Bavinck And The Princetonians On Scripture: A Difference In Doctrine Or Defense? -- By: Jason B. Hunt
Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 53:2 (Jun 2010)
Article: Bavinck And The Princetonians On Scripture: A Difference In Doctrine Or Defense?
Author: Jason B. Hunt
JETS 53:2 (June 2010) p. 317
Bavinck And The Princetonians On Scripture: A Difference In Doctrine Or Defense?
Jason Hunt resides at 302 Whitewater Drive, Irmo, SC 29063.
The doctrine of Scripture has always been an object of criticism for scholars who question the possibility of supernatural revelation. However, recently, even from within conservative evangelicalism, there has emerged criticism, specifically with regard to inerrancy.1 Many conservative evangelicals have considered the classic formulation of the doctrine of Scripture to be that of old Princeton—A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield in particular. However, even their formulation has come under fire through the years. Charles A. Briggs was the first to offer prominent opposition to their formulation.2 Much more recently, Ernest Sandeen argued that the Princetonian notion of inerrancy represented a doctrinal innovation not seen prior to the late nineteenth-century.3 Rogers and McKim have also taken aim at the Princetonian formulation. Specifically, they proposed that Princeton departed from the Reformers’ doctrine and promoted a new “post-Reformation scholasticism,” which elevated reason over faith.4 Moreover, they claimed that the Dutch Reformed theologians (Kuyper and Bavinck in particular), in reaction to Princetonian scholasticism, promoted a “functional” (organic) rather than a “philosophical” (mechanical) method, more akin to the Reformers and Augustine.5 Recently, A. T. B. McGowan has suggested that the Dutch school offered a different and more fruitful formulation of the doctrine of Scripture with regard to inspiration than did Princeton.6
JETS 53:2 (June 2010) p. 318
Who is right? Did Old Princeton uphold the traditional orthodox position on Scripture or did they introduce a faulty innovation stemming from the milieu of theological controversy of their time, which the Dutch school reacted against? In this brief article, I will look at areas where McGowan suggests differences between the Princetonians and Herman Bavinck related to the concept of inerrancy. Though the concept of inerrancy entails a number of related issues, I will focus on three main ones highlighted by McGowan in his argument. I will argue that the differences cited are not in terms of actual doctrine, but rather in the defense of that doctrine.
I. Inerrancy Or Infallibility?
First, McGowan questions whether inerr...
Click here to subscribe