Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the Editor
Response by Clark Pinnock
Clark H. Pinnock
Regent College
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
From: JASA 27 (September 1975): 142-143.
I have come to appreciate and admire the work of Richard I. Coleman. On several
other occasions over the past years hr has intervened helpfully in the debates
over biblical inspiration and authority. I have reference to his book Issues of
Theological Warfare: Evangelicals and Liberals (Eerdmans, 1972) pp. 127135, and
two articles, "Reconsidering 'Limited Inerrancy' " in the Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 17 (1974) pp. 207-214, and "Biblical
inerrancy: Are We Going Anywhere?" in Theology Today 31 (1975)
pp. 295-303.1
find him to be fair, accurate, and irenic, and interpret his intentions in the
discussion to be the same as my own: to affirm the high doctrine of Scripture
so essential to historic evangelical belief, and at the same time
insisting that
evangelical theologians say exactly what they mean and present the truth in the
most coherent and intelligible manner possible. I welcome this opportunity to
interact with him. In my response I will focus on two issues.
(1) In his Theology Today article, Coleman credits my book Biblical Revelation
as being "one of the most consistent contemporary defenses of
biblical inerrancy".
Now he is not so sure of my consistency, for it seems I have crossed over the
border between limited and unlimited inerraney in my more recent work. I do not
believe either that my position has changed or that it is inconsistent as these
quotations will show. In Biblical Revelation I stated: "The infallibility
of Scripture is not, in one sense, absolute. Its field is restricted
to the intended
assertions of Scripture understood by an ordinary
grammatical-historical exegesis
of the text" (p. 71). Similarly I affirmed: "Inerraney,
like infallibility,
is relative to the intentionality of Scripture and an artificial standard must
not be imposed" (p. 75). In the present hook, The Inerrant Word, I wrote
"in order to be candid and fair, we must admit to limiting
inerrancy ourselves,
not to a macro-purpose elevated above the text, as in the view just described,
but to the intended teaching of each passage of Scripture" (p.
148). If Coleman
wishes to define "full inerraney" as a view that would deny
that biblical
revelation is in any sense culturally mediated and affirm that every detail of
it is flawless according to modern standards, then I most certainly do not hold
to it and never did. I have crossed no "border" and ride
but one "horse".
I contend for biblical inerraney in correlation with the authorial,
or canonical
intention of the biblical text, and do not wish as Coleman implies to evade the
hermeneutical issues. Indeed, as I read Coleman, I find myself
agreeing with him
when he writes "Scripture is inerrant in whatever it intends to teach as
essential for our salvation; whether it includes historical,
scientific, biographical,
and theological materials. Undoubtedly not everything in Scripture is necessary
for our salvation, and those which are cannot be determined by assumption or a
priori, but by their context and by the author's principal purpose." (JETS
1 7 (1974) p. 213). Though I can see the danger of some exegete using
hermeneutics
unfairly as a curtain to conceal his denial of Scripture (e.g., a denial of the
event-character of the fall of Adam against the plain sense of several texts),
I also feel compelled to speak out against those who refuse to distinguish the
doctrine of full biblical authority and their interpretation of the
Bible. There
are some today who, in the name of biblical inerraney, wish to impose
on the whole
church their own peculiar views in areas of creation, eschatology,
predestination
and the like, and they must be resisted. Within the community of those who hold to plenary
biblical authority,
there is room for a vigorous discussion concerning a multitude of details which
enter into the biblical teaching. Indeed our fellowship ought to be
the principle
place where an in depth searching of the meaning of Scripture goes on.
(2) The issue on which evangelicals must take a strong stand arises after the
hermeneutical discussion has taken place and the decisions reached.
The decisive
question for us today is whether, having determined what the biblical
text teaches,
we are committed to believing it. The form of 'limited inerrancy'
which I vigorously
oppose, and which it seems Coleman also opposes, is the position
which would limit
the authority of the Bible to something less than the intended teaching of all
the biblical passages. This occurs typically when the interpreter
adopts a standpoint
outside the text and imposes it on the text, employing it as a
critical principle
in shaping the meaning of the Bible. The 'historicist perspective' of Gordon D.
Kaufman is a fine modern example of this, and his approach is
perfectly illustrative
of metnod in liberal systematic theology since Schleiermacher. We have no right
to correct Scripture according to some extrabiblical principle which
we have brought
to it. Surely the vast majority of evangelicals can agree that this is the key
issue, and that we are not divided over it. It would be a sad day indeed if at
the very time when evangelical scholars have gained a measure of competence and
respect, and are in a position to bear an effective witness to the
full authority
of the Bible, they should lose interest in doing so and opt instead
for the bankrupt
methodology of classical liberalism.
At this point I wish to correct Coleman's interpretation of the work of Daniel
P. Fuller. From one or two phrases Fuller has chosen to characterise
his own position,
Coleman had deduced a radical implication Fuller does not in fact
draw. In correcting
Coleman I am at the same time admitting that my own estimation of Fuller's work
has altered. Not that I would admit to any malicious intent or even
to a careless
exegesis of his writings on the part of Coleman or myself. I believe
that Fuller
has expressed himself in a less than ideal manner with the result
that many readers
have concluded that he too wishes to limit inerrancy to the vague entity known
as 'revelatory material'. Such a limitation would of course be open
to most kinds
of manipulation of the Bible performed in liberal theological circles. But I am
now convinced, as a result of talking with him, that this is not his meaning,
and that he stands firmly for the inerrancy of biblical teaching in
each passage
once that teaching has been exegetically determined.
As far as I can tell, Coleman and I are on the same side of the fence
in wanting
to proportion inerrancy to the actual claims of the text. That seems
to me a perfectly
traditional and correct view. On the other and more weighty matter
where we need
to be very clear, I am not yet sure where Coleman stands. I can appreciate him
not being 'troubled' by an inability to come up with a harmonization
of each and
every biblical statement which is perfectly satisfactory in every
respect. Neither
am I troubled by that. But I know what ought to trouble us
evangelicals: namely,
any and all critical conclusions which deny or dismiss some fact or
doctrine which
we know the Bible intended to teach. That is the limited inerrancy
which I oppose,
and the border over which I have not and will not pass.