The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

***Contra_Mundum*** · #2 (**permalink**) 05-22-2004, 08:13 AM

"Verbal" inspiration would relate to the [i:6205b11554]words[/i:6205b11554] themselves. Every [i:6205b11554]word[/i:6205b11554] of God's Word is ultimately his verbatim declaration.

"Mechanical" would relate to the [i:6205b11554]process[/i:6205b11554] God used for inspiration. Conservative opinion generally understands this process to be preeminently an "organic" kind of process, i.e. one that fully incorprated the personality, linguistic/rhetorical skills, vocabulary, background/experience of the writer--in other words, the whole man.

What we oppose when we disparage "mechanical" or "mechanistic" inspiration is the kind of "automatic writing" or trance-like extrinsic control over a body that some would caricature Holy Spirit inspiration to be. Well, the Bible simply doesn't present itself--the inspired Word--in such a fashion. It clearly incorprates far more into the process. We have the sovereign, special superintendence of the transmission of his Word to us in the most complete way conceivable, and this without violation of the integrity of the body-soul responsible for its inscription, or an abuse of his will.

One more point. "Dictation," while clearly not the principal means of inspiration, [i:6205b11554]is[/i:6205b11554] found in Scripture. It has often been used as a synonym for the "wrong" theory of mechanical inspiration mentioned above, and ridiculed as unfitting God's methods. Dictation is simply God's telling his servant to write something down with precision. "Thus saith the Lord," comes to mind. As do the sundry laws from Sinai. The difference between this and the pseudo-inspiration of automatic writing should be obvious. The former involves the obedient will and mind of the prophet.