The Divine Spiration of Scripture

The Divine Spiration of Scripture
A. T. B. McGowan
Apollos

Professor McGowan's book is interesting but rather odd. Its main arguments are simple enough to grasp and make for interesting discussion:

• The doctrine of the Bible should not stand as a separate subject in systematic theology but form part of the doctrine of God ("theology proper") and the Holy Spirit in particular.
• We should stop referring to the "divine inspiration" of Scripture and start using "divine spiration" instead.
• We should stop referrring to the "inerrancy" of Scripture and use the word "infallibility" instead.

The ideas are clear enough, but the book takes a rather meandering path through the subject matter which mean that the main points are often lost amid screeds of words dealing with a number of different subjects. Personally, I felt this distracted from the main points.

There are also some difficulties with the main points themselves that need to be addressed.

First, to argue for a change in vocabulary from inspiration to spiration is a difficult one to sell. The word inspiration is so entrenched as a term of art in theology that it is hard to imagine it being displaced, especially by the rather odd word "spiration" which few people will even have heard of. While it is true that inspiration is often misunderstood and confused with the way purely human writings are said to be "inspired" and while it not a very accurate rendering of theopneustos in 2 Timothy 3:16 ("God-breathed" or "breathed out by God" are much more accurate and descriptive), I do not think McGowan makes a sufficient case for replacing what is a problematic term with another problematic term. It is not immediately apparent what "spiration" means. Rather than looking for a Latinate term of art to replace "inspiration," might we not be better to stick the robust Anglo-Saxon term "God-breathed" in future to describe the doctrine?

Second, one of McGowan's central arguments is that there is a divide between American theologians who argue for the concept of inerrancy and European theologian who argue instead for infallibility. Here he pits the likes of Warfield and Hodge against Kuyper and Bavinck. This view of a radical difference between the two continents is not universally accepted. The book would have been helped, in my view, if McGowan had spelled out more clearly what he actually means by infallibility, in particular how this differs from inerrancy.

Third, where we categorise the doctrine of Scripture in systematic theology is of little interest to anyone except professional systematic theologians. McGowan does not really explain why it matters very well.

Because of the book's problems, it is unlikely to achieve what McGowan would like. It seems to be destined to be a mere footnote in the body of evangelical theology on the inspiration and authority of the Bible.

Readers who want to read a more detailed review could do worse than read John Frame's review here.