Bavinck and the Princetonians on Scripture

Abstract

"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 nineteenthcentury.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"