revised denial statement would read (with changes in italics),
We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole. We further deny that divine inspiration requires a dictation from God to the human authors.
The following article (VII) will reemphasize the statement made here by maintaining the mysterious nature of the mode of inspiration. It is to that article I now turn.
Article VII: The Definition
The biblical doctrine of inspiration refers, rather, to the divine source of the text. R. C.
Sproul explains,
The word inspiration can be used and has been used in our language to refer to moments of genius-level insight, of intensified states of consciousness or of
heightened acts of human achievement. We speak of inspired poetry, meaning that the author achieved levels of insight and brilliance that are extraordinary. However, in this dimension of “inspiration” no suggestion is at hand that the source of
inspiration is divine power. . . . Here the [CSBI] is making clear that by divine inspiration something transcending all human states of inspiration is in view, something in which the power and supervision of God are at work. Thus, the articles are saying that the Bible, though it is a human book insofar as it is written by human writers, has its humanity transcended by virtue of its divine origin and inspiration.15
Thus, the denial statement clarifies what is intended by the use of the word inspiration, distinguishing its meaning in Article VII from other common connotations.
Although these explanations are helpful, there are a few recommendations I propose in light of some contemporary developments in the area of the doctrine of inspiration. First, with regard to the affirmation statement, I advocate the addition of a sentence that highlights the concurrence between the divine word and the human word in a distinctively helpful, clarifying manner. While the CSBI as a whole affirms that God’s act of inspiration worked in such a way so as avoid violating the personalities of the human authors (see Article XIII), there is need for a more direct reference to the doctrine of concurrence in the document. Such a reference would help alleviate some of the tension that exists between statements that affirm God’s divine oversight of the biblical text and statements that affirm human involvement in the writing of these texts.16 The
15R. C. Sproul, Explaining Inerrancy, 19.
16See my discussion of Article XIII below where I argue that some of this tension is relieved if we acknowledge that the biblical authors, generally speaking, wrote according to their own free expression.
The affirmation that biblical authors wrote according to their own free expression, however, is dependent
doctrine of concurrence is vital to a robust articulation of inspiration because it affirms that God’s providential activity cooperates with, not in opposition to, creaturely activity in order to bring about divine purposes. Thus, in the writing of Scripture, we can rightly assert that what the biblical authors wrote according to the dictates of their own free agency was simultaneously God’s word. John Frame emphasizes the harmony of
purpose between the divine and human participants in particularly effective fashion when he observes that inspiration is the “divine act creating an identity between a divine word and a human word.”17 Therefore, I suggest the affirmation portion of Article VII read, along with minor stylistic adjustments (with changes in italics),
We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. Although the origin of Scripture is divine, the mode of inspiration is largely a mystery to us. We further affirm that in Scripture there is an identity between the divine word and the human word without the loss of either.
With the addition of this new sentence, Article VII upholds the doctrine of concurrence and honors the divine and human nature of Scripture, thus laying a sturdier foundation upon which simultaneously to assert God’s supervision of the text and the free expression of the human authors in Article VIII.
Second, with regard to Craig Allert’s suggestion that evangelicals rethink their doctrine of inspiration based on his observation that the word theopneustos was applied by the ancient church to writings other than Scripture,18 I suggest Article VII note the unique character of biblical inspiration. The revised denial portion would read:
upon a logically prior affirmation; namely, that God providential activity coincides seamlessly with creaturely activity.
17Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God, 143.
18Craig D. Allert, A High View of Scripture: The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon, Evangelical Resourcement (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 64-65.
We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind. We further deny that inspiration can be rightly applied to early Christian documents in the same way that it can be applied to Holy
Scripture.
While Allert is correct in his observation that some theologians in the early church did classify their writings as theopneustos, it does not follow that in so doing they were, in every case, placing their writings on the same authoritative plane as Scripture, or that they considered their writings to share ontological categories with the canonical books.19 Nor does the observation that some theologians of the early church referred to documents other than Scripture as theopneustos overturn the claim that this word with reference to Scripture bears a distinctive meaning.20 Thus, it is fitting that the CSBI respond to such arguments by affirming the Scripture’s exclusive status as God-breathed literature.
At this point, however, before we engage the following article (VIII), I propose the addition of a new article that addresses specifically an issue found in at least two of the authors we studied in chapter 2.
Additional Article: The Providential Preparation of the Human Authors
In their respective attempts to reframe the inerrancy debate, both A. T. B.
19By the phrase “ontological categories” I mean to argue that Scripture by its very nature is superior to any other human work. Thus, ontologically speaking, Scripture is in a class by itself, distinct from the writings of any early church theologian. D. A. Carson rightly notes that in the case of the church fathers there was often the combining of two doctrinal categories that theologians would later view separately. “In short, a number of Fathers use a variety of expressions, including ‘inspiration,’ to lump together what many theologians today would separate into two categories ‘inspiration’ and ‘illumination.’”
D. A. Carson, “Approaching the Bible,” in Collected Writings on Scripture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 33.
20See also Michal Kruger’s contention that the early church’s occasional use of a particular document as Scripture does not demand that such a book be taken as finally canonical. There are more factors involved in determining which books belong in the canon, and occasional disagreements over what books should be considered Scripture do not by themselves undermine that claim that a general consensus of the canonical list did exist. See Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 57n127.
McGowan and N. T. Wright are careful to uphold God’s sovereignty in the work of inspiration by affirming that the Scripture we have is the Scripture God intended us to have. As James Scott has observed, however, such affirmations, though true and embraced gladly by all evangelicals, actually say nothing directly about the doctrine of inspiration or the doctrine of inerrancy as such. Indeed—and this is more clear in McGowan than in Wright—there appears to be in these writers a conflation of the two theological categories of providence and inspiration.21 Over a century ago, however, B.
