Round the Sphere Again: Questions About Scripture
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 at 8:19PM 
What’s the difference between inerrancy and infallibility?
”Infallibility addresses possibility—inerrancy addresses fact.”
In fact, infallibility is a much stronger term than inerrancy in many respects. To say that the Bible is infallible is not simply to say that it is free from error, but that it is incapable of erring.
(Aaron Armstrong at Blogging Theologically).
What do we mean when we say the Bible is inspired?
”Inspiration addresses the method of transmission” (Aaron Armstrong at Blogging Theologically).
God guided the human authors of Scripture—“carried them along by the Holy Spirit,” as Peter wrote—using their unique perspectives, writing styles and experiences to record the exact message He desired to be expressed to humanity.
“God causes His message to enter into a man’s mind … so that the man may then faithfully relay the message to others” (J. I. Packer quoted by Justin Taylor).
God so controlled the process of communication to and through His servants that, in the last analysis, He is the source and speaker….
What inspiration doesn’t mean is this: “For God knows under just what circumstances Paul would, for example, freely write his letter to the Romans. By creating Paul in those circumstances, God can bring it about that Romans is just the message He wants to convey to us” (William Lane Craig at Reasonable Faith).
If this is the way inspiration works, then (I kid you not; Craig really does say this!)
[t]he essential difference [between the writings of Christopher Hitchens and the writing of Paul in Romans] lies not in the mode of God’s action. … Rather the essential difference lies in God’s attitude toward what is written.”
God signs off, according to Craig, on Romans, but he doesn’t endorse what Christopher Hitchens writes.
That’s hardly a view of inspiration that’s derived from scripture, which tells us that scripture is produced by men who “spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21). Or, in other words, scripture is breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16) and that’s what makes it different from other writings.
I don’t think this almost “hands off” (in the sense of not needing direct control) view of inspiration is required by Molinism, either. I’m guessing that it is WLC’s personal view and that it comes from his extreme commitment to libertarian free will, which makes him shrink from using the same words regarding the method by which scripture came into being that scripture itself uses.
Notice that, although he says that the essential difference between scripture and other writings is God’s attitude toward them, he also writes that he is
entirely open to the idea that the circumstances surrounding Paul’s freely writing Romans may have included certain promptings of the Holy Spirit absent from Hitchens’ circumstances.
Even here, he uses the word “promptings” in regards to the role of the Holy Spirit rather than the stronger “carried along” used in Scripture. “Promptings” are little nudges in the right direction; “carried along” takes you there.
Reader Comments (2)
That really is a weird claim by Craig. He's a Molinist, of course, but that's taking it to a bizarre extreme.
I just added some more comments about Craig's view. You are right; it is bizarre.