Biblical Revelation and Clark Pinnock

Introduction

            This paper will seek to provide insight and analysis into Clark Pinnock’s thinking on biblical revelation. This will be somewhat of a historical review, beginning with where Pinnock was and ending with where he is now. The goal is to track how his thinking has changed and what effects these changes have had. Along with the analysis will be intermittent critique. The critique will include his previous and current beliefs about biblical revelation. I want to know if there was something about his early thinking that may have led to his adjustments later on. Based on the analysis of Pinnock’s earlier and later beliefs, I hope to provide insight into things modern people can do/ think to avoid ending up in the same position (practical application). Ultimately, the purpose of this writing is to be both instructive and critical (i.e., lessons learned). What is provided below will not be an exhaustive account of Pinnock’s total theological thinking but solely focused on his view of biblical revelation (including inspiration, inerrancy, etc.).

Early Pinnock

            Clark Pinnock is a modern theologian who has had a profound impact on Christianity at large. Pinnock has been surrounded by theological controversy (more on this later). But what did he think in his early years. Was he a man that projected personal feelings into his theological method or was he someone who wanted to guard against theology done in such a way. In either case, it should be recognized that, though Pinnock is not a household name, he has provided the Church with valuable insights and lessons.

            In his early iteration, Pinnock is one who holds to a strong version of sola scriptura. For example, “the refusal to allow private revelation to be normative over inscripturated truth is a basic Christian attitude (emphasis mine).”[1] His focus and heart is pulled in the direction of grounding all theological discourse in Scripture alone. It is not that experience is meaningless (more on this below) but that the guiding principle should be and will always be God’s divine speaking to mankind. The transcendent has condescended to man so that they could hear the truth of God. All of Pinnock’s early thinking (and later?) is couched in the idea of the primacy of Holy Scripture.

Theological Method

            For every theologian, there is at bottom some fundamental method to their construction of theological doctrines. As noted above, Pinnock takes Scripture as the fundamental source for all theological endeavors. Theology, if done properly (for Pinnock), is not an exhibition of the individual theologians’ wit and cunning. It is an accurate representation of the biblical data. “Theology is the inductive science which catalogs, interprets and relates the revealed data. Just as natural science is the technical expression of the data discovered in nature, theology is the expression of the truths of divine revelation.”[2] For Pinnock, there is a consistency between the way theology and empirical science is done. The scientist has for an objective ground of his theorizing, the natural world. Thus, the theologian has as his objective ground of theorizing, the scriptures. Both are grounded in something that is outside of the person investigating the data. At bottom, according to Pinnock, theologians and pastors are catalogers of biblical data so as to accurately represent this data to the laity.

            Pinnock in The Scripture Principle quotes a lengthy portion of the New Hampshire Baptist Confession,

We believe that the Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that is has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter; that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions shall be tried.[3]

 

By all intents and purposes, Pinnock falls directly in the middle of orthodox belief and is a staunch defender of Scripture as the guiding principle. He is the proud child of the Protestant Reformation. This is by no means an insult but is simply reflective of his motives and his motivation. Scripture for Pinnock is the ground of all theological discussion because it is the compass that guides the seeker. Without Scripture (Pinnock’s view), those who are seeking would be wondering about and finding nothing.

            In Biblical Revelation, Pinnock provides a section on the evaluation of things that are typically added next to (or over) Scripture as a source for theological truth, such as reason, tradition, and Christian experience.[4] Pinnock describes some theologians as using or attempting to find a “calculus” for theological truth. Reason is recognized as a useful tool but should not be extended beyond what its purpose is. He states that reason is a tool, something that is used but does not inform. “Formal reason, like pure logic, deals in inference and deduction, and orders our mental universe; but it is unable to inform us as to the content of the world.”[5] Reason cannot be used as a source because it is essentially contentless and when reason becomes the (or a) source then it simply is reflective of the “I” of who is using it (i.e., the theologian is bringing their personal views to bear on the theological as a ground for the view).

