Honzo March 31st, 2008
I, like a lot of the Christian side of the blogosphere, have taken more than a fleeting interest in the Enns/Westminster controversy.
For a run down of what the hub-ub is all about, check out Kingdom People :: The Peter Enns Controversy:
- Enns has been criticized for emphasizing the human nature of Scripture over against the divine.
- Enns has written that the first chapters of Genesis are firmly grounded in ancient myth, which he defines as “an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins in the form of stories.”
- Enns claims that Scripture is inspired and inerrant, however the way he describes Scripture seems to counter that belief.
- Enns does not seek to harmonize seemingly-contradictory parts of Scripture because he believes the diversity of Scripture is complementary.
- Enns rejects the idea of objective unbiased historiography.
Here is an exchange between Paul Helm and Enns about Helm’s review of Enns’ book.
Here is an interesting (and instructive) review of Helm’s review by Cdero’s Weblog entitled Bible Monopoly. Here are the central tenets of Bible Monopoly:
* An unwillingness to deal with the plural complexity of interpretation
* A failure to wrestle with the difficult matters of Biblical scholarship
* A failure to see the provisional nature of scripture
* An obsession with turning honest interaction with extra Biblical data into an evil foe of orthodoxy
* A tendency to use past theologians (the one’s they agree with) as the standard of Biblical interpretation
To say on top of what people are saying about this situation, check out Google’s Blogsearch and Technorati’s watchlist.
Honzo March 30th, 2008
Westminster Theological Seminary Suspended Professor Peter Enns effective at the end of this school year and will take steps to terminate his employment because of a book he wrote back in 2005 entitled Inspiration and Incarnation (review), which calls into question more conservative models of scripture while remaining wholly “[apologetic] and assum[ing] an evangelical faith in scripture from the outset.”
Christianity Today has a write up on the suspension :Westminster Theological Seminary Suspends Peter Enns.
What do you think about the suspension? I know we have bloggers and readers that range from each end of the conservative to liberal spectrum when it comes to the verbal inspiration of scripture.
IMHO I don’t think that he should have been suspended at all, but then again, I tend to lean towards academic freedom and exploratory hypothetical theology which is left up to the students and readers to discern. I have not been in a position of power where Jesus’ words about causing one of these to stumble really apply as it would as being dean of a seminary. However, our view of scripture is not without its problems and it sounds like Enns has taken an honest and subtle look at the problem… and he is punished for it. Now, it is highly likely that this controversy will only boost his employability and sales of his book (my copy is on its way right now), but he now has to move his family, tear up his roots in a community, and evangelicals get a black eye from our own hand.
All of this reminds me about the unnecessary perils of venturing into the academic realm of evangelicalism. I want to be an evangelical scholar. We, as a community, are in desperate need of good scholarship if we are to both remain relevant and respected (listened to). But, if I teach or even consider that which is out of line, I am out of a job and perhaps blacklisted amongst the communities I wish/am called to serve. All of a sudden teaching at a small liberal arts college does not seem all that bad.
Hank March 10th, 2008
Here is a link to an excellent discussion of the whole debate on NPP and justification in Paul. Do enjoy this fascinating post.
I am curious about what the authors here might think of Dr. Ben Witherington’s comments on the New Perspective on Paul. Is this a good middle ground between the two sides?
Here is the article: The New Perspective on Paul and the Law– Reviewed
Honzo February 13th, 2008
Should we hold Biblish as sacred? More importantly, do we hold Biblish as sacred? Over at He is Sufficient ElShaddai Edwards takes up this question in response to Kevin P. Edgecomb’s who argued the following in response to John Hobbins talking about the nature of the English used in the CEV and NLT.
Edgecomb argues that “it is the responsibility of the keepers of the tradition of the text” to explain through good exegesis those expressions and phrases that make little sense in the new culture the text finds itself. As such, it is incumbent on translators to keep such phrases as “way of all the earth”, “gathered to his fathers”, and “pearls before swine” in their translations and for pastors and teachers to explain these idioms to the laity.
It is Edwards’ contention that this is foolhardy because it sacrifices the meaning of the text for the artificial divinity of the Hebrew (and I would add the Graeco-Roman) culture. He argues that if the Bible is meant for all nations and all peoples, then why should we translate it “in “sacred language”, set apart from the normal linguistic rules of a receiver’s language?” Edwards concludes his post by claiming the following.
