Challenging Biblical Inerrancy

Earlier today I spoke at our local Ministers' fraternal, which meets at the Old Baptist Chapel, Bradford on Avon on the subject:

"Challenging Biblical Inerrancy – A response to A. T. B. McGowan’s proposals in
The Divine Spiration of Scripture: Challenging evangelical perspectives".

The talk began life as a series of review posts on this blog - here. I've just published the text of my address, which is a reworking of the blog posts with 'many similar words added' as a Knol here. I've not published a Knol before so please let me know if you have problems accessing the document.

The talk was followed by a time of discussion during which various points were raised.

God's Word In Servant Form by Richard B. Gaffin Jr.

God's Word In Servant-Form:
Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck on the Doctrine of Scripture,
by Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Reformed Academic Press, 2008, 107pp.

In his The Divine Spiration of Scripture [reviewed here], A.T.B. McGowan's proposes that evangelicals should abandon the doctrine of biblical inerrancy in favour of a reconfigured notion of the infallibility of Scripture. He puts the emphasis on God speaking infallibly through Scripture rather than on the inerrant properties of the biblical text. In doing so, McGowan claims that he is following the precedent of Dutch Reformed theologians Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck. According to him, Kuyper and Bavinck eschewed biblical inerrancy as advocated by Princeton divines B. B. Warfield and A. A. Hodge and instead opted for a 'high' view of Scripture as God's infallible Word that did not entail a commitment to an errorless Bible. Gaffin is not responding directly to McGowan's thesis in this little volume. His interlocutors are Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, who argued that biblical inerrancy is a regrettable a deviation from the mainstream Christian view of the Bible. They too sought to drive a wedge between the Dutch theologians and Princeton.

Gaffin pays careful attention to the works of Kuyper and Bavinck and demonstrates convincingly that they held that the Bible is both infallible and without error. Considering that McGowan goes out of his way to identify with the views of these men, it is passing strange that he explicitly rejects one of their controlling perspectives on the Bible. He critiques the incarnational model of Scripture (p. 119-121), which is based on the analogy between the divine/human union in the Person of Christ and the Bible as God's Word through human beings. He suggests that Bavinck shares his misgivings. But this is not necessarily the case. As Gaffin shows, both Kuyper and Bavinck model biblical inspiration on the incarnation of the the divine Logos. Kuyper wrote,

"As the Logos has not appeared in the form of glory but in the form of a servant, joining Himself to the reality of our nature as this had come to be through the results of sin, so also for the revelation of His Logos, God the Lord accepts our consciousness, our human life as it is... As a product of writing, the Holy Scripture, too, bears on its forehead the mark of the form of a servant." (p. 7 & 8).

As Christ's human nature, even in servant form was without sin, so argued Kuyper, Scripture as God's Word through human beings is without error. Now the Dutch theologian did not believe that the Bible is scientifically accurate. He acknowledged that the Scripture is often 'impressionistic' rather than pedantically precise. But he said that the 'graphic inspiration' of Scripture aims at "the removal of every error which threatened to creep into any writing through inadvertence and malicious intent". (p. 29 & 30).

Similarly Bavinck's doctrine of Scripture draws heavily on the enfleshment of the divine Word,

"And in order to reach that goal [that God will be all in all] the word of revelation passes over into Scripture. Thus, Scripture, too, is means and instrument, not a goal. It flows out of the incarnation of God in Christ; it is in a certain sense the continuation of the incarnation, the way along which Christ dwells in his church... Scripture is the servant-from of revelation." (p. 56).

Bavinck did not use the language of biblical inerrancy and he was careful to stress the humanness of Scripture. But he held that the Bible both in form and content is the very Word of God. Rather than distancing himself from the inerrantist doctrine of Hodge and Warfield, Bavinck commends them as men who held to the historic Christian teaching on the inspiration and authority of Scripture (p. 69).

