background image
10
both free and spontaneous on their part and divinely elicited and controlled."
34
In fact, it is for
this very reason that proponents of a traditional view of Scripture have argued for a concursive
theory of inspiration, in contrast to a dictation theory. The rationale for this is to emphasize that
both God and the human author are active in the process, thus guaranteeing that what God
intended was written.

Now at this point, the Basingers insist, in order for the proponents of inerrancy to succeed
in their reply to the critics, they must accept as true the following proposition: "Human activities
(such as penning a book) can be totally controlled by God without violating human freedom."
35
If this proposition is accepted, maintain the Basingers, then the argument for a high view of
Scripture must look something like this:

(1)
The words of the Bible are the product of free human activity (are human utterances).
(2)
Human activities (such as penning a book) can be totally controlled by God without
violating human freedom.
(3)
God totally controlled what human authors did in fact write.
(4)
Therefore, the words of the Bible are God's utterances.
(5)
Whatever God utters is errorless (inerrant);
(6)
Therefore, the words of the Bible are errorless (inerrant).
36

But, contend the Basingers, there is a major problem with this argument. The problem is not so
much with the argument itself, but with its implications. For example, if one accepts premise
(2), then this will have major implications for how one attempts to answer the problem of evil,
especially if one adopts the Free Will Defense (FWD). In fact, the Basingers argue that the
acceptance of (2) is incompatible with the FWD. Why is this the case? Because, as the
Basingers rightly point out, in order for the FWD to be successful, it must assume a specific
conception of human freedom, namely libertarianism.
37
The Basingers state it this way:

The assumption behind this argument [FWD] is the belief that God cannot both create free
moral creatures and still bring it about (infallibly guarantee) that they will perform the
specific actions he desires. For once it is assumed that God can control the actions of free
creatures, it follows immediately that God could have created a world containing free
moral agents but absolutely no moral evil ­ i.e., God could have brought it about that every
34
Packer, `Fundamentalism' and the Word of God, 80. Also see John Davis, Foundations of Evangelical Theology
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984), 174-76; Gordon R. Lewis, "The Human Authorship of Inspired Scripture," in
Inerrancy, ed. Norman Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 227-264; A. N. S. Lane, "B. B. Warfield on the
Humanity of Scripture," Vox Evangelica 16 (1986), 77-94.
35
Basinger and Basinger, "Inerrancy, Dictation, and The Free Will Defence," 178.
36
Ibid.
37
Basinger and Basinger, "Inerrancy, Dictation, and The Free Will Defence," 179. In the contemporary literature,
no one has done more to develop and defend the FWD than Alvin Plantinga in God, Freedom, and Evil (New York:
Harper & Row, 1974).