Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 44:2 (Fall 1982)
Article: Old Amsterdam and Inerrancy?
Author: Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.

WTJ 44:2 (Fall 1982) p. 250

Old Amsterdam and Inerrancy?*

Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.

Jack Rogers’ and Donald McKim’s The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible,1 Eternity magazine’s Book of the Year for 1980, has become something of a focal point for discussion of the doctrine of Scripture, especially among evangelicals in this country. A basic conclusion of the authors is that the prevailing view of Scripture in contemporary evangelicalism, a conception rooted in the views of the old Princeton theologians, especially B. B. Warfield (1851–1921), and marked by a predominating concern with inerrancy, is a regrettable deviation from the classic church doctrine, especially the position of the Reformers, and so an unfortunate and unnecessary barrier to unity and progress among evangelicals.2

Understandably this and other, related conclusions of the authors have provoked a wide range of reaction. Perhaps most searching has been the lengthy review of John Woodbridge.3 This critique ought to be read carefully by all concerned. In my judgment, it has demonstrated notable flaws in the (historical) methodology of the authors, and deserves serious consideration.4

Not considered in Woodbridge’s otherwise thorough coverage is the authors’ discussion of the Dutch theologians in the Reformed tradition, Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) and Herman Bavinck

* For the 100th anniversary of the birth of J. Gresham Machen on 28 July 1981.

WTJ 44:2 (Fall 1982) p. 251

(1854–1921). Stated briefly, their view is that Kuyper and Bavinck were in reaction against Reformed scholasticism, culminating in the old Princeton theology, and anticipated recent efforts at recovering the Reformed tradition that include the work of Karl Barth and G. C. Berkouwer as well as the United Presbyterian Confession of 1967. In what follows here I propose to test this viewpoint, primarily by setting out what Kuyper and Bavinck themselves have to say on Scripture.5 I hope to do this in something of the same spirit of openness to correction and further discussion the authors themselves have expressed in their preface.

I. The Issue(s)

An exhaustive or comprehensive survey of the rather extensive writings of both Kuyper and Bavinck on the doctrine of Scripture, while in itself highly desirable, is not practicable here nor necessary for our purposes. Instead, the authors’ treatment, along with two earlier, underlying articles by Rogers,