the Bible Explained. Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2006. 245
Ellingsen, Mark. The Evangelical Moment. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988.
Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005.
. The Evangelical Left. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997.
Erickson, Millard J., Paul Kjoss Helseth, and Justin Taylor, ed. Reclaiming the Center: Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004.
Fackre, Gabriel. The Christian Story: A Pastoral Systematics. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Falwell, Jerry, Ed Dobson and Ed Hindson. The Fundamentalist Phenomenon: The Resurgence of Conservative Christianity. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1981.
Feinberg, Paul D. "Bible, Inerrancy and Infallibility of." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 141-145. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.
Frei, Hans W. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.
. Types of Christian Theology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992.
Fuller, Daniel P. "The Nature of Biblical Inerrancy." Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 24, no. 2 (1972): 47-51.
Furniss, Norman F. The Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918-1931. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954.
Geisler, Norman, ed. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.
. Biblical Errancy: An Analysis of Its Philosophical Roots. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.
Gerrish, Brian A. "Biblical Authority and the Continental Reformation." Scottish Journal of Theology 10 (1957): 337-360.
Gerstner, John H. "The Contributions of Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, and J. Gresham Machen to the Doctrine of Inspiration" In Challenges to Inerrancy: A Theological Response, ed. Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, 347-381. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.
Goldingay, John. Models For Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Grenz, Stanley J. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Hannah, John D., ed. Inerrancy and the Church. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.
Harris, Harriet. Fundamentalism and Evangelicals. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
Hart, D. G. Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1994.
. Deconstructing Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.
. "Fundamentalism, Inerrancy, and the Biblical Scholarship of J. Gresham Machen." Journal of Presbyterian History 75, no. 1 (1997): 13-28.
. "J. Gresham Machen, Inerrancy, and Creedless Christianity." Themelios 25, no. 3 (2000): 20-34.
. "A Reconsideration of Biblical Inerrancy and the Princeton Theology's Alliance with Fundamentalism." Christian Scholar's Review 20, no. 4 (1991): 362-375.
. J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writings. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2004.
. That Old-Time Religion in Modern America: Evangelical Protestantism in the Twentieth Century. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2002.
. "When Is a Fundamentalist a Modernist? J. Gresham Machen, Cultural Modernism, and Conservative Protestantism." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 65, no.3 (1997): 605-633.
Hatch, Nathan. The Democratization of American Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
. "Response to Carl F. H. Henry." In Evangelical Affirmations, ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Carl F. H. Henry, 95-102. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.
Hatch, Nathan O. and Mark A. Noll, ed. The Bible in America: Essays in Cultural History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Hicks, Peter. The Philosophy of Charles Hodge: A 19th Century Evangelical Approach to Reason, Knowledge and Truth. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1997. 247
Hoefel, Robert James. "The Doctrine of Inspiration in the Writings of James Orr and B. B. Warfield: A Study in Contrasting Approaches to Scripture." PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1983. In ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=753183931&Fmt=2&clientId=69955&RQ 309&VName=PQD (accessed November 10, 2005).
Hoffecker, W. Andrew. Piety and the Princeton Theologians: Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, and Benjamin Warfield. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1981.
Hunsinger, George. "What Can Evngelicals & Postliberals Learn from Each Other? The Carl Henry-Hans Frei Exchange Reconsidered." In The Nature of Confession, ed. Timothy Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm, 134-150. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsit y Press, 1996.
Hutchison, William R. The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976.
Jensen, Peter. The Revelation of God. Contours of Christian Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
Jones, Kevin Neal. "Revelation and reason in the theology of Carl F. H. Henry, James I. Packer, and Ronald H. Nash." PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1994. In ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=747245271&Fmt=2&clientId=69955&RQT =309&VName=PQD (accessed May 7, 2006).
Kantzer, Kenneth S., ed. Applying the Scriptures: Papers from ICBI Summit III. Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1987.
. "Evangelicals and the Inerrancy Question: The Current Debate." Christianity Today 22 (1978): 16-21.