            The Roman Catholics have elevated tradition to such a level as that of Scripture. The Pope is viewed as part of tradition because he (the office of the papacy) is linked to apostolic succession. Pinnock points out that this is another reflection of man being inserted into the divine discourse. Tradition cannot be a source of theological truth, in the sense of grounding theological thinking, but rather it should be looked to as a guide. He does not dismiss tradition out of hand but simply states that being the (or a) source for theology would be mistaken and the early Christians would agree that Scripture is the only source for God-talk because it came directly from God through man. Along these traditional lines, Pinnock wants to affirm the importance of the historical elements of Christian belief. I believe Pinnock would agree with Henry when he says, “the sacred truths of Scripture are the epistemic bedrock of historic Christianity. If these theological assertions were shown to be not factually true, orthodox believers would be the very first to abandon their faith.”[6] The issue is not the tradition because it is a continuation of the Christian message but rather the elevation of tradition (human God-talk) on par with divine Scripture (God-talk/ divine discourse). One of the benefits (providential?) of Christianity is its empirical verifiability in the historical arena. Pinnock notes that it is the very fact that Christianity is historical is what gives it such power because it can be evaluated. Problems arise in the conflation of tradition and Scripture.

            Christian experience is often elevated to a place of theological sourcing. Pinnock notes that experience falls prey to the same sorts of problems of elevating tradition. The problem is that experience lifts man as the central idea in theological construction. Mankind is of course part of the story of redemption, but Christ is really the center, the God-man. Subjective experience (is again) not dismissed out of hand as unimportant. Personal experience with the divine is an important element within the Christian community. Pinnock believes that without Scripture as the grounding principle then personal experience is left floating without any anchor. “Christianity is rooted in historical divine discourse, by which its faith is to be informed and controlled.”[7] Paul Tillich agrees, “insight into the human situation destroys every theology which makes experience an independent source instead of a dependent medium of systematic theology.”[8] Pinnock wants to highlight the nebulous aspect of personal experience, he wants it to have a place of importance but mediated by Scripture (and Christ). The culmination of his thinking on these three as sources for theological thinking can be summarized by his final paragraph in this section,

None of these three candidates—reason, tradition, or experience—separately or together is capable of supplying reliable revelation data for Christian theology. Each needs to be checked and measured by Scripture, which alone has been validated as a genuine source. These are not sources at all, and the attempt to develop a “calculus” for handling several together will not succeed. The simple fact of the matter is that none of these deserves our unquestioned obedience. Only Scripture possesses final authority.[9]

Noticed that he states that they are not reliable as sources. This is his ultimate concern, the use of things ad extra to the Bible, the divine discourse. Pinnock wants the supremacy of Scripture to reign within the theological world because he views it as the only counterbalance to human injection into the process.

Analysis and Critique

            Briefly, I think the intentions of Pinnock are good. His desire to remain faithful to the scriptures is an admirable quality and one that should be mirrored (in motive only). The first criticism is one that is not firmly stated but is gleaned from the manner in which Pinnock writes. There seems to be an underlying dogmatism.[10] At issue, is the determination with which Pinnock argues for his position. He holds extremely dogmatically to his position and believes that his method shows this to be the case. The problem is by holding so firmly to his method, if it is met with any sort of difficulty, it may prove fatal. Wynne thinks that it is Pinnock’s high view of reason that has led to his shift in thinking (not discussed here). Wynne notes,

crucially, however, for Pinnock, even this evidence is properly authenticated by a mechanism of independent factual verification and inductive reasoning. As it turns out, ‘evidence of a most compelling variety’ may also overturn a Christian’s trust in what the Bible reveals to be Christ’s own view of Scripture. If this is so, then it appears that the early Pinnock’s methodological commitment to Scripture’s inerrancy was nominal at best, since it, too, depended on an independent evaluation of Scripture’s witness to Christ and to itself.[11]

Wynne (I believe) has a point, but it may be taken too far. Pinnock does hold to a historical type of verification. But at some level he is also a presuppositionalist as it pertains to inerrancy. Pinnock plainly states that we should (moral language) take the position of Jesus and disciples when it comes to our view of Scripture. Essentially, Jesus (and most Jews) held to the authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of the Old Testament (OT) scriptures. Because Jesus is the central figure for Christian doctrine and He is the God-man, we are obliged to follow his directive concerning these things. By my estimation, Wynne is partially correct, but I think it is his verification principle that is coupled with his presuppositional attitude that makes for a potential to deviate from “orthodoxy” (for lack of a better term).

