 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/12/2003 10:29 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi all-
I’d like to reopen a discussion we had some time ago about inspiration and the open view. Mephi argued long time ago (archives, 6/28/01 2000, “An Analogy for Compatibility?”) that verbal plenary inspiration provides an analogy for the compatibility of exhaustive determinism and human responsibility.
* Both God and the human writer can said to be responsible for what’s written.
* The individuality of the writers (their style and personality) is preserved and comes out in their writing.
* Yet the end result can be said to be the Word of God.
Mephi writes:quote:
What I am saying is that the verbal plenary view of inspiration holds that human agency is NOT necessarily incompatible with divine sovereignty. If this is really the case, then it can be used analogically to support the thesis that theistic predestination or exhaustive divine orchestration need NOT be considered, by definition, incompatible with human agency. In other words, human freedom in the highest sense is not tacitly negated by positing predestination.
Thus, the analogy describing God’s unilateral control and human responsibility that Doc has been waiting for is provided in the doctrine of inspiration. Point is, if God EVER micromanages human choices in such a way the those choices are said to be the agents’ (and the authors of Scripture DO claim ownership of their works), then ALL human choices can be viewed this way and there’s no need for libertarian free will.
Modes agreed that Mephi’s point stood it’s ground but chose to discard verbal plenary inspiration.
Beso commented that since a) God doesn’t punish the writers of the Bible for what they wrote, and b) God doesn’t hate the Bible, the verbal plenary view (VPI) doesn’t provide an analogy of God determining evil and yet holding responsible those who commit the evil. Doc agreed that Inspiration didn’t provide the necessary analogy. He wrties:quote:
It's one thing for God to ensure that an author doesn't err. This is what I think God did with the biblical authors. It's quite a different thing for God to ordain that agent x does evil deed y, "in such a way" that agent x is responsible for it, not God. I have no problem with God restricting freedom at points (e.g. to insure Scripture is without error). MY problem is with God restricting freedom in ways that insure that evil deeds come to pass. I don't see that your analogy does anything to address this at all.
Thus, Doc argues that the authors were less than libertarianly free in composing the Scriptures. The presence and activity of the Spirit in the authors’ composition of Scripture amounts to restricting the authors’ freedom. They were not free to write other than they did.
What I’d like to hear from Doc is whether or not this restriction of freedom means the author’s were not responsible for what they wrote. If their freedom was restricted, in what sense is the Bible a human composition? I mean “responsible” in the sense of ownership.
After a few posts between Mephi, Modes, and Doc, Doc comments:quote:
I'm not even sure what Verbal Plenary Inspiration means. People always distinguish it from "dictation theory," but I for the life of me have never been able to get clear on what the distinction amounts to.
So, it seems that Doc went with Modes’ suggestion that VPI be abandoned. Doc adds:quote:
So, do I affirm VPI? I affirm inerrancy, but not necessarily VPI. (And, as I said, I'm not entirely sure what VPI means, let alone entails.
Could an advocate of libertarian free will advocate VPI? Doc answers:quote:
I think an advocate of libertarian freedom COULD affirm VPI, but could not say that the scriptural authors experienced libertarian freedom AT THE SAME TIME as they experienced VPI. One could hold that God sort of "took over" when it came to writing scripture, though he "took over" in ways that were compatible with the agents established thinking and writing patterns. I don't see any good reason to believe this, however.
Now I’m a bit confused. Doc earlier argues that authorial freedom IS restricted. Here he see no good reason to believe it was restricted.
Doc again writes:quote:
I again submit that this is NOT an analogy for compatibilism -- how one agent could cause another agent to do x "in such a way" that the second agent, but not the first agent, is responsible for x.
This I think is why VPI doesn’t amount to an analogy for compatibilism. With VPI we want to say God is AS responsible for the final product as the human authors. Scripture is the “Word” of God. But compatibilists do NOT want to say God is AS responsible—or responsible at all—for the evil he brings about compatibilistically.
Doc again:quote:
An analogy has at least ONE KNOWN VARIABLE. God teaches us like a good teacher teaches her pupils, for example. It works because, but only because, we have experience of good teachers. To say "God controls people without being responsible for what people do like he controls the authors of scripture" does NOT work, for we don't know how he controls the authors of scripture.
