bibilical inerrancy among evangelicals

7/28/2019 Bibilical Inerrancy among Evangelicals

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bibilical-inerrancy-among-evangelicals 1/29

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1

For long years of existence, approximately from 19th

century until this time,

Doctrine of Inerrancy has been a hot issue among Evangelicals. Due to the impinging

attack of various forms of criticisms, the Evangelicals has propounded a Chicago

statement which would be an affirmation in support of the Doctrine of Inerrancy and

would on the other hand a safe guard in every line of thought in scholarship whoever

wishes to uphold the doctrine. However, regardless of how the creed has been so

influential several Evangelical scholars and theologians have ever since opposed to the

Doctrine of Inerrancy and advocated the Doctrine of Infallibility of the Bible but not

Inerrancy. This causes a dividing line among Evangelicals, and each upholds their stance

which they believe is tenably right.

From the outset, this paper considers preliminary considerations that arguments

for or against inerrancy must only from the point of view of Protestant evangelicalism

that upholds and confesses Scriptural advocating the Bible as their standard in matters of

faith and practice. This is why the author intentionally delimit it to the two great

theologians (Norman Geisler and Clark Pinnock) an Evangelicals, who by their

perspective identify themselves as advocate of the authority of Scripture as the sole

standard in matters of faith and practice though diverse in some points. Pinnock doesn’t

adhere to what Inerrantists approach the Bible and likewise Norman Geisler does.



Brief History of the Debate

It is necessary to provide an introductory to the history of the modern debate over

inerrancy to have an overview of the arguments offered on either case. There is a

consensus among historians that the debate has its opening shots among evangelicals in

the late 19th

century. It was probably through B. B. Warfield the foremost American

conservative theologian of his time, argued extensively for Biblical Inerrancy. Then at the

other side of spectrum Briggs and Orr opposed Warfield and go for limited inerrancy.1

Then later, in the 20th

century, G. C. Berkouwer took up Orr’s stance and argues against

Warfield’s view.

Then probably the debate began to fire up in the 1960’s, when Dewey M. Beegle

published a scathing attack on inerrancy. However, Harold Lindsell in his published book

The Battle for the Bible, he named offenders’ names and mounted a vigorous defense

(not all scholarly) of inerrancy as a cardinal doctrine of orthodoxy.

The reactions of both sides were extraordinary. Fuller Theological Seminary

printed a defense of its position in a special issue of its alumni newsletter, following up

with symposium of essays defending limited inerrancy. On the other side of the spectrum

the Intermational Council on Biblical Inerrancy (I.C.B.I) arose to defend inerrancy and

released its Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in 1978. This of coursed provoked

1See Norman L. Geisler and William C. Roach, Defending Inerrancy: Afirming

the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books),2011, 19-23; & Rogers and Mckim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An

Historical Approach, (New York: Harper & Row), 1978, 348.



of the debate. Though debate has died down sometime in the year 1980s, but the issues

still linger. Until this modern time the conflict remained unsolved and this served

as the dividing line of thought especially to the scholarship among the Evangelicals when

the Doctrine of Inerrancy is being considered.

Statement of the Problem

The main problem that this paper is seeking to answer is: Which case (inerrancy

or limited inerrancy) has stood in the burden of proofs.

Purpose of the Study

This study has two significant purposes: First, this study is trying to understand

and examine the distinct point of view of each case in their arguments being employed in

supporting each of their claims. Secondly, this study then would attempt to evaluate each

argument in the light of its theological clarity and soundness in the Biblical point of view.

Significance of the Study

This study is significant in three reasons, (1) this would enhance the authors

knowledge regarding the issue being considered, (2) this would probably contribute and

shed lights to those who want to learn the impending debate among the modern

Evangelicals, (3) this would also probably then be a source of greater motivation to the

readers who want to engage himself in a deeper study regarding the conflicting issues.

Delimitation and Limitation of the Study

This study is not an extensive work and having a short-time-bound, so therefore

cannot guarantee a deeper investigation regarding the conflicting issues between for and



against inerrancy. On the other hand this study is not covering all the issues at stake; this

would only tackle the modern Evangelicalism major arguments of Norman Geisler and

Clark Pinnock which at this present time still an issue among the Evangelicals.

Methodology

This would primarily employ a descriptive method of study. This study is divided

into five chapters. The first chapter is the introduction of the study which on the outset

would shed lights on the historical background on why or how did the debate come into

existence. It would later introduce the problem which is yet to be tackled in the later part.

Chapter 2 is the arguments of the Evangelicals on Inerrancy (Normsn Geisler) and

followed by the arguments of the Evangelicals on infallibility (Clark Pinnock) on the next

chapter which is in the chapter 3. And the next chapter which is chapter 4 would be the

evaluation, summary and conclusion.



NORMAN GEISLER: EVANGELICALS

ON INERRANCY

CHAPTER 2

Before tackling each argument for Inerrancy advocate, let me give a short

introduction why I chose Norman Geisler. The main consideration of course is that he is

Evangelical as my paper purposely long to discover. Moreover, he is a distinguished

Apologist and theologian. He is also one of the recognized proponents of Inerrancy and

even one of the original drafters of the Chicago statement in defending Biblical

Inerrancy. He has written and coauthored considerable number of books. He has done his

PhD in Loyola University of Chicago and he is now currently teaching theology and

Apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California.2

Our survey on Geisler concepts would only be based on his main arguments that

give more lights regarding biblical inerrancy as integral to the reliability of Scriptures.

