DOCSLIB.ORG

Inerrancy Is Not Enough: a Lesson in Epistemology from Clark Pinnock on Scripture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inerrancy Is Not Enough: a Lesson in Epistemology from Clark Pinnock on Scripture Inerrancy Is Not Enough: A Lesson in Epistemology from Clark Pinnock on Scripture R. CARLTON WYNNE Abstract In the 1960s, Canadian theologian Clark H. Pinnock declared that saving human knowledge of God could only be built upon the plain sense of the infallible and inerrant text of Holy Scripture. In the ensuing decades, however, Pinnock’s confidence in an inerrant Bible severely waned. A close examination of Pinnock’s early epistemological outlook reveals critical defects that sowed seeds of his later departure from a traditional confession of Scripture’s total trustworthiness. Pinnock’s theological migration reminds scholars and church leaders that only an epistemolo- gy that is rooted in the being, knowledge, and revelation of God in Scripture supplies the necessary context for a robust confession of Scripture’s inerrancy and its relationship with the observable world. 67 68 UNIO CUM CHRISTO ›› UNIOCC.COM Introduction anadian theologian Clark H. Pinnock opened his 1967 book, A Defense of Biblical Infallibility, by claiming, “The central problem for twentieth century theology is its own epistemo- logical basis.”1 Pinnock went on to insist that a sure and saving knowledge of God can be derived only from the plain sense of Cthe infallible and inerrant text of Holy Scripture. For him, any Christian endeavor—to the extent that it is truly Christian—must remain unswervingly faithful to Scripture as theology’s principium cognoscendi and “the necessary link epistemologically between sinful man and the inscrutable God.”2 In the decades following A Defense, however, Pinnock’s confidence in an inerrant Bible as the Christian’s ultimate epistemological norm severely waned. By at least 1977, he was convinced that evangelical defenders of an errorless Bible were evidencing a “fortress mentality” and had begun to “play on the fears of Bible readers” by telling them that the Bible was no longer trustworthy if it was mistaken on a single point.3 For the “later” Pinnock, Scripture’s dependability must also be qualified by, and adjusted to, the limitations imposed upon the text by its human authorship and historical milieu.4 Conflicts in ancient biblical manuscripts, the seemingly insuperable challenge of harmonizing purportedly disparate accounts, and the supposed illogical inference from inspiration to strict textual inerrancy, he believed, made “the argument [for an errorless Bible] based on episte- mology … very doubtful.”5 Even so, Pinnock remained confident that the 1 Clark H. Pinnock, A Defense of Biblical Infallibility (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967), 1. 2 Ibid., 18. See also Clark H. Pinnock, Set Forth Your Case: Studies in Christian Apologetics (Nutley, NJ: Craig, 1968), 69. 3 Clark H. Pinnock, “Three Views of the Bible in Contemporary Theology,” in Biblical Authority, ed. Jack Rogers (Waco, TX: Word, 1977), 65. 4 Pinnock cites G. C. Berkouwer’s Holy Scripture, trans. and ed. Jack B. Rogers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), as a work that does justice to “the actual nature of the Bible … taking into account the cultural context, and the human qualities,” which for Pinnock account for Scripture’s “inconsistencies, duplicate passages, [and] seemingly pointless details.” Pinnock, “Three Views,” 62. For a romp through various models for understanding the humanity of Scripture, including Pinnock’s, and a conclusion with a constructive alternative, see Paul Wells, “The Doctrine of Scripture: Only a Human Problem,” in Reforming or Conforming: Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church, ed. Gary L. W. Johnson and Ronald N. Gleason (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 27–61. 5 Pinnock, “Three Views,” 66. Pinnock has in mind here what Stephen Davis calls “the epistemological argument” for inerrancy, which Davis summarizes as follows: “Unless the Bible is inerrant, Christians have no sound epistemological foundation on which to base their beliefs. Thus, inerrancy is crucial for Christians.” Stephen Davis, The Debate About the Bible: Inerrancy Versus Infallibility (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 66. According to Barry Callen (Clark H. OCTOBER 2016 ›› A LESSON IN EPISTEMOLOGY FROM CLARK PINNOCK 69 edifice of theological knowledge could remain standing without a founda- tion in an inerrant Scripture and that Christian practice could even flourish in its absence.6 In the ensuing years, however, the edifice Pinnock perceived began to crumble as he followed his changed position on Scripture with additional radical theological views. He came, for example, to embrace a “wider-hope” theology in which redemption may extend to unevangelized people groups and the unconverted dead.7 He grew sympathetic with a number of motifs in process theism, rejected substitutionary atonement, and applauded elements of charismatic Pentecostalism.8 Today, Pinnock is perhaps best known as a prominent former spokesman for