Richard Gaffin's work seriously calls into question important aspects of the Rogers and McKim thesis. By implication he has also shattered the central plank in the argument advanced by A. T. B. McGowan in The Divine Spiration of Scripture, that like him Kuyper and Bavinck rejected biblical inerrancy in favour of a looser category of infallibility. But readers will find much more here than polemics. In setting forth the mature teachings of Kuyper and Bavinck, Gaffin has opened up a rich vein of constructive theological reflection on the nature of Scripture as God's theanthropic Word in servant-form.

Order info:

After trying unsuccessfully to get hold of this book in the UK, I ordered my copy from Solid Ground Christian Books in the USA. To save p&p, group with another slim volume like The Humanness of John Calvin, by Richard Stauffer, Solid Ground Christian Books, 2008. Together they cost $24.75 or approx £12.40 inc. p&p. Solid Ground also do a very good deal on the complete set of Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics - I obtained my set from them.

The Divine Spiration of Scripture by A. T. B. McGowan (Book Review: Part 3)

Infallibility, confession, preaching, conclusion

So, if McGowan is unhappy with the concept of biblical inerrancy [see Part 2], what does he propose in its place? He devotes a chapter to Infallibility: An Evangelical Alternative. He argues that it is possible to maintain a high view of Scripture without opting for either inerrancy or errancy. He seeks to prove his case by reference to three Reformed theologians, James Orr, Herman Bavinck and C. K. Berkhouer. The Scottish theologian James Orr was a contributor to the Fundamentals series. But rather strangely, he did not believe in biblical inerrancy and advocated the view that there are degrees of inspiration in Scripture. Orr also suggested that God did not keep the human authors of Scripture from including the defects of their sources in the biblical writings. While McGowan rejects Orr's position on degrees of inspiration, he applauds his general approach. Next, the author turns his attention to Bavinck. He has many helpful things to say about the theologian's doctrine of Scripture. Bavinck stressed the importance of the human authors of the Bible and rejected a mechanical dictation theory of inspiration. He placed Scripture in the context of God's self-revelation and gave due weight to the testimony of the Spirit. So far so good. But McGowan also tries to demonstrate that Bavinck rejected inerrancy in favour of infallibility. It is difficult for me to offer a thorough assesment of this thesis. I haven't yet read all that Bavinck has to say on the the doctrine of Scripture, as I've only just taken delivery of the full set of his Reformed Dogmatics. But I did take the trouble to check the context of one of McGowan's Bavinck quotes,

"Aspects of Scripture that the inerrantists 'explain away' pose no problem for Bavinck. He goes so far as to say that 'the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised to the church does not exclude the possibility of human error.' Such a claim could never be made by an inerrantist." (p. 158).

The Bavinck citation is from page 32 of Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1, Baker Academic, 2003. In context, the theologian is not talking about Scripture at all. He is discussing church dogma. The full quote reads thus,

"In Catholic theology there is thus room left for the question of how far the truth of God has found fully adequate expression in the church's dogma. On the basis of Protestant assumptions, however, this is much more the case, for here the guidance of the Holy Spirit does not exclude the possibility of human error."

As a convinced 'inerrantist' I have no problems whatsoever with that statement. I can't think of any responsible advocate of biblical inerrancy who believes the Holy Spirit guarantees that church dogma is inerrant. McGowan's use of this quote to bolster his position on biblical inerrancy (or the lack of it) is seriously misleading. Bavinck's doctrine of Scripture is rich, nuanced and would repay careful study. But as far as I'm concerned, McGowan in no way succeeds in pitting the Dutch theologian against Warfield on inerrancy. Later in the chapter McGowan reflects on Bavinck's approach, "He was a model of careful and thorough scholarship, showing a determination to understand the views of other theologians properly." (p. 164). Would that McGowan had followed Bavinck's model more carefully himself!

McGowan concludes his foray into historical theology by saying that Berkhouwer's doctrine of Scripture, which is often regarded as Barth-influenced, is actually close to that of Bavinck. He argues that although Berkhouer rejected inerrancy, it is possible to come to a "generous assessment of his position" (p. 162) when put in the context of Dutch Reformed theology.

