This coming February-March I will probably be giving a paper in Albrecht-Bengel-Haus,Tübingen, at the annual Doktoranden- und Habilitandenkolloquium of the Arbeitskreis für evangelikale Theologie (AfeT). I have not yet decided on a topic, but having just checked up on their Theologische Grundlage, I am thinking of providing a theological rationale for a restatement of biblical inerrancy based on Paul's reasoning in 1 Cor 8:1-11:1 concerning meat associated with idols. Yes, I know, that sounds a bit crazy, but somehow I think it works. At least it does somehow in my sick and twisted mind!
Speaking of inerrancy, I have found David Vinson's kind gift to me (Enns' Inspiration and Incarnation) very helpful (more about David again next week!). It has crystallised my thinking in a few important areas, and I will no doubt return to it again and again. However, I find myself struggling profoundly with such theologically insensitive comments as the following in Enns's work:
'The starting point for our discussion is the following: as Christ is both God and human, so is the Bible. In other words, we are to think of the Bible in the same way that Christians think about Jesus' (17)
While so much in this book is extremely helpful, thought-provoking and up-building, such that I will be using it to teach in church groups whenever possible, I couldn't disagree more with the above. The Bible is not God in the same way Christ is. Obviously, Enns merely wants to employ the language of incarnation as an analogy, to help us conceptualise the humanity and divine inspiration of the scriptural texts. But such language needs to be handled very carefully, and some of his rhetoric, in my view, simply goes too far. I ought to add that such clumsy verbal stomping on holy ground is very much the exception in this book.
15 comments:
I was actually really excited about his book when it came out but when I finished it I just felt kind of lukewarm toward it. But then maybe that's because I was still a strong inerrantists when I read it.
I still think Achtemeier's book "Inspiration and Authority" is the best short treatment on the subject that I've read yet (which probably isn't saying much coming from me: )
The Bible *is* God? Yikes.
well...analogies can only go so far...
Sounds like idolatry to me. Either that or quadrinitarian polyincarnationalism. :)
I can't tell you how many times I've heard preachers say that Jesus is the Bible and the Bible is God because Jesus is the Word and the Word is God and the Bible is the Word so the Bible must be Jesus who is God. It's enough to make you dizzy...
Any chance of making the paper available for your readers (and by readers I mean me) after you've delivered it?
Nagh. I agree with your frustration on the use of the incarnation analogy which probably obscures more than it teaches.
Just two very fundamental points to make:
1. The Bible is not, in any way, shape, or form, a hypostatic union of God and man.
2. The Bible is a creaturely reality from start to finish, and is utterly distinct from its creator.
If you get chance to read it you should have a look at "Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch" by John Webster, you'll really like it.
I'm looking forward to hearing.
I was reading the Catholic Catechism and found something similar to what Enns said
Article 3 - Sacred Scripture - 101
In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness Gos speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."
I don't know if anyone cares or not I just found that interesting.
Blessings,
Bryan L
MIGUEL TORGA
THE PLOUGHMAN OF THE WRITING
A SHARED PATH
In the 1st centenary of his birth
BY CