Am I going liberal?

I’m finding myself troubled by Warfield’s account of prophetic inspiration. I fear I may have been thinking about the Bible in ways that are not entirely sound.

Warfield insists very strongly that the Old Testament prophets receive God’s words entirely from outside themselves and report them complete without making any contribution to the composition or expression of their oracles, in a manner quite different to other modes of inspiration.

Here he is saying that kind of thing in The Biblical Idea of Revelation:

What the prophets are solicitous that their readers shall understand is that they are in no sense co-authors with God of their messages. Their messages are given them, given them entire, and given them precisely as they are given out by them. God speaks through them: they are not merely His messengers, but “His mouth”. (Work, p23)

In the prophets’ own view they were just instruments through whom God gave revelations which came from them, not as their own product, but as the pure word of Jehovah. (p24)

Warfield accounts for the differences between individual prophets thus:

One would suppose it to lie in the very nature of the case that if the Lord makes any revelation to men, He would do it in the language of men; or, to individualize more explicitly, in the language of the man He employs as the organ of His revelation… his own particular language, inclusive of all that give individuality to his self-expression. We may speak of this, if we will, as “the accommodation of the revealing God to several prophetic individualities.”… It includes, on the one hand, the “accommodation” of the prophet, through his total preparation, to the speech in which the revelation to be given through him is to be clothed; and on the other involves little more than the consistent carrying into detail of the broad principle that God uses the instruments He employs in accordance with their natures. (p25)

Warfield is distinguishing prophetic inspiration from concursive operation which he describes like this:

By “concursive operation” may be meant that form of revelation illustrated in an inspired psalm or epistle or history, in which no human activity – not even the control of the will – is superseded, but the Holy Spirit works in, with and through them all in such a manner as to communicate to the product qualities distinctly superhuman. (p15)

I'm not sure what would be lost by allowing rather more concursive operation in the case of prophetic inspiration, but Warfield thinks it is firmly excluded by the prophets' own way of speaking of themselves as not the originators of their words.

And would Warfield want to apply all this just to the original prophetic encounter or to the final form of the text too?