Science in Christian Perspective
Reply to Geisler
Clark B. Pinnock
McMaster Divinity College
Hamilton. Ontario Canada
From: JASA 32 (March1980): 58-59.
Much as I regret being the occasion of sadness to my friend Dr.
Geitler, I cannot
accept for a moment his depicting my essay as an attack on the proponents of
biblical inerraney, a view he says I formerly held. It was a description of
a discussion which is ongoing, not an attack on any view. In it I
placed myself
in the camp of those who advocate inerraney in a nuanced sense, and expressed
sympathy for those who are trying to work out a high doctrine of
biblical authority
without using the term at all, Evidently Geisler feels absolutely no sympathy
in that direction himself, and this must explain why he distorts the nature
of both my essay and my convictions.
What disappoints me with Geisler is his obvious unwillingness to
recognise that
the concept of biblical inerraney is an extraordinarily tricky one, owing to
the nature of the Bible. He complains that I do not endorse what he calls the
"complete truthfulness" of Scripture, a phrase which he
must suppose
conveys some uncomplicated meaning. As a matter of fact it does
not, since the
manner in which the Bible chooses to be truthful in many places is in keeping
with canons of truthfulness ancient rather than modern. A simple comparison
of the synoptic gospels will reveal to any reader numerous examples where the
authors have taken the liberty of rearranging their material in a
way suitable
to their didactic purpose, but hardly in the "correct"
(by our standards)
chronological order. So long as we think of inerraney as a timeless quantity,
the Bible itself will resist our use of the term in relation to it. If on the
other hand we allow that the term inerraney has to be understood in relation
to cultural norms which are not perennial, then the term is certainly subtle,
and to some evangelicals problematic. Geisler himself limits the inerraney of
the Bible to that which the text affirms (surely a wise limitation), but does
not seem to recognise what that limitation implies: that the Bible in those
aspects of the text where affirmation is not made may well be errant. If he
would only attempt to be more self-conscious within his own
position, he would
be compelled to look more charitably upon those who find the term less than
satisfactory, and never be able to term those culturally conditioned aspects
of the text "lies." The fact that he can do so here is proof that
his militancy for inerraney is preventing his thought on this
subject from rising
to the ordinarily high scholarly level of his work. I must confess
I was surprised
to find him maintaining in his reproof of my essay that in the ease
of a biblical
difficulty any hypothesis however implausible would suffice to ease
his anxiety
about total inerraney. 1 had come to expect Mormons and Moonies to
go to irrational
lengths to save their religious assumptions, but not a first class Christian
scholar. Geisler is comforted by the work of the late Barton Payne
on the books
of Chronicles and the long list of improbable statistics found in them. For
my part I admire the stubborn commitment Payne always shows in his work, but
find it impossible to endorse his special pleading. Far more likely
in my judgment
are the efforts of Harrison and Carnell to explain the data in terms of the
secular sources employed there and the purpose lying behind the
narrative.
Geisler goes to great lengths to defend perfect inerraney because he believes
Jesus Christ taught it and requires adherence to it on the part of
his followers.
This conviction explains, I believe, why his tone is strident and
his arguments
reckless. He believes a great deal is at stake. For me to express in my essay
a degree of hesitation about the suitability of the term inerrancy is enough
to provoke a person of this theological temper to consternation and
wrath.
The best way to answer his criticism and get at the heart of the issue is to
point out the objectionable fact that Jesus did not teach the
doctrine of inerrancy
as Geisler understands it. Although he wishes to conceal it,
Geisler's concept
of inerrancy is complex indeed, difficult to define, and replete
with qualifications.
lncrrancy is relative so what the Bible affirms, and does not extend further.
Is pertains to the nonexistent original autographs and not to any
Bible today.
Inerrancy is by no means a simple concept, and is not found in
Jesus' teaching,
neither the term nor she subtle theory. This is not to deny that the position
could not be a good one for Christians to hold, given the alternatives, but
only that it is a theory born out of the history of doctrine and
not a concept
explicitly taught by Christ and the apostles. The Princeton
doctrine of inspiration
is one that I personally admire and work from, but I do not make the mistake
of equating it with biblical revelation, and therefore I do not
accuse evangelicals,
who find the concept defective, of bad faith as Geisler does. Sometimes I gel
the feeling that people regard the Princeton theology as a kind of Protestant
magisterium which one cannot criticise without being considered a
little heretical.
Is is not, and I fully expect evangelical thinking on the
inspiration and authority
of the Bible to advance far beyond Warfield's imperfect theory.
There is certainly
room for improvement.
Geisler is an apologist for Christianity of considerable ability, and one of
the occupational hazzards of that profession is a tendency to prefer
theological
theories with reference to their serviceability in the task of verification.
Such a person weighs such a question as biblical inerrancy not first of all
in relation to its scriptural foundations (which in this case are
flimsy), but
in the context of debating the truth of the gospel. As a debater of humanists
myself, I am sympathetic so and aware of this pressure. In this
case the apologist
of Dallas is on thin ice, committed as he is to a militant position
on inerrancy
which cannot withstand the test of the biblical text itself. Up so this point
he cannot imagine defending Christianity apart from a strong inerrancy plank
in the argument, and therefore he comes on very strong against my essay. But
I venture so say that in the future even Geisler may come to understand why
the majority of evangelical scholars today are less than enthusiastic about
the term, and when he does that he will be able to rework his
apologetic accordingly.
After all the apologetic task is a process of continual revision
and readjustment-at
least that is my experience.
Geisler says that I am affected by a "peace at any price"
mentality.
I must admit I do seek to be a peacemaker, but not at any price. Indeed, as
one teaching in a liberal setting theologically, I venture to say that I am
more often on the front line battling for the truth of the Bible
than some who
take delight in criticising me. The fact of the matter is that I am chiefly
motivated by honesty in this case. The term inerrancy seems to me
to be a coin
of uncertain value. There are many evangelicals wiser than myself who express
their hesitation about using it. I do not believe they are motivated by evil
impulses, but by the sincere desire to understand the gospel better. Geisler
would place them outside the evangelical camp and cast doubt on
their theological
soundness. This is something I am not prepared to do. I suspect
this is really
what saddens Geisler.
In my essay I describe first "the militant advocates of
biblical inerrancy."
Geisler is obviously one of these. If 1 seemed to attack this view,
I certainly
did not intend to. I appreciate the force of their convictions. But
what I refuse
to do is to grant that only they are sound in the faith and
evangelical in theology,
and that only they deserve to be considered faithful to the Lord in
this generation.
There are many more besides who are running the race and following the Lord,
without she benefit of the category of biblical inerrancy.