the movement within evangel- icalism known as “open theism” (also “neoclassical theism” or “free-will theism”), in which a future that is unknown to God unfolds as he responds to man’s unconstrained and unanticipated decisions.9 What accounts for Pinnock’s dramatic change regarding the character and content of Scripture? Did he self-consciously uproot his epistemology from its biblical moorings and replace it with an entirely diferent system? Or was there something defective in his epistemology from the beginning that (a) can help to explain Pinnock’s departure from an evangelical, even apparently Reformed, confession of Scripture’s inerrancy, and (b) contribut- ed to his later theological evolution? This article argues that the culprit was a defective early epistemology. An examination of the broader framework Pinnock: Journey Toward Renewal [Nappanee, IN: Evangel, 2000], 56–57), the release of Davis’s book, which includes a chapter criticizing this argument, contributed to Pinnock’s re-evaluating and revising his traditional position on Scripture. If this is the case, it is noteworthy that Davis’s summary fails to address, at least in any pointed way, the Christian’s proper epistemological warrant for the belief itself that Scripture is inerrant. This article is intended to show how this lacuna played an important role in Pinnock’s departure from inerrancy. 6 See Callen, Clark H. Pinnock, 57. 7 Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 153–72. 8 Clark H. Pinnock, “God Limits His Knowledge,” in Predestination and Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom, ed. David Basinger and Randall Basinger (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986), 147; Clark H. Pinnock, “From Augustine to Arminius,” in The Grace of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 22–23; Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 129–39. 9 Pinnock defined open theism as “a relational and trinitarian doctrine with an emphasis on God as personal and interactive, both in his own immanent triune nature and in the economic relationships in which he engages and enjoys with creatures. It holds that God could control the world if he wished to but that he has chosen not to do so for the sake of loving relationships. Open theism does not believe that God is ontologically limited but that God voluntarily self-limits so that freely chosen loving relations might be possible.” Clark H. Pinnock, “Open Theism: An Answer to My Critics,” Dialog 44.3 (Fall 2005): 237. 70 UNIO CUM CHRISTO ›› UNIOCC.COM behind Pinnock’s initial trust in Scripture’s total truthfulness reveals that his belief in inerrancy operated, at least in part, independently of Scripture’s self-witness and authority. That is, Pinnock maintained defective epistemo- logical assumptions—specifically including relying on an inductive-empirical form of reasoning that was insufciently qualified by “the norming norm (norma normans)” of Scripture—that gradually exposed the instability of his early position on inerrancy and eventually infected much of the rest of his theology.10 The ensuing analysis does not presume to ofer a comprehensive account of how Pinnock’s faulty epistemology afected his entire theology. Nor does it deny that additional influences contributed to his theological evolution.11 It simply aims to examine how Pinnock broke from an inerrancy position (a) by tracing that break back to a more basic epistemological commitment to would-be autonomous inductive and empirical reasoning and (b) by of- fering a critique of such reasoning from a Reformed theological perspec- tive. This exercise will press home what the title of this article intends to convey, namely, that a bare confession of inerrancy, or one that surrepti- tiously depends upon some extrabiblical authority, is not enough to sustain a lasting Reformed Christian witness to the total truthfulness of Scripture. Instead, what is needed is a confession of biblical inerrancy and the Bible’s relation to the observable world that is self-consciously rooted in an episte- mological framework that is thoroughly shaped by the being and knowledge of the God revealed in his inerrant Word. I. Pinnock’s Epistemology at a Glance Pinnock never presented a sustained exposition of his epistemology, or theory of knowledge. His concerns throughout his career were more overtly theological.12 When he did attempt to explain his epistemology, he often 10 In contrast to valid deductive arguments, in which premises logically entail a conclusion, in inductive reasoning premises provide only a degree of support for the conclusion. See James Hawthorne, “Inductive Logic,” ed. Edward N. Zalta, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/logic-inductive/. The descriptor “inductive- empirical” attempts to capture how Pinnock viewed sense experience as supplying the premises that allegedly validate Scripture’s claims by way of inductive probability. 11 For a fuller account of Pinnock’s theological shift on the doctrine of Scripture, see Ray C. W. R o e n n f e l d t , Clark H.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Inerrancy and Church History: Is Inerrancy a Modern Invention?