Geisler Arguments of the Case of Biblical Inerrancy

On the other hand, before we consider some evidences that correspond to

Geisler’s line of theology in regards to the Biblical Inerrancy, let me give a little

overview on how Geisler would argue in regards to this topic. He was and is very

2See at the back cover design, Norman Geisler and William Roach, Defending

Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for New Generation, ( Grand Rapids: MI,

Baker Books), 2011.



influential in the circle of Christianity. Geisler is a philosopher in training and

Evangelical Protestant in Theology. So most probably he would argue by means of good

reason or philosophical arguments that he thinks fit in his arguments.3

Now let us

consider some of his arguments in defending Biblical Inerrancy.

The Word of God

Before going through Geisler’s arguments on Inerrancy in this modern debate let

us first consider how he defined or what are his theological understandings regarding the

Bible as God’s revelation and the Inspiration of the Scripture.

The Nature of Revelation and Inspiration

According to Geisler, revelation is a process of divine communication that

conveys the idea of the removal of obstacles to perception that keeps them (the prophets)

from seeing an object as it is. He then clearly states that it concerns the origin and the

giving of truth. He further asserts that revelation involves disclosure rather than

discovery.4

For Geisler Inspiration can be understood in three essential elements: divine

causality, prophetic agency, and written authority. The first one is Divine causality which

3In the history of Apologetics very little has been written either positively or

negatively about Geisler’s apologetics or his thought generally. It may be sound to

conclude that he has some safe and plausible arguments in general which are worth

studying. One brief article critiquing Geisler’s apologetic method is Richard A. Purdy,“Norman Geisler’s Neo-Thomistic Apologetics,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological

Society vol. 25 (1982).

4Norman Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible, ( Chicago: IL Moody Pr.,

1986), 40.



means that God is the Prime Mover in the inspiration of the Bible. It is God who

revealed, and men of God recorded the truths of faith. He then clarifies citing

2 Peter 1: 21, and Hebrews 1:1 which indicate that it is God’s word given through the

prophets’ mouths.5

The next one is “prophetic agency”, he clearly states that the prophets who wrote

the scripture were not “automatons and are inspired by God”. They are “more than

recording secretaries”. Geisler admits that the personalities of the prophets are not

violated by a supernatural intrusion, saying that what they wrote is the word of God and

also the word of men. He then further states that the prophets were the “immediate cause

of the written scripture and yet God is the ultimate cause”.6

The last one, he calls it “written authority”. This is the results of God’s causality

and the prophetic agency to the written Bible which is an authoritative book. He then

clearly says that the cause of inspiration is God, the means is the men of God, and the

end result is the word of God in the language of men.7

5 He also includes “And as David says” in 2 Samuel 23: 2 “The Spirit of the Lord

spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue.” He also cites Jeremiah 1:9 says, “Behold,

I have put my words in your mouth.” Additionally, he further clarifies saying thatinspiration involves the very words of Scripture by giving two reasons: (1) linguistically,

words are necessary for the expression of thought. If God wants to be understood

meaningfully he has to use words. (2) Words are God-given. He then cites Exodus 4:12about Moses which says, “I will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to say.”

He cites also in the New Testament when Paul claimed to speak in the words taught by

the Spirit, (1 Corinthians 2:13). See Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix, From God to

Us: How We Got our Bible, ( Chicago: IL Moody Pr., 1974), 13.

6Ibid. , p. 13.

7Norman Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 39.



The Autographs and the Subsequent Copies

Which is inspired the Original or the translations? Or if the Original is inspired

how about the translations? If they (translations) are inspired would they be in the same

sense as the Original? Are the Autographs without error? Let us try to find out how

Geisler understood and answer the questions. Now Geisler defines two extremes: (1)

Every translation is inspired in the same manner as the original. (2) Only the Autographs

are inspired, not the translations. Another extreme is “only the autographs are inspired,

not the translations.”8

To keep from both extremes he makes one which says, “Only the autographs were

actually inspired (which also means preserved from errors); good copies are accurate”. In

this line of thought he clearly asserts that technically speaking only the autographs are

actually inspired, but a good copy or translation of the autographs is for all practical

purposes the inspired word of God. He further asserts that the twentieth-century copies

and translations of the Bible do not possess original inspiration but they have only a

derived inspiration to the faithfulness of its translation. Though it may not completely

satisfy the scholar who, in their quest of theological precision wants the exact term and

the correct text in the original language, but all sufficient to the desire of all men to know

8The former as he explains is extreme in the sense that it necessitates the

recognition of some errors of copyists that have obviously crept into the text. If this be so,

he further states, the conclusion would be inescapable that there are divinely inspired

errors. In the later extreme Geisler clearly states to what it really entails. And he explainssaying that only the originals are inspired (which would also mean preserved from errors)

the copies or translations are not inspired (preserved from errors).