McGowan's proposals on infallibility underline the value of the human side of Scripture. We must not belittle that fact the Scripture is God's Word to human beings through human beings. The theologian rightly stresses the importance of the witness of the Spirit in relation to Scripture. It is also good to be reminded that God is able to use his Word as it is now to fulfill his purposes, even though the autographa are no longer extant. But in denying that Scripture as originally given was verbally inerrant, McGowan has severed the link between the all knowing God who cannot lie, and his self-revelation in Scripture. If Scripture fails to fully reflect the identity of its divine author, how can we stake our eternal destinies on its promises? (See Is Inerrancy Unbiblical, Rationalistic and Presumptuous? by Martin Downes).

Before the book concludes, McGowan has some helpful things to say regarding Scripture and confessions of faith and Scripture and preaching. He suggests that evangelicals need to work on a constructive account of the relationship between Scripture and church tradition. He rejects both the Roman Catholic view that tradition stands alongside Scripture and the Orthodox position that subsumes the Bible in it's traditions. He also discounts two extreme Protestant views on the value of confessions of faith. One more or less ignores confessional statements in the name of 'freedom of conscience' in order to justify heretical teachings. The other makes confessional subscription so 'tight' that reformation of church confessions in the light of Scripture becomes impossible. McGowan argues that confessions must be valued as faithful expressions of biblical doctrine. But they should be subjected to constant scrutiny, and where necessary revised as the Spirit gives new insight into the meaning of Scripture. Confessions should also be regularly updated to reflect contemporary concerns. The great seventeenth century documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith do not address issues like theological liberalism or religious pluralism. McGowan notes that the Theological Commission of the World Reformed Fellowship is currently engaged writing a new statement of faith for the twenty first century. A penultimate chapter, Preaching Scripture commends John Calvin's practice of the systematic exposition of the Word of God. McGowan writes, "The [Minister's] task is to expound Scripture and this should have a central place in worship. It should also be accompanied by much prayer, in recognition of our dependence upon the work of the Holy Spirit," (p. 206). Well, I can say 'amen' to that at least.

There is much that is valuable and thought provoking in The Divine Spiration of Scripture. When speaking about biblical inerrancy we do need to guard against minimising the humanness of Scripture. We also need to stress that God has not simply given us an inerrant Book and left us to get on with the business of interpreting it as we see fit. We must give careful heed to what God is saying through the Scriptures by his Spirit. But we can take all that on board without abandoning the idea that the Bible is without error. However, the standard formula that Scripture is inerrant as originally given in the autographa needs to be qualified a little. As McGowan points out, the original autographa of Deuteronomy presumably did not include Chapter 34. The autographa of Jermemiah was destroyed by king Jehoiakim, and had to be rewritten 'with many similar words added'. Perhaps it would be better to say that the autographa as found in their final canonical form were without error. That would take into account editorial additions such as Deuteronomy 34 and Jeremiah's rewrite. Evangelical perspectives on Scripture certainly need to be challenged, but McGowan's rejection of inerrancy is a step too far. In reading the book, I sometimes got the impression that he was overly keen to avoid some of the standard Barthian critiques of the evangelical doctrine of Scripture. He certainly seems of offer a very sympathetic reading of the views of Barth and Berkhouwer. One slighty strange feature of this work is McGowan's attempt to turn the inerrancy debate into the theological equivalent of golf's Ryder Cup with plucky European infallibists battling it out against uppity American inerrantists. But this doesn't really work. McGown has failed to show that Bavinck had probelms with inerrancy and I know of plenty European theologians who affirm that the Bible is God's inerrant Word .

In his conclusion McGowan summarises the main themes of his book and tries to anticipate the critique of his proposals on inerrancy. He reveals that on reading the book in manuscript form, a friend warned him of the danger of being 'on thin ice' (p. 210). This is true and we would be unwise to follow McGowan onto the 'thin ice' where he denies that the Bible is God's inerrant Word. The inerrancy of Scripture should be one of the fundamental presuppositions of an authentically Reformed theology. God is there. He has spoken. His word is truth from beginning to end. It is this Word that truly, faithfully and without error bears witness to Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the Word. I conclude this review series with the words of Reformed theologian Donald Macleod,

"I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Why? Not because I am unaware of current trends in Biblical studies or even because I can vindicate the Bible against all the objections adduced by historians, scientists and literary critics. My belief in inerrancy arises from loyalty to Christ. He said, 'The Scripture cannot be broken'. This position - the fundamentalist position, if you wish - is not bibliolatry. It is Christiolatry. It is an act of devotion to the One we regard as a teacher sent by God". (From Glory to Golgotha, Christian Focus, 2002, p. 153). [Part 1, Part 2]

The Divine Spiration of Scripture by A. T. B. McGowan (Book Review Part 2)

Is the Bible inerrant?

