Question:
“Robert Hamilton, in “Philosophical Reflections on Free Will” responds to an objection to indeterminism quoting Feinberg who argues “the only way to hold to verbal plenary inspiration as set forth in 2 Peter 1:21 seems to be to hold to compatibilism.” In Hamilton’s response, he concedes there are “special cases” where “God overrides the human will and determines human choice.” He lists divine inspiration as a specific example of this exception to the rule. In your experience, is it common for Arminians to concede that divine inspiration of Scripture involved the overriding of the human author’s libertarian free will?
Article VII of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy affirms that “The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.” Yet in the very next article (VIII) they “deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.” If the framers of this statement were mostly Calvinists, it would be consistent for them to speak of divine inspiration as “God causing these writers to use the very words that He chose…” They admit mystery in the mode but insist on determinism (which is in essence the mode). But it surprises me that Arminians like Hamilton would seem to agree that in this “special case” God overrode their wills but not their personalities. But can our will and personality be separated like that? To override one would seem to change the other.
My understanding of 2 Peter 1:21 is that the Holy Spirit carried the human writers along like a current in a stream. They remained free to swim left or right while the current carried them in the right direction. They chose which words and sentence structure to use, but the Holy Spirit’s current overpowered their ability to swim upstream into error. The Holy Spirit set boundaries for their will but did not entirely override their will. Otherwise we cannot account for the differences in style between the human writers. This is my understanding of plenary inspiration.
I think it is verbal inspiration that specifically feels like a “special case”. How could every word be God-breathed if at least some words were left to the free will choice of the human author? My understanding of verbal inspiration is that the Holy Spirit acted as the editor in chief. No Scripture was published unless it was first reviewed and authorized by the Holy Spirit. In placing his stamp of approval upon the human author’s word choices, the words can rightly be called “God-breathed” and God’s words. Or as the Chicago Statement concludes and I affirm, “What the Bible says, God says.”
A Calvinist friend of mine recently questioned my understanding of inspiration as potentially novel. Can you suggest any sources for further study on theories of the mode of inspiration? Am I on an island here?”
Answer:
I would tend to agree with you. I do think God gave leeway with regards to how His truth would be expressed by the various personalities writing the Scriptures. I think that in most cases what is written could have been expressed differently while communicating the same truth just as well. Different translations serve as a limited illustration in that translations can vary quite a bit in the way the truth of a passage is expressed, but all still communicate that same truth well enough (while acknowledging that not all translations are good).
I also think that the Holy Spirit could intervene at times to prevent error, even in a way that would restrict freedom. So it is probably a combination though I think being guided by the Spirit while in an an attitude of total submission (as was likely the case with the writers of Scripture) is enough to explain the process.
Maybe a passage like Proverbs 21:1 can give us some more insight (cf. 2 Peter 1:21 as you pointed out). In that passage it seems the king is expressing his willing submission to the Lord. Because the king’s heart is submitted to the Lord the Lord can direct Him as He wishes (like directing the flow of water). The flow does not originate in God (only in the sense of our personality and choice with regards to expressing God’s truth, since the truth itself does indeed come from God), it originates in the heart, but God moves it as He wills for His purpose (so that it perfectly communicates God’s truth in whatever way the person chooses to communicate that truth). In that way the human personality and freedom is preserved while the Lord has the final say.
On Calvinism it is hard to see how Scripture would differ from any other writing since even the Satanic Bible would be written in a compatibilist sense according to Calvinism.
Follow-up Question:
Thanks for the affirmation. I like your suggestion that it is probably a combination of God restricting freedom and the human authors voluntarily yielding to the Spirit’s guidance with the restriction being the exception rather than the rule since a heart yielded to God hardly needs such forceful action. Maybe that is all Hamilton was conceding? I guess I would need to ask him.
Thanks also for the Proverbs reference. God’s hand is likened to the banks of a river that directs the flow of water. To stretch the analogy further, streams can erode the banks and change their path but engineers can design armoring and walls in critical areas to prevent the stream from going where we don’t want it to go. God is the Master Engineer. You might have guessed I’m a civil engineer.
I agree that Determinists have a problem in that all events are equally determined and so in a sense all things are equally inspired/God-breathed. The only distinction being that the Satanic Bible was determined to be full of error while the Word of God was determined to be without error (in the original autographs that is), which to be fair is an important distinction.
I don’t know about you, but in my experience with Calvinists, one of the greatest obstacles to considering Arminianism is the apparent lack of certainty it provides. As my former pastor was fond of saying, “There is comfort in Calvinism.” The comfort that Calvinism offers is certainty. Our flesh gravitates toward certainty because it makes us feel safe, one of our most basic felt needs. We want a guarantee. We want things to be black and white with no grey. Determinism eliminates all uncertainty.
It is a fine line between comfort and complacency though. We also need to be careful not to seek comfort where God’s Word does not provide it simply because it feels good. But when I point these things out to Calvinists, I make them uncomfortable and it sometimes invokes anger, resentment and fear. I’m seeking the right balance of loving my Calvinist brothers and sister with forbearance and speaking the truth in love. I also remain open to the possibility that I am wrong and remain ready for the Word to correct me and for God to direct the stream of my life closer toward the truth. Your website has been part of that course correcting process for me.
Thanks again for your feedback. You are a blessing to me!
Answer:
I agree that Determinists have a problem in that all events are equally determined and so in a sense all things are equally inspired/God-breathed. The only distinction being that the Satanic Bible was determined to be full of error while the Word of God was determined to be without error (in the original autographs that is), which to be fair is an important distinction.
Yes, but it only creates more problems for Calvinism since we have God working to create error and false teaching in the same way as He creates Scripture truth, making God just as much the author of that error as well.
I don’t know about you, but in my experience with Calvinists, one of the greatest obstacles to considering Arminianism is the apparent lack of certainty it provides. As my former pastor was fond of saying, “There is comfort in Calvinism.” The comfort that Calvinism offers is certainty. Our flesh gravitates toward certainty because it makes us feel safe, one of our most basic felt needs. We want a guarantee. We want things to be black and white with no grey. Determinism eliminates all uncertainty.
I think on a surface level that may be true but for those who think more deeply about it determinism can create plenty of uncertainty, especially when it comes to salvation assurance: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/an-important-admission-on-salvation-assurance-from-prominent-calvinist-c-michael-patton/
I’m seeking the right balance of loving my Calvinist brothers and sister with forbearance and speaking the truth in love.
Yes, such an important balance to maintain.
I also remain open to the possibility that I am wrong and remain ready for the Word to correct me and for God to direct the stream of my life closer toward the truth. Your website has been part of that course correcting process for me.
Glad to hear that.
God Bless,
Ben
[Slightly edited exchange from the ??Questions?? page]