See Norman Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 42-43



what the Lord says in matter of faith and practice. And further he asserts that it is still

possible to be hundred percent sure of the truth preserved in the extant text.9

The Authority of Scriptures and Inerrancy

There are two primary questions that need to be addressed as Geisler understands:

(1) What makes the Scripture authoritative? (2) How does Inerrancy relate to Scriptures

authority? Geisler cites 2 Timothy 3:16 which says, “All Scripture is inspired by God

and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in

r ighteousness.” He asserts that all Scripture is inspired in all its parts so therefore

inspiration is plenary and full, no part of Scripture is without full doctrinal authority. By

means of this inspiration it is inerrant, or without error and is therefore authoritative.10

The Nature of God and Inerrancy

He says that once view of God and once view of the Bible in relation to the

Doctrine of Inerrancy is very crucial.11

Geisler is in line with the traditional view of

9Ibid. , p. 44.

10So here Geisler makes it clear that the inspiration of the Scripture makes it

inerrant and therefore authoritative in all that it affirms. And whatever subject the Bible

teaches it speaks truly. “There are neither historical nor scientific errors in the teaching of the Scripture”, he asserts. See Norman Geisler, From God to Us, pp. 22, 25.

11Geisler here is trying to say that if you view God the way what you think it

would greatly affect the way you treat the Bible. So Geisler’s view about the Bible isgreatly affected by the way he thinks about the nature of God. But before going to the

main argument of Geisler, let us consider first some beliefs in regards to the view of God

in Geisler’s line of thought. See Defending Inerrancy, 215.



“Theism”.12

This is a classical view of God which Geisler reiterates, that serves the solid

basis for the belief in the infallibility and the full inerrancy of the Scriptures. He argues

that if God is all-knowing (he knows everything including free actions), all-powerful,

cannot lie and cannot err (because he knows everything), and the Bible is the Word of

God, therefore the Bible is inerrant.13

The Nature of Truth and Inerrancy

The crucial term here is “truth.” As believed by Geisler the nature of truth and

error is also very crucial in the inerrancy debate as a whole because of the inerrantists’

claim that the Bible is wholly true and without error. But what is the definition of truth as

for the Inerrantist like Geisler? For him, which is also the same as affirmed ETS and

International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) the word “truth” is “what corresponds

to reality. And “error ” is what does not correspond to “reality.”14

12It is actually a term which literally opposite to atheism (the belief that there is

no God). So therefore it is a belief that there is God. However along with this,

theological difference arises regarding someone’s view of God’s nature especially inrelation to His providence and sovereignty to the freedom and responsibility of man. This

view claims that God is all-powerful and all-knowing (including future free choices).

However in contrast of this view argues that God cannot have infallible foreknowledge of our free actions. See Defending Inerrancy, pp. 223-232.

13 Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for the New

Generation, p. 232.

14For Geisler and the Inerrantists in view, define reality as everything that is,

whether that reality is historical, factual or spiritual, and whatever that reality may be andto whomever these truths can be applied. So here Geisler seems fitting for us to say that

whatever is written in Scripture that corresponds to truth cannot be considered error,

whether it is factual or nonmaterial like angels, souls or God is considered true and notmerely to redemptive purpose of the Bible. For some (limited Inerrantists) say that theBible is only inerrant considering God’s intent and purpose but not in the objective sense

of the Bible as its records is concerned. Ibid., 234-235.



The Nature of Language and Inerrancy

The Inerrantists believe that the Bible as written word of God and is without error.

As Geisler points it out, it is a complete, objective, and errorless revelation of God and it

is a written (verbal) revelation. Then the question would then be raised, How can a

human language be adequate to convey an objectively revelation from God? How can a

finite mind with finite language understand infinite truth? Let us try to find how Geisler

defend this belief.

Geisler cites the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (CBSBI) to confirm

their belief which says, “The Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety is the written word

of God, and therefore is inerrant in the autographs.”15

He then argues by pointing out

that the Bible is, as it claims to be, a “coauthored book.”16

He further states that there is

divine concurrence or let me say agreement with every human word employed in the

Scripture so that what the Bible says, God says.17

15This claim as he explains conveys the implicit that the Bible is the inerrant

word of God and explicitly claims that what is written in human language conveys this

inerrant truth.Norman Geisler and William Roach, Defending Inerrancy, p. 255.

16Both God and Human beings are authors and are responsible for one and the

same set of words in the autographic text.

17So the Bible for him is a union of divine and human, just as there is an intimate

union between the two natures of Christ, the Divine and the human in one person. And he

clarifies that each nature retains its own characteristics. So the analogy is that, according

to him, as Christ is full human humanity and yet without sin. Likewise, insofar as theBible as the God’s word in human language it cannot err. See for example as he puts it

out, in 2 Samuel 23:2, says “The Lord speaks to me.” Ibid., p. 274.



The Nature of Hermeneutics and Inerrancy

Geisler an Inerrantist basically agrees on Historical-Grammatical (HG)

Interpretation of the Scripture. He admits that it is the standard on how to interpret the

Scripture. However he argues basically through philosophical presupposition in which

would clearly define his argument. He even clarifies that HG is subject to the laws of

logic insisting on the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.18

According to Geisler, the primary challenge of HG hermeneutic is to its

objectivity. He then cites some analogy that make an objective hermeneutic possible. See

for example the analogy of “causality and effect”. Then he cites for example by saying

that there must be an infinite mind that cause the finite mind.19

Another analogy that

would lead to the objectivity of hermeneutic as its primary purpose is the absolute

meaning. He then asserts that if there is an absolute mind there can be absolute meaning.