    MSJ 27/1 (Spring 2016) 75–90 INERRANCY AND CHURCH HISTORY: IS INERRANCY A MODERN INVENTION? Jonathan Moorhead Instructor, The Master’s Academy International, Czech Republic The claim that the church has always believed in the inerrancy of Scripture has been challenged for over a century. In particular, it has been charged that the doc- trine of inerrancy was invented by Princetonian theologians and proto-fundamental- ists. This article will show from primary resources that this claim is without warrant. ***** In 1970, Ernest Sandeen (Macalester College) claimed that nineteenth-century Princeton theologians A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield created the doctrine of iner- rancy to combat the burgeoning threat of liberalism.1 In particular, Sandeen posited that the doctrine of inerrancy in the original autographs “did not exist in either Europe or America prior to its formulation in the last half of the nineteenth century.”2 In 1979, Jack Rogers (Fuller Seminary) and Donald McKim (Dubuque Theological Seminary) wrote, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Ap- proach, which popularized this theory on a broad scale. Over the past forty years, the conclusions of Sandeen, Rogers and McKim have affected how many Christians think about the doctrine of inerrancy. Namely, if the doctrine of inerrancy was not promoted throughout church history, why should the church fight for it now? 1 Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800– 1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). Sandeen did not originate this charge. As early as 1893 Philip Schaff claimed, “the theory of a literal inspiration and inerrancy was not held by the Re- formers” (quoted by B.B.
    [Show full text]
  • Daniel Strange Clark H. Pinnock: the Evolution of an Evangelical Maverick
    EQ 71:4 (1999), 311-326 Daniel Strange Clark H. Pinnock: The Evolution of an Evangelical Maverick The theological debate awakened by the work ofDr Clark Pinnock has figured more than once in the EVANGEUCAL QUARTERLY in recent years. The submission oftwo arti­ cles on the topic, the one dealing with the general development ofPinnock ~ theology and the other with the specific question ofexclusivism and inclusivism, suggested that it might be worthwhile to publish them together and also give the subject the opportunity to comment on them. The author of our first article is doing doctoral research on the problem of the unevangelised in recent evangelical theology in the University ofBristol. Key words: Theology; religion; inclusivism; Pinnock. ! Some theologians are idealogues, so cocksure about the truth that they are willing to force reality to fit into their own system; others are not so sure and permit reality to ch~nge them and their systems instead. I am a theologian 1 of the latter type. ! ' In this paper I wish t~; give a biographical study of the Canadian Baptist theologi~, Clark H.iPinnock, giving a flavour of his pi~grimage in the­ ology WhICh has spar;ned five decades. In understanding the current work of a particular sC,holar, it is always helpful to understand the con­ text within which he or she works, the theological background from which they have come, and the influences that have shaped their thought. From this it may even be possible to predict where they will go next in their theological journey. Within the Evangelical community, especially in North America, Clark Pinnock is one of the most stimulating, controversial and influ­ ential theologians, and a study of his work raises important questions about the nature and identity of contemporary Evangelicalism.