            Potentially too strong of a statement but Pinnock thinks that anything extra to the Bible is essentially meaningless/ valueless. “Extrabiblical claims to knowledge of ultimate reality are dreams and fancies.”[12] The primary issue with this statement is that the Bible does not touch on everything about reality. Charles Hodge and Carl Henry both recognize the “progressive character of revelation.”[13] These two are not the only ones to recognize the progressive nature of revelation but these two should be sufficient here to get the point across. Pinnock is not allowing enough room for things to have an epistemic impact outside of Scripture. It appears that he may have some fears about allowing in information that may potentially be contrary to Scripture. Of course, I am not advocating for content that is contrary to Scripture. However, if there is one Creator God that designed and is sustaining ultimate reality then it stands to reason that His truth pervades reality. This consideration should be heavily considered because of the adverse effects to one’s ability to function meaningfully with reality, by this I mean that if one only allows biblical knowledge in as a ground for their lives than it is likely there is a great deal of information they will lack. This seems to be an issue for Pinnock, his under appreciation of natural knowledge.

            Towards the charge of presuppositionalism, this is not a mistake nor necessarily a negative thing. Many non-believers would decry his “blind” acceptance of the text of Scripture as God’s authoritative word for man. However, I think Pinnock does not blindly accept this position, but it is bolstered by the pervasive character of the text and on Jesus’ word. It seems that Pinnock may be using the principle of credulity here, “when something seems to someone to be true, it probably is true, and he may take it as true, unless he knows of some special disqualifying circumstances or evidence to show that what seems true is not actually true.”[14] All this means is that we will give the benefit of doubt to the source we are investigating until and unless it gives us something to decide otherwise. Pinnock’s presuppositional approach appears to be couched in this idea. Along with this principle, basing our judgment of Scripture of the teachings of Jesus Christ is a good methodological decision. If Christ is the God-man and He came for a very specific purpose and that was to reconcile mankind to God, then it seems prudent to give more epistemic weight to His thought than to others. This points to Pinnock’s Christocentric approach in his method. However, with all things considered to this point, it may be a detriment to his theological venture than a help (more on this below).

Later Pinnock

            Deciphering Pinnock’s later views on revelation can be quite the task. This is primarily due to the fact that writing explicitly on revelation (as a direct topic) has not been the brunt of his focus over the years. Most of his statements about revelation tend to be couched, inconspicuously, in various other writings. The goal in this section is to attempt to accurately represent his currently held view on the doctrine of revelation with the caveat that it may be somewhat unclear because of the lack of direct and explicit statement on the part of Pinnock.

Theological Method

            It is no mystery to anyone in the theological world where Pinnock lands with regard to the doctrine of God. He has been a champion of Open Theism. But the question is, has his shift towards Open Theism been preceded by shifts in other doctrines or perhaps his view of revelation shifted because his doctrine of God changed? In either case, there has been a change in thinking for Pinnock.

            It seems to be clear that, at the very least, Pinnock pays lip service to the Bible being the inspired word of God. This (I believe) is primarily due to his strong view of Christ as the center of Christian faith. Pinnock states,

Stephen Wellum expresses the fear that a weak view of sovereignty might lessen our ability to think of the Bible as entirely the word of God because, if freedom is libertarian, God cannot control every aspect of the inspired text. True enough, but do we want to affirm what amounts to a dictation of the text? It seems that when we read Scripture we have an interplay of divine initiative and human activity. God is overseeing the process but human authors are also active. God is always present, not always in the mode of control, but often in the manner of stimulation and invitation. God works alongside human beings in order to achieve by wisdom and patience the goal of a Bible that expresses his will for our salvation [sic].[15]

This is an extensive quote that seems to align quite well with standard Christian belief. Pinnock (based on this quote) wants to avoid a dictation theory of revelation. This seems correct because there are problems associated with the view of dictation. Here, Pinnock acknowledges that God is working in and through human beings to bring about a text that will provide insight into His salvific plans.