But Mephi responds:quote:
This whole thing was NOT to explain how divine sovereignty and human freedom work, necessarily. It was to posit an analogous situation that most evangelicals ALREADY ACCEPT and show the foolishness of affirming VPI and DENYING the possibility of predestination, as I understand it which may work by essentially the same paradigm.
Mephi’s point is that we don’t have to show “how” God controlled the authors of the Bible or “how” he controls the authors of evil choices. We only need to show “that” God is controlling both.
In another thread (archives, 6/28/01, “Inerrancy of Scripture”), Doc says:quote:
Nothing in OVT prevents God from exercising however much influence he needs to in order to insure whatever results he wants. An OVT could affirm inerrancy, therefore, simply by saying, as conservative evangelicals always have, that God protected their writings from error.
I hope this summarizes enough.
Is there any interest in this? I’m still interested in knowing whether or not we must know “how” God controlled the authors of Scripture in producing an error-free text before we can conclude “that” VPI is an analogy of compatibilism. Just interested.
Tom
Love never ends
Edited by - TGB on 01/13/2003 03:33:25 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/13/2003 5:19 AM (GMT -6) | | I’d like to suggest a reason for why the God/human interaction (whatever it is) involved in the inspiration of Scripture cannot be viewed as analogous to divine determinism and human responsibility, and I’d like to know if anybody thinks my reason is valid and sound.
It’s actually pretty simple. In affirming VPI (or actually the infallibilist’s view as well—doesn’t matter), we’re claiming something with regard to the Bible that we do NOT claim with regard to other books. This hardly needs defending. The Bible is God’s Word (we claim). No other book is God’s Word. What makes the Bible God’s Word distinct from all other books IS inspiration, that activity of the Spirit in the composition of the books of the Bible, that which makes these letters the “Word of God.” However we understand this activity of the Spirit, we clearly do NOT claim the same inspiration for other books (or other actions). But if VPI is an example of the compatibilism claimed to be behind ALL events, good and bad, then there remains nothing unique or distinct about the Bible from other books. All books (and choices and events for that matter), good and evil, are equally inspired by God and equally are God’s “Word.” Do we want to claim this? Or do we want to maintain that in saying the Bible is “God-breathed” that it is this uniquely, that it is this in contrast to all other books and events? But if God brings about evil events compatibilistically in ANY of the ways evangelicals are allowed to believe God inspired the Scriptures, then there remains nothing unique about God’s inspirational activity in the composition of the Scriptures.
Does this make sense to anybody else?
Tom 
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 1/13/2003 5:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: excellant point (you could use that point to also show that all things are, in a sense, good, because God has determined all things and, that no one is truly out of God's will because God determines all thing. But I digress). Could you give a working definition of VPI for me? Thanks.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/13/2003 11:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Thus, Doc argues that the authors were less than libertarianly free in composing the Scriptures. The presence and activity of the Spirit in the authors’ composition of Scripture amounts to restricting the authors’ freedom. They were not free to write other than they did.
I think this is a non sequitur, Tom. To say that God limited the freedom of the Biblical authors is not the same thing as saying that "they were not free to write other than they did."
I take VPI to imply two things: (1) the Biblical autographs are free from error with respect to what they teach, (2) the Biblical autograph teach all that God intended for them to teach.
To ensure this, God would presumably have had to constrain the freedom of the writers, but the writers could still have had some freedom in the process. The reason is that there is almost always more than one way to make the same point--in philosophical jargon, one proposition can be expressed via different statements. For example, "the cat is on the mat", "the mat is under the cat", "the cat is situated above the mat", etc., all say the same thing, but in different words. Now why couldn't God have constrained the Biblical authors to convey a particular meaning while leaving it up to them how to convey that meaning? As is well known, the various NT authors exhibit clear stylistic differences in their writings--showing that they weren't simply dictating God's thoughts word for word.
In sum, I don't see any tension between VPI and the freedom of the Biblical writers. There freedom was limited by God, but not eliminated.
Blessings to y'all.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/13/2003 1:56 PM (GMT -6) | | What if the author was (freely) seeking to yeild to divine guidance and inspiration as a general disposition of heart and mind and/or specifically in the writing the autograph? Would it be a violation of freedom for God to then (somehow) ensure that the writing is innerrant (or infallible)? Would this be the same as compatibilism if the author FREELY chose to seek and yeild to divine guidance and inspiration?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/13/2003 2:53 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/13/2003 5:17 PM (GMT -6) | | TGB: But if VPI is an example of the compatibilism claimed to be behind ALL events, good and bad, then there remains nothing unique or distinct about the Bible from other books. All books (and choices and events for that matter), good and evil, are equally inspired by God and equally are God’s "Word."
