Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the Editor
A Critical Appraisal: Clark Pinnock
Richard J. Coleman
31 McKinley Terrace
Pittsfield, Massachusetts 01201
From: JASA 27 (September 1975): 141-142. Response by Pinnock
In the past few years Clark Pinnock, presently professor of theology at Regent
College in Vancouver, has been the most articulate defender of
Biblical inerrancy.
His book, Biblical Revelation (Moody, 1971). was a major contribution
to the long
history of this debate. Dr. Pinnock has also distinguished himself not only as
an exponent of full inerrancy, but as an exponent in the mold of
Benjamin B. Warfield
who is cognizant of the difficulties inherent in that position. Pinnock is in
fact a notable representative of a more open approach to plenary
inspiration and
thus his position merits careful consideration. In the recently published God's
Inerrant Word (ed. John W. Montgomery; Bethany, 1974), Clark Pinnock's critical
appraisal of limited inerrancy raises again the question whether his position
is consistent. I intend to argue that Pinnock tries unsuccessfully to
straddle two horses with one saddle.
On the one hand Mr. Pinnock is willing to go along with J. I. Packer or Richard
Bube1 in considering the context and the intention of each passage
before making
a decision concerning truth it teaches. In addition Pinnock says it
is legitimate
to differentiate between soteric and non-soteric truth, as well as
between formal
error (lack of conformity with reality) and material error (figures of speech).
We are led to believe, and Pinnock even states it, that he is willing to accept
the modified proposition that Scriptural inerrancy is limited by the
"sense
intended by the inspired writer."2
On the other hand Pinnock lets it be known that restricting inerrancy in this
manner is no reason to call his position limited inerrancy. We are
told that the
apostles (I presume apostles are also being identified with the Gospel writers)
received all Scripture, including secondary details, in total trust as the Word
of God. Each declarative statement of the Bible is accepted as
reliable and true.
The attitude of Christ and his apostles toward Scripture (the OT) is
to be given
priority over any unresolved difficulties, because the authority of
Jesus cannot
be pitted against "a yet-to-be solved and usually trivial
detail" (italics
mine).
The question before us then is whether Dr. Pinnock as a
representative of a more
tolerant approach to plenary inerrancy is consistent. In direct
contrast to Pinnock,
I do not see how one can say that his position is one of full
inerrancy when the
above concessions are made. I must wonder if Pinnock has really thought through
the implications of his first two limitations. If anyone is willing
to admit that
"the question of authorial intentionality is critical," the
border line
between full and limited inerrancy is crossed. Once it is legitimate to inquire
about the particular purpose of each passage, then the Biblical interpreter is
automatically engaged in the hermeneutical task of determining the
original historical
meaning. In many instances his exegesis will involve him in laying
hare a number
of overlapping and concurrent meanings. All kinds of additional
difficulties must
be faced when one searches for the original meaning, such as when a redactor's
hand is involved, or when an OT text is adapted to suit the author's immediate
purpose, or why some material is eliminated and some expanded in one
of the Synoptic
gospels, or when symbolism, analogy, and historical fact are closely
meshed together.
It has always been evident that strict inerrancy became so attractive to many
because it could avoid all of these hermenautical questions by
reducing its exegesis
to the "plain-sense meaning." But Pinnock certainly does
not avoid drawing
lines by distinguishing those truths which are "more heavily soteric."
The interpreter encounters many passages where a soteric truth is expressed in
mythological literary images, or pre-Copernican scientific terms. The creation
account is a perfect example of the difficulties that arise in
deciding the literalness
of the author's intention and what elements he considered essential
for salvation.
In defense of Pinnock I must agree with him that there is a danger in
correlating
inerrancy with only soteric or revealed knowledge, as it is done by
Daniel Fuller,
Vatican II, or Richard Bube.3 According to this position Scripture
contains material
that is non-revelational or non-soteric. In many eases this is material which
is taken over from another source which is not corrected by the Holy
Spirit: for
example, cultural references, historical data, or variant textual
readings. This
distinction, for instance, allows Bube to claim that the Bible is
inerrant when
"error is judged in respect to the criterion of the author's revelational
purpose." The danger is not that I find fault with Fuller, Bube,
and Vatican
11 in this regard, but in the ambiguity in separating non-revelational from revelational
matters. Too many Christian jump to the conclusion that this separation implies
that non-revelations matters are incidental or not inspired; or they conclude
that inerrancy is being limited to those matters of faith that cannot be tested
by an outside criteria. We have all learned, I hope, that neo-orthodoxy made a
fatal mistake in artificially separating Historic from Geschichte,
faith and morals
from facts and history. The Biblical authors for the most part make
no such distinction-faith
and history, past and present are bound together in a pattern of Heilsgeschichte.
