Kevin Van Hooser says, this is what he says, he says, To say the scripture is inerrant is to confess that the authors speak the truth in all things they affirm when they make affirmations. So whatever scripture asserts and affirms, it speaks truthfully and in a trustworthy manner. To say it is wholly true means that we should not limit inerrancy to scripture's main doctrinal message. We never see the biblical authors place such a limitation on their writings and say they believe God speaks through.
truly through them and whatever they affirm. So inerrancy applies to all areas, including its ethical instruction, to name just one example. So I guess that's, once again, he's kind of arguing, Geisler did the opposite of what Van Hooser says here, because, you know, Van Hooser is kind of arguing against a limited inerrancy form, but Geisler actually did it there in a way.
So does that make, I mean, kind of the same problem, right? I mean, it seems like it's not, it's not consistent. You know what I mean?
Okay. Let me switch to inspiration a little bit. So, you know, when I first heard of inspiration, I read the Bible as a new believer. And I started, then I got into, you know, theological studies more. I started looking at inspiration, the passages we had.
I always said to myself, as a Christian, I said, okay, what does that look like? I don't understand. Like, God breathed. Okay, so is he like, is he emptying their minds out?
Is he controlling them? Is he supervising them? actually does that look like?
I can't get a picture in my head. I don't understand what's the meeting point between the human and God. How do they come together?
Because even traditional inerrancy people will argue for a human element scripture. Geisler has a big part in his book. He said, yeah, yeah, there's a human aspect to it.
Absolutely. But it seems like over the years, as I've talked to other Christians about it, they don't have a good grasp of it. I don't either. Because as you would say, the Bible just doesn't really tell us much. how inspiration works.
Is that what you're kind of saying? There's not really a mechanism of inspiration that it gives us. Is that correct?
That's correct, Eric. There are typically two verses that Christians appeal to or evangelicals appeal to for understanding inspiration. You have 2 Timothy 3.16, all scripture is beyond us, God breathed.
Well, what does that look like? That sounds like divine dictation, doesn't it? But a lot of times, you know, we use words in such a way that it's not like it is the face meaning of that term is not what we actually mean. And that's got to be what's, you know, obviously it's not dictation.
And I'm not aware of any scholar who thinks it's divine dictation. Although the way the Chicago Statement describes inspiration, I think they want their cake and eat it too. Because, you know, it's not divine dictation, but yet God caused the biblical writers to use the very words that he chose.
How is that different from divine dictation? Or the words were divinely constituted, that is composed, or it's the product of a single divine mind. In fact, at one point, Geisler has said that... And God did not force them to write certain words, even though Chicago Statement says he calls them to write the very words that he chose. So he kind of contradicts himself in what the Chicago Statement says.
But he says that Scripture would have been no different at all had God dictated it or written it himself. Now think about that, Eric, for a moment. If it would not have been any different had God written it himself, God's speech in written form, after all, right? Well, then think about this. What do we do when you've got Mark with awkward grammar that Matthew and Luke seek to improve?
I could give you a couple examples of that. Well, you'd have to look at the Holy Spirit reading Mark at a later date and saying, hmm, you know what? I can do better than that. Let's say it this way in Matthew and Luke. Or what about?
Paul's memory lapse in 1 Corinthians 1.16. He says, I don't remember if I baptized anyone outside the household of Stephanas. Well, if God calls the biblical writers to use the very words that he chose, if this is the product of a single divine mind, well, then it would seem that the Holy Spirit had a memory lapse there, told Paul to put things on writing for a moment while he checked heaven's records, only to find the relevant item missing. And then there are a few examples of editorial fatigue in Luke. I mean, I could get into these and take a little bit longer, so I'll just mention that.
That editorial fatigue. And then where Luke seems to confuse two versions of the same parable. Well, are we to imagine the Holy Spirit then looking back at some point and go, oh, how did I miss that? But yet these things would seem to be virtually required if the understanding of inspiration of people like Norman Geisler and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy are correct. Yeah.
Yeah, I just want to... say something um you know i know you're not we're not trying to pick on dr guy so i mean i had a lot of i had a lot of respect for dr because there wasn't i mean when it comes to apologetics like there wouldn't be a lot of apologetics about dr guy so he made some major contributions but we're just pointing out some things because he is one of the authors of the chicago statement the original authors of it for writers with j.i packer and some others there's just some things that we're using to clarify um with some of his views so when you mentioned that inspiration thing you as far as the dictation thing, I looked up. So in his systematic theology one, this is really interesting because you're going to agree with most of this.
He says here, the Bible came through human agency, with the exception of a few occasions like the giving of the Ten Commandments, which are inscribed by the finger of God. Actually, Jews believe that too. But he says the Bible did not come directly from God, only indirectly from and through the instrumentality of...
of his prophets. And furthermore, judging by various vocabulary, grammar, style, figures of speech, and human interest of various authors, God did not disregard the personality and culture of the biblical writers, and he providentially guided them to be the vehicles through which he revealed his written word, human word, to mankind. I think we both agree with that 100%. On the contrary, the Bible is thoroughly a human book in every respect, except that it is without error.
