Critical Analysis
In his essay, Warfield provides an overview of inspiration while simultaneously addressing several theological issues that have arisen concerning the doctrine. His first task is to vindicate inspiration from its contemporary understanding and ground it in Scripture. He challenges the common understanding of both inspired and “theopneustos” as referring to God breathing into either the biblical authors or the biblical words. Instead, he holds that Scripture was “breathed out by God,” which brings God as the primary producer and author to the forefront (loc. 24). This method of breathing out also assures that God’s power is tied up in the process of the creation of Scripture to such an extent that the entirety of the Bible has its origin in the divine. Warfield further cements the divine origin of Scripture in his citation of 2 Peter 1:20 which states that “no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things” (NIV). Warfield argues that this verse is referring to Scripture in totality due to the fact that there are many other verses that refer to Scripture in its totality as prophecy (loc. 69).
Warfield also addresses the question of how exactly biblical authors acted under inspiration. To solve this problem, he references 2 Peter 1:21 which states that “prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (NIV). Warfield argues that being “borne” by the Holy Spirit means that the biblical authors were writing “under the determining influence of the Holy Spirit,” thus the things they were writing were not creations of their mind but originated from God and reflect God’s goals not the human authors’ goals (loc. 88). To be “borne” by the Holy Spirit is to be moved by the power of God to commit an act. One consequence of this understanding is that the words of the Bible are then definitely God’s words and must be free of error. This sentiment is further reinforced by Warfield’s assertion of John 10:35 that “Scripture cannot be broken” (KJV).
Warfield’s comments on the extent of inspiration are novel and greatly exemplify the level of divine sovereignty that went into the creation of the Scriptures. Warfield argues that the actual writing of the words of Scripture is like the final touches on a masterpiece. For Scripture to be truly inspired, God was ordering the lives of the writers and their ancestors so as to bring about specific events in their lives that would then contribute to the narratives of Scripture. For example, Warfield cites that Paul understood his sufferings to be at least partly connected to the comfort God could provide others through the testimony of the comfort he received from God. He goes on to state that divine providence is a necessary part of inspiration that supernaturally prepares a person to be a writer of Scripture. However, Warfield makes sure to deny that the relationship between the human authors and God and the relationship between God and the Bible are not examples of a hypostatic union or incarnation. In no way does the fact that the Bible is both a divine and human book mean that the book has a divine nature and a human nature. Rather, it means that the documents of Scripture have a divine origin that was processed through people.
Warfield ends his treatise on inspiration with a discussion of its values. By being inspired, Warfield asserts that the Bible is a “superhuman” book (loc. 418). It carries the weight of divine authority; it speaks to the human condition and provides a way for salvation and sanctification that could not have come from human reason or inquiry; and it communicates in such a way as to be wholly trustworthy. Additionally, being inspired means that God is able to speak the “Divine word immediately to each reader’s heart and conscience” (loc. 418). This level of communication to all people through all ages is something that only a divine being could provide.
Critical Evaluation
Warfield’s treatise on inspiration is exceptional in the way that it handles the many criticisms of the evangelical theory of inspiration. His correction from “God breathed into” to “God breathed out” provides much needed clarity to the issue of whether or not the Bible is indeed God’s speech and whether or not the more human parts of Scripture are still God’s Word. Additionally, his overview of how Scripture views itself solidifies that the entire Bible is Scripture and is God’s speech. That “God said” is equivalent to “Scripture says” and “Moses said” etc. is a substantial argument for God speaking the entirety of Scripture. The authors of the Bible and those who first handled it were certain that God was always speaking at the forefront. Finally, Warfield did an excellent job delineating how inspiration is a mode of revelation and not revelation itself. This helps maintain the idea that revelation is not an inward experience but a divine communication.
Comments