Stott argues that "Reason has a vital role in the understanding and application of revelation, but it can never be a substitute for it. Without revelation reason gropes in the dark and founders in the deep" (p. 83). It is this epistemic mapping that many Evangelicals (particularly of the ‘inerrantist school’ of reasoning about scripture) and their sympathisisers follow - that there is a gulf between God and creation, one which only the former can bridge. This then forms the starting point for the consideration of the epistemological significance of Jesus and consequently defines the nature and role of scripture within that map. It is this mapping which causes Packer to criticise what he considers to be the teaching of Rome, and the position of liberalism/spiritualism. All these allow something other than the divine's bridging of the epistemological gulf to be the epistemological guide, or as he would argue these 3 place an authority above scripture itself (Roman Catholicism, although it possesses a profound recognition of scripture as inspired and authoritative, Packer argues that it subordinates scripture to the church's tradition. This is a consequence of the notion that scripture is not sufficient or perspicuous and that tradition interprets and augments scripture [p. 49]. Spiritualism, or 'subjectivism, as in Pietism, Quakerism, even Socinianism and Deism promote reason as the final authority in faith and life. [Of course, this way of putting matters is in serious danger of misunderstanding the nature of the sola scriptura by promoting a directness or immediacy of reading the scriptures that forgets the readers’, as well as the writers’, contexts – theological, social, cultural, socio-economic contexts that play a major role in determining how readers’ approach the texts and what they subsequently ‘discover’ there. Moreover, such ‘immediateness’ individualises the moment of reading that divorces the reader from the larger sets of relations that shape and determine her identity.])

Stott then presses further [and notice here that the manner of his presentation builds from general observations/criteria for the defence of Christianity] with the point that what is needed [this is contentious – how do we know what is needed?] is not a revelation in general but a reliable revelation, and that we possess strong Christian reasons for expecting that God has given us one - in and through Jesus Christ. It does not make sense to Stott that God should universally and salvifically have done so only to have permitted this revelation to have been lost in the mists of antiquity. Provision must therefore, according to Stott, have been made for its preservation so that all could benefit from having access to it [here is a simplistic theological reduction of the very complex and painful process of canonisation – and notice that as yet Stott has made no mention of the humanness of the scriptural authors, compilers and canonisers]. This Stott argues, is an a priori deduction from our basic Christian beliefs about God, Christ and salvation [the comment on a priori is very odd here since deduction from would necessitate an a posteriori logic].

But can this saving revelation be equatted with the bible [revelation is here being presented as a series of propositions or true statements]? And is it legitimate to regard the bible as a reliable, let alone 'inerrant', guide? Stott, in defense of such a position, points to the history of doctrine, surmising that this has been for centuries the universal church doctrine, and is still the official position of the Roman Catholic church and of some Protestant churches [another sweeping generalisation that makes no effort to assess the variety of differences between these]. A second form of defence is drawn from the elaborate internal cross-attestation of scripture - e.g. 2Tim. 3:16 [this text Stott problematically fails to appreciate variant and important readings of].

Attention then, thirdly and most substantially, is focussed on the example of Christ himself. Stott understands it as significant that Jesus submitted himself to the authority of the Old Testament scriptures, regarding them as his Father's written word [does the inerrantist claim necessarily follow from the fact that Jesus cited the Hebrew Bible?]. Packer argues that "Jesus Christ, so far from rejecting the principle of biblical authority, accepted and built on it, endorsing it with the greatest emphasis and the full weight of his authority" (Fundamentalism, p. 54) [this, however, assumes that there can be only one way of understanding biblical authority – and this, as has already been pointed out with regard to many of the other claims made, is a leap of logic that seriously flattens the complexities and differences involved in the accounts rendered by others throughout Christian history].

Jesus was able to confront his temptations with a simple scriptural quotation. His decisions were made by reference to scripture: gegraptai gar ('for it was written'). So too in his public ministry he defined himself and his mission in relation to Dn.7 and Is.53 (see also Matt. 26:54; 5:17-20).

In his disputes with the religious authorities he disagreed not with scripture but with their traditions and interpretations of the law. (See R.T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, and J. Wenham, Christ and the Bible.) Certainly Jesus went beyond the Old Testament, but he did not go against it [Ah, but this moving beyond is important – that does not, logically speaking, rule out, unless further qualifications are made, a claim to move beyond the New Testament either. If the Old Testament is equally the Word of God as is the new, and Jesus was able to move beyond the Old, then there is no obvious reason why there cannot be claimed to be an incompleteness about the New also]. Warming to this theme Packer has declared:

But was not Jesus a man of his time, bound by Judaistic laws and practices? Stott does not answer such a charge with anything more than that such a suggestion is "intolerably derogatory to him" (p. 87) [this easy dismissal, of course, merely shifts Stott’s focus while not dealing with the question satisfactorily].

Thus Stott concludes that Christians are called to a similar conservatism today - if submission to scripture was right for him, as it was, it must also be right for us (p.88). Not a wooden conformity to its letter, however, but a profound penetration into its demanding implications for the life of the kingdom. For the supremacy of scripture carries with it a radical calling into question of all human traditions and conventions, however ancient and sacred. Packer sums up the 'Evangelical view' as follows:

Packer goes on to speak of the Holy Spirit as "Author... Witness and Expositor", thus relegating reason and tradition to a secondary role as hermeneutical servants.

