I don't think the author is saying anything too controversial. It reminds me a great deal of something CS Lewis once said, to the effect that if God was exactly as we expected Him to be, we might have reason to suspect we had invented Him. Put another way, His ability to surprise us is exactly what we should find unsurprising.
However, I agree that the author's choice of "confusion" as the vehicle for expressing this lends itself, well, to confusion. It's not just true that God is not confused. It is also true that His work among believers tends to love and righteousness and an orderly mind, not alienation and disorder.
But you say something I don't understand. The author makes an analogy between the Scriptures and Grey's Anatomy. There are problems with that analogy. Grey's anatomy was man in his own power trying to understand human anatomy, and while a magnificent effort, not infallible. The Scriptures were God-breathed, written in effect by the very Person they describe, and so a form of autobiography. And as a divine autobiography, infallible.
And even more than that, unlike anything Grey could write, the Holy Spirit and the divine purpose of God accompany His word and assure that it accomplishes His purpose. And so the word of God is a living thing, with a divine power unlike anything a man by himself could ever write.
But the written words of God are not the very being of God. An expression is not the thing expressed. If I tell someone I love, "I love you," the words I say are not me. They are an expression of what is in me, a representation in the symbols of language. They convey a meaning, and they may well establish a relationship, but in themselves they are patterns of symbols, used to transport meaning from one person to another.
So at the end of all this, I do not see what is wrong with making a distinction. We do not worship words, but we do honor the meaning of the words because we do worship the one who spoke them. This is the sense in which they are inseparable, in that we cannot draw away from the words and the plain meaning of them without also drawing away from the One who spoke them. Anyone who truly honors God will necessarily honor His word, and will not back away from it, no matter what the cost.
You also raise the question of human opinion. You say, for example:
Man's doctrines spring from his opinions
I don't understand how it is possible to interact with the word of God without forming an opinion. Do you believe in the Ten Commandment? Then you are of the opinion they are true. Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? Then that is your opinion of the truthfulness of that proposition. I don't see anything wrong with that, and indeed I see no way to escape it. Opinion is just another word for belief. I suspect the problem most folks have with it is it probably carries an additional nuance of
unfounded belief, or belief arrived at without enough of a factual basis to call it objective truth.
But if that is the objection to "opinion," it is easily remedied by looking at the supporting facts. If I believe there are things about God that are hard to understand, and I can back that up with a statement from God Himself that says the same thing, then no matter how well or poorly I frame it, my belief has some real foundation, and I am not just spouting a self-made opinion. Likewise with any doctrine, if I can back it up with teaching from the word of God, then it isn't a man-made opinion. It's just me expressing my belief in what God has said. Nothing wrong with that:
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
(Romans 10:8-10)
Peace,
SR
I didn't say that the words of the Lord ARE the Lord, but that they are inseparable from Him. We learn this when He says - to people who believed in Him but would go no further - "If ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples". And, "Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"
We learn it from the Jews, who had "the oracles of God", but didn't believe them and so rejected their Messiah: "For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"
How is it that some say, "I know Jesus," but disregard what He says? The apostle John has this to say about such people:
"He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
Does that sound like anyone you know? The FR RF is filled with them.
In contrast are those who obey the Lord:
"And he that keepeth His commandments abideth in Him, and He in him."
And here:
"He that abideth in me, and I in him....If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you....If a man abide not in me..."
This is not some mystical cohabitation of two beings in the same body. This is the submissive relationship of the disciple to his Master, and the inseparableness of the the Master and the teaching.
Some claim to be Christians, not understanding that only disciples are worthy of that name. A disciple sits at his Master's feet, yielding to the Master to be taught and molded according to His will. He discards his own opinions and ideas, to be replaced with only what the Master provides.
By contrast, many come to the Scriptures to find support for their preconceived ideas and opinions. These may originate from one's upbringing, or persuasive preachers, or one's own experience, etc. Whatever the source, no misconception can be corrected until one looks to the Scriptures, not for confirmation of what he believes, but to be instructed in what to believe.
The Jews had preconceptions about the Messiah and His kingdom. And because He didn't meet their expectations, they rejected and killed Him. Many people today are no different.