Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 16:2 (Spring 1973)
Article: On Revelation And Biblical Authority
Author: Daniel P. Fuller

JETS 16:2 (Spring 1973) p. 67

On Revelation And Biblical Authority*

Daniel Fuller

Clark Pinnock

Biblical Revelation—The Foundation of Christian Theology, by Clark H. Pinnock. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971.) 256 pp. $4.95. Reviewed by Daniel P. Fuller, Fuller Theological Seminary.

The best way, I feel, that I can make a review of this book which will contribute to contemporary evangelical dialogue is simply to present a letter I wrote to Clark Pinnock about it:

Dear Clark,

I surely want to continue the discussion on this vital theme with you and other evangelicals. The differences between us are slight in comparison with the differences between us and, say, Barth or Bultmann. But we evangelicals have a basic question we must settle before we can talk very coherently with those farther afield.

My biggest difficulty with your position is that I cannot see how you can make such an emphasis on the validity of the inductive method (a good example is your emphasis on pp. 38-40), and then deny the right of reason and criticism to be sovereign. For example, on pp. 182 f. you reject that methodological procedure in which “the critical attitude is adopted from the outset.” Induction, as I understand it, means letting criticism control all aspects of the knowing process from beginning to end. How can anything less than this avoid getting you into the circular argument which you oppose, especially as you criticize Karl Barth (pp. 42, 218)? I delight in your appeal that we all have “simple honesty” (p. 192), and your statement that a mere claim to authority establishes nothing (p. 53). But how then can you say that Scripture can only be approached “from a standpoint within a Christian community of faith” (p. 135)? If faith really has to begin the approach to Scripture, then I don’t think you can talk very meaningfully about induction. I would argue that really, after all, you are on Van Til’s side, not on Warfield’s.

In your handling of my view of inspiration (pp. 79 f.), you imply that, unlike Warfield, I am “limiting its [the Bible’s] accuracy.” Do you not, however, do the same when you say, “The infallibility of Scripture is not, in one sense, absolute. Its field is restricted to intended assertions of Scripture understood by ordinary grammatical-historical exegesis of the text” (p. 71). With me, you also say that “remedial redemptive revelation enjoys centrality in the Bible” (p. 29). But when you say (p. 79), “Fuller

*This review and reply sharpens the dialogue and debate on the nature of revelation and bibhcal authority. Use by permission from Christian Scholar’s Review as published in volume II, number 4, 1973.