And then he further clarifies that the objectivity of the meaning found in the mind of

God.20

18Norman Geisler, Defending Inerrancy, p. 284.

19For he explains that finite mind cannot give what it does not have (infinite

mind), and the effect cannot be greater than its cause. Another analogy he uses is that if

the effect is intelligent, then the cause must be intelligent. Here it seems clear to say thatif the cause cannot be in error so therefore the effect cannot be in error. This is a principle

used by Geisler which means that the effect would not exist without the cause. Like for

example, the finite mind would not exist without the infinite mind (which means the

effect is the finite and the cause is the infinite).

20 So whatever an infinite Mind means by something is what it means objectivelyand absolutely.

He further says that the theistic God (classical orthodoxy theology) is

capable of conveying thoughts from His mind to our minds. He is not only the God of infinite knowing Being but also all-powerful. An infinite Being who can do whatever is

not contradictory. And it is not contradictory to an Infinite Mind to convey meaning to

finite creature. And though how God knows things is different than how man knows,nevertheless what he reveals to mankind is similar to what he knows. Ibid., 290.



So therefore the possibility is there, as Geisler articulates his arguments to come

up to the objectivity of truth that the Infinite Mind can communicate with a finite mind.

And it is possible for the absolute meaning to be communicated to a finite mind. So

directly speaking as Geisler confirms, objective meaning is possible between an infinite

and a finite mind.21

Incarnation and Inerrancy

Here again Geisler uses an analogy in dealing with Inerrancy. He asserts that

since both Jesus Christ (John 1:1) and the Bible (John 10:35; Matthew 15:6) are called

the Word of God, it is therefore plausible to draw a comparison between them.22

And he

compares,

The Living Word The Written Word

The Savior The Scripture

Divine Nature Divine Nature

Human Nature Human Nature

One in Person One in proposition (sentence)

Without sin Without error

21 Ibid.

22He further cites some characteristics of the two. Jesus Christ is Gods revelation

in person (John 1: 14; 14: 9) and the Bible is his revelation in proposition. Moreover,

both have divine and human dimensions. Christ has both a divine and a human nature,

being fully God and fully human. Same as through to the Bible, it has both God’s words

and the words of its human authors. It has also both divine and human dimensions. And

both are called perfect (Psalms 19: 7; Hebrews 4:15). Ibid., p. 306.

23Geisler, Defending Inerrancy, p. 307.



CLARK PINNOCK: INFALLIBILTY OF SCRIPTURES

CHAPTER 2

Before we further go to the arguments that need to be considered in this chapter,

let us give a short introduction about Clark Pinnock the person involved in this chapter of

study that we may also find out some basic aspects of his theological thought. He is an

evangelical theologian. Though by profession he graduated PhD in New Testasment

Studies, he actually has a variety of theological themes; these include topics such as

Apologetics, Soteriology, Doctrine of God, Political Theology, etc. He was greatly

influenced probably through his professors like Francis Schaeffer along with John

Warwick Montgomery that are apologists that triggered his interest in apologetics too in

his early career.1

He is a Professor of Systematic Theology at McMaster Divinity College

in Hamilton, Ontario. He is a prolific author who has written and edited several books.2

Having given such short and yet clear information in the professional career of

Clark Pinnock it seems right to deduce that most probably like Geisler, he would argue

more in philosophical or theological thought that corresponds to his line of argument as

his Biblical point of view.

1See Ray C. W. Roenfeldt, Clark H. Pinnock on Biblical Authority, (Berrien

Springs: MI, Andrews University Pr., 1993), pp. 83-84.

2See at the back cover of the book, Clark Pinnock, The Scripture Principle, ( San

Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984).



Clark Pinnock: Arguments for Infallibility of Scriptures

Our survey of some Clark Pinnock’s major theological interests in this chapter

would only touch on what are his main concepts regarding the doctrine of Scripture

especially in his notion of Infallibility of Scriptures which is opposed to the classical

Evangelical Chicago Statements of belief in biblical inerrancy. Moreover, this study of

Clark Pinnock’s concepts in biblical authority and infallibility would only consider to his

later view. In order to do that, we must take into considerations Pinnock’s perspective.

The Witness of the Bible to its Authority and Infallibility

Pinnock was very sure that the Bible’s own doctrine of authority is solely

supported as clearly taught by its doctrine of inspiration as he cites 2 Timothy 3:16. To

gain some insights about its own teaching of Authority, Pinnock in turn examines the

Scripture looking some evidences from the Old Testament’s Witness to itself, the New

Testament witness to the Old Testament, and the New Testament witness to itself.

The Witness of the Old Testament to Itself

According to Pinnock, there are some circumstances in the Old Testaments

authors which clearly speak of God giving them words to speak or having received a

message from God. Then spoke out boldly the words that God had given them.

However, he asserts that it is not always true to other books of the Bible. “It is not fair to

lift this claim out of context and apply it willy-nilly to another book like Chronicles.”

