The divine spiration of Scripture

Dangerous and mistaken

THE DIVINE SPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE
Challenging evangelical perspectives
By A.T.B. McGowan
Apollos (IVP). 230 pages. £14.99
ISBN 978-1-84474-220-2

The author of this book is a very able theologian and communicator, deeply shaped by the Reformation heritage of Christianity and sincere in his desire to reform contemporary evangelicalism. However, I must take time to show why I believe one of the key arguments in the book is seriously mistaken.

Here is a very detailed and helpful overview of the rise of liberal theology. McGowan provides a reliable guide to the various theologians who have had a significant impact on how we view the Bible, including Karl Barth, B.B.Warfield and Herman Bavinck. In the evangelical response to liberalism, some poorly chosen words may have entered the evangelical vocabulary and need to be reviewed and, perhaps, replaced.

I found some of these points convincing. Is ‘perspicuity ‘ really the best word to describe the clarity of the Bible today? Some are more arguable. Instead of ‘illumination’ (the way the Holy Spirit helps us understand the meaning of the texts) he suggests ‘recognition’. The title of the book relates to his choice of the term ‘divine spiration’ instead of ‘inspiration’. But one, in particular, is extremely problematic and that concerns his preference for the term ‘infallible’ over ‘inerrant’.

The main problem

American evangelicals (following Warfield) have tended to defend the word ‘inerrant’ as a way of describing the Bible as free from error. European evangelicals (such as Howard Marshall) prefer to use the word ‘infallible’. What is the difference? McGowan feels that inerrancy suggests ‘a somewhat mechanical and even rationalistic approach to Scripture’ (p.49). This may well describe some Christians who read the Bible as if it were a modern, scientific textbook and ignore issues like literary genre or figures of speech. However, such straw men are hardly relevant to a book that is clearly aimed at thoughtful evangelicals of the calibre of Benjamin Warfield, Don Carson and John Piper.

Speaking for those who have preferred the term infallibility, McGowan writes; ‘They would argue that “inerrancy” is not a biblical word, that it is not required by any of the confessions of faith stemming from the Reformation and that it is of relatively recent origin, without the weight of church history behind it’ (p.106) One might point out that McGowan’s ‘spiration’ shares this problem, but that is beside the point. The word ‘inerrancy’ developed in reaction to liberal theology that claimed the Bible was ‘errant’ (in error). For most of church history it had not been necessary to define inerrancy because Christians, even heretics, tended to agree that the Bible was without error.

True on every matter

In the contemporary era it is commonplace to dismiss the Bible as a book full of errors and so it is vitally important to clarify what we mean by the reliability of the Bible. Those who argue that the Bible is inerrant are affirming that God’s word is true on every matter about which it speaks. Contemporary evangelicals using the term add two important qualifications. Firstly, inerrancy applies to the texts as originally given (autographa) — not as those texts may have been muddied by corruptions that have crept into the processes of copying the texts. Secondly, inerrancy requires careful interpretation of the Bible (including matters like figures of speech or round numbers) to avoid misunderstanding what God is actually saying. Many who still prefer the term ‘infallibility’ would accept that it implies this sense of inerrancy.

God who cannot lie

McGowan rejects inerrancy for a number of reasons. Surprisingly, inerrancy seems to restrict what God can do: ‘The assumption is that, given the nature and character of God, the only kind of Scripture that he could “breathe out” was Scripture that is textually inerrant’. Surely God is able to do as he wishes: ‘…the argument of the inerrantists is that God is unable to produce anything other than an inerrant autographic text’ (p.113). Most evangelicals who affirm inerrancy would do so because of their belief that God does not lie (Hebrews 6.18). It is true that God is unable to lie, just as he is unable to sin. God’s word can’t help but be perfect. It is hard to see how this in any way diminishes the glory or power of God.

Another reason for rejecting inerrancy is that it undermines the significance of the human authors. McGowan claims: ‘The inerrantists run the danger of so denying the humanness of the authors of the Scriptures that they fall into a “dictation theory” of Scripture, a theory that, in their better moments, most inerrantists would deny’ (p.119). I know of no evangelicals who have argued for a ‘dictation theory’ of Scripture as if God over-ruled personalities and normal processes (Luke 1.1-4).

Human authors

Much emphasis is placed on the significance of human authors; ‘He gave us a text that reflects the humanity of its authors’ (p.124) and ‘God took and used human authors with all their humanity intact’ (p.148). Given that no inerrantists are named who would have any problem with this point, it is important to ask why McGowan should stress this. The reason gets to the heart of his problem with inerrancy. He writes: ‘Having used human authors one must expect these minor textual difficulties’ (p.125). Mistakes are found in ‘minor’ biblical matters because the Bible reflects the humanity of the authors. McGowan does not point out any actual errors (though he suggests they are to be found in the genealogies or perhaps the scientific world view of the authors) and, at one point, suggests the errors may only be ‘in principle’ rather than actually there in the Bible. The text remains infallible because it is the word that God wanted and the word that God chooses to use to do his will, ‘textual difficulties’ and all.

This argument is deeply problematic. There is no reason to think that because a text reflects the humanity of its authors it need contain any mistakes. Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. His humanity was not compromised by his divinity. Nor need any perfect words of Scripture be incompatible with the true humanity of its authors. Fallen humans are mistaken some of the time but not all of the time.

Playing into liberal hands

McGowan offers an interesting analogy between preaching and Scripture. We may describe a good sermon as a word from God. What we mean is that God has spoken to us through a sermon. Thus: ‘Just as God uses preachers, sacraments and other instruments, so he uses Scriptures’ (p.122). Preachers don’t need to be inerrant to be used by God and nor does Scripture. The problem with this analogy is shown a little later when McGowan points out that ‘not all preaching is to be accorded the designation “Word of God” but only that preaching which properly expounds the Scriptures’ (p.191). Obviously the mistaken things preachers say are not the word of God. When we apply this to Scripture, what stops us making the liberal claim that the Bible contains the word of God (here and there) rather than being the word of God (from beginning to end)?

McGowan is a very creative thinker who understands inerrantists such as Warfield. However, his attempt to disassociate infallibility from inerrancy is a dangerous thing to do. He only acknowledges ‘minor’ mistakes in the Word of God. But who defines what is ‘minor’ and ‘major’ in the Bible? How intact is our faith and doctrine if some of the historical claims it is based upon turn out to be erroneous? McGowan certainly demonstrates that the stakes are high in our choice of vocabulary.

Dr. Chris Sinkinson,
pastor, Alderholt Evangelical Congregational Church, Fordingbridge

[Editor: It is worrying that IVP should publish a book like this. A former generation of evangelicals would have seen this in a very serious light.]

Challenging evangelical perspectives