    [Show full text]
  • THS 571 Theology of the Believers Church Tradition
    1 THS 571 Theology of the Believers Church Tradition Class notes for Fall, 2010 – Spring, 2011 Compiled and arranged by Dr. Archie J. Spencer © Do not Copy without permission These notes are provided as a favor to students to help them follow the lectures and engage in discussion. They are a work in progress still needing some editing and correction. All suggestions for improvement and lists of errata welcomed. Hope you find them helpful nevertheless. They are required reading for the course. 2 THS 571 Theology of the Believers Church Tradition Session I Toward a Working Definition of the Believers Church Tradition Introductory Comments a) What do we mean by Believers Church Tradition - When I was first informed that I would be teaching a course called “Believers Church Theology” I was initially amused at the strange title. After some consideration, realizing that I myself stood in a “Believers Church Tradition” of sorts, I wondered what such a course would and should look like. You are probably wondering as well. What follows is an extended definition that draws on the history of theology, systematic theology and applied ecclesiology, which can be found, in various ways and shapes in the traditions represented here at ACTS. - Such a course, however, will always be taught from the differing perspectives within the ACTS consortium, and, while I will do my level best to be comprehensive across these traditions, it is a given that my perspective will often reflect the Baptist tradition in which I now stand. I make no apologies for this, but do wish to encourage the class to engage in dialogue with myself and other colleagues, from their own perspectives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Inerrancy of Scripture, Kevin Vanhoozer
    The Inerrancy of Scripture: By Kevin Vanhoozer, Senior Lecturer in Theology and Religious Studies at New College, University of Edinburgh – Republished with permission from Latimer House 131 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7AJ Whereas inspiration concerns the origin of the bible's authority, inerrancy describes its nature. By inerrancy we refer not only to the Bible's being 'without error' but also to its inability to err (we might helpfully illustrate this point by comparing it to the distinction between Jesus' sinlessness or being without sin, on the one hand, and his impeccability or inability to sin on the other). Inerrancy, positively defined, refers to a central and crucial property of the Bible, namely, its utter truthfulness. The basis for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is located both in the nature of God and in the Bible's teaching about itself. First, if God is perfect – all knowing, all wise, all-good – it follows that God speaks the truth. God does not tell lies; God is not ignorant. God's Word is thus free from all error arising either from conscious deceit or unconscious ignorance. Such is the unanimous confession of the Psalmist, the prophets, the Lord Jesus and the apostles. Second, the Bible presents itself as the Word of God written. Thus, in addition to its humanity (which is never denied), the Bible also enjoys the privileges and prerogatives of its status as God's Word. God's Word is thus wholly reliable, a trustworthy guide to reality, a light unto our path. If the biblical and theological basis of the doctrine is so obvious, however, why have some in our day suggested that the inerrancy of the Bible is a relatively recent concept? It is true, as some have suggested that the inerrancy of the Bible is a relatively recent concept? Is it true, as some have argued, that the doctrine of inerrancy was 'invented' in the nineteenth century at Princeton by B B Warfield and Charles Hodge and is therefore a novelty in the history of theology? In answer to this question, it is important to remember that doctrines arise only when there is a need for them.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Writing Your Exegesis Paper of a Psalm
    1 Guidelines for Writing an Exegesis Paper Prepared by Ross Cole, March 28, 2011 The Goal of Exegesis An exegesis paper attempts to understand a passage in terms of its original context. Our goal in ministry is to apply the text to our present context. Application is not the same thing as exegesis. Nevertheless, exegesis must come first, if we as inspiring yet uninspired teachers are to make accurate applications to contemporary situations. Organizing Your Paper Exegesis is normally defined in terms of three contexts: Historical context Literary context Linguistic Context There are characteristically a number steps involved in establishing each of these, and we will here deal with each of them in order. However, these contexts and steps are listed in an order, simply because it is impossible to describe them all in one breath. There is nothing sacred about the sequence, and each context and step may interact with other contexts and steps. There may be better ways of organizing the final paper than just following the order below. What is important is that the paper needs to exhibit a logical flow. By the end of the paper, you need to present a wholistic understanding of the passage, in accordance with how the first readers/listeners would have understood it. It should not be like a string of disconnected beads (as one lecturer describe an exegesis paper I did as an undergraduate student). It should instead be like a stew with the aromas of the different ingredients mixed together. Use of Sources The exegetical methodology here described is meant to give you a certain independence from commentaries and other sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of the Problem 1
    Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF OPEN THEISM WITH THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY A Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Theology by Stuart M. Mattfield 29 December 2014 Copyright © 2015 by Stuart M. Mattfield All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with all things, the first-fruits of my praise goes to God: Father, Son and Spirit. I pray this work brings Him glory and honor. To my love and wife, Heidi Ann: You have been my calm, my sanity, my helpful critic, and my biggest support. Thank you and I love you. To my kids: Madison, Samantha, and Nick: Thank you for your patience, your humor, and your love. Thank you to Dr. Kevin King and Dr. Dan Mitchell. I greatly appreciate your mentorship and patience through this process. iii ABSTRACT The primary purpose of this thesis is to show that the doctrine of open theism denies the doctrine of inerrancy. Specifically open theism falsely interprets Scriptural references to God’s Divine omniscience and sovereignty, and conversely ignores the weighty Scriptural references to those two attributes which attribute perfection and completeness in a manner which open theism explicitly denies. While the doctrine of inerrancy has been hotly debated since the Enlightenment, and mostly so through the modern and postmodern eras, it may be argued that there has been a traditional understanding of the Bible’s inerrancy that is drawn from Scripture, and has been held since the early church fathers up to today’s conservative theologians. This view was codified in October, 1978 in the form of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.
