This is a review of Rolland McCune’s doctrine of scripture and God’s self-disclosure from his text, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity.
I read Rolland McCune’s systematic years ago, and still refer to it occasionally. It is an excellent representation of scholarly, second-stage Northern Baptist fundamentalism. Tellingly, it is the only meaningful work of systematic theology a latter-day Baptist fundamentalist has yet produced in America. I still treasure memories of reading the second volume of his systematic theology text regarding Christology.
In the doctrine of scripture from his first volume, McCune explains that general revelation acts through creation and conscience and reveals non-verbal information about God. Preservation of scripture is providential, not miraculous. “Because of this, God does not miraculously prevent mistranslations or errant transmissions.” God’s word is providentially preserved in the totality of manuscripts. The Spirit assures us God’s word is true and provides “an ongoing capacity to understand the significance of scripture.”
Accurate interpretation of Scripture is predicated on two pillars; (1) scripture is sufficiently clear about the Gospel, and (2) it is sufficient for life and godliness. “It does not wait to be sufficient until it encounters the individual nor does it cease to be sufficient when rejected or ignored by the same.”
In fact, the entire debate—both about inspiration and, even, inerrancy—boils down to whether or not one accepts Scripture’s origin and, subsequently, its claims about itself. Either these are accepted or rejected; there is no middle ground.
McCune has excellent discussions about Jesus and the apostles’ testimony about the inspiration of the Old and New Covenant scripture. His chart of the Old Testament miracles Jesus affirms is particularly helpful.
McCune holds to a concursus kind of inspiration, which he curiously files under the “dictation” heading. He explains, “Concursive inspiration insists on the (miraculous) participation of both man and God in the writing process.” He flippantly dismisses the dynamic theory in two short paragraphs, citing Augustus Strong as a proponent, falsely claiming this view believes scripture “merely records human reflections on historical encounters with God.” Strong’s extensive discussion deserved better than this, and McCune errs by imputing neo-orthodoxy to him—an anachronism if ever there was one!
Scripture is the result of God’s creative power—it is God-produced, not God-animated. If “all” Scripture is produced by God, “then this production must extend to its very words.” McCune does not deal with problem passages. As McCune left matters, the reader must conclude God moved the biblical writers to quote the LXX rather than the Hebrew, and produced Paul’s (shall we say) … creative re-purposing of Psalm 68:18 at Ephesians 4:8-10.
McCune believes inerrancy “argues for accuracy of statement, not necessarily exactness of statement.” He declares, “[w]ithout question, the Bible teaches its own inerrancy by claiming its own truthfulness.” Given that McCune goes on to pursue two lines of evidence for the Bible’s truthfulness, one wonders why Michael Bird’s suggestion to re-package this concept as “divine truthfulness” has not caught on with Americans.
McCune then draws a parallel to Christ’s dual nature incarnation to help us understand how God and man worked together to produce inspired scripture. Troublingly, Strong has an excellent discussion on this very point just beyond where McCune last cited him, but McCune never credits Strong (or, indeed, any theologian) with this insight.
McCune closes the selection with a helpful survey of seven ways God reveals Himself to people.
McCune does not interact with those even a bit to his left in any sustained way. For example, it would have been helpful if he had addressed criticism from the center-left of evangelicalism such as that of Donald Bloesch, who labeled positions like McCune’s an “epistemic bondage to Enlightenment rationalism.” Bloesch was neither a liberal or a fundamentalist, and his observations are worth the effort to engage them. For example, “[b]iblical inerrancy has become a slogan masking a not-so-hidden antipathy to the historical-critical approach to Scripture.”
But, McCune stays away from this. His is a solid, conservative systematic theology advancing views rather standard among second-stage Northern Baptist fundamentalists and their heirs. It’s a beginning text. It’s a “safe” place to get the “right” answers. That is not to say McCune’s answers are wrong. He just does not interact meaningfully with opposing views. Indeed, the student reading his text may not realize there are other views that hold sway in the broader stream of evangelicalism.
 This is Roger Olson’s term (Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology [Louisville: WJK, 2004]pp. 36-39). He accurately distinguishes first-stage fundamentalists who were concerned with doctrinal orthodoxy from second-stage fundamentalists whose rhetorical foe became conservatives who “compromised” on doctrine. First-stage fundamentalists are the modern conservative evangelicals (e.g. the GARBC). Second-stage fundamentalists are groups like the FBFI and the ACCC, who still fight the good fight of separation from evangelicals and other conservatives.
See also Tyler Robbins, “Fundys, Evangelicals, and the Eye of a Needle …” at eccentricfundamentalist.com (15 December 2019). Retrieved from https://eccentricfundamentalist.com/2019/12/15/fundys-evangelicals-and-the-eye-of-a-needle/.
 One possible exception is Emery Bancroft, Christian Theology, second revised ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976). Bancroft’s work began life in 1925 and went through several editions. Bancroft died in 1944, and was a co-founder of Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, PA. I hesitate to include Bancroft because I doubt he could be considered a “fundamentalist” in the second-stage sense of the term at all.
 Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, 3 vols. (Detroit: DBTS, 2006-2009), 1: 42-43.
 Ibid, p. 49.
 Ibid, p. 54.
 Ibid, pp. 56-57.
 Ibid, pp. 58-62.
 Ibid, p. 61.
 Ibid, p. 63.
 Ibid, pp. 65-77.
 Ibid, pp. 67-68.
 Ibid, pp. 37-39.
 Ibid, pp. 80-81.
 Ibid, p. 81.
 Ibid, p. 80.
 Augustus Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tappan: Revell, 1907), 211-222. McCune’s issue with the dynamic theory seems to be that it denies God’s direct agency in the choice of words (Systematic Theology, 1:80). Strong is inconsistent on this point. At the beginning of his discussion, he argues inspiration is plenary (Systematic, 211) but then remarks, “[t]hought is possible without words, and in the order of nature precedes words. The Scripture writers appear to have been so influenced by the Holy Spirit that they perceived and felt even the new truths they were to publish, as discoveries of their own minds, and were left to the action of their own minds in the expression of these truths, with the single exception that they were supernaturally held back from the selection of wrong words, and when needful were provided with the right ones,” (Ibid, p. 216).
 McCune, Systematic Theology, p. 83.
 Ibid, p. 87.
 Ibid, p. 90.
 Ibid, p. 91.
 Ibid, pp. 91-93.
 “Rather than ‘inerrancy,’ a better categorization of Scripture’s claims for itself would be ‘veracity,’ or ‘divine truthfulness.’ Instead of stating how or in what way the Bible is not untrue—which is an odd thing to say, when you think about it—we are better off simply asserting that God’s Word is true as it correlates with God’s intent for what Scripture is to achieve, because he is faithful to his world and to his Word,” (Michael Bird, “Inerrancy is Not Necessary for Evangelicalism Outside the USA,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. Stanley Gundry [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013; Kindle ed.], KL 2655).
 Systematic Theology, 1:102-103.
 Strong, Systematic, 212-222.
 See McCune, Systematic Theology, 1:102-103 at footnotes 129-131.
 Ibid, pp. 171-187.
 Donald Bloesch, Holy Scripture (Downers Grove: IVP, 1994), 33f.
 Ibid, p. 32.