1 October 2015 A.D. ANDY UNDERHILE: Review of Louis Gaussen’s Theopneusty
1 October 2015 A.D. ANDY UNDERHILE: Review of Louis Gaussen’s Theopneusty
Undeile, Andy. “Review of
Louis Gaussen’s `Theopneusty.’” Contra
Mundam. 30 Sept 2015.
http://andycontramundum.blogspot.com/2015/09/review-of-louis-gaussens-theopneusty.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FDofecr+%28Contra+Mundum%29. Accessed 1 Oct 2015.
Review of Louis Gaussen's "Theopneusty."
This volume is, hands-down, the best I have ever
read on the subject of Plenary Inspiration. Gaussen has done the Church an
inestimable service with this book. It should be required reading for seminary
students at any and every level. Much of the theological tomfoolery rampant in
American evangelicalism would lose traction if ministers were conversant in the
arguments of this book.
Highlights of the book are his handling of the
standard objections to Inspiration, his discussion of the relation between the
Bible and science, and the treatment of textual criticism.
With regard to the first, he makes mincemeat out of
the objection that Inspiration is diminished because we have translations. His
response, put simply, is that anyone who knows the original languages
proficiently can critique a translation. The translations we have today have
been edited and revised many times by language scholars who are all competent
in the original languages and can easily spot errors in each others' work.
Inspiration, on the other hand, gets one shot. Either the book in inspired by
God when the prophet or apostle pens it, or it is not. There is no committee or
panel of experts on inspiration who can pool their collective knowledge and
assess the quality of the prophet/apostle's work and revise it to attain
inerrant status.
In an unusual departure from a normal presentation
of a case, Gaussen tackles all of the objections to Plenary Inspiration before
he presents a positive case for it. This is actually quite effective, because
the reader is not constantly thinking, “What about ______?” One is free to
concentrate on the positive case without the distraction of questions in the
back of one's mind.
Gaussen also does a great job dealing with the
question of science and Scripture. His position is quite simple: Science
changes and develops with advances in technology and new discoveries. Scripture
does not change because it is the infallible, inerrant Word of the unchanging
God. Therefore, Gaussen always places Scripture above science. He warns about
the danger of modifying one's view of Scripture based on the latest scientific
discoveries and theories, by showing the follies of otherwise reputable
scholars of the past whose work is easy to discount for this very reason. Greek
and Roman natural histories treat mythological creatures such as the phoenix
and the Antipodes as if they were real. What do we say about theologians who
appealed to the accounts of such creatures in the interest of the Christian
faith? It is embarrassing, of course, and we'd much rather pretend that this
never happened. Every such instance in the past is due to the author placing
too much confidence in the science of his day and re-interpreting Scripture in
the light of such “consensus” knowledge. We are equally foolish to do the same.
By taking this tack, Gaussen has protected his volume from aging. His arguments
are as valid today as they were in the 1850's.
The treatment of textual criticism is worth the
price of admission. Gaussen warns, that while the textual critic does the
Church a great service when he works within proper bounds. He admonishes that
the textual critic is a “historian, not a conjurer.”
Although Gaussen cites many important Patristic
sources in defense of Plenary Inspiration, he refuses to place much weight
there, choosing rather to rely on the testimony of Scripture. In fact, he goes
so far as to say that this is the ONLY way in which Plenary Inspiration is to
be proven. If one were inclined to object that this is begging the question,
Gaussen is quick to respond, “There would be a begging of the question, if, to
prove that that the Scriptures are inspired, we should invoke their own
testimony, as if they were inspired.” But, he notes that this is not what he is
doing. He is considering Scripture, firstly, as a historical document worthy of
respect by reason of its authenticity. By recourse to its pages, we find out
what Jesus believed and taught, just like we search for what Socrates taught by
reading Plato. Now, throughout the Bible we find declarations that the whole
system of it religion is based upon a miraculous intervention of God in
revealing its history and doctrines. This leaves no third option. We either
relegate all Scripture to the realm of the mythological, or acknowledge that if
what it narrates is true, it is inspired. There is nothing in this line of
reasoning that can be called begging the question.
He concludes by asserting that there are only two
religions in the world: One that places the Bible above everything, and one
which places something else above the Bible. One position believes that all the
written word is inspired of God, even to a single iota or tittle; the
Scriptures cannot be broken. The other position employs human judges of the
word of God. Whether it be science, tradition, human reason, or some new
ostensible 'revelation,' it places something above the Bible. At bottom, this
is the source of all false religion. Whether it be Judaism with its Targums and
Talmud, Islam with its Quran, Romanism with its tradition and 'infallible Pope,
Mormonism with its golden tablets and magic glasses, liberal theology with its
denial of the miraculous elements of Scripture, or Pentecostalism with its
never-ending series of dreams, visions, words of prophecy, and tongues, - in
every case, we find a human judge feeling himself competent to sit in judgment
of that which claims to be the inspired Word of God.
Comments
Post a Comment