Inerrancy and Incompatiblism
By Adam Parker
Every good philosopher defines his terms before proceeding into any inquiry or examination of a notion or subject. While I will not claim to be a “good philosopher,” I will at least seek to follow the examples set before me by Edwards and the like. I will be using two terms in this paper. Although the terms themselves may be misleading or – as some may argue – grossly over generalized, labels are a very convenient way for someone to say, (for example) “the pietists,” without having to say, “the person who does not agree with what I’m saying.” It is because of this that I will be utilizing two general labels in the course of this writing.
The first label I will utilize is “Compatiblist.” This term will be used to generally describe those who hold to a view of God’s sovereignty over human beings which allows God total control over His creation, while at the same time rendering the creature that is controlled morally responsible for the actions that the creature chooses. It is not my endeavor to provide a total defense of Compatiblism in the context of this writing, but instead to explore the implications of Biblical inerrancy upon those who refuse to hold the said view.
The second term I am going to utilize is “Libertarian.” This person, generally speaking, does not agree with the Compatiblist on his view of God’s sovereignty. Views opposed to Compatiblism are a dime-a-dozen, and so to give a point-blank definition to what I am calling Libertarian is extremely uncharitable on my part, and also would undoubtedly leave some believing that, though they disagree with Compatiblism, this paper is not being written with them in mind. Thus, in the context of this writing, Libertarian will refer to anyone who opposes the Compatiblist.
Compatiblism is the belief that the providence and sovereignty of God extend even to the smallest of human affairs and choices, and yet the human beings whom God is sovereign over are at all times responsible for their actions and guilty of their sins. Much in the same way that we say Jesus was fully God and also fully Man, a compatiblistic view of sovereignty sees every action by a human being as fully from God and fully by that man.
Some have argued (and will argue) that this isn’t fair and that if it is fully God and fully man, than if it is fully God, then human beings are no longer volitional creatures. The other argument, which is better grounded, yet mistaken, is that there are no examples of such things in scripture.[1] My goal is not to prove the truth of Compatiblism, per se, but instead to show the dread inconsistency of someone who opposes the Compatiblistic view of God and man, and yet affirms the concept of inerrancy in scripture. For the purposes of this writing, I will base my definition of “inerrancy” on the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, mainly because it is so widely accepted as orthodox by the evangelical community.
We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.
Article VIII
We affirm that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinct personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.
Article IX
We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.
One aspect of inerrancy that the Chicago Statement makes, which I would like to focus on is regarding the transmission of truth to scripture is that “God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His word.” It also tells us that God “guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance.” My challenge is this: think about those last two sentences and think about them for a moment. If, as the Libertarians charge, it is wrong for God to cause people to do something, then the Biblical writers themselves were nothing more than puppets in the hands of God, irresponsible for whatever they wrote down. Why? Because the authors, though not omniscient, were given supernatural knowledge, and that God, by His Spirit guaranteed that the words they wrote would be absolutely true and totally correct. What a violation of the authors’ free will! How could God possibly control what they write and they still be “free?” Indeed, how could God choose the very words of the scriptural authors, yet not control what words were written? The instinct of the Libertarian is to speak in vagaries and hazy phrases so that they can say, “God chose every word that is written in scripture, but he didn’t make them write what they wrote. They still had a choice.” My challenge on this point is this: They had a choice to – what? To write the wrong thing? Could the Apostle Paul, while writing Romans have chosen to say, “Jesus is not the Christ. Jesus is only a figment of my imagination and all of the Apostles’ imaginations.” No, of course not. God ensured that Paul would not make such an error (or a smaller, less notable one) the only way He possibly could have. In His providence, He guided Paul and gave him the words that He wanted written. It could have been done no other way.
Well, the statement goes on and tells us that God “utilized the distinct personalities and literary styles of the writers.” This means that the authors still wrote the scriptures as themselves and not as zombie-type individuals. “We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.” This is a profound admission that God Himself chose every word of scripture, and that God guided the writing of every single word that is contained in scripture. Whereas a Libertarian would be content to speak in broad terms (i.e. “God guided scripture’s writing,” or “God guides His people in ways of truth”) but steer clear of prescribing micromanagement, content to state the true and the obvious but not to take the obvious to its micromanagerial conclusion, we find among those who hold to inerrancy that “God caus[ed] these writers to use the very words that He chose.” What a profound contrast.
