Clark Pinnock and Barry Callen, The Scripture Principle, 2d.ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006); 288 pages.
For Pinnock, the “Scripture principle” means that “the Bible is the primary and fully trustworthy canon of Christian revelation, the reliable medium for encountering and understanding the God who seeks to transform all who read the sacred text into the image of Jesus Christ” (11). Pinnock is concerned that in denying the humanity of Scripture, conservatives are susceptible to exaggerating the perfection of Scripture. He fears that such a position is, at the end of the day, indefensible. On the other hand, in denying the divinity of Scripture, liberals reduce the Bible to mere human literature and thereby rob Scripture of its authority. Pinnock is concerned that the liberal turn in theology has contributed significantly to the rejection of scriptural authority. Pinnock therefore attempts to hold these two opposite positions (liberal and conservative) toward Scripture in tension with one another.
Pinnock presents a hermeneutical paradigm that he hopes will move beyond the impasse between liberals and conservatives. His “Scripture principle” has three dimensions: 1). understanding the Scripture as God’s Word, 2). Understanding it to be written by humans in human language, and 3). acknowledging the role of the Holy Spirit in the interpretation and application process. The third dimension should be highly pertinent to readers of Pneuma Review, as the word of God is not found in the text itself or in an individual’s own consciousness but in the interaction between the two under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (224). Moreover, Pneuma Review readers will be pleased to find that Pinnock asserts that “God has spoken in the Scriptures, but God also speaks through them today in ways the original writer may not have intended” (82).
I greatly appreciate Pinnock’s view of the Scripture Principle, its essentiality, and its priority in hermeneutics. I find it to be true that many liberals of the modern and postmodern contexts (who often place too much emphasis on experience to the detriment of historical meaning) unfortunately take too much liberty with respect to the biblical texts and thereby capitulate to society rather than transform society, and the main reason for their capitulation is the lack of position given to Scripture. I appreciate, moreover, Pinnocks’ somewhat distaste for the term “inerrancy.” However, I found it to be disturbing that Pinnock did not set forth – at least with any sustained vigor – an alternative conceptioning of Scripture instead of “inerrant.” This alarms me because I deem it to be equivalent to a deconstruction without the accompanying reconstruction, which in effect leaves the reader aimless and somewhat listless. Moreover, I find the terminology of “inerrant in purpose” (see 263) to be cumbersome and imprecise for the average layperson. I find Pinnock’s own admission that the term “inerrancy” begs clear definition only to further my distaste for his usage of it (see 272).
I remember distinctly in my early years as a seminarian, influenced as I was at that time very heavily by undergraduate training in Biology, that a truly “objective” understanding of the text was and is attainable. However, as I have grown closer to God over the passing years though study and devotion, I deem it true that we are all necessarily held captive by our presuppositions in which we bring to the text, and that there is therefore no truly neutral and objective interpretation available to mankind (ref. 223, 226, 233). Pinnock agrees, and asserts that the ministry of the Spirit binds the objective content of Scripture and the subjective application of Scripture. He notes that the word of God is found in the interaction between Scripture and the consciousness of the reader as guided and assisted by the Holy Spirit. “Through the Spirit, the letter becomes the inner Word” (181). Thus, one can state that the Spirit helps the reader avoid the false objectivity in which God’s revelation becomes an independent entity as well as a false subjectivism in which revelation is subordinated to experience.
For Pinnock, “the text is capable of saying fresh things to spirit-filled believers” (227). He further reminds us that even though the Bible has been canonized, revelation has not ceased (189). We hear the Word of God, Pinnock claims, in the interaction between the Word and the Spirit (224). All in all, I find Pinnock to present a balanced and conservative argument for the authority of Scripture in theological matters. Moreover, I find Pinnock’s book to be more reflective of (without capitulating to, note) liberal criticisms than Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986). I ardently recommend this book for all who are concerned with Scriptural authority in the twenty-first century.
Bradford McCall
Regent University