A Response To Rex A. Koivisto -- By: Clark H. Pinnock

Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 24:2 (Jun 1981)
Article: A Response To Rex A. Koivisto
Author: Clark H. Pinnock


A Response To Rex A. Koivisto

Clark H. Pinnock*

I feel honored by Rex Koivisto’s effort to understand the developments in my theology and welcome the opportunity to respond to his enquiries expressed in his fine article. The reason I have not clarified the situation before is simple: I would not have thought to write an article about my own thought when my calling is to write about God’s truth and the opinions of his other servants. But now that Koi-visto has asked for clarification, I am happy to give it. I found his essay fair in its judgments and open in its spirit, and I take absolutely no offense from anything in it. On the other hand, I think his conclusion is much too alarmist in depicting me as having departed from my earlier convictions, and I therefore wish to correct the focus for him and for our readers.

I can also understand and sympathize with his feeling of betrayal that I should have, in his judgment, abandoned the strict position he holds dear. It is always embarrassing in any sphere to find a strong proponent of a position appear to go back on it, and frustrating if he does not even explain why. We need to be aware of a certain dynamic at work in this exchange too. People of the Koivisto position tend to exaggerate any shifts that occur in neo-evangelical thought in order to keep the lines of dogmatic clarity clear, while evangelicals who have introduced changes into their theology tend to minimize them in order not to lose their evangelical credentials. I speak candidly here. Therefore the reader ought to watch for possible exaggeration in Koivisto and possible minimization in me.

Let me say at the very outset that my impression of the relation of the early Pinnock and myself is that of basic continuity accompanied by minor adjustments in style and emphasis. As Koivisto points out, I have always argued for a nuanced definition of inerrancy that allows give and take. If today I am found to be making greater use of this liberty than previously (I think this is probably true), I am not thereby proven to have been inconsistent or to have reversed myself. On the more personal level, I would like to confess that the theory I now hold to a weak or low view of the absolute authority of the Bible is both appalling and preposterous, as anyone who knows me will agree. I did not then and do not now have a limited inerrancy view—if by that one means a policy of pick and choose what Biblical teachings we intend to respect. I know of no basic change in my convictions that would not fall within the purview of orthodox traditions. (I assume that to have come to sympathize with Arminians and Pentecostals as I have in the past decade does not fall outside these bounds.)

I must confess that context has a great effect on me, as I suppose it d...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()