The Scripture Principle [Paperback]

Clark H. Pinnock (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: December 1992

This book is a fresh examination of the authority and reliability of the Bible for the thoughtful Christian believer today. We live in a world of emerging ideas stemming largely from a reassessment of the critical thinking of the Enlightenment and the modern, secular age.The modern world created "a crisis of the Scripture principle" by substituting critical reason as the principle for knowing final truth. The postmodern world looks at things quite differently, focusing on what it means to live in a world where there seems to be no rational certainties, no philosophical proofs, and no final authorities. In the face of these modern and postmodern challenges, these Evangelical authors offer a fresh, informed, and balanced view of the role of the Scriptures in knowing God.

--This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.

Product Details

• Paperback: 250 pages
• Publisher: Regent College Publishing (December 1992)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1573830003
• ISBN-13: 978-1573830003
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.1 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 14.4 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #6,835,803 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Clark H. Pinnock is professor of theology at McMaster Divinity College.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

16 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A much needed perspective from a thoughtful theologian, April 17, 2002

By 

Robert Knetsch "Wanna-be theologian" (Toronto, Ontario Canada) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Scripture Principle (Paperback)

Clark Pinnock wrote this book several years ago, yet I would suggest that it is essential reading for evangelicals still today who hold a so-called "inerrant" Scripture. He does this without losing what he sees as the essential "Scripture Principle" that must remain if one is still to be called a Christian.

What Pinnock does is opens up the fields of form and historical criticism as being useful fields for the evangelical without compromising their faith. He shows that Scripture is entirely reliable for the use for which it was intended, but our modern view of documents and "scientific" objectivism have caused many evangelicals to enter intot he realm of fundamentalism rather than thoughtful, honest inquiry.

There is no doubt that some would be uncomfortable reading this book, as it would perhaps make someone feel that the result is a "low" view of Scripture. Rather, Pinnock wishes to "walk the line" between decetic inerrantists and liberal theologians who wish to do away with orthodox Christian beliefs.

The concepts really is not that hard. If we believe that God has spokent through the Bible, then what is wrong about bringing honest questions to it as we read it?

Read and Enjoy!

4.0 out of 5 stars Great book, but does it work?, January 7, 2012

By 

Ted P. Gemberling (Birmingham, Alabama) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Scripture Principle (Paperback)

I am rereading the first edition of the work (1984) after over 25 years. I am really impressed with Pinnock's ability to find balance between critical scholarship and orthodox belief. I realize the newer editions might revise his 1984 position somewhat. But based on what he wrote in '84, it's hard to see how anyone could do a better job of touching on all the various issues.

However, I do have a basic problem. Late in the book, he talks about the "Surplus of meaning" (or something similar to that) in the Bible. What he's saying is that sometimes a passage written at one time will come to have additional, and maybe deeper, meanings later as God reveals more of his truth. Now, I don't deny that this is a solid Christian view: as Pinnock shows, it seems to fit the way the Bible writers themselves wrote. They took older texts and gave them new meanings related to the revelation of Christ. They weren't always concerned to follow the original meaning. In theory, the idea makes sense. But it seems that at times, rather than enlightening things, those new uses inhibit people's ability to understand the older texts. For example, Pinnock says the New Testament (Matthew) "gave a deeper understanding of Isaiah's prophecy to Ahaz" (Isaiah 7:14) by showing it was a prediction of Christ. But in the context, that doesn't make any sense of what Isaiah is saying. He's giving Ahaz a promise that what he fears from powers to the north will not happen. It wouldn't do much good to say the promise would bear fruit 600 years later! It seems Matthew just fastened on an accidental similarity between that text and the story of Christ.

A little more complicated example is Daniel 9:25. Pinnock doesn't refer to this verse specifically, but does say at one point that the Book of Daniel seems mostly focused on events in the 2nd century B.C. He doesn't seem too bothered by the idea that it could be a pseudepigraphal book from that time. But if you look into the two varieties of translations of 9:25 represented, say, by the New International and New Revised Standard, you will see that the New International translation corresponds to a traditional attempt to make it a prediction of Christ. Once again, it seems to be an example of people fastening on an accidental correspondence to make something a prediction of Christ. If you combine the 7 and 62 "weeks" (of years) into 69, as the New International does, you *might* be able to get them to correspond with the time of Christ's birth. But if you do that, the passage doesn't make much sense: it seems to say that the Christ (mashiakh) comes and is cut off at the same time. So what's the meaning of those separate periods of 7 and 62 weeks? The New Revised translation makes more sense.

To get back to Pinnock, I just don't see how you can interpret those two interpretations as giving a "deeper" significance to what the original writers said. On the contrary, they seem to falsify their meanings.

I welcome any feedback or further readings someone might suggest.

Addition: Since nobody has responded to or rated my review yet, I thought I'd raise another issue. Why is it necessary, for all his sensitivity to problems, for Pinnock to say those reinterpretations are right? Of course essentially, it's because he wants to hold onto the idea of infallibility of scripture. He cannot see the Bible as simply an important source of information about God, but must see it as an authoritative statement *from* God. I believe we need to give this idea up. Not that God wasn't involved in the inspiration of the writers, but we need to give up the idea that this makes it infallible. Even Pinnock admits towards the end that, from all appearances, God willed that we use discernment in our understanding of scripture in its many different forms and genres. We cannot simply accept all its statements at face value. But if that's true, why does it have to have the unique status Pinnock gives it? I don't see why recognizing that Matthew's interpretation of Isaiah was inaccurate means we therefore give up any reason to believe the things the Bible says. We shouldn't completely dismiss any source of information just because it's imperfect in some way.