Karanja, Joseph. Inerrancy and Sovereignty: A Case Study on Carl F. H. Henry. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services, 1990.
Kelsey, David. The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.
. Proving Doctrine: The Uses of Scripture in Modern Theology. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999.
Kharbteng, Boxter. "A Critical Study of Carl F. H. Henry's Portrayal of the Human Role in Revelation and Inspiration." PhD diss., Andrews University, 1997. In ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=740050451&Fmt =2&clientId=69955&RQ=309&VName=PQD&cfc=l (accessed April 17,2006). Kistler, Don, ed. Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible. Morgan, PA: Sola Deo Gloria Publications, 1995.
Kyle, Joseph. "The Word of God - the Foundation of the Fundamentals." In The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. 4 vols., ed. A. C. Dixon, L. Meyer and R. A. Torrey, 65-67. 1917. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003.
Lewis, Gordon and Bruce Demarest, ed. Challenges to Inerrancy: A Theological Response. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.
Lindbeck, George A. The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1984.
Lindsell, Harold. The Battle for the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
. The Bible in the Balance. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.
Maclntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. 2nd ed. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984.
Marsden, George M. "Defining American Fundamentalism." In The Fundamentalist Phenomenon: A View from Within, a Response from Without, ed. Norman J. Cohen, 22-37. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
. "Defining Fundamentalism." Christian Scholar's Review 1, no. 2 (1971): 141 151.
. Evangelicalism and Modern America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.
. "Fundamentalism." In Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience: Studies of Traditions and Movements, ed. Charles H. Lippy and Peter W. Williams, 947-961. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1988.
. Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.
. "Fundamentalism as an American Phenomenon, A Comparison with English Evangelicalism." Church History 46, no. 2 (1977): 215-232.
. "Introduction: The Evangelical Denomination." In Evangelicalism and Modern America, ed. George M. Marsden, vii-xix. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.
. Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. . Religion and American Culture. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1990.
. The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience: A Case Study of Thought and Theology in Nineteenth-Century America. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970.
. Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
. Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Marty, Martin E., ed. Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Modern American Protestantism and Its World 10. New York: K. G. Saur, 1993.
McCormack, Bruce. "The Being of Holy Scripture is in Becoming: Karl Barth in Conversation with American Evangelical Criticism." In Evangelicals and Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, ed. Vincent Bacote, Laura C. Miguelez, and Dennis L. Okholm, 55-75. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
McGowan, A. T. B. The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008.
McKim, Donald K. "Archibald Alexander and the Doctrine of Scripture." Journal of Presbyterian History 54 (1976): 355-375.
. What Christians Believe About the Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985.
McKim, Donald K., ed. The Authoritative Word: Essays on the Nature of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.
McNeill, John T. "The Significance of the Word of God for Calvin." Church History 28(1959): 131-146.
Middleton, J. Richard and Brian J. Walsh. Truth is Stranger Than it Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995.
Miller, Donald G. The Authority of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.
Moore, LeRoy. "Another Look at Fundamentalism: A Response to Ernest R. Sandeen," Church History 37 (1968): 195-202. 250
Montgomery, John Warwick, ed. God's Inerrant Word: An International Symposium on the Trustworthiness of Scripture. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, 1974.
Muller, Richard. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to 1725. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003.
Murphy, Nancey. Anglo-American Postmodernity: Philosophical Perspectives on Science, Religion, and Ethics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997.
. Beyond Liberalism & Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996.
Nichols, Stephen J. and Eric T. Brandt. Ancient Word, Changing Worlds: The Doctrine of Scripture in a Modern Age. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009.
Nicole, Roger. "Charles Hodge's View of Inerrancy." In A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, Inspiration, ed. Roger Nicole, 93-95. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.
. "The Nature of Inerrancy." In Inerrancy and Common Sense, ed. Roger Nicole and J. Ramsey Michaels, 71-95. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.