Now we come to McGowan's controversial proposal that evangelicals abandon biblical 'inerrancy' in favour of 'infallibility'. Before he tackles the subject head on, McGowan sketches the historical context in which evangelicals first used the language of biblical inerrancy. On a chapter on The Enlightenment and Liberal Theology, he shows that liberalism capitulated to the anti-supernatural mindset of the Enlightenment. This had an impact on how theologians viewed the Bible. Schleiermacher, the father of liberal theology taught rather than being God's authoritative self-revelation, the Bible is an expression of man's consciousness of the divine. Soon the Bible was subjected to radical criticism. It's portrayal of Jesus as the miracle working Son of God who died for sinners and rose from the dead was questioned. How could men and women in the age of the light bulb accept that Jesus walked on water? The Bible's cosmology, history, theology and ethics were all subjected to critical appraisal in the light of 'modern knowledge' and 'the assured results of scholarship'. McGowan details two differing responses to the challenge of liberalism. First the neo-orthodoxy. Karl Barth became disillusioned with liberal theology. Over and against liberalism which tended to collapse God's existence into human consciousness of the divine, Barth emphasized the "Godness of God". God is wholly other and we can only know him because he has revealed himself to us in Jesus the living Word. For Barth, Scripture is a witness to the Word of God, but it is not to be completely identified with the Word of God. The Bible only becomes God's Word in an event of divine self-disclosure. Next McGowan charts the conservative evangelical response to liberal theology. Biblical scholar J. Gresham Machen insisted that liberalism is a different religion to genuine Christianity. He stressed the authority of Scripture and defended the Bible's account of of salvation from sin by the Lord Jesus Christ. Cornelius Van Til challenged philosophical assumptions of liberalism. He argued that epistemology must begin with God's self-revelation in Scripture, rather than man's autonomous reason.

It is important for McGowan's case that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy was developed in the heat of the battle for the Bible between liberal and evangelical theologians. This is brought into sharp focus in the next chapter on Fundamentalism and Inerrancy. It fell to Princeton Theologians B. B. Warfield and A. A. Hodge to give classic expression to the the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. In an article entitled 'Inspiration' in the Presbyterian Review (1881), they argued that due to the superintendence of God, the original manuscripts of the biblical books, or the autographa were without error. As far as the two theologians were concerned, they were not being innovatory here. They were simply setting forth the historic Christian view of Scripture in the face of the challenge from liberal theology. The word 'inerrancy' was not used in the article, but the key idea that the Bible is errorless was clearly explained and defended. Warfield went on to write several major essays on the doctrine of Scripture.

McGowan goes on to tell the story of fundamentalism. A series of volumes entitled The Fundamentals were published from 1910 to 1915. Each book sought to defend a key Christian doctrine that was under attack from liberal theology. But what began with a series of books soon became a distinct fundamentalist movement. Fundamentalists were extremely hostile to liberalism. They held tenaciously to the inerrancy of Scripture, but they tended to verge on the dictation theory of biblical inspiration. They were often quite anti-intellectual and held scholarship in suspicion. Many tried to avoid issues of textual criticism by holding that the Textus Receputs upon which the King James Version of the Bible is based is without error. Some even believed that the 1611 KJV translation is the inerrant Word of God. Warfield and others in the Reformed tradition may have disagreed with the way in which fundamentalists gave expression to their doctrine of Scripture. But there was basic agreement that inerrancy reflects the Bible's own self-witness and that this has been the default position of the historic Christian church.