Doc: I like the way you think TGB. Of course, the compatibilist would argue that the Bible is unique not in THAT its authors were determined, but in WHY they were determined – and that it is THIS UNIQUE WAY they are determined that makes their writing the unique "Word of God."
Alan: To ensure this (VIP), God would presumably have had to constrain the freedom of the writers, but the writers could still have had some freedom in the process. The reason is that there is almost always more than one way to make the same point--in philosophical jargon, one proposition can be expressed via different statements.
Doc: I totally agree with your view of inspiration Alan, but I doubt this is what the concept of VERBAL PLENARY inspiration means. VERBAL implies "word for word," does it not? I think you’re (we’re) holding to more of a conceptual plenary inspiration. The CONCEPTS are inspired, but how they are expressed is not determined (except within the parameters of infallibility).
JET: Would this be the same as compatibilism if the author FREELY chose to seek and yeild to divine guidance and inspiration?
Doc: If by "freely" you mean "could have chosen otherwise", then this would, by definition, NOT be "the same as compatibilism".
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/15/2003 6:36 AM (GMT -6) | | To Tom's point:
Theistic compatibilists generally argue that for any agent in any actual situation, God has determined sufficient conditions to be present to ensure that the agent will desire and choose to act as God has previously decreed him/her to act. God decisively conditions the desires of human agents to freely choose as God has determined.
This is claimed to be behind all events. However, verbal inspiration of scripture is unique in that there is no human desire behind it at all. (I believe that is what Doc is saying as well...)
Say you're the boss at work. You have secretaries, assistants, etc. who do everything that you tell them to, and say and write everything you tell them to. They desire to do their job and not get fired, obviously, so they intend to do what the boss wills.
Does this mean that if the boss sits down with her attorney and decides to draw up her will and testament, that that is in no way different than an assistant's purchase order that she drew up according to the boss' will? I'd argue that the will is actually the boss speaking - the boss' word, while the purchase order is generally determined by the boss, and yet is run of the mill and NOT simplt the boss speaking, but rather the assistant speaking within the general direction of the boss. Similarly, even though the boss is using an attorney as her agent for drawing up the will, each different attorney that the boss could choose from to do this job would vary in the language, style, etc. they would use to draw up the will. No matter which attorney the boss uses, the will is STILL the determination and word of the boss.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/17/2003 1:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: If the inspiration of the Bible is an example of the compatibilism claimed to be behind ALL events, good and bad, then there remains nothing unique or distinct about the Bible from other books.
Doc: Of course, the compatibilist would argue that the Bible is unique not in THAT its authors were determined, but in WHY they were determined – and that it is THIS UNIQUE WAY they are determined that makes their writing the unique "Word of God."
Tom: They could argue this, but it still looks to me like the argument that inspiration is an example of the compatibilism behind all events proves too much.
Now, the only two statements we have in the Bible that even come close to describing inspiration are 2Tim 3.16 (“All Scripture is ‘God-breathed’”) and 2Pet 1.21 (“No prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God”).
If this inspiration is an example of the compatibilism behind all events—if somebody wants to say, “Hey, Doc, inspiration is the analogy you’ve been looking for”—then it remains true that all events are equally “God-breathed” and come about as people are “moved upon” by God even if in one specific case (the Bible) God decided to bring about something inerrant while in the case of, say, the Holocaust, God decided to bring about something evil. The activity at work (Peter’s divine “movement” or Paul’s “God-breathedness”) is the same though the outcomes are different. In the case of the Bible God willed to compatibilistically bring about an inerrant text while in the case of the Holocaust God willed to compatibilistically bring about evil. My point is this: If one wishes to put forward the former as an example explaining how God brings about the latter, then I don’t see how one can avoid attributing to God as “author” the evils of the Holocaust in the same way one attributes to God as “author” the inerrancy of Scripture. God may will different outcomes, but his activity that brings them about and guarantees that each is what God wills is the same, and this is the problem.