During a discussion on these issues in class, one student who was opposed to Compatiblism suggested that God guides, but in generalities, giving the example that God may want everyone to get to Bank One Ballpark, yet there are many different ways for the people to get there. Though I don’t wish to deal necessarily with the example here entirely, I wish to look at the overall statement made by using such an example. The statement being made is this: God may guarantee the destination (or the end of a decision), but He will not control how that destination is reached. Once again, we see that a Libertarian view, though implying God’s control, completely avoids saying that.
Back to the Chicago Statement. The other fascinating statement found in the document is the overall concept that the people involved in the writing of scripture were not over-ridden or taken possession of during the writing of scripture. Instead, it is simply said that God “guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.” Once again, notice the last words of that, referring to the authors being “moved to speak and write.” This speaking and writing of scripture was not of themselves, it was from God, and yet it was also not transmitted distinct from themselves or their personalities. This, my friends is a strong and powerful example of Compatiblism, the idea that these people wrote as themselves, and yet were the instruments of God.
How do I know that the Statement says the authors did not simply slip into an altered state of consciousness where God took them over temporarily in order to compose the Bible and then bring them back when he was done? Because inerrantists deny that: “We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.”
Thoughts for Libertarians
Friends, it is inconsistent for you to say that God cannot control a human being and yet that human being retain his/her personality of unique identity or actual responsibility. This is something that Compatiblists have long affirmed, much to the laughter of those who deny that such a thing is possible. Indeed, some have said to me that Compatiblism is “monstrous,” “evil,” and “terrible.” It would seem to me that if you wish to continue to affirm the inerrancy of scripture, you should adopt a Compatiblistic view of human freedom, placing God in the place of sovereign and man in the place of subordinance.
Consider this: Libertarian freedom renders the
outcome of every libertarianly free choice uncertain. Hence, without a compatiblistic mechanism of control, God could
never have guaranteed an error-free transmission of scripture. But as inerrantists, we believe that
God did exactly that.
This inconsistency should not be allowed to stand in your thinking. Either you believe that God chose the words of scripture, and thus, the scriptures are inerrant, or else – for sake of consistency – you do not believe that God chose each word that is written in scripture. I can see that some readers of this will heed my words and for sake of pragmatism do exactly as I say and compromise their view of scripture so that their view of scripture is consistent with what they believe about Libertarianism. Such a decision is foolish, however. To compromise your view of scripture because you do not wish to view God as Sovereign is not only foolish; it is a compromise of truth. Instead of believing what you know to be true, you will be guilty of believing as you feel, rather than believing as you know. Such philosophy has led to grandiose heresies, and the shipwrecking of the faith of many. Do not believe what you believe for practical purposes, but instead for the sake of truth.
Some may respond: well, the transmission of scripture is an exception rather than the rule, and God only did that in the instance of scripture’s writing. I respond: If you are willing to assent that God compatiblistically controlled and authored the scriptures (and this is the only option if you are an inerrantist), then your contention that it is wrong for God to be actively sovereign over human beings falls through.
Consider: 1) God never does anything that is evil. 2) If it is “bad” or “wrong” for God to compatiblistically control events or moral choices, then God would not do it, because He would be violating His own moral law. 3) God controlled the writing of scripture, while the writers maintained their own personality and did not slip into any type of altered-state of consciousness. 4) Therefore, it is not morally wrong for God to exercise Compatiblistic control over creatures.
Stated logically:
1. God never does anything that is morally wrong.
2. God controlled the writers of scripture.
3. Therefore, it is never wrong for God to control people.
The importance of this argument is this: While an anti-compatiblist argues that it is wrong for God to control people in the way the Compatiblist argues, if he affirms that God has done this (at least once) before, he shoots himself in the foot. His very argument that doing this is wrong is overturned as the Libertarian affirms that God has in fact, done exactly that, at least once before.
[1] Some verses the curious reader may explore would be: Genesis 45:4-8; 50:20; Isaiah 10:5-19; Luke 22:22.