This was called into question by Rogers and McKim. They argued that the 'Central Christian Tradition' including the early Church Fathers and Reformers such as Luther and Calvin did not advocate the inerrancy of Scripture. Warfield and others were led to develop this new approach because of their adherence to Scottish Common Sense Philosophy. It has pointed out that liberals too held to Common Sense Philosophy, so that in itself does not prove anything. The Princeton theologians set forth the doctrine of Scripture with fresh precision, making it clear that the Bible is God's inerrant Word. It often happens that false teaching causes the church to state its doctrine with greater clarity and force. McGowan notes that the proposals of Rogers and McKim have been discussed and found wanting by a number of serious scholars. He does not endorse their point of view. But neither is he happy with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

So, what is McGowan's problem with inerrancy? He takes issue with the assumption that because God is both truthful and omniscient that the Bible must therefore be without error. It is this assumption that made inerrantists insist that the original autographa were inerrant. Copyists mistakes and errors may be found in the Bibles we have today. But the pristine Word of God was given in the autographa. McGowan says that God could have given us inerrant Scriptures. But he opted not to because the Bible is God's Word communicated to us through human writers with all the limitations that entails. This is deeply troubling. The link between the veracity of God and the truthfulness of his Word is present in the Bible's self-witness. The Lord is "the God of truth" (Psalm 31:5). He "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2). God's self-revelation in Scripture bears the hallmarks of his truthfulness. It is described as "the word of truth" (Psalm 119:43). Jesus prayed, "Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." (John 17:17). Kevin Vanhoozer, who can hardly be described as a tub thumping fundamentalist writes,

"The basis for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is located both in the nature of God and in the Bible's teaching about itself. First, if God is perfect – all knowing, all wise, all-good – it follows that God speaks the truth. God does not tell lies; God is not ignorant. God's Word is thus free from all error arising either from conscious deceit or unconscious ignorance. Such is the unanimous confession of the Psalmist, the prophets, the Lord Jesus and the apostles. Second, the Bible presents itself as the Word of God written. Thus, in addition to its humanity (which is never denied), the Bible also enjoys the privileges and prerogatives of its status as God's Word. God's Word is thus wholly reliable, a trustworthy guide to reality, a light unto our path."

Several times McGowan suggests that inerrancy tends towards a dictation theory of biblical inspiration which undermines the human side of Scripture. But while this may be the case in some fundamentalist writings, Reformed theologians such as Warfield have been careful to give due weight to the fact that God communicated his Word through human beings. Holy Scripture bears the unmistakable stamp of the personalities of its human authors. But what Moses, Jeremiah, Luke and Paul etc. wrote was kept from error by the guiding presence of the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, McGowan argues that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy was rationalistic attempt on behalf of Hodge, Warfield and others to respond to the challenges of liberal theology by showing that the Bible is scientifically accurate. It is certainly true that Hodge saw theology as a scientific exercise where the theologian's task was to categorise and arrange the raw data of biblical revelation into a coherent theological system. This is no doubt an unhelpful model for doing theology that owes too much to Enlightenment thinking. But responsible advocates of inerrancy have never suggested that the Bible must be accurate to the standards of modern scientific precision in order to be regarded as free from error. The Bible is not a scientific text book and does not purport to be. It uses approximations and generalisations that would not fulfill the strictest scientific criterion. But the basic truthfulness of Scripture is not affected by this. In the face of critical scholarship, Hodge and Warfield were right to insist that the Bible is entirely trustworthy and without error.

Leading on from this, McGowan accuses inerrantists of having a 'propositionalist' view of Scripture. Propositionalists view the theologian's task in terms of extracting factual propositions from Scripture upon which to base their theological systems. In the quest for inerrant propositions, careless theologians may ride roughshod over the differing biblical genres. It has to be said that McGowan is careful to safeguard the value of biblical propositions. Where would we be without propositions like 'Jesus is Lord'? But as he points out, an overly propositionalist approach to Scripture has been rightly critiqued by the likes of Kevin Vanhoozer. It is interesting to note that notwithstanding this, Vanhoozer is still willing to affirm biblical inerrancy. I put this question to him in a recent interview. His response makes interesting reading,

"GD: Is there room for inerrancy in your theodramatic account of the Bible as the God-given script that the church is to understand and perform?