    [Show full text]
  • God, the Bible and Spiritual Warfare: a Review Article D
    14-Carson_JETS 42.2 Page 251 Thursday, May 20, 1999 11:37 AM JETS 42/2 (June 1999) 251–269 GOD, THE BIBLE AND SPIRITUAL WARFARE: A REVIEW ARTICLE D. A. CARSON* Many readers of these pages will know Boyd through his earlier and im- pressive work, Cynic, Sage, or Son of God? Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies (1995). Boyd’s most recent book, God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Con˘ict (InterVarsity, 1997), is less interested in re- sponding to various reconstructions of the historical Jesus largely grounded in an over-dependence on Greco-Roman background tinged by philosophical naturalism than in establishing a line of thought that Boyd judges to be central in Scripture and that is largely misunderstood or distorted in contem- porary evangelicalism. There are two agendas operating in this book. On the one hand, we are treated to a Biblical theology of God as warrior, in some ways formally rem- iniscent of the recent book by Tremper Longman, III, and Daniel G. Reid, God Is a Warrior (1995), though with a very diˆerent theology. On the other hand, Boyd oˆers an understanding of God and a related theodicy that are highly reminiscent of the “open God” theology advanced and defended by Clark Pinnock, Roger Olson, William Hasker and others. In his introduction (“The Normativity of Evil Within a Warfare World- view”), Boyd reminds the reader of Daniel’s experience. After praying and fasting for three weeks, Daniel was visited by an angel who told Daniel that his prayer had been heard immediately, and that the angel himself had been immediately dispatched.
    [Show full text]
  • Clark H. Pinnock on the Open and Risking God
    1 FROM TULIP TO ROSE: CLARK H. PINNOCK ON THE OPEN AND RISKING GOD by Barry L. Callen By the eighteenth century Calvinistic theology had solidified into dogmatic assertions about the being of a sovereign God and God's relations to the fallen creation. Formalized at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), this "TULIP" solidification had become firm Calvinistic dogma. Hardly a fragrant flower lacking rigid and defensive thorns, this particular theological TULIP consisted of the five affirmed articles of Dort issued in response to the Anninian Remonstrance of 1610. These articles were: (1) Total depravity; (2) Unconditional election; (3) Limited atonement; ( 4) Irresistible grace; and (5) Perseverance of the saints. The five petals of this TULIP are tightly interconnected as the logical chain that would become standard theological thinking for much of evangelicalism in the twentieth century. John Wesley carried on a long debate with Calvinists, especially the Calvinist George Whitefield. He certainly endorsed the fundamental concepts of a sovereign God and a fallen creation, but his view of the relational and redeeming nature of the sovereign God disallowed any unqualified unfolding of at least points 2-5 of Dart's TULIP. In the North American evangelical community of the last half of the twentieth century, this debate has continued. Wesley's view managed to gain only a minority position. This now may be changing, at least to some significant degree. A school of thought sometimes called "Free-Will Theism" has been pioneered by theologian Clark H. Pinnock. Since the 1970s, the theological work of Clark Pinnock has taken up the task of renewing evangelical theology .1 In large part this renewal has proceeded by Pinnock' s often controversial effort to freshly champion on the contemporary evangelical scene key theistic and soteriological insights similar to those of John Wesley.
    [Show full text]
  • THE EXEGETICAL ROOTS of TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY MICHAEL SLUSSER Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pa
    Theological Studies 49 (1988) THE EXEGETICAL ROOTS OF TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY MICHAEL SLUSSER Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pa. N RECENT YEARS systematic theologians have been showing increased I interest in studying the doctrine of the Trinity. An integral part of that study should be an exposition of the origins of the doctrine. The question of origins can be posed in an analytical fashion, as Maurice Wiles has done: .. .we seem forced to choose between three possibilities: either (1) we do after all know about the Trinity through a revelation in the form of propositions concerning the inner mysteries of the Godhead; or (2) there is an inherent threefoldness about every act of God's revelation, which requires us to think in trinitarian terms of the nature of God, even though we cannot speak of the different persons of the Trinity being responsible for specific facets of God's revelation; or (3) our Trinity of revelation is an arbitrary analysis of the activity of God, which though of value in Christian thought and devotion is not of essential significance.1 I think that this analytical approach is in important respects secondary to the genetic one. The first Christians spoke about God in the terms which we now try to analyze; surely the reasons why they used those terms are most relevant to a sound analysis. The main words whose usage needs to be fathomed are the Greek words prosöpon, hypostasis, ousia, andphysis.2 Prosöpon is the earliest of these terms to have attained an accepted conventional usage in early Christian speech about God, and therefore the chief determinant of the shape which the complex of terms was to take.