And he even gives an advice not to be carried away with such notion.3

3Clark Pinnock, The Scripture Principle, (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984),

32.



Moreover, he asserts that even though the prophets claim to have divine authority for

their message, the human element is integral part of their message and cannot be avoided

if it appears.4

In addition as Pinnocks asserts that it is also reasonable to conclude that

some people other than the prophets themselves have played an important role in shaping

the scriptural documents that incorporate the prophetic message. And this is a role as

Pinnock notes that would have included especially in decisions like ordering the material

and how it would clearly bring the essential thrust.5

The New Testament Witness to itself

Through this part of the research we shall attempt to seek what does the New

Testament claim itself in regards to the topic of infallibility and inerrancy (without error).

This would not aim to cite all the facts and evidences employed by Pinnock but definitely

cite the important ones. In order to do this let us start to uncover some evidences that are

helpful.

Pinnock argues that the New Testament Witness of itself is clear especially in its

process of writing it down into written documents. He then cites Paul, “We know in

4He cites the prediction of Micah about the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the

Assyrians (Micah 3:12), but this was not to happen, because the Lord intervened to save

the city (Issiah 37:5). He then points out that the prophets did not have so divine a view point as to make their words as absolute. Ibid., 33.

5One example along with his claim is Jeremiah who had his words written down

into the scroll by Baruch (Jeremiah 36:2, 4, 8). Though we can think of them as truedisciples, Pinnock asserts through the internal evidence, that it seems likely that they felt

free to adapt some oracles to the new situation in their ordering and phrasing of the

material. So in any case, the prophetic claim to verbal inspiration does not apply to their work. Ibid.



part” (1 Corithians 13: 12). For Pinnock, Paul was conscious that not everything has been

given to him to know. So therefore he asserts that there are times in the Apostolic time

which he can only issue some advice based on what he acknowledges to be his opinion

(1 Corinthians 7:25, 40).6

He then clearly says that this is not the picture of the Apostle

one often encounters, a man dogmatically sure about everything, but this is not to show

that the message of Paul is in doubt.7

Morever, Pinnock claims that Paul is so frank and

open about his weaknesses and did not try to hide them behind his apostolic office.8

Inspiration and Authority

Here in this section of study we must find out on how Pinnock defines or

understood inspiration. Some argue that term inspiration itself means “breathed out by

God.”9

So the question that needs to be addressed in relation to Pinnocks understanding

of inspiration is: How does Pinnock understand inspiration? Or what kind of divine

activity is it in his understanding?

6 Corinthians 7: 25 says, “ Now concerning virgins I have no command of theLord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. Pinnock

asserts that when Paul says “no word from the Lord on this matter” and no especial

message from above to give, he acknowledges it to be his opinion. And in reply to thosewho criticize him, Pinnock asserts that he is content to leave the matter with God, the

righteous judge who will make everything clear (1 Corinthians 4:4).

7Ibid., 49

8He knows he is not a superman, adds Pinnock. He further clarifies, that he

experienced the weakness of the cross and the grace of God in that context (2 Corinthians11:30; 12:9). The Epistles of Paul do not resemble with other Scriptures sent directly

from heaven, yet He speaks with authority as an apostle through the weakness of human

flesh. Ibid.

9Warfield and Geisler argued that inspiration means breathed out by God. See

From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible, page, 53.



Pinnock cites 2 Timothy 3:16 and says that the “context of this verse would also

suggest a spiritual power possessed by the text.” Pinnock also properly notes that

inspiration can be found as a diverse divine activity in the phenomena of the Bible.10

With this kind of divine activity as Pinnock clearly says, is hidden on how the Spirit

mysteriously work with the human as an instrument in the creative literary work.11

Moreover, Pinnock intensifies his definition that inspiration means that “God

gives us the Scriptures; every segment is inspired (though not in the same way), because

of his will, through many gifts of prophecy, insight, imagination, and wisdom.” The

Scripture must be heeded, because it is intended for us by the will of the Divine.

Pinnock believes that the scripture is coherent in teachings pertaining to the

covenant purposes of God and reliable in the narration of the history of salvation which is

necessary to its purpose.12

At the outset, Pinnock ascertains that though the Bible is

radically diverse or in other words has a greater degree of diversity. However the Bible is

tremendously united though it was written over centuries ago and it produces a

10It means it varies; the kind of the inspiration the one had experienced might not

be totally the same to the others. He then further explains by stating that the one kind of

inspiration was prophetic in which enabled the prophet to speak the word of the Lordwith great authority and assurance. Another kind of Inspiration was scribal and supported

writers in the researching and the composition of their work. Another way of inspiration

lies on poetic and wisdom literature.The Scripture Principle, p. 63.

11He then cites the historical books in which for him are not only the works for

one but of a large number of scribes and historians who contribute to the making. In

addition, Pinnock then claims, given such diversity of ways one has to distinguish thedegrees of inspiration. Ibid.