            Pinnock holds that the text of Scripture should speak for itself. He is a staunch defender against allowing philosophical notions to dictate doctrines. He believes that we should not allow philosophy to affect us hermeneutically.[16] At least at face value, these statements are not of a person who has abandoned inerrancy and a strong view of biblical revelation (more on this below). But again, there are minor statements that can easily be missed under a cursory reading (I will touch on this in the critique section).

            Pinnock is clear with his intentions, “I want to overcome any distortions caused by excessive Hellenization.”[17] To understand this comment, one must understand where Pinnock is coming from. He believes that throughout the history of the church, more specifically the early church, Greek philosophy had invaded the thinking of those who have developed doctrine. It is this move by the Church towards Greek thinking that had caused certain doctrines to come to light, possibly ones that are not in the biblical text at all. Inerrancy would be one of those doctrines that seems to be absent from the biblical testimony. It is this assumption that Pinnock is moving forward on. With this point in mind, it should be easy to understand why Pinnock has (attempted) decided to take an extremely Christocentric position. When Pinnock comes to the text of Scripture, he is explicitly trying to find Christ or Christ is the lens through which he will examine the text. This is an attempted separation between the Hellenistic tendency within church tradition. He is explicit when he says, “the familiar word incarnation expresses the idea that Jesus is the definitive revelation of God.”[18] In Barthian style, Pinnock strips everything else away but Jesus, the Christ, the divine expression in physical form.

            Along with Pinnock’s Christocentric focus, is his primacy of libertarian free will. Of course, believing in libertarian free will in no way suggests that it is necessary to believe the Bible is errant. But what this does is lay the groundwork for how one understands this doctrine (revelation). Pinnock is clear,

According to the Bible, human beings are creatures who have rejected God’s will for them and turned aside from his plan. This is another strong piece of evidence that God made them truly free. Humans are evidently not puppets on a string. They are free even to pit their wills against God’s. We have actually deviated from the plan of God in creating us and set ourselves at cross-purposes to God. Obviously we are free because we are acting as a race in a way disruptive of God’s will and destructive of the values God holds dear for us. It is surely not possible to believe that God secretly planned our rebelling against him. Certainly our rebellion is proof that our actions are not determined but significantly free…We may not be able to thwart God’s ultimate plan for the world, but we certainly can ruin his plan for us personally and, like the scribes, reject God’s purpose for ourselves.[19]

If one were to lay across a table the items for developing one’s theological doctrines, at the top of the list for Pinnock would be Christ and human freedom. Pinnock wants to avoid the difficulties that are tied to a view of God controlling everything because, in his mind, it would make God the author of evil or mistakes and this is contrary to a strong view of God’s nature. It appears that his desire is to maintain a stronger view of God.

            Lastly, Pinnock sees God relationality as fundamental to the course of history and towards His dealings with mankind. By this, Pinnock highlights God’s love as characteristic of how He deals with people and how He brings about His plans. This is not viewed as a limitation per se. It is not that humans limit God in any sense but rather that God has chosen to limit Himself in the way that He deals with humans and how He decides to implement His plans. It is these lenses that Pinnock wants to view and formulate his doctrines. It is through Christ, through human freedom, and through God’s love that should dictate how theological formulation is done.

Analysis and Critique

            Prior to jumping into any critique, it would be helpful to point out a footnote that provides some explanation into Pinnock and his thinking on this subject. Callen references Ray Roennfeldt about Pinnock,

In the formulation of his early view of Scripture, Pinnock used the presuppositions of Reformed theism, whereas the later Pinnock consciously works from a more Arminian model without rejecting all aspects of Calvinism. He now considers that Scripture should be understood as the result of both divine initiative and human response. It is his contention that a strict belief in biblical inerrancy is incompatible with anything less than belief in Calvinistic determinism. The Arminian paradigm, which took about ten years to affect Pinnock’s doctrine of Scripture, has been gradually filtering down into all of his theological reflections.[20]

