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 doesnt 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 Orrs stance and argues against Warfields view. Then probably the debate began to fire up in the 1960s, 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
1

See 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 Geislers 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
2

See 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 Geislers arguments on Inerrancy in this modern debate let us first consider how he defined or what are his theological understandings regarding the Bible as Gods 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
3

In the history of Apologetics very little has been written either positively or negatively about Geislers 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 Geislers apologetic method is Richard A. Purdy, Norman Geislers Neo-Thomistic Apologetics, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society vol. 25 (1982). Norman Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible, ( Chicago: IL Moody Pr., 1986), 40.
4

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 Gods 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 Gods 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 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 that inspiration 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 4:12 about 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.
6 5

Ibid., p. 13. Norman 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
8

The 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 explains saying 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 righteousness. 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

Ibid., p. 44.

So 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. Geisler 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 Geislers view about the Bible is greatly 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 Geislers line of thought. See Defending Inerrancy, 215.
11

10

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
12

It 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 someones view of Gods nature especially in relation 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. Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for the New Generation, p. 232. For 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 and to 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 not merely to redemptive purpose of the Bible. For some (limited Inerrantists) say that the Bible is only inerrant considering Gods intent and purpose but not in the objective sense of the Bible as its records is concerned. Ibid., 234-235.
14 13

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
15

This 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. Both God and Human beings are authors and are responsible for one and the same set of words in the autographic text. So 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 the Bible as the Gods 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.
17 16

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
18 19

Norman Geisler, Defending Inerrancy, p. 284.

For 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 that if 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). So whatever an infinite Mind means by something is what it means objectively and 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.
20

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 Savior Divine Nature Human Nature One in Person Without sin
21 22

The Written Word The Scripture Divine Nature Human Nature One in proposition (sentence) Without error23

Ibid.

He 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 Gods 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.
23

Geisler, 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.
1

See Ray C. W. Roenfeldt, Clark H. Pinnock on Biblical Authority, (Berrien Springs: MI, Andrews University Pr., 1993), pp. 83-84. See at the back cover of the book, Clark Pinnock, The Scripture Principle, ( San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984).
2

Clark Pinnock: Arguments for Infallibility of Scriptures Our survey of some Clark Pinnocks 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 Pinnocks concepts in biblical authority and infallibility would only consider to his later view. In order to do that, we must take into considerations Pinnocks perspective.

The Witness of the Bible to its Authority and Infallibility Pinnock was very sure that the Bibles 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 Testaments 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
3

Clark 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
4

He 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. One 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 true disciples, 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.
5

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? Corinthians 7: 25 says, Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, 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 those who 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).
7 6

Ibid., 49

He 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 Corinthians 11:30; 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. Warfield and Geisler argued that inspiration means breathed out by God. See From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible, page, 53.
9

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
10

It 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 Lord with 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. He 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 the degrees of inspiration. Ibid. The 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 any conceptual incoherencies at all? Is it perfectly inerrant so that there are no factual discrepancies? Ibid., 64-70.
12 11

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 here. On other hand the Bible does not teach inerrancy. 15
13

Then 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 we have 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.
14

Norman Geisler, Defending Inerrancy, p. 326.

It is more and honestly wise to tell to the people what the Bible really is in view of Gods will and purpose. Additionally Pinnock argues, Inerrancy is not an ideal term to say what needs to be said. It literally connotes in many peoples 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

15

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 Ericksons 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 17 18

Ibid., 77-78. Scripture Principle, p. 86. Ibid., 96.

Moreover, Pinnock emphasizes at least three categories drawn from the Scriptures that can be used to explain the humanity of Gods 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 Gods word is enlettered 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 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. And then clarifies more regarding the phenomena in the text which for him as apparent error and have been allowed to exist. Ibid., 97.
21 20

Pinnock, 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.
22 23

Ibid., 98.

And 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 expressing exactly 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. Pinnock 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 in danger of denying inspiration entirely. Ibid., 100.
24

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 Gods saving revelation.28
25

Though 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. Pinnock 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 against Him. Ibid., 103. 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. And 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.
28 27 26

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 Geislers arguments in this course of study; (1) his strong emphasis on Biblical authority, (2) truth and Inerrancy. The former that I consider strength of Geislers argument is still debatable in some aspects the way he expounds in relation to the Bibles 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 Geislers 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 Geislers argument is about the original autographs 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 Geislers too much affirmation of Gods 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. Geislers 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 Pinnocks 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 Pinnocks 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 Pinnocks 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 Pinnocks 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.
29

Pinnock, 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 Gods word is enlettered 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 as Jesus sonship was both hidden and revealed . . . so it is with the Scriptures.30

Clark Pinnock: Weaknesses of his Arguments There are at least two weaknesses that I have found in Pinnocks 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 doesnt 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
30 31

Pinnock, 97. Ibid., 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 Pinnocks 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. 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.
33 32

Ibid., 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 Geislers 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.