Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Un-inspiring Scripture

Do you think that theological professors live safely above the winds and waves that carry about the immature?

Think again.

Here is Al Mohler on Clark Pinnock's views of Scripture:

Some years earlier, Pinnock had redefined his understanding of Scripture. Theology professors have a good number of choices of Pinnock material to use in teaching the doctrine of Scripture. These include one volume that serves as a wonderful defense of biblical inerrancy (still in print) along with another volume that vitually takes it all back.

According to Pinnock's new understanding of biblical inspiration:
Divine inspiration should not be over-supernaturalized. There is no reason to deny that inspiration is at least in part a perfectly natural response to the need to perpetuate revelation, and that many of the people involved in writing Scripture depended upon the familiar Charisms enjoyed in the believing community even today. I think we have exaggerated the supernaturalness of inspiration.
Where does this leave Clark Pinnock? Too evangelical for the liberal mainline and too liberal for confessional evangelicals, Pinnock bemoans his consignment to a theological "no man's land," while beckoning both sides to join him in what he considers to be the middle ground.
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. "Reformist Evangelicalism: A Center Without a Circumference," in Horton [ed.], A Confessing Theology for Postmodern Times, p. 141

2 comments:

Dave K said...

Is there anything actually wrong with Pinnock's comments in the quotation?

Admittedly I don't know how Clark Pinnock can hold to inerrancy (or to most other Christian doctrines) while being an Open Theist, but does Pinnock actually believed he has changed his position, and if not what evidence is there to say that he has?

nat said...

dave,

Sadly, innerancy is now viewed by many scholars as a more or less "backwoods" concept. Instead we hear infallibility more often referred to in support of the Scriptures in many circles. The two terms are not synonymous. But, I believe (as does Sproul in "What is Reformed Theology") that they are two inseperable concept-foundations-which uphold the authority of Scripture.

I would think that Open Theism would negate both in that if God does learn, change, or "grow" then His former words would need updating. Right?