The above is a helpful quote because it provides some insight into Pinnock’s theological thinking that is not always clear or explicit in his own works. This could potentially be the brunt of the matter, if Pinnock was working from a primarily Reformed position, he would have held to (probably) a compatibilistic view of God’s foreknowledge and human freedom. As time went on, if this compatibilism began to give way, then Pinnock would have had more and more difficulty accepting God’s complete control over things, ergo, Scripture is no longer completely inerrant. As the compatibilism breaks away it would be slowly replaced by incompatibilism which recognizes that there is a distance between human freedom and God’s foreknowledge. Once foreknowledge (and by default, providence) is given up (or diminished) then it is not a far leap to giving up the detailed control of certain things, in this case the inerrancy of Scripture. I believe that it was Pinnock’s slow shifting in his doctrine of God that ultimately led to his departure from a more orthodox (or strict?) view of inerrancy. Within Pinnock’s system, he views God as taking risks. God willingly set aside his meticulous control over the affairs of humanity (i.e., took a risk) so that human freedom could freely come to love and enjoy Him. Granted, this limitation is one that is set by God and not people, but it is nonetheless a significant restriction on God’s providence and knowledge. So, the result is, if God does not have a detailed knowledge of future contingents and he willingly limits his use of power then it follows that Scripture would not (in all likelihood) be inerrant, but presumably an acceptable rendition of what God desired.

            One point that seems quite acceptable, even among the most conservative evangelicals, is Pinnock wants to avoid a dictation type of revelation. If dictation were the form God decided to use, there appears to be blatant difficulties within the text of Scripture. It would also align both Islamic and Christian doctrines and it is clear that Allah and God are both quite different. However, attempting to sidestep dictation as a theory, Pinnock has stepped into the ditch of a hapless God. By this, Pinnock’s God would be lucky if the people he chose just so happen to stumble upon an inerrant rendition of his divine discourse. Far from providing a balanced view as an answer to dictation, Pinnock decided to tip the scales in the opposite direction. There is a view that can accommodate both God’s divine control and guidance of the writers of Scripture and the human freedom to construct the documents in their own words. The content of those writings can be about what God wants without being a verbatim rendition of exactly what he expects. In a sense, it appears that Pinnock has thrown the baby out with the bath water.

            One aspect of Pinnock’s thinking that seems to have remained in both phases of his theological thinking his is belief in an empirical verification of the text. Wynne seems to think that it is this verification principle that ultimately led to Pinnock’s shift from inerrancy to not inerrant. Wynne quotes Pinnock, “one could fairly say that the Bible contains errors but teaches none.”[21] Wynne berates Pinnock for his holding to an empirical and inductive method. Though I tend to agree with it at some points, I also believe that Wynne is somewhat mistaken. It is less about Pinnock’s inductive approach and more about his theological shift (as stated above). There are plenty of evangelical theologians who hold to empirical verification and inductive methods who still remain firm in what would be considered “orthodox” doctrines. Wynne’s comments are helpful but also far to critical and I think slightly theologically biased in approach.

            Pinnock has taken extreme issue with the “influence” of Greek thought within the Church. He believes that this influence has overshadowed the Jewishness of Christian faith. I believe this to be demonstrably false. Granted, it is obvious that the Greek world provided philosophical categories for easily conveying certain information about certain theological thoughts, but this does not mean it affected the internal consistency of these doctrines with Jewish thinking.[22] This criticism would be akin to a translation fallacy. By this I mean, anytime something undergoes a translation into a new context, the original meaning of the thing is lost. This seems to be blatantly false. If this were the case, then our modern English translations of anything could not be what it was when it was originally composed. Also, if we allow this type of criteria in, evangelism would be greatly impacted as well. This would mean that we could not meaningfully take the gospel into differing contexts and present it without the explicit loss of content, and I do not think Pinnock would want to affirm that. Though there is a case to be made that Greek philosophy allowed the expansion of theological thought, I believe the case would be difficult (if not impossible) to say that Greek philosophy completely corrupted and distorted the true meaning of the gospel (and Scripture/ doctrine as a whole).