12The issue in here that needs to be addressed has to do with the perfection of the

coherency of the Bible. Is it perfectly coherent in such a way that there are not anyconceptual incoherencies at all? Is it perfectly inerrant so that there are no factual

discrepancies? Ibid., 64-70.



fascinating set of doctrines that settle in the lives of the people. The diversity of the Bible

is due to the distinctiveness (with their peculiarities and personal styles) of the writers

themselves, the situational orientation of much of the material. Then clearly enough he

admits that there is a “contradiction in surface terminology, but not in theology deeper

down.”13

Autographs and Inerrancy

On the other side Geisler claims that unless the Bible is perfectly inerrant in all

that it affirms it cannot be trusted. But he actually does not mean it to the extant Bible,

but it refers to the autographs given long ago.14

For Pinnock it seems likely that you are

telling that the present Bible cannot be trusted totally knowing that there might be some

errors in it. And it seems unwise to let people know this kind of knowledge for they

might substitute there confidence to the Bible to the scholars. He even asserts that our

“ belief of the clarity of the Scriptures is in jeopardy.” And passionately says, “there is no

wisdom in her e.” On other hand the Bible does not teach inerrancy.15

13Then he further clarifies that the Bible might not be coherent and unified in the

way we might choose, but in the way God has chosen. And furthermore he claims that wehave no right to impose coherency that may suit to us than God has chosen to display.

And interestingly enough he says that God does not seem over concerned about tight

coherence. Ibid., 73- 74.

14Norman Geisler, Defending Inerrancy, p. 326.

15It is more and honestly wise to tell to the people what the Bible really is in view

of God’s will and purpose. Additionally Pinnock argues, Inerrancy is not an ideal term to

say what needs to be said. It literally connotes in many people’s minds a modern,

scientific precision of the Bible which the Bible does not display. He adds that to enjoy

the truthfulness or the certainty of the Bible does not require a perfectly inerrant Bible.Pinnock believes better to encourage a trusting attitude, which is more lenient definition

of inerrancy, knowing that inerrancy for Pinnock is more flexible (can be qualified in

various ways in response to the perceived phenomena of the text) term. Ibid., 76



And he further declares to retain and employ the term when it is “fairly

interpreted.” And for him inerrancy simply means “that the Bible can be trusted in what it

affirms.” And further adheres to what Erickson’s definition of Inerrancy which says,

“The Bible, when correctly interpreted in the light of the level to which culture and the

means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the

purpose for which it was given is fully truthful in all that it affirms.”16

Incarnation and Accommodation

In this part of the study we shall try to seek to understand on how Pinnock defines

in his term of knowledge the human nature of the Bible. This would first discuss about

the humaness of the Bible, then would later go into the accommodation of revelation and

would then discuss on the interplay between human and divine. This study would always

relate to the understanding of Pinnock on the topic he agrees with.

Human Scripture as Divine Accommodation

Pinnock asserts that God himself has chosen the human form to communicate

with us the intended message. And he affirmatively says that nobody could argue with

that. It is foolishness and impiety to disregard this decision.17

In fact Pinnock stresses that

for the infinite God to reveal Himself to finite humankind, God is “compelled to employ

the symbols of earthly speech and experience.”18

16 Ibid., 77-78.

17 Scripture Principle, p. 86.

18Ibid., 96.



Moreover, Pinnock emphasizes at least three categories drawn from the Scriptures

that can be used to explain the humanity of God’s Scripture. These are accommodation,

incarnation, and human weakness. The first one is accommodation, which for Pinnock

accommodation would make us feel very uncomfortable especially, “if revelation is not

above the human and not unmistakably divine, how far is it free from human taint, and

how far can it be trusted?” He further says that revelation comes to us in human and

earthly manner, conditioned or formed by culture, “without being swallowed up with

them.”19

Though Pinnock speaks clearly that there are apparent errors in the Bible yet he

passionately says we cannot exactly know the status. It might be through His inspiration

or in His providence God has permitted them to exist. Within this line of thought Pinnock

then suppose that “flaws such as this are not meant to make us stumble or divide the

body.”20

The next category is incarnation, which he considers the main example of

accommodation in revelation. Pinnocks believes that it is natural to see an analogy

between the incarnational character of revelation and the Bible;

As the logos was enfleshed in the life of Jesus so God’s word is enlettered

in the script of the bible. In both cases there is some Mysterious union of theDivine and human, though of course not the same kind. But in each case both the

divine and the human are truly present . . . Just as Jesus’ sonship was both hidden

and revealed . . . so it is with the Scriptures.21

19 It was necessary for God to employ Divine accommodation in order for us to

understand anything he wanted us to communicate. Ibid. 96.

20And then clarifies more regarding the phenomena in the text which for him as

“apparent error and have been allowed to exist. Ibid., 97.

21Pinnock, 97.



In addition, the analogous between Christ and the Scriptures is often used by

saying; just as Jesus though human was free from sin, so the Bible though human is free

from error. For Pinnock though the parallel is pleasing to hear but this is not legitimate

argument, for sin and error need not to be equated closely.22

Then the last one is human weakness. Revelation as Pinnock proposes has not

come to us in unmistakable forms of glory but in the midst of human weakness. The same

as the apostle like Paul having human weakness yet his preaching brings us to Christ. So

as the Bible, despite its weakness, would still be enough to bring us to Christ.23

The Interplay between Human and Divine

Pinnock asks, “How the inspiration of God caused the human writing of the

Scripture?” Though this question seems more on speculation but it has some implications

to learn. Were we to think that God dictating the Bible, or putting human authorship all

the emphasis upon the literary composition.24

Pinnock argues that doctrine of inspiration in tradition employs images of

inspiration that upholds to the idea of having total divine control. In other words as

Pinnock puts it, God is viewed as the sovereign Lord even in the selection of (emphasis

added) human language just to accomplish His purpose.

