 Can a “strong” theory of inspiration of this sort be defended? Besides challenges from contemporary biblical criticism, such views also face the challenge to explain how inspiration is compatible with the freedom of the human authors (which few would want to deny) and their status as genuine authors rather than mere puppets. Perhaps the best shot at success belongs to those who defend a traditional view from the standpoint of a Thomistic understanding of divine causality. From such a perspective, God is the principal cause and the human authors of the Bible are secondary or instrumental causes (see Feingold 2016: 289–295; for criticism, see Rahner 1964). Instrumental causes are real causes, so the human authors are real authors. Moreover, God presumably does not choose instrumental causes arbitrarily, but with an eye to their aptness for the effects he has in mind (i.e., the texts). The diversity found in the Bible could hence be precisely what God aimed at in choosing people with different temperaments, skills, and experiences as his instruments. Still, since the effect of an instrumental cause transcends the power of that cause taken alone and manifests the power of the principal cause, it is appropriate to say that God is the principal author of the Bible. Moreover, according to the Thomistic view, God acts through instrumental causes in a way that respects their nature, and this is true also when God uses human free will as an instrument. The human authors, hence, are “living and free instruments” rather than puppets (Feingold 2016: 290).