Nicole, Roger and J. Ramsey Michaels, ed. Inerrancy and Common Sense. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.
Noll, Mark A. Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986.
. "A Brief History of Inerrancy, Mostly in America." In The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy 1987, 9-25. Nashville: Broadman, 1987.
. The Old Religion in a New World: The History of North American Christianity.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
. "Word of God and the Bible: A View from the Reformation." Christian Scholar's Review 8, no. 1 (1978): 25-31. Noll, Mark A., ed. A History of Evangelicalism: People, Movements and Ideas in the English Speaking World, mul. vol. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003-. 251
Noll, Mark A., ed. The Princeton Theology 1812-1921: Scripture, Science, and Theological Method from Archibald Alexander to Benjamin War field. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.
Noll, Mark A., David W. Bebbington, and George A. Rawlyk, ed. Evangelicalism: Comparative Studies of Popular Protestantism in North America, the British Isles, and Beyond, 1700-1990. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Orr, James, ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Chicago: Howard Severance, 1915.
Osborne, Grant. "A Biblical Understanding of Inerrancy." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19 (1976): 73-85.
Packer, J. I. Beyond the Battle for the Bible. Westchester, IL: Cornerstone Books, 1980.
. Fundamentalism and the Word of God: Some Evangelical Principles. London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1958.
."John Calvin and the Inerrancy of Holy Scripture." In Inerrancy and the
Church, ed. John D. Hannah, 143-188. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.
Patterson, Bob E. Carl F. H. Henry. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. Luther the Expositor: Introduction to the Reformer's Exegetical Writings. Luther's Works 55 (companion volume). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1967. Percy, Martyn. Words, Wonders and Power: Understanding Contemporary Christian Fundamentalism and Revivalism. London: SPCK, 1996.
Phillips, Timothy R. and Dennis L. Okholm, ed. The Nature of Confession: Evangelicals and Postliberals in Conversation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996.
Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. 4 vols. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1950.
Pinnock, Clark. Biblical Revelation: The Foundation of Christian Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971.
. A Defense of Biblical Infallibility. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967.
. "Inspiration and Authority: A Truce Proposal for Evangelicals." Mennonite Brethren Herald 17 (1976): 1-3.
. The Scripture Principle. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984. 252
. The Scripture Principle: Reclaiming the Full Authority of the Bible. 2n ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
Preus, Robert D. "Luther and Biblical Infallibility." In Inerrancy and the Church, ed. John D. Hannah, 99-142. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.
Price, Robert McNair. "The Crisis of Biblical Authority: The Setting and Range of the Current Evangelical Crisis." PhD diss., Drew University, 1981. In ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=75312731 l&Fmt =2&clientId=69955&RQT=309&VName=PQD (accessed April 6, 2005).
Purdy, Richard Allen. "Carl Henry and Contemporary Apologetics: An Assessment of the Rational Apologetic Methodology of Carl F. H. Henry in the Context of the Current Impasse Between Reformed and Evangelical Apologetics." PhD diss., New York University, 1980. In ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=753785701&Fmt=2&clientId=69955&RQ =309&VName=PQD (accessed March 21, 2006).
Radmacher, Earl D. and Robert D. Preus, ed. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible: Papers from ICBI Summit II. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.
Radner, Ephraim. The End of the Church: A Pneumatology of Christian Division in the West. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Railey, James Howard, Jr. "Views on the Inerrancy of the Bible in American Evangelical Theology." DTh diss., University of South Africa, 2001. In ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=72631005l&Fmt =2&clientId=69955&RQT=309&VName=PQD (accessed May 4, 2006).
Ramm, Bernard. After Fundamentalism: The Future of Evangelical Theology. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983.
. "The Relationship of Science, Factual Statements and the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy." Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (1969): 98-104.
. Special Revelation and the Word of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961.
Reid, J. K. S. The Authority of Scripture: A Study of the Reformation and Post- Reformation Understanding of the Bible. London: Methuen, 1957.