22Ibid., 98.

23And he even asks and answers; how can we know the Bible show marks of

weakness? He clearly states that for one thing, “propositions fall short of expressingexactly what a speaker would wish.” He clarifies in expressing that there is always a gap,

of what he wants to say and what he does say, and that leads to misunderstanding. Ibid.

24Pinnock asserts that believing that God dictating the Bible would be a docetic

error of denying its true humanity. And putting it all to human authorship would be indanger of denying inspiration entirely. Ibid., 100.



So therefore the Bible has no error even a single slip occurred. And strongly states to

hold that kind of view makes nonsense of human authorship and is “tantamount that God

dictated the text.25

On the other hand, Pinnock asks, “how can God achieve his will in

the world and with the Bible if His sovereignty is not all-victorious?” Pinnock explains

that inspiration means all the “humanly-chosen words are also divinely willed.” Had it

not been divinely willed, the Bible would have been the mixture of truth and error.26

Pinnock further argues that God does not take away the freedom he has given to

the creature in order to enforce His will and purpose and gain victoriously as in control of

everything. He points out that God is not manipulating puppets but with personal agents.

However, God is everywhere at work upholding the structures of created causality,

Pinnock asserts.27

And clearly states that it claims to be an adequate and sufficient

testimony to God’s saving revelation.28

25Though seems it avoids saying that God dictated word for word the Scriptures

but still can be understood as God dictates word for word the Scriptures knowing He is in

total control. And then “God is taken to be the Author of the Bible in such a way that he controlled the writers and every detail of what they wrote.” Then he clearly states that

Inerrancy is derived from deductive thinking embedded in the total assumption of God as

in the total control. Ibid., 101.

26Pinnock argues that though he did not predestines everything to happen, He can

turn negative factors out as good result whenever they come across against His will. And

further asserts his idea that “God is not yet in full control of a world rebellion againstHim.” Ibid., 103.

27 In relation to the Bible, Pinnock clearly affirms that the Spirit ensures that the

truth is not distorted by human receptors in all the dynamically different ways. “God is present not normally in the mode of control, but in the way of stimulation and guidance”,

says Pinnock. a divine utterance. But Pinnock believes this is not the Bible claims. Ibid.,

103.

28And looking for the perfectly inerrant Bible, this would not be enough. God

must do the other away, overruling human agents in every detail to produce. Ibid., 104.



CHAPTER 4

EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

In this section we shall attempt to make some evaluation on their given arguments

cited above. From the outset, I would admit that there would be some feelings of biases in

this case of study knowing our differences in understanding. In addition evaluating

theological opinions is not that simple. Nevertheless, their opinions are evaluated in

regard to their faithfulness to the Scriptures. To proceed to this section, it is my intention

to point out their strengths and weaknesses on each case.

Geisler: Strengths of his Arguments

There at least two strengths that I have found in Geisler ’s arguments in this course

of study; (1) his strong emphasis on Biblical authority, (2) truth and Inerrancy. The

former that I consider strength of Geisler’s argument is still debatable in some aspects the

way he expounds in relation to the Bible’s authority. However, knowing that he considers

the Bible as an inspired word of God, therefore it is authoritative in all practical purposes

whether it will be in science, history, geology, and all areas that it affirms. The later

strength of Geisler, conveys the idea about truth and Inerrancy, he clearly says that

whatever is written in Scripture that corresponds to truth cannot be considered error or in

other words as long as it corresponds to reality.



Geisler: Weakness of his Arguments

There at least four weaknesses that I have in Geisler’s arguments; (1) The

Original Autographs qualification, (2) Coercive Divine control or Minimal Human Role

in Writing the Scripture, (4) Hermeneutics and Inerrancy, (5) the analogy of Jesus and the

Bible.

The first weakness of Geisler’s argument is about the original autograph’s

qualification. This argument of the debate is very weak and cannot be considered an

evidence either for some reasons, (1) nobody has the original autographs and probably

impossible to have one, (2) it is an evidence of silence and cannot be proved by the extant

Bible as without error (apparent errors), (3) it is not in the solid ground, it is an argument

of silence and would be considered for those against the argument as the safe place to

hide.

The second one is coercive Divine control or minimal human role. There can be

no doubt about Geisler’s too much affirmation of God’s role in the process of revelation

yet downgraded the role of human to merely secretaries. And further it is clearly

understood in his elements of inspiration about Divine causality, which conveys the idea

that God is the prime mover of inspiration and human beings are no other than the

recorder of truths.

Geisler’s argument about Hermeneutic and Inerrancy is weak too though he

agrees on the standard of HG. Instead of letting the Bible speak itself to look for the

objectivity of its nature and its characteristics he uses philosophical presupposition which

for him is the very objective and absolute truth by pointing out God as the absolute truth

so therefore it is objective truth.



The third weakness is the analogy of the union Divinity and Humanity of Jesus

and likewise the Bible resulting to Jesus as yet without sin and the Bible as without error.