Stott is careful to stress his distance from 'fundamentalism', not as it originated as a defence of the essentials of Christian faith against 'modernism' which denied them, but rather in terms of its contemporary connotation as certain extremes and extravagances. He lists 8 tendencies of the mind-set styled 'fundamentalism':

Stott especially rejects the second which implies that God used the biblical writers as instruments, just as Allah dictated the Koran. He argues that Evangelicals, however, affirm the double/dual authorship of the bible (see e.g. Heb. 1:1; 2Pet. 1:21). Stott argues that the process of inspiration was not incompatible with the researches of the biblical historians, the reflections of the wise men (e.g. Prov. 24:30-4), the crafted poetry of the psalmists, or (in the NT) letters the pastoral concerns of the apostles (p. 91). Nor did inspiration iron out the biblical writer's different literary styles or theological emphases [but what it does seem to do, for Stott, is remove any possibility for error in their interpretations and recordings of what they witnessed to. Does this also mean that the writers were divinely given something more than a partial vision (partiality distorts, even if only partially); if so then how does Stott account for what appears to be the ‘progressive revelation’ of the Old Testament, and the difference in theological emphases (even of the theology itself) of the writers? Perhaps recourse to a claim such as they were given full insight into what God had chosen to reveal to them could suffice].

How then were the human and the divine related to each other? Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians have suggested and analogy with the 2 natures of Christ. Just as we emphasise neither nature at the expense of the other, so equally with scripture we affirm the human and divine origins. We have no basis for saying that the origin of scripture was human as well as divine, it must therefore contain error, any more than we have for saying that because Jesus was human as well as divine he must therefore have sinned. Further, we have no right to say that the conjunction of the divine and the human in the production of scripture is impossible. As J.I. Packer has claimed, such a denial

Again, "the cure for such fallacious reasoning is to grasp the biblical idea of God's concursive operation in, with and through the working of man's own mind" (p.82).

The double authorship has also practical implications. For the 2 authorships demand 2 distinct and appropriate approaches. Because the bible is the Word of God, we should read it like no other book. But because it is also the words of men it should be studied like all other books - both critically and humbly.

What of the 'inerrancy' debate. Stott opens his observations with his preference of the single positive ('true' or 'trustworthy') to the double negative ('inerrant' or 'infallible'). These words, he confesses, could even obscure what Edwards' calls 'the most important question about the Bible', which is 'whether it speaks the truth' (p.95).

For Edwards alleged errors in the bible makes the assertion of inerrancy untenable. Stott argues that these errors fall into 2 categories of apparent discrepancy - on the one hand between scripture and science, and on the other between different biblical books (e.g. Kings and Chronicles).

Scripture and science - God has revealed himself in nature, and since all truth is God's truth these 2 cannot ultimately be in conflict with each other. They belong to different spheres, but they can prove to be complementary and not contradictory. The bible is prescientific in time and non-scientific in purpose (e.g. Ps. 19:5, etc as poetry and not science. So too Gen. 1 and 6-day creationism: the genre of Gen. 1 which is evidently a highly stylised literary and theological, not scientific statement. But Stott sees them-Eve story as not mythological without any historical basis due to its use in Rom. 5 [but could Paul not have been drawing on a type of the human, of every human, of which Christ was another type? In fact, there is the interesting possibility that imaging Adam and Eve as types of ‘every man and woman’ gives fuller expression to the sense of Christ’s universality])

Stott argues that most of the discrepancies have been exaggerated by critics. But what should one do with discrepancies which remain which cannot with integrity be harmonised or reconciled?

A few Evangelicals conclude that they must recognise in the bible a few, largely trivial, factual mistakes. But they add that these belong to the spheres of history, literature and science, so that in the spheres of religion and ethics, and especially in teaching about God, Christ and salvation, the bible remains inerrant, 'the only infallible rule of faith and practice' (Westminster Confession). This position is sometimes called 'limited inerrancy', and the firm tenets of the faith remain firmly in place.

Others do not feel the need to make this concession, however, but continue to affirm the bible's inerrancy in every area in which it speaks - without error (i) as originally given, and (ii) as correctly interpreted. It is here that Stott plants his flag of allegence. Critics might retort that since we do not possess the autographs and are not sure of the correct interpretation, this concept of an inerrant bible is useless, even meaningless, because it does not exist. But textual criticism is important as is the hermeneutical task. (See e.g., J.M. Boice, The Foundation of Biblical Authority, N.L. Giesler, Inerrancy, D.A. Carson and J.D. Woodbridge, Scripture and Truth, and Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon.) [and yet there is something disturbing about this logic – God gives us the inerrant Word and preserves its canonisation but which is subsequently spoiled and somewhat lost but recovered and gradually restored by modern textual critics – this seems to counteract the type of account of providence that is required by Stott and Packer for the processes of composition, collection and canonisation]

With this all in mind Clark Pinnock can claim that "if contradiction exists our doctrine of scripture is overthrown" (The Scripture Principle, 1985, p.147). He considers that this is the necessary consequence of a belief in the bible's inerrancy, for "inerrancy simply means that the bible can be trusted in what it teaches and affirms". Pinnock commends a carefully qualified statement by Millard Erickson: "The Bible, when correctly interpreted in the light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms". And Packer ends up with a similar set of qualifications. He says that the 2 words 'infallibillty' and 'inerrancy' express

And yet for Stott this position of inerrancy does not lead to bibliolatry, for "we do not worship the Bible" (The Bible: The Book for Today, cited by Edwards, Essentials, p. 45) [this qualification is not forceful enough – after all, his inerrancy-positioning has frozen the dynamic event of revelation into book form, so that all that is required for the Christian is understanding it and putting it into practice]. "The major function of scripture is to bear witness to Christ" [Stott only explicitly brings in here the issue of function at the end after spending his time on nature (surely nature and function cannot be divorced as that might suggest – and if not then does not the function of scripture as witness to the living Christ as the Word of God not make possible other ways of understanding biblical authority less constrained by the cognitively framed inerrancy model? That Stott does not even entertain such is a serious flaw that caps the significant shallowness of his theo-logical reasoning)]