KV: Yes. I hold Scripture to be the word of God written. I believe that God speaks by means of the human discourse of Scripture and that the Holy Spirit so guided the authors that what they say/do with their words corresponds to the divine intent. God is the divine playwright who communicates his ideas through the voices of the various human authors. It's true that the term 'inerrancy' does not appear in Drama of Doctrine, but it doesn't follow that the idea is absent. To think that it does is to commit the word-concept fallacy.

One reason I didn't employ the word [in The Drama of Doctrine] is that there is confusion about what inerrancy means. It doesn't mean that we should interpret the Bible literalistically, turning a deaf ear to its figures of speech and literary genres. What it does mean is that when we rightly interpret the Bible, taking due consideration of what authors are doing with their words in their speech and literary genres, we can be assured that its truth claims are indeed true. And by 'true' I mean that its claims are reliable because they correspond to God, his creation, and to what God has done, is doing, and will do to renew his creation through Christ."

Vanhoozer's position is a far cry from McGowan's. While the latter does not wish to be identified as an 'errantist', he speaks of 'discrepancies' in the Gospels that are due to God not overruling the humanity of the evangelists (p. 118). He also writes,

"If God can effectively communicate and acts savingly through imperfect human beings who are called to preach the gospel, why is it necessary to argue that the authors of Scripture were supernaturally kept from the slightest discrepancy?" (p.118).

McGowan suggests that discrepancies and apparent contradictions are not merely the product of textual corruption. Such things would have been present even in the original autographa. This causes him no problems as he has denied that God's inerrant knowledge of all things is reflected in Scripture. Once more he charges inerrantists of running the danger of "so denying the humanness of the authors of the Scriptures that they fall into a 'dictation theory' of Scripture" (p. 119). It is rather sad that McGowan, a noted Reformed theologian seems to be echoing old style liberal objections to the evangelical doctrine of Scripture at this point. He may have shown that there were some flaws in the theological methodology of the old Princeton theologians who developed the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. But I am not persuaded that he has made a good case for abandoning the historic evangelical teaching that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. McGowan says that if forced to choose between inerrancy and errancy, he would opt for the former. But his view that the veracity of God does not guarantee the entire truthfulness of his Word does not serve to engender confidence in Scripture. [Part 1, Part 3]

The Divine Spiration of Scripture by A. T. B. McGowan (Book Review: Part 1)

Locus & terminology

The Divine Spiration of Scripture: Challenging evangelical perspectives,
by A. T. B. McGowan, Apollos, 2007

It is fair to say that this book has attracted some pretty hostile reviews. The author expected as much, writing, "Clearly, some of the argument presented in this book is controversial, particularly that evangelicals should no longer use the term 'inerrancy'." A number of reviewers (here and here) have chosen to concentrate almost entirely on this controversial proposal. But I want to try and review the book as a whole. McGowan has some helpful things to say and evangelicals need to be challenged to set forth the doctrine of Scripture with greater thoughtfulness and care. The review will be split up into several posts.

