In what way wouldn't 'verbal inspiration' become 'mechanical inspiration'?

If the writers of the Bible were conditioned in their personalities, thought processes, logic and reasoning, and the very words, and everything they say falls out exactly the way it was intended to in order to produce the exact revelation that God chose, how does this fall short of 'mechanical inspiration'?

I think mechanical inspiration is incorrect, but I don't fully understand...

Rembrandt

[Edited on 5-22-2004 by rembrandt]

"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.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Thanks Bruce!!

[quote:2439c71f14]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.[/quote:2439c71f14]

So what we see wrong in the mechanical theory is the [i:2439c71f14]process[/i:2439c71f14] and not the [i:2439c71f14]result[/i:2439c71f14]?

Rembrandt

If God chose to inspire his Word by turning his penmen into robots (using them "mechanically," bypassing their wills), then the [i:7d362ec0c2]result[/i:7d362ec0c2] would be just as authoritative as any other mode of inspiration.

But I know of no place in God's Word where we get even a whiff of that style of inspiration.