Regardless of the mystery surrounding how God was able to make his word certain without destroying the freedom and personality of the author, several things are clear. Now listen, this is what's really interesting. He says the human authors of scripture were not mere secretaries taking dictation. Their freedom was not suspended or negated. And they were not, okay, but what they wrote is what they desired to write and the style that they were accustomed to using.
God and his providence engaged in divine concurrence between their words and his. So what they said, he said. Now, this is what's interesting. But then he also says that is even though the Bible was not mechanically dictated by God to man, nonetheless, the result is just as perfect as it had been.
Biblical authors claim that God is a source of the very words of Scripture since he supernaturally superintended the process. by which they wrote using their vocabulary and style message record his message now that's kind of interesting you know i mean there's a lot of things i could agree with that you know about the human authorship part but it seems like he's kind of saying no it's not dictation but in a way he's saying it looks like it's dictation the result you know from what he's saying i guess in a way so what do the tradition what is the traditional view of inerrancy if they say it's not divinely dictated what What's the verbiage? What do they say it is?
What is their view of inspiration? It's not divine dictation. Is it verbal plenary or how do you find out?
Plenary means the very verbal, the very words are inspired and plenary. All of it, rather than just some of it is is inspired. Yeah.
OK. So and I you know, but but what you just quoted, it seemed like Geisler wanted it both ways. Right. He he wanted it, you know, for a guy who was.
against Calvinism, his view of inerrancy and of inspiration was very Calvinistic. So, but he says, except he said they had free will, but then he said, no, God calls them to write these very words that he chose. So how do you have both?
He wanted his cake and eat it too, because he wanted to fit his idea of inspiration and inerrancy. into what the Bible says. And I think that if his view of inspiration and inerrancy were correct, our Bible would look different than it does today. Okay, so their argument is that God can't err, therefore the Bible cannot err. But the only way they can really make that work is if, in a way, it has to be some sort of divine dictation.
That God is literally dictating it to them word for word and not allowing them. There's restrictions on there. human, you know, humanity there and what they can and can't do.
So what, but they argue against divine dictation and then they, but you're saying in the end, it really comes out that way, no matter what, no matter what they put forward really is kind of a divine dictation to, even though they deny that. Is that what I'm understanding? Yeah, I think so.
I mean, try to explain the difference between divine dictation and how they are saying the inspiration process occurred, like from Geisler's systematic theology. I'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between that and divine dictation. He says it's not, but the end result, I mean, when he says that it wouldn't be any different if God had dictated it or written it himself. And when the Chicago Statement, which was, Geisler was one of the three authors that composed that, him, he, R.C.
Sproul, and J.I. Packer, and they were making statements that God caused the biblical writers to use the very words that he chose. The words were divinely constituted.
It's the product of a single divine mind. You know, how do you distinguish that from divine dictation? If you want to think it's different, then you probably better think about using some better verbiage on describing things.
Because if it is, if you mentioned that syllogism, God cannot err, two, the Bible is the word of God, three, therefore the Bible cannot err. It comes down, I agree with the first premise. The second premise, I think, is loaded with assumptions.
What does it mean to say, what does Word of God mean? And by the way, most of the times it's used in the New Testament, it's referring to the message that's preached, the oral preaching of Jesus and his apostles. That's what it's referring to most of the time. And sometimes when it's referring to Scripture, it's referring to the message of Scripture.
So I think they read more into the term Word of God than they should. And that comes because of their understanding of the Anustas in 2 Timothy 3.16, which when you look at the times that that word is used from before Christ all the way up until the beginning of the 3rd century, 8 to 13 times possibly within that period, it's not exactly descriptive. It doesn't really describe what it means.
I mean, you've got ointments that are talked about as being the Anustas. dreams, ether. Pseudo-Plutarch talks about ether, the very thing that includes air and is an invisible substance.
That is considered to be theanustas. The Sibylline oracles talk about how everything could be theanustas. So what did it mean? Well, you know, it's used of scripture, but in the lives of...
Carpus, Papalus, and Agathones. At one point, I think it's Carpus who is before a Roman government official who's getting ready to put him to death. And he says, hey, you know, if you want to know the truth, look at the theanustas, the God-breathed teachings of the church. So, you know, what did it mean?
I think... The minimum it means is that it ultimately derives from God. But to throw some other meaning into it at that time becomes a chancy practice because you may be reading more into it than it actually meant. And then the other verse that's commonly used by traditional inerrantists is 2 Peter 1, verses 20 and 21. It says, no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, but men moved, carried along. born along by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God.
And that verb, spoke, born along, carried along, is very close to similar verbs that are used by both Philo and Josephus about prophets as well. And it says that they took over. And so the prophet had no control over what they said at that point. They were under, the Holy Spirit was controlling their mouth. So it would be a divine dictation there.
So isn't it interesting when it says no prophecy of Scripture, yada yada, for men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. Not wrote, they spoke. And it's talking about prophecy of Scripture there.
So my guess is you're probably looking at words of the prophets that got put down in Scripture. I think that's probably what the 2 Peter text is referring to there. So my whole point is. is that the two major texts that are used by traditional inerrantists to formulate their concept of inspiration, they're probably reading much more into that than the authors intended.