Reu, M. Luther and the Scriptures. Columbus, OH: The Wartburg Press, 1944.
Ridderbos, Hermann. "An Attempt at the Theological Definition of Inerrancy, Infallibility and Authority." International Reformed Bulletin 32-33 (1968): 27-41. 253
Riley, William B. "The Great Divide, Or Christ and the Present Crisis." In God Hath Spoken Twenty-five Addresses delivered at the World Conference on Christian Fundamentals, May 25-June 1, 1919, ed. Joel Carpenter, 27-45. 1919. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Rogers, Jack B. "The Church Doctrine of Biblical Authority." In Biblical Authority, ed. Jack Rogers. Waco, TX: Word, 1977.
Rogers, Jack B. and Donald K. McKim. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979.
Sandeen, Ernest R. "Defining Fundamentalism: A Reply to Professor Marsden." Christian Scholar's Review 1, no. 3 (1971): 227-233.
. "The Princeton Theology: One Source of Biblical Literalism in American Protestantism." Church History 31 (1962): 307-321.
. The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800-1930. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970.
. "Toward a Historical Interpretation of the Origins of Fundamentalism." Church History 36 (1967): 66-83.
Satta, Ronald F. The Sacred Text: Biblical Authority in Nineteenth-Century America. Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2007.
Seeberg, Reinhold. Text-book of the History of Doctrines. 2 vols. Translated by Charles E. Hay. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.
Seely, Paul. Inerrant Wisdom: Science and Inerrancy in Biblical Perspective. Portland, OR: Evangelical Reform, Inc., 1989.
Sheehan, Jonathan. The Enlightenment Bible: Translation, Scholarship, Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Silva, Moises. "Old Princeton, Westminster, and Inerrancy." In Inerrancy and Hermeneutic: A Tradition, a Challenge, a Debate, ed. Harvie M. Conn, 67-80. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.
Smith, James K. Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
Sparks, Kenton L. God's Word in Human Words. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Stonehouse, Ned. J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954.
Stout, Jeffrey. The Flight from Authority: Religion, Morality, and the Quest for Autonomy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.
Sweeney, Douglas A. The American Evangelical Story: A History of the Movement. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.
Taylor, Marion. The Old Testament in the Old Princeton School (1812-1929). Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1992.
Thompson, Mark D. A Clear and Present Word: The Clarity of Scripture. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.
Turner, James. Without God, Without Creed: The Origins of Unbelief in America. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.
Vander Stelt, John C. Philosophy and Scripture: A Study in Old Princeton and Westminster Theology. Marlton, NJ: Mack Publishing Company, 1978.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. "The Semantics of Biblical Literature." In Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, 49-104. Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1986.
Van Til, Cornelius. "Introduction." In The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 3-68. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948.
Watson, Francis. "The Bible." In The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, ed. John Webster, 57-69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Webster, John. Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
White, James Emery. What is Truth? A Comparative Study of the Positions of Cornelius Van Til, Francis Schaeffer, Carl F. H Henry, Donald Bloesch, and Millard Erickson. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.
Woodbridge, John D. Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.
. "Carl F. H. Henry: Spokesperson for American Evangelicalism." In God and Culture: Essays in Honor of Carl F. H. Henry, ed. D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, 373-393. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. 255
. "Some Misconceptions of the Impact of the 'Enlightenment' on the Doctrine of Scripture." In Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, ed. D. A. Carson and John Woodbridge, 241-270. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.
Woodbridge, John D. with Randall H. Balmer. "The Princetonians and Biblical Authority: An Assessment of the Ernest Sandeen Proposal" In Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, 251-279. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.
Work, Telford. Living and Active: Scripture in the Economy of Salvation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Wright, N. T. Scripture and the Authority of God. London, SPCK, 2005.
Young, Edward J. Thy Word is Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.
Youngblood, Ronald, ed. Evangelicals and Inerrancy: Selections for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.