Further, it too does not have the weight of early history behind it. By that same logic, the word вЂњBibleвЂќ is not biblical for it is nowhere used of the Bible in the Bible. Second, we can readily discard the argument that the word вЂњinerrancyвЂќ is not biblical.

But before we hasten to throw away the term вЂњinerrancy,вЂќ let us remind ourselves of the strength of the word and the weakness of the suggested alternative terms. The basic question is whether or not the Bible is completely without error in all that it affirms. He also argues that it does not have the weight of history behind it.ДЇirst of all, in response it is important to note that both sides of the debate can agree that there is nothing sacred about the word вЂњinerrancy.вЂќ Indeed, it is not the term so much as the truth of inerrancy that is important to preserve. вЂњInerrancy,вЂќ he believes, is an apologetic response to the Enlightenment (50, 115). Neither does he believe the term is biblical, but he calls it a вЂњviolent assumptionвЂќ (135) of Fundamentalist thinking. He also believes it is recent in origin, not being found in early creeds but being a result of heated battle between early 20th century Fundamentalist and Liberals (121). He offers several reasons for this, one of the most often repeated of which is that the term вЂњinerrancyвЂќ implies scientific precision (117). McGowen argues that the term inerrancy should be discarded by evangelicals (13). The Claim That the Word вЂњInerrancyвЂќ Should be Discarded McGowenвЂ™s proposal is the first direct and serious proposal by an otherwise conservative Reformed scholar since the ICBI вЂњChicago StatementвЂќ (in 1978) As such, McGowenвЂ™s proposals demand attention.

An Evaluation of McGowanвЂ™s Basic Proposals on the Nature of Scripture Indeed, he says the use of logic is вЂњappropriateвЂќ (117) and вЂњcontradictionsвЂќ should be avoided (212). Nor does he reject the view there are implicit or logically entailed claims in Scripture. Another crucial point is that one should not claim for the Bible what it does not claim for itself (121). He points out that it is not the Bible that needsвЂ™ illumination, but only human minds (45-47). McGowen also makes an often overlooked but important distinction. McGowen is also correct in affirms that inspiration is verbal (136) and that there are any degrees of inspiration (134).and that it is not the authors of Scripture that are inspired (39, 133) but the Scriptures they wrote. Likewise, revelation is not merely an event as many neo-orthodox claim (21). It is not the Word of God subjectively but is GodвЂ™s Word objectively (73). He is certainly right in denying the вЂњmechanical dictationвЂќ of Scripture(163).ДЇurther, the book is on track in rejecting the neo-orthodox view of Scripture that the Bible merely вЂњbecome the Word of GodвЂќ in a moment of encounter with Him through the Bible (29). Then too, his definition of inspiration hits some important key notes of the doctrine when he affirms that вЂњthe Holy Spirit caused men to write books and his supervisory action was such that although these books are truly the work of human beings, they are also the Word of GodвЂќ(43). Furthermore, he even says the Bible is a вЂњco-authoredвЂќ book by both God and human beings (148). Nor does McGowen deny that God can, if He chooses, produce an inerrant text (113-114), as inerrantists have long held. He even cites favorably both John WoodbridgeвЂ™s critique of Rogers and McKim (99) as well as that of Donald Bloesch who agrees (100, 125). B Warfield over Jack Rogers of Fuller Seminary (161). It also sees the ICBI (International Council on Biblical Inerrancy) statement as a вЂњmost significantвЂќ statement (104) and would chose it, if necessary, over the errancy view of Rogers and McKim (212).

After all, there can be inerrant phone books-with no errors-that do not thereby have divine authority. The term вЂњinerrancyвЂќ alone is insufficient. It also affirms the value of the word вЂњinfallibleвЂќ (39, 48). Further, it observes that theopnuestia in 2 Timothy 3:16 should be translated as вЂњspirationвЂќ or breathing out is a better rendering. First of all, it sees this as a вЂњwatershed issueвЂќ (9). There are many commendable features of this book that are well worth contemplating. The Positive Contributions of McGowenвЂ™s Work A careful reading of his proposal reveals many positive contributions. McGowen provides a thought-provoking evaluation of the ongoing debate between the infalliblist and the inerrantist positions. In his book The Divine Spiration of Scripture: Challenging Evangelical Perspectives (Inter Varsity Press, 2007) Scottish Reformed theologian A. An Exposition and Evaluation of the McGowen View on the Inspiration of Scripture

Danielakin.com judgment seat of christ