McGowan begins by questioning the tendency amongst evangelicals to place the doctrine of Scripture first in the locus of systematic theology. This can also be seen in many evangelical statements of faith, which typically begin with a statement on the Bible. McGowan argues that theology should begin with God himself before considering his self-revelation in Scripture. He would like to see Scripture treated as an aspect of the work of the Holy Spirit. The writer no doubt has a point. But the task of theology is to articulate the Bible's witness to what God has done in Christ. We can only know the Lord savingly through Scripture's testimony to the God of the Gospel. So, it is not altogether inappropriate to begin with God's self-revelation in Scripture. As McGowan points out however, there is some diversity on this matter in the Reformed confessions of faith. Some like the Genevan Confession and Westminster Confession of Faith begin with a statement on Scripture, others such as the Scots Confession and the Belgic Confession start with God. At the time of the Reformation, the issue was the authority of Scripture, with Protestants insisting that Scripture alone is out authority over and against the Roman Catholic teaching that Scripture and tradition are equally authoritative. Those confessions that put Scripture first were being upfront about this. Their theology was based on Scripture alone. Post Schleiermacher it is important to establish that theology is based on the witness of Scripture. Theology is not primarily an expression of the subjective religious consciousness. Placing a statement on Scripture first in the locus of theology serves to emphasise that whatever we say about God in his triune majesty and mighty acts must be informed by his written self-revelation. This does not entail an evidentialist approach to theology, whereby we have to prove that the Bible is inerrant before we can say anything meaningful about God. That God exists and that he has revealed himself in creation and [inerrantly] in Scripture should be the basic presupposition of consistently Reformed theology. But in the last analysis, where we place the doctrine of Scripture in our theological systems is less important than what we say about Scripture. I note that John Frame, who like McGowan's is a presuppositionalist, begins his Salvation Belongs to the Lord; An Introduction to Systematic Theology with three chapters on God before discussing Scripture. Herman Bavinck, also a presuppositionalist devotes the first volume of his Reformed Dogmatics to prolegomena, including the doctrine of Scripture before he considers the God and Creation.

McGowan proposes some terminological revision in formulating the doctrine of Scripture. First he suggests that we replace "inspiration" with "spiration". In 2 Timothy 3:16, the apostle Paul writes, "All Scripture is theopneustos [God-breathed]". McGowan notes that "inspiration" literally means to 'breathe into', while "spiration" more appropriately means 'to breathe out'. 'Spiration' therefore captures Paul's meaning, that all Scripture is the product of God's creative breath. Besides, 'inspired' is often taken to mean 'inspiring' as in Shakespeare's 'inspiring' plays. Scripture is far more than a literary classic. It is God's own Spirit-given Word. I agree, then that 'spiration' is a more appropriate designation of Scripture than 'inspiration'. But it is a slightly unwieldy term and I can't see catching on outside the world of academic theology. Better I think to say with the NIV that Scripture is 'God-breathed'. Secondly, McGowan posits that 'illumination' should be replaced by 'recognition'. He rightly insists that Scripture does not need to be illuminated. It is our minds that are darkened due to the noetic effects of sin. But Scripture does speak of God enlightening the minds of believers (2 Cor 4:6, Eph 1:18). 'Illumination' is therefore a useful word when defined as the witness of the Spirit which enables the believer to recognise Scripture as the Word of God. Thirdly McGowan argues that 'comprehension' is more appropriate than 'perspicuity'. The latter could be taken to mean that Scripture is so clear that it can be understood by the human mind without the help of the Spirit. It is better therefore to speak of the Spirit giving us comprehension of the meaning of Scripture. But there is something to be said in favour of perspicuity. As McGowan acknowledges, the concept was originally developed to show that the essential message of Scripture is so clear that can be grasped by believers without the help of specialists. I suggest that perspicuity is a useful concept in our postmodern setting. Postmodern hermeneutics have cast doubt on our ability to access the meaning of Scripture. We need therefore to emphasise that the Bible is capable of being understood accurately, if never exhaustively. But this does not mean that we can truly comprehend the meaning of Scripture apart from the revelatory work of the Spirit. The final and most controversial proposal is that evangelicals should opt for 'infallibility' over 'inerrancy'. McGowan says that 'inerrancy' denotes 'a turn towards a somewhat mechanical and even rationalistic approach to Scripture, basing its authority on a set of inerrant manuscripts.' (p. 48-49). In defining 'infallibility', the writer does not speak of a quality of the biblical text, so much as God's use of Scripture,

"The argument for 'infallibility' is that the final authority for the Christian is the authority of God speaking in and through his Word and that the Holy Spirit infallibly uses God's Word to achieve all he intends to achieve." (p. 49).

We should not lose sight of God's dynamic use of his own Word. Without doubt the Lord infallibly uses Scripture to fulfill his purposes. But is it true that holding that the Bible itself is without error is necessarily to have 'a mechanical and even rationalistic' view of Scripture? I will discuss McGowan's proposals on biblical inerrancy in the next part of this review series. [Part 2, Part 3]