Though nice to hear yet for me sin and error cannot be equated for they do not convey the

same idea.

Clark Pinnock: Strengths of his Arguments

There at least five strengths that I have found in Pinnock’s arguments; (1) Strong

View of Biblical Authority, (2) Letting the Bible Witness Itself, (3) Inclusion of Human

in the process of Inspiration, (4) Unity in Diversity, (4) Incarnation and the Bible.

Pinnock is admirable in his strong emphasis of the authority and the reliability of

the Bible, claiming to its ability as enough, sufficient, trustworthy to know God and to be

wise in relation to our salvation. He suggests to its accuracy to the whole story rather than

to its every detail. And it is also noting of Pinnock’s evidence of letting the Bible speak

itself. Going on to the real nature of the Bible, Pinnock is clear that God reveals his will

and purpose for humanity in different ways not just putting words to the mouth of the

prophets and write which make the Old and New Testament into a written inspired Bible.

It is also admirable to note about Pinnock’s inclusion of human in the process of

inspiration. He maintains a balance in his statement that revelation comes to us bearing

the mark of humanity, conditioned with culture, without being swallowed up by them.29

It

is also good to note about Pinnock’s emphasis on unity and diversity of scripture as

explained above. He makes it clear that the Bible is diverse in the process of making but

united in its truth and its relation to its intention and purpose.

29Pinnock, The Scripture Principle, 96.



And clear enough is his emphasis on incarnation and the Bible. He states,

As the logos was enfleshed in the life of Jesus so God’s word isenlettered in the script of the bible. In both cases there is some Mysterious

union of the Divine and human, though of course not the same kind. But in

each case both the divine and the human are truly present . . . Just asJesus’ sonship was both hidden and revealed . . . so it is with theScriptures.

30

Clark Pinnock: Weaknesses of his Arguments

There are at least two weaknesses that I have found in Pinnock’s argument

employed in this paper. The first one is his redefined Inerrancy or retaining the term

Inerrancy, and the degrees of inspiration. The former is still debatable if he could be in a

reasonable ground in retaining the term. And the second one is his idea on “kinds and the

degrees of inspiration.”31

This idea comes up when he tries to counterbalance the neglect

of human dimension which most evangelicals neglect to emphasize more.

Summary and Conclusion

So far, I have examined some arguments in both cases employed in this paper. It

is now safe and more objective to draw some conclusions as I understand them. To start,

Geisler is very subjective as he draws his arguments, he almost uses a priori to draw safe

conclusions. In relation to the Bible as the inspired of God he is very subjective, like for

example, the Bible is inspired so therefore is inerrant (without error). He already

presuppose that inspiration is embedded with inerrancy (without error) in which the Bible

doesn’t clearly teach. And same through with the other arguments like the character of

God and Inerrancy, the Nature of Truth and Inerrancy, the Nature of Language and

30Pinnock, 97.

31Ibid., 35.



Inerrancy and most especially the Incarnation and the Inerrancy. He started with a priori

which for him is all-the-time true so therefore also true with the Bible. He has also used

an argument of silence (which cannot be proven with the extant Bible and cannot be

traced) when referring to Inerrancy and the Autographs. So therefore his arguments are

weak, not letting the Bible to speak more itself in contrast with the HG method of

studying the scripture.

In Pinnock’s case, his arguments are very notable though some of his arguments

are still debatable, yet more objective. He let the Bible as a witness to his case. He argues

in ways that the Bible speaks of itself. One of his argument that worth noting is the way

he understands inspiration (though in a certain manner goes on to propose degrees of

inspiration). He means that inspiration is a divine activity which produces diverse ways in

preparation or production of Scriptures. He also argued in his case by letting the witness

of the Old and New Testament which clearly speak of the true nature and Character of the

Bible and clearly adhere that they do not teach a “strict the doctrine of Inerrancy.”32

And

talking about the Autographs as the only inerrant Bible, Pinnock asserts that it seems they

are telling that we cannot trust our extant Bible and would lead us to shift our confidence

to scholars. And clearly say “there is not much wisdom in here.”33

Interestingly enough is

Pinnocks inclusion of human dimension as Divine accommodation. He makes as clear as

possible the role of human in the process producing the Scripture into a written text. So

therefore, Pinnock is more admirable in his arguments.

32 He even meant to say that it “did not require a perfectly errorless Bible to give

us certainty we all enjoy.” Pinnock, The Scripture Principle, p. 77.

33Ibid., p. 76.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Geisler, Norman and William C. Roach. Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of

Scripture for a New Generation. Grand Rapids, MI : Baker Books, c2011.

Geisler, Norman and William E. Nix. From God to Us: How We Got our Bible. Chicago,IL : Moody Pr., c1974.

Jack, Rogers B. and Mckim, Donald. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An

Historical Approach. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.

Pinnock, Clark. The Scripture Principle. San Francisco : Harper & Row, c1984.

Purdy, Richard A. “ Norman Geisler’s Neo-Thomistic Apologetics,” Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society vol. 25, 1982.

Roenfeldt, Ray C. W. Clark H. Pinnock on Biblical Authority. Berrien Springs: MI,

Andrews University Pr., 1993.

bibilical inerrancy among evangelicals

Documents