Man of God anon

The Dualism of Dinesh D’Souza The reason I think @DineshDSouza’s “robot” description of biblical inspiration is so profoundly significant here is because it seems to show that even on theological topics usually treated as outside the scope of divine determinism, he only knows how to operate with two categories for man's relationship to God’s providence: (a) the category of “libertarian freedom” or (b) the category of “robot.” And if God’s providence with humans in any way results in a behavioral outcome that God completely determines, that atutomatically places humans into the “robot” category for D’Souza. His application of this to biblical inspiration, which is a special act of God’s providence, appears to betray a self-determined inability to see beyond this mutually exclusive dualism. But the historic Christian doctrine of biblical inspiration directly challenges D’Souza’s dualism, since believers have always acknowledged that inspiration involves two equally true, simultaneous realities: (a) human authors freely and responsibly used their own minds and wills to produce their own words; (b) God’s providence directly worked with and upon those authors’ minds and wills to produce what are ultimately His words. This historic doctrine of inspiration stands in such sharp contrast to D’Souza’s dualistic notion that it’s clearly hostile to any category of “robot” in its conceptualization or articulation. The evidence for this historic doctrine is found all over the pages of Scipture for everyone to see. If we limit consideration to the differing styles of the biblical authors alone, which is conspicuous even for those writing in the same language and in the same time periods as other inspired writers, this seems sufficient evidence to conclude that they chose both the words they used and how they formulated their statements. And if we look more closely, we can actually see their thinking processes operating while they wrote, as for example when Paul says, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,” but two verses later adds, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else” (1Cor 1:14, 16). Clearly it was Paul who couldn’t recall whether he’d baptized anyone else; the Holy Spirit had the complete information. And it’s just as clear that it was Paul who realized he’d committed the very human act of inadvertently omitting some information in verse 14 that, once he recalled it, he was prompted to supply it in verse 16 to avoid misunderstanding. Certainly the Holy Spirit was directly involved in the entire process of Paul penning these words, but it’s not unreasonable to conclude that the Spirit inspired these very verses to help us understand how inspiration works, particularly, that it doesn’t turn the biblical authors into robots. On the other hand, so that we don’t draw the improper conclusion that Paul’s words at any point are only Paul’s and not also the Spirit’s, in the very next chapter he says, “we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit” (1Cor 2:13). When making any inspired statements, Paul’s own words were ultimately God’s words, determined by Him. And this is backed up by a very strong statement of God’s direct involvement in the inspiration process from Peter: “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2Pet 1:21). And yet there’s no reason to think that Peter himself didn’t realize that these were his own words even as he himself was being “carried along by the Holy Spirit” while writing them. Biblical inspiration does not involve D’Souza’s freedom vs. robot dualism. In fact, it’s highly inimical to it. The historic doctrine of inspiration doesn’t present the either/or of “Either men of God freely and responsibly wrote the Scriptures or they were robots controlled by God writing the very words He determined that they would write.” Instead it presents the both/and of “Men of God freely and responsbility wrote the Scriptures in their own words as God’s providence operated mysteriously through inspiration to ensure that the words of Scripture were His own words, all while not overriding the writers’ personalities.” This is not some Calvinistic variant of the doctrine of inspiration. This is the standard conservative evangelical position. It’s found in the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which was signed by many Wesleyan-Arminians (Earle, Dayton, Coppedge, Kinlaw and others), Southern Baptist “Traditionalists” (or “Provisionists,” such as Criswell, Patterson, and Rogers), Lutherans (Preus, Montgomery), and other assorted non-Calvinist evangelicals (Bright, Geisler). And the issues addressed in this aspect of inspiration closely parallel those involved in the debate over divine determinism. Is it any surprise that someone who so badly misrepresents the relationship between human freedom and responsibility in our common doctrine of inspiration would do the same regarding the biblical case for divine determinism?