<<To the contrary, the present discussion seems important and relevant to
what we are about on the reflector. >>
Well, okay. Let's go on!
Terry brought up B.B. Warfield and that sent me back to some older references.
I found an essay from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in a
collection of same, from the 70's. This was very interesting, as there were
papers on this very issue. And early Pinnock, developing his views.
One paper by Richard J. Coleman was particularly apt. He refers back to the
"ferocity" of the debate in the 1880's, when it was Warfield against Henry P.
Smith. In the 30's it was J. Gesham Machen holding a line. In the 70's (and
today, I presume), Norman Geisler.
Anyway, the essay criticizes what I've called the limited view of Scripture.
"So long as divine inspiration is limited to matters of faith and morals and
nothing besides, the criticisms raised by Warfield will have validity and
force. But when the question is shifted from isolating spiritual and ethical
matters to determining what the Biblical authors INTENDED to teach as
necessary for salvation, then a different set of arguments comes into play.
Salvation is not robbed of its objective base because history and gospel are
not artifically separated. [We] are free from reducing everything to a single
level of infalliblity." ["Reconsidering 'Limited Inerrancy'" in Evangelicals
and Inerrancy, (Thomas Nelson, 1984, p 162)]
This is the distinction I think is being missed. Applying a single standard to
all of Scripture, when Scripture itself intends something different.
"The traditional monolithic conception of inspiration, almost invariably
identified with plenary inspiration, simply cannot do justice to the Biblical
phenomena. The rich variety of style, language, grammar, literary forms,
author's intention, method of construction, leaves little doubt all were
inspired, but inspired differently. From the initial beginnings of oral
traditions to the final compositions, God's Holy Spirit worked in an almost
unthinkable diversity of ways. We can be thankful for this because mankind
would be much the poorer if God spoke to us in a monolithic manner." (Id. at
165).
We honor Scripture by letting its "rich variety" speak to us as it intend. I
do, finally, like what Pinnock calls "The Scripture Principal." I think we
would all agree that bringing people to saving faith is what the principal is,
and that is clear despite our disagreements over individual portions.
I love this story: When Karl Barth came to the US on his famous lecture tour
in the early 60's, he gave some time for questions at the end of this talks.
At Princeton, I believe, a lady got up and said something like, "Dr. Barth,
your works are so difficult for many of us. Is there something you can tell
us, some key that would help us understand exactly what your central message
is?"
Barth replied: "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so."