Yet translating the text within the intracultural context of the receiver language doesn’t seem “a dereliction of duty” to me; indeed, it seems an even more sacred presentation of God’s Word that allows the Holy Spirit even more intimacy within those who hear and understand the call and claims of the Cross.
I am inclined to agree with him - and I would include highly theologized terms such as propitiation. The NT was not written in high Greek but instead was written in the common vernacular and should be translated as such.
Hank February 9th, 2008
The audio from the Theology Weekend is up at the Karis Blog. Dr. Tom Schreiner from Souther Baptist Theological Seminary spoke on the person and work of Jesus. I ended up only going to the Friday event with Honzo and JR. We had good times of fellowship before, during, and after. Check it out here.
Travis Gilmore February 6th, 2008
So I found this quote by Alvin Plantinga taken from his magnum opus “Warranted Christian Belief.” To give a little context to the quote, Plantinga had been talking about his Calvin/Aquinas model for the necessity of the “internal instigation of the Holy Spirit” due to the noetic effects of sins. For fundamentalists like Plantinga (and myself) it offers some humor and insight.
“But isn’t this just endorsing a wholly outmoded and discredited fundamentalism, that condition than which, according to many academics, none lesser can be conceived? I fully realize that the dreaded f-word will be trotted out to stigmatize any model of this kind. Before responding, however, we must first look into the use of this term ‘fundamentalist’. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like ’son of a bitch’, more exactly ’sonovabitch’, or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) ’sumbitch.’ When the term is used in this way, no definition, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you fell obligated first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of ‘fundamentalist’ (in this widely current use); it isn’t simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like ’stupid sumbitch’ (or maybe ‘fascist sumbitch’?) than ’sumbitch’ simpliciter. It isn’t exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase ‘considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.’ The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like ’stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine’” (Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 244-245).
Hank July 23rd, 2007
If you ever wanted to understand how John 1:1 is to be translated “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” when the Greek reads kai theos en (e = ate) o logos, then here is an article that gets into the technical reasonings behind this translation as opposed the NWT and Jehovah’s Witnesses translating this as “and the Word was a god.” I hope this equips you in sharing your faith.
Hank June 26th, 2007
At my blog, I wrote a post entitled “Does the God in American Evangelicalism Produce Fear?” When we look around, we can see that our church is divided and weak. The Anglican Communion and the PCUSA have rejected the authority of the Bible as the sole authority for the church. The church won’t preach the fullness of the Word in an expositional format (verse by verse) and is afraid to call out society on its sin. Instead, we hear pop psychology lectures or shallow topical sermons that are too pragmatic and ignore the deep rich doctrines.
My question to the bloggers here on this site, and all visitors to my site or this site, is why is the church so weak? In my post at my site I answer the question with the fact that God is not so sovereign to inspire genuine fear and awe in us to love him and delight in him alone. Do you agree with my assessment? If so, do you agree with my answer, or what do you think the reason is for why the church is in this state? If not, why do you disagree with my assessment of the situation of the church?
Honzo June 25th, 2007
Honestly, once I had shaken out of the bonds of Despensationalism, I no longer had a good basis in which to frame my views on the “end times.” One of my central questions centered around what to do with that Millennial Kingdom everyone keeps talking about.
Hank, over at his personal site, has just finished a six-part serries on this very topic. Check it out.
Part 1 Introduction
Part 2 Reading the Bible.
Part 3 Revelation 20:1-3
Part 4 Revelation20:4-6
Part 5 A Jewish Kingdom?
Part 6 Amil. or Postmil.?
HT comes to the conclusion that the postmillennial view is the best, although it is not without its problems; it is the same view I have been slowly leaning towards for several years. I recommend giving the series a good look over.
Hank June 16th, 2007
This past week was the Southern Baptist National Convention. Dr. Jerry Johnson of Criswell College in Dallas Texas held a discussion on Calvinism, with Dr. Danny Akin and Dr. Mark Coppenger, and on speaking in tongues, with Dr. Russell Moore and Pastor Dwight McKissic. They were very good. Calvinism was more like a discussion of the five points and tongues was a debate. Click here for Calvinism and Tongues. Or you can go to Jerry Johnson’s website.