The historical-critical method frequently ends up separating what the Biblical
authors so carefully knit together. We are reminded again how
different our "mind
sets" are.
Pinnock, however, does not want to face the inevitable problem that arises when
he says "we freely grant that it is possible to distinguish soteric truth
from non-soteric truth in the Bible." Even if we grant, as we should, that
Scripture is inspired throughout and that even non-soteric truths are
still Biblical
truths (i.e., necessary for the pattern of Heilsgeschichte but not
for salvation),
we are forced to make value decisions about theological matters. We
are thus engaged
again in establishing certain hermeneutical principles-the very thing defenders
of full inerrancy have wanted to avoid.
The avoidance of hermeneutical principles is the delusion of Biblical
inerrancy.
I have yet to find an advocate of full inerrancy, with the possible exception
of Van Til, who does not at some point admit a few hermeneutical principles to
account for those unsolved difficulties. I could cite numerous examples but a
few will suffice. A favorite principle states that where an author
used extra-Biblical
sources that are in error (i.e., they are in conflict with our understanding of
reality), they did so knowingly. Thus Stephen in Acts 7 knew that Abraham left
his father before his father died, but refers to a commonly known
version of Genesis
11:31 that spoke of Abraham's departure after his father died. Clark Pinnock is
often found depending upon one of two principles: either, he says,
all the evidence
is not accounted for (evolution, biology) or that any supposed inconsistency or
unresolved conflict is spurious. Russel Maatman comes up with a
convenient principle
to cover a discrepancy between a Biblical text and "secular history."
"No part of secular history-political, economic, social,
geological, biological,
or any other kind-can be used to prove that certain events referred to in the
Bible cannot have occurred, and that the account containing them is therefore
non-historical." Thus there are no errors, ipso facto, because
the extra-Biblical
source is in error or the Biblical passage is non-historical. What
these scholars
seem to forget is that each principle of interpretation will be
applied with different
results, and the history of denominational confessions confirms it.
Pinnock gives the strong impression that he wants to give the inductive method
its due and allow the phenomena of the Bible to speak for themselves. Thus he
consents to limiting inerrancy in specific ways in order to account for certain
unavoidable evidence. But as Daniel Fuller has called to our attention, Pinnock
does not really trust the inductive method whenever it does not coincide with
a particular predisposed definition of Biblical inspiration.
Scientists are fully
aware that the inductive method does not produce infallible results, but that
does not shake our confidence in the method (only our confidence in
man's application
of it). We have reason to trust the critical-historical method not because it
has or will be infallible, but because it is the best method we have
to understand
the written records of man. We also trust the inductive method because we have
reason to believe there is no ultimate conflict between God and his creation.
When historical and literary criticism discovers differences in
details or contrasting
(or even conflicting) parallel traditions to Scripture, I do not feel compelled
to postulate an intricate and artificial harmonization or compose
some catch-all
hermeneutieal principle, I am not troubled, because my confidence rests in God's
promise to give mankind a written word of all that is necessary for salvation
(John 20:30).
So which side of the fence is Pinnock on? I really am not sure. It
does seem obvious
that he wants his cake (recognition of certain justified limitation) and eat it
too (to call his position full inerrancy). While I completely sympathize with
his intentions, I find that his final position is inconsistent and
hedges on crucial
issues. If I am not mistaken, conservatives and liberals will be less
than content
with the position as presented by Clark Pinnock; in part because the question
of full inerrancy vs. limited inerrancy does not lend itself to fence sitting.
That does not mean, however, that limited inerrancy properly defined is not a
legitimate middle course. The Journal ASA should be commended for
its concern
to let the whole issue be aired openly in the hope that evangelicals
who are unsatisfied
with strict either-or positions can develop an alternative one.
1. J. 1. Packer, Fundamentalism" and the Word of God (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1970), pp. 96-98; Richard H. Bube, Journal ASA, June 1972,
p. 81.
2. Clark Pinnock, "Limited Inerraney: A Critical Appraisal and
Constructive
Alternative." in God's Inerrant Word, pp. 148-149.
3. Daniel P. Fuller, "Warfield's View of Faith and
History,". Bulletin
of the Evangelical Theological Society, Xl (1968), 75-38; Dei Verbumn, art.
II; Bube, ob, cit., pp. 81 ff.
4. Russet W. Maatman, Journal ASA, June 1972, p. 84.
5. Daniel P. Fuller, "On Revelation and Biblical Authority," Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society, XVI (Spring, 1973), 67-69.
Reprinted from
Christian Scholar's Review, II, 40973).