I was on a search for good quotes about inerrancy recently (something I’m trying to collect for this blog) and I came across a webpage claiming that the Evangelical Theological Society is in error for allowing Clark Pinnock to remain a member even though his writings showed that he does not hold up inerrancy. He lists a whole bunch of quotes from Pinnock’s The Scripture Principle (which is coming out in a new version soon) and Most Moved Mover, which in his mind show that “neither [Pinnock's] theology nor his scholarship is respectable, and that ETS, by voting to retain him as a member in good standing, is flying false colors.” The author of the webpage is John Robbins of the Trinity Foundation (not to be confused with John Robbins, the son of Baskin-Robbins co-founder Irv Robbins). I thought the quotes he listed were great! Then again, I’m not an inerrantist. So I picked up a copy of The Scripture Principle (1992) and found one quote that I’d like to share. I would highly recommend, though, Robbins’ collection as I found many of them just as worthy a read.

It is not just that the term inerrancy is not used in the Bible. That would not settle anything. The point to remember is that the category of inerrancy as used today is quite a technical one and difficult to define exactly. It is postulated of the original texts of Scripture not now extant; it is held not to apply to round numbers, grammatical structures, incidental details in texts; it is held to be unfalsifiable except by some indisputable argument. Once we recall how complex a hypothesis inerrancy is, it is obvious that the Bible teaches no such thing explicitly. What it claims, as we have seen, is divine inspiration and a general reliability, with a distinct concentration upon the covenantal revelation of God. . . . Why, then do scholars insist that the Bible does claim total inerrancy? I can only answer for myself, as one who argued in this way a few years ago. I claimed the Bible taught total inerrancy because I hoped that it did–I wanted it to. How would it be possible to maintain a firm stand against religious liberalism unless one held firmly to total inerrancy? (pg. 58)

Incidentally, John Robbins’ site for the Trinity Foundation has the motto listed on it: “The Bible alone is the Word of God.” I know this harkens back to classic Reformation language, sola scriptura and all, but I still find it disturbing that this statement excludes Jesus from being the Word of God. Isn’t that what John’s Gospel says from the get go? Oh well. I guess Jesus isn’t as important as the Bible. [YES, THAT WAS FACETIOUSNESS!] I know that this could be a semantic difference, but I think it goes deeper. When our beliefs about the Bible are lifted up as primary over our beliefs and actions regarding Jesus the Messiah, I think we’re distracted from the Gospel.

By the way, for those who don’t know, the Evangelical Theological Society holds inerrancy as a central doctrine. The “doctrinal basis” for the group which must be “subscribed to by all members annually with the renewal of their membership in the Society” is: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.” Simple, short, and holds up their view of the Bible as more important than their view of any member of the Trinity, Jesus included. Wouldn’t you think that God should come before Bible? Although, they do get kudos for using the word “written” to distinguish from any other “Word of God” that might be out there somewhere, like say… Jesus. Oh, what do I know anyway? I’m just a jaded seminarian.