If you don’t like the way I’ve described inspiration, notably: (1) my denial that God gave the words to each writer and (2) the subsequent notion that humans are the immediate source of Scripture while God is the ultimate source (and so BOTH are sources), then you need to read this article on one of the scholar-warriors who defended inspiration and inerrancy: “B. B. Warfield on the Humanity of Scripture” by A.N.S. Lane.
Professor Warfield and I would get along just fine. I’ll bet he could sign the Bellingham Statement, too.
I wasn’t aware of this article until it popped into my blog reader today. I deliberately try to articulate what I think without appeal to others until I’m well into the task. I’m old enough, trained enough, and seasoned enough to feel like I ought to approach such tasks as a scholar. When I think I have something, then I look to the wisdom of others (scholars or not) for correction or refinement or support. I’m (again) glad for that method here, since some of Warfield’s quotations (I have highlighted some things) sound like what I’ve been blogging. I’m not saying we’d agree on every jot and tittle, only that Warfield’s words are quite consistent with the view I’ve been working to spell out.
So, if you want to accuse me of denying something, you can now put B. B. Warfield in your cross-hairs. Who’da thunk that? Warfield vs. the Westminster addendum?!