B. Warfield recognized that one could make a mistake precisely at this point.
When we give due place in our thoughts to the universality of the providential government of God, to the minuteness and completeness of its sway, and to its invariable efficacy, we may be inclined to ask what is needed beyond this mere providential government to secure the production of sacred books which should be in every detail absolutely accordant with the Divine will. The answer is, Nothing is needed beyond mere providence to secure such books—provided only that it does not lie in the Divine purpose that these books should possess qualities which rise above the powers of men to produce, even under the most complete divine
guidance. For providence is guidance; and guidance can bring one only so far as his own power can carry him.22
Yet, Kevin Vanhoozer argues that despite this claim that something other than providence is needed to provide us with God’s word in human form, Warfield finally concedes to the providential model to explain inspiration.23 So, the problem facing us at this point is that providence is a “necessary but not sufficient condition for God’s inspired
21James W. Scott, “Reconsidering Inerrancy: A Response to A. T. B. McGowan’s The Divine Authenticity of Scripture,” WTJ 71 (2009): 206. Kevin Vanhoozer notes that others have questioned the
“inspiration-as-providence model, wondering whether it goes far enough.” Vanhoozer continues, noting the same concern broached by Scott: “It is not enough to say that God guided those who produced the books of the Bible for the simple reason that divine providence is the ultimate factor—the remote cause—
behind all the books that have ever been produced!” See “Triune Discourse, Part 1,” 34. Concerning Wright, see Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God, 522.
22B. B. Warfield, “The Biblical Idea of Inspiration,” in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1948), 157-58.
23Vanhoozer, “Triune Discourse, Part 1,” 34.
word to be spoken.”24 Although space does allow for a full discussion of these important matters,25 it is necessary to note how providence and inspiration are distinguished
theologically. The doctrine of providence establishes the biblical teaching that God is actively involved with the universe, preserving, sustaining, and directing every element of the creation for his own purposes.26 The doctrine of inspiration, although rightly understood as a subset of the doctrine of providence, is viewed as a unique work within the sphere of God’s general activity of sustaining and directing people and events for his own ends.
It seems appropriate, therefore to formulate an additional article to the CSBI that makes a distinction between providence and inspiration, indicating clearly that inspiration is a work that sets Scripture apart from other works that God has, by his providence, decreed to come into existence. Specifically, I propose an article that (1) affirms the providence of God in preparing the authors of Scripture; (2) affirms the providence of God in securing a text that was exactly what he wanted; and (3)
distinguishes clearly between God’s work of providence and his work of inspiration. The new article would read,
We affirm that God providentially prepared the authors of Scripture to write what they did. We further affirm that, as the Spirit revealed divine truth to the authors of Scripture, they wrote exactly what God intended them to write.
24John Goldingay, Models for Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 249, quoted in Vanhoozer, “Triune Discourse, Part 1,” 34n33.
25A full discussion of this issue would require the appraisal of various models of inspiration akin to Vanhoozer’s discussion in “Triune Discourse, Part 1,” 31-43. Vanhoozer examines three models, attempting to understand where we should place inspiration among the doctrinal loci. Should we formulate our doctrine of inspiration via our doctrine of providence, incarnation, or revelation?
26See Paul Helm, The Providence of God, Contours of Christian Theology (Leicester, UK:
Inter-Varsity, 1993), 17-24; Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 315-54.
We deny that God’s act of inspiration can be equated with his providential preparation of the biblical authors or that it is adequate merely to claim that the Scriptures are what God intended them to be.
With this additional affirmation and denial, the CSBI would not only acknowledge the important role of providence in securing the biblical text, it would also protect the doctrine of inerrancy from the kinds of challenges offered by McGowan and Wright. In the case of McGowan, because providence is distinguished from inspiration, we are guarded from the claim that errors could have crept into the text as God providentially worked with fallen men to inscripturate his word. In the case of Wright, we are forced to reckon with rather than bypass important questions related to inerrancy.27 Furthermore, the reference to revelation in the affirmation statement and to inspiration in the denial statement bolsters the claim that providence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inscripturation: it was required that God disclose knowledge to the biblical writers that they could have not otherwise ascertained.
The discussion of God’s providential preparation of the biblical authors and the distinction between providence and inspiration leads naturally to a concentrated focus on the human authorship of Scripture in Articles VIII-XIII. It is to this important issue I
27See, for example, John Frame’s review of Wright’s book, The Last Word, and his critique of Wright’s unwillingness to enter into the important, historical discussions related to inerrancy. “But there is a major problem of omission. If one is to deal seriously with the ‘Bible wars, even somehow to transcend them, one must ask whether and how inspiration affects the text of Scripture.’ Wright defines inspiration by saying that ‘by his Spirit God guided the very different writers and editors, so that the books they produced were the books God intended his people to have’ [N. T. Wright, The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2005), 37]. But the same can be said about the books in my library: that God moved writers, editors, publishers, and others so that the books in my library are the ones God wants me to have. . . . So it is important to ask whether inspiration is simply divine providence, or whether it carries God’s endorsement. Is God, in any sense, the author of these books” (Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God, 522). Wright, however, never answers these kinds of questions apparently assuming that his appeal to providence says all that is necessary for the inspiration of Scripture. As we noted above, however, providence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the inscripturation of God’s word.
now turn.
Article VIII: The Human