background image
14
openness proposal, at least at this point, undermines the doctrine of inerrancy and has a difficult
time accounting for the confluent authorship of Scripture.
50

Interestingly, Clark Pinnock, in response to an article of mine on this subject, basically
admits this point but then appeals to the "interplay of divine initiative and human activity."
51
He
goes on to explain that God is overseeing the process but human authors are also active in the
process as well. He states, "God is always present, not always in the mode of control, but often
in the manner of stimulation and invitation. God works alongside human beings in order to
achieve by wisdom and patience the goal of a Bible that expresses his will for our salvation."
52
True enough, but given the openness proposal regarding the sovereignty-freedom relationship
how is this explanation an accounting for the guarantee that seems to undergird the doctrine of
inerrancy?
53
It seems to me that open theism must resort to some kind of "paradox" explanation
at this point, not unless they want to appeal to a dictation theory of inspiration, something which
I have never seen them do. However, the problem with "paradox" explanations is that, at the end
of the day, they force us to believe in logically contradictory states of affairs and leave us with
no satisfying rational explanation regarding the sovereignty-freedom and Scripture relationship,
thus undermining our confidence in the doctrine of inerrancy.


Divine Omniscience, Human Freedom, and Predictive Prophecy

50
In this regard, it is interesting to compare the early-Clark Pinnock with the current-Pinnock. The early-Pinnock,
by his own admission, was a strong advocate of both inerrancy and a Calvinistic view of divine sovereignty. The
current-Pinnock, now an advocate of open theism with its weakened view of divine sovereignty, has also shifted to a
weakened view of inerrancy. The early-Pinnock maintained that the concept of confluent authorship is only
intelligible within the context of biblical theism. By this he meant, "God and man can both be significant agents
simultaneously in the same historical (Acts 2:23) or literary (2 Pet 1:21) event. The Spirit of God worked
concursively alongside the activity of the writers, Himself being the principal cause and they the free instrumental
cause. The result of this concursive operation was that their thinking and writing were both free and spontaneous on
their part and divinely elicited and controlled, and what they wrote was not only their own work, but also God's
work. There is a monotonous chorus of protest against the biblical concept of inspiration on the grounds that it
involves mechanical dictation. The only way to explain the repetition of this false charge is to recognize the sad
eclipse of biblical theism today. Men seem unable to conceive of a divine providence which can infallibly reach its
ends without dehumanizing the human agents it employs. According to the Bible, the sovereignty of God does not
nullify the significance of man" [Biblical Revelation. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1985 (1971) 92-93].
However, the current-Pinnock views the traditional emphasis on concursus as suggesting total divine control,
tantamount to saying God dictated the text [see The Scripture Principle (New York: Harper & Row, 1984) 100-01].
51
Pinnock, Most Moved Mover, 129. For my article see "The Importance of the Nature of Divine Sovereignty for
Our View of Scripture," Southern Baptist Theological Journal 4:2 (Summer 2000), 76-90.
52
Ibid.
53
On this point see the more accurate analysis of Edward Farley and Peter Hodgson, "Scripture and Tradition," in
Christian Theology, 2d ed. eds., Peter C. Hodgson and Robert H. King (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 61-87.