    [Show full text]
  • Patristic Exegesis and Theology: the Cart and the Horse
    WTJ 69 (2007): 1-19 HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL STUDIES PATRISTIC EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY: THE CART AND THE HORSE DONALD FAIRBAIRN his article grows out of two dominant perceptions that I have developed Tthrough my work with theological students and teachers. The first of these perceptions is that there is strong and growing interest in patristic interpretation of the Bible among evangelical biblical scholars and theologians. The second perception is that virtually all biblical studies students and professors I have encountered are working from a model for understanding patristic exegesis that is inadequate and does not reflect what patristics scholars have been writing about patristic exegesis for the last several decades. I have in mind the model that divides patristic exegesis into two competing—and largely mutually exclu- sive—schools, one based in Antioch and the other in Alexandria. Now I should hasten to add that the inadequacy of such a model is not some- thing that biblical scholars and theologians could necessarily have recognized themselves, and I hope that nothing I am about to write will be taken as a criti- cism of contemporary biblical scholars. Rather, the prevalence of this model is an unfortunate example of the way the scholarly arena sometimes works. What patristics scholars were saying seventy or eighty years ago about patristic exege- sis has worked its way into the historical theology, church history, and herme- neutics textbooks in the last forty or fifty years. As American patristics scholar Charles Kannengiesser recently pointed out, a great deal of work on patristic exegesis done by biblical scholars from about 1950 onwards treated the literal and figurative senses of biblical passages not as interpretive options for the texts under investigation, but rather as general exegetical methods, and these methods were bound to local ‘‘school’’ requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Theism and Pentecostalism: a Comparative Study of the Godhead, Soteriology, Eschatology and Providence
    OPEN THEISM AND PENTECOSTALISM: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE GODHEAD, SOTERIOLOGY, ESCHATOLOGY AND PROVIDENCE By RICHARD ALLAN A Thesis Submitted to the University of Birmingham for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Theology and Religion School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham March 2018 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT Despite Open Theism’s claims for a robust ‘Social’ Trinitarianism, there exists significant inconsistencies in how it is portrayed and subsequently applied within its wider theology. This sympathetic, yet critical, evaluation arises from the Pneumatological lacuna which exists not only in the conception of God as Trinity, but the subsequent treatment of divine providence, soteriology and eschatology. In overcoming this significant lacuna, the thesis adopts Francis Clooney’s comparative methodology as a means of initiating a comparative dialogue with Pentecostalism, to glean important insights concerning its Pneumatology. By engaging in the comparative dialogue between to the two communities, the novel insights regarding the Spirit are then incorporated into a provisional and experimental model of Open Theism entitled Realizing Eschatology.
    [Show full text]
  • The Inerrancy and Authority of Scripture in Christian Apologetics
    The Journal of Ministry & Theology 50 The Inerrancy and Authority of Scripture in Christian Apologetics Lee Allen Anderson Jr. INTRODUCTION Scripture’s call to Christians to engage in the apologetic task is markedly obvious. For example, 1 Peter 3:15 instructs believers to always be “ready to make a defense (ἀπολογίαν) to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.” Similarly, Jude 3 exhorts Christians to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” Here, the “faith” refers not to the subjective element of personal trust in the Lord God, but instead to that “body of truth that very early in the church’s history took on a definite form,” that is, the content of Christian faith—doctrinal truth (cf. Gal 1:23; 1 Tim 4:1).1 Implicit in this verse, therefore, is the acknowledgment of the fact that a certain body of doctrinal truth exists, which in turn implies a source or origin for that doctrinal truth. For the Christian, the principle, authoritative source of doctrinal truth is the “God-breathed” holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16). The reliability of Scripture as a standard for Christian doctrine hinges on the fact that, as the inspired word of the true God who does not lie (Num 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18), it is wholly true (Ps 119:160; John 17:17). To echo the words of the longstanding affirmation of the Evangelical Theological Society, “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”2 This affirmation is not a peripheral issue to Christian theology; it is germane to the life of the church and, of logical consequence, the upholding of the Christian faith.
    [Show full text]