There is nothing inconsistent with the thought of inspiration in the full sense of the word in Luke 1:1-41Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. (Luke 1:1‑4). "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."
Infidels have asserted that inspiration was not required to record matters of history and biography. In a general sense this may be true, but inspiration insures perfect accuracy in the record, which no unaided historian can afford. But it has been asserted that Luke admits his own non-inspiration. He does nothing of the kind. In these verses we find three sources of information whereby we may know those things that concern the life of our blessed Lord and Savior.
First and foremost there are those who "from the beginning were eyewitnesses"; these were the apostles who narrated the facts of our Lord's life, death, resurrection, and ascension, not merely as intelligent men, but as "ministers of the word." In other words, "their oral testimony was inspired."
In the second place, there were those who undertook to set down in writing the things communicated to them by these inspired apostles—things which were received among the Christians with full certainty ("surely believed").
These many writers, while pious in their motives, were nevertheless not inspired writers.
The apostolic oral testimony of verse 2 had given to the many writers of verse 1, and to the whole Christian company of that time, a sure ground of belief. But for the good of the whole Church in all ages something further was needed, and this we have in the four inspired gospels.
Hence we have in the third place the written testimony of Luke (vv. 3, 4), who contrasts
himself with the writers of verse 1, and compares himself with the inspired apostles of verse 2. His motive was not only a pious one, but was divinely directed in its execution, so that believers in all ages might "know the certainty of those things." Luke had what the writers of verse 1 had not; namely, "perfect understanding of all things from the very first." Luke, therefore, did not need what the others did before he could write; he did not require to be told the facts by the apostles; he himself had a perfect understanding of every detail from the very commencement. This was a claim to absolute accuracy which could only be by divine inspiration.