Looks like there are a few problems with the compatibilist’s claim. Help me out on this.
1) As I just said, it makes God the author of evil. If the inspiration of Scripture is an example explaining the compatibilism behind all events, then God is just as responsible for the Holocaust as he is for the Bible. God is equally the “author” of both. Objecting to this by claiming that since God willed something “inerrant” in the one case but not “inerrant” in the other doesn’t resolve things. In order to avoid concluding that God is the author of evil, one must point not to one analogous divine activity producing two different outcomes (an inerrant text here but an evil Holocaust there), but to two different sorts of activity at work. But once this is done, inspiration is no longer an example of how God compatibilistically brings about all events. The compatibilist cannot claim that the divine activity that brought about an inerrant text and that rightly makes God the “author” of Scripture is the same divine activity that brought about the Holocaust but which does NOT make God the “author” of evil.
2) If the compatibilist wishes to hang onto inspiration as “analogous” to how God brings about all events while maintaining God is the “author” of Scripture but not the “author” of evil, then she is tacitly admitting that in some important respect God’s activity in inspiring the authors of Scripture and God’s activity in bringing about the Holocaust are NOT analogous and that this difference accounts for why God is rightly called the “author” of Scripture but NOT the “author” of evil. But once she admits to this difference between the two activities and concedes that this difference explains how God is off the hook with regard to evil while the human agents are justly condemned, then inspiration no longer explains how God brings about all events, that is, it’s no longer analogous to how God brings about evil, and we’re back to square one—in need of an analogy showing how God unconditionally decreed the Holocaust “in such a way” as to leave himself innocent and the human agents guilty.
3) Another problem is that “God-breathed” in 2Tim. 3.16 appears to define not a unique outcome of the divine activity that brings about all things, but the unique activity of God at work in the production of Scripture. God is engaged with the authors of the Bible in a way God is not engaged with the authors of the Holocaust. God is doing something here God is not doing there, and this something is that in one instance God is “breathing” (Paul) and “moving” (Peter) while in the other he is not. In other words, the Bible is unique because it is “God-breathed” and not merely because the activity here referred to as “God-breathed” in the Bible’s case amounts to something inerrant while the same activity in Hitler’s case amounts to the murder of millions. See the difference? I can hardly believe that Paul would agree that the ONLY difference between God’s activity in relationship to the Bible and God’s activity in relationship to the Holocaust is that in the case of the Bible God decided to guarantee inerrancy while in the case of the Holocaust he decided to guarantee the murder of six million Jews (not one murder more nor less than he specifically decreed). Consider this, if God is analogously engaged in compatibilistically bringing about unconditionally decreed outcomes (the Bible and the Holocaust, orphanages and crack houses) then we actually COULD say the Holocaust is “inerrant” in the sense that it did not “err” or “stray” from what God decreed for it. It may be evil, but it is no less or more evil than God decided it should be—no less or more what God’s activity guaranteed it should be than the Bible is what God’s activity guaranteed the Bible should be. I suppose the Holocaust, then, could be called “inerrantly evil.”
Doc, you see what I’m getting at. There has to be a way to formalize this into something that will stand on its own two feet.
Anybody?
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 01/17/2003 07:26:24 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/17/2003 3:23 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt: Does this mean that if the boss sits down with her attorney and decides to draw up her will and testament, that that is in no way different than an assistant's purchase order that she drew up according to the boss' will?
Tom: There is a differnce, which is exactly why God's inspiration of Scripture is not an example of how he brings about all events.
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/17/2003 5:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom, I have no clue what your reply means. I was saying there IS a difference. You agree, but then I don't follow what you say next.
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation." -Edward R. Murrow | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/17/2003 12:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Gina: Tom, I have no clue what your reply means. I was saying there IS a difference. You agree, but then I don't follow what you say next.
Tom: It's 1:15 AM here and I'm not sure either! I was on whether or not the compatibilist's suggestion that inspiration (both God and humasn authoring the Bible)was an example of how God brings about all things compatibilistically, i.e., that there is no difference between the two. I thought your example of the boss shows that there is a difference, so I thought it wasn't an example of how God brought about both inspiration and all other events in the same way.
Is Gina OK or should I stick with ReasonableDoubt?
Tom
Love never ends
Edited by - TGB on 01/18/2003 01:09:44 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:21 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|