background image
12
Second, I do think that their argument does have important implications for open theism.
Why? Because given open theism's understanding of the sovereignty-freedom relationship, it
would seem that it must reject premise (2). But with the rejection of premise (2) there is a very
serious entailment, namely, that the theological underpinnings for a high view of Scripture have
been greatly weakened. Why? Because if God cannot infallibly guarantee what the human
authors freely wrote was precisely what he wanted written, without error, then it seems difficult
to substantiate the traditional view of Scripture at this point.
42
In fact, most defenders of a high
view of Scripture have viewed premise (2) as intimately connected with a proper defense of
inerrancy. As E. J. Young wrote many years ago, "inspiration is designed to secure the accuracy
of what is taught and to keep the Lord's spokesman from error in his teaching... inspiration is
designed to secure infallibility...".
43
But with the undermining of premise (2), open theism
greatly weakens the theological defense for an infallible and inerrant Bible.

But does this then entail that the person who adopts open theism or a libertarian view of
freedom cannot logically affirm inerrancy? In terms of logical possibility, the answer is no. It is
logically possible that the biblical authors "just happened" to write everything that God wanted
them to write, without God guaranteeing it.
44
For it is true, as Norman Geisler contends in his
response to the Basingers, that "it is not essential (necessary) for humans to err whenever they
speak or write . . . human free choice only makes error possible, not necessary."
45
But even if it
is logically possible to affirm libertarianism and inerrancy, it must be acknowledged that it is
highly improbable. For without an infallible guarantee, given the diversity of the biblical
authors and the nature of the content of Scripture, the probability that the biblical authors "just
happened" to get everything correct, thus resulting in an infallible and inerrant text, is indeed
very low.

Moreover, a commitment to open theism and a libertarian view of freedom also raises an
important epistemological issue. What happens when we find an apparent mistake or
contradiction in Scripture? What should our attitude be toward the Bible? Should we seek to
resolve it because we are convinced that Scripture is inerrant? And if we are so convinced, from
whence does this conviction come? For if God cannot guarantee that what he wanted written
was written, then our conviction on these matters certainly does not stem from the view that the
Scriptures were "divinely elicited and controlled, and what they [biblical writers] wrote was not
42
I am assuming in the following discussion that the dictation theory of inspiration is not an option. No doubt, one
could always defend inerrancy and libertarianism by affirming that in the special case of Scripture God took away
the freedom of the authors and dictated the text. This would certainly be a logical explanation. However, for anyone
who takes the phenomena of the Scripture seriously, this is not really a viable option.
43
E. J. Young, Thy Word is Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957) 41-42 (emphasis mine).
44
The Basingers admit this possibility as a mere possibility, but then correctly argue that if (2) is false then "God can
never guarantee that any human will freely do what he wants" ("Inerrancy and Free Will: Some Further Thoughts,"
354).
45
Norman Geisler, "Inerrancy and Free Will," 350.