            Christocentrism has been Pinnock’s professed calling card for many years. It appears that he desires to make Christ the center of all of his theological thinking. This is an admirable goal, especially considering that Jesus Christ is the focal point of the Christian message, God’s salvific purpose, and the interaction between the divine and human realms. However, there seems to be an apparent issue with Pinnock’s Christ centeredness and what Jesus actually thought. Jesus throughout his ministry made appeals to the authority (and presumed errorless character) of Scripture.[23] There was a specific character that the Jewish culture placed on their Scriptures, and it was high. This is in part due to the source, i.e., God. Jesus never provided any caveat to His references (e.g., this person existed but this detail is not accurate). When Jesus made reference to some fact from the OT it was accepted as the fact of the matter. The problem for Pinnock is, if Jesus accepted (at least highly probably) an errorless and authoritative Scripture, how does Pinnock square going against the one who is at the center of his theological thinking? I am unsure how he would answer this question, but it remains, nonetheless. Jesus also commissioned the disciples to go and spread His message and provided the power of the Holy Spirit to complete this task. Should we surmise that Pinnock suggests the power of the Holy Spirit is only sufficient to provide a summation or that, through His power, He could ensure an accurate and detailed account of divine discourse? There seems to be a disconnect between Pinnock’s Christology, Pneumatology, and Revelation. Each one stands alone not realizing that they need each other to formulate a coherent whole. This is a weakness that should be addressed in Pinnock’s thinking.

Practical Application

            This section will be brief. It is important for those who undertake the task of constructing theology and doctrine to be aware of how each section depends on the other. If one has a particular view on Christology then this will affect the position one must take within another doctrines (for example, revelation). The goal is not to pick the doctrines, philosophy, or theological constructions we like the best and try to fit them together. Rather, the goal should be to discover which doctrines best describe the form of reality and experience. What best represents the biblical data and natural reason. It is not enough to “feel” like something is the best fit. I do not for a moment believe that I have the answer or good criteria to solve this problem, but I do not need to possess this information to be able to recognize a deficiency.

            An important lesson that all of us can gain from the evolution of Pinnock is humility. There is little doubt that had someone approached the early Pinnock and expressed to him that one day he would reject a strong doctrine of inerrancy what his response would be, “unlikely.” The demeanor with which he seemed to defend inerrancy in his early years may have been somewhat strong headed. Pinnock presented his case as it was rationalistically set and empirically stable. This set the stage for when difficulties occurred, it proved too much for his system of thought to handle. Each person must be ready and willing to face challenges head on and be aware that there is a lot of information that we simply cannot and do not know. This should in no way impact our confidence in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Dr. Habermas has a typical response to those who express facing difficulties in theology, “yes, but did Jesus rise from the dead.”[24] The implied answer is yes. Some content is rock solid and other content is not and that is perfectly acceptable.

Conclusion

            Pinnock has been a staple for those looking for a more relational theology. He has bucked against the standard classical theist view which has done good for theology in general. There was a strong view of inerrancy in the beginning, but it waned with time. The unfortunate side effect of a faulty epistemology and confidence in prior theological construction. The end result is a loss of confidence in the inspired scriptures as God’s errorless word unto man.

            Pinnock had, in the beginning, a strong verification principle that ultimately led to his deviation from the “standard” view on inerrancy. Because he based so much on his belief that Scripture could be defended and proved inerrant (certitude), this set the stage for his later departure. As cliché as the saying may be, epistemic humility can do a great deal for one’s theological growth and development. This is not to say that we should lack confidence in our formulations but that we should realize that not all doctrines are created equal. When we realize that formulating sound doctrine can be (and often is) a difficult task, we will realize that our various formulations should be thoroughly thought through prior to making adjustments to other (more firmly established) doctrines.

Bibliography

Clark, David. To Know and Love God. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003.

Gaston, Thomas E. “The Influence of Platonism on the Early Apologists,” (2009): 573-575

Henry, Carl F.H. God, Revelation, and Authority, Vol. 1. Wheaton: Crossway, 1976.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. New York: Charles Scribner and Company, 1872.

Litfin, Bryan. Getting to Know The Church Fathers. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016.

Pinnock, Clark. Biblical Revelation: The Foundation of Christian Theology. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998.

Pinnock, Clark and Barry Callen. The Scripture Principle: Reclaiming the Full Authority of the Bible. Lexington: Emeth Press, 2009.

Pinnock, Clark. Most Moved Mover. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2001.

Pinnock, Clark, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. Downers Grove: IVP, 1994. 

Pinnock, Clark. “God Limits His Knowledge.” In Basinger and Basinger, Eds. Predestination and Free Will. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1986.

Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology: Reason and Revelation, Being and God, Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.

Willington, Harold. “Old Testament Passages Quoted by Jesus Christ.” Scholars Crossing (November 2017), 1-4.

Wynne, R. Carlton. “Inerrancy is not Enough: A Lesson in Epistemology from Clark Pinnock on Scripture,” Unio Cum Christo 2, no. 2 (2016): 67-81.

---

Endnotes

[1] Clark Pinnock, Biblical Revelation: The Foundation of Christian Theology (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998), 132. This is a later print edition. Original publication was in 1971. The emphasis in the quotation is on “inscripturated truth.”

[2] Ibid, 134.

[3] Clark Pinnock and Barry Callen, The Scripture Principle: Reclaiming the Full Authority of the Bible (Lexington: Emeth Press, 2009), 12.

[4] Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, 122-133.

[5] Ibid, 123.

[6] Carl F.H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, vol. 1, (Wheaton: Crossway, 1976), 97.

[7] Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, 132.

[8] Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology: Reason and Revelation, Being and God, Vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), 46.

[9] Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, 133.

[10] By dogmatism, I mean a strongly held to belief that cannot be dispelled by any reasoning. Pinnock sees in the text of Scripture something he believes is firmly established (good thing) and he places his method overtop of this belief and nothing, but Scripture can overturn it. This is circular. He believes what the Bible teaches about itself, uses his method to determine this, only Scripture can overturn this belief, but it never will because it is firmly established. The concern is not the belief or the teaching he is upholding but rather the manner in which he goes about defending it. I think this epistemic method will be discovered to have led him down the path to where he is now.

[11] R. Carlton Wynne, “Inerrancy is not Enough: A Lesson in Epistemology from Clark Pinnock on Scripture,” Unio Cum Christo 2, no. 2 (2016): 73. Wynne is criticizing Pinnock’s empirical method for determining truth. He believes that it has led to the shift in theology. Because Pinnock looks at the historical evidence and almost takes a presuppositional approach to the inerrancy of Scripture, this has helped lead his views to change.

[12] Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, 115. Granted this quotation deals or has primarily in mind the idea of theology. However, he makes the claim a little stronger when he adds “ultimate reality.”

[13] Henry, God, Authority and Revelation, 71; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (New York: Charles Scribner and Company, 1872), 446-447.

[14] David Clark, To Know and Love God (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003), 66.

[15] Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2001), 129.

[16] Ibid, 22. He states that philosophy can give us categories for helping us say what we want to say but should not be the assumed worldview because that would affect us hermeneutically.

[17] Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove: IVP, 1994), location 1183. This source is a Kindle Ebook and does not offer page numbers so the reference is listed as the location number.

[18] Ibid, 419.

[19] Clark Pinnock, “God Limits His Knowledge,” in Basinger and Basinger, eds., Predestination and Free Will (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1986), 149.

[20] Pinnock and Callen, Scripture Principle, 25. This is footnote 31 and it is a direct quote of Ray Roennfeldt talking about Pinnock. This helpful because much of what Pinnock writes has unstated theological baggage and this conveniently places most of the baggage in one place.

[21] Wynne, “Inerrancy is Not Enough,” 77.

[22] Thomas E. Gaston, “The Influence of Platonism on the Early Apologists,” (2009): 573-575 and Bryan Litfin, Getting to Know The Church Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 41-56. Both sources reference those influence by Plato but not that it was a matter of the language used in that cultural setting to understand certain categories that were not normative within Jewish thought.

[23] Harold Willington, “Old Testament Passages Quoted by Jesus Christ,” Scholars Crossing (November 2017). This source provides a chart of all OT passage quoted by Jesus and topics/ persons referenced. This footnote is in place of the chart to avoid taking up too much space.

[24] Gary Habermas, this is a reference to personal experience with Dr. Habermas and the stories he has talked about interactions with those dealing with doubt or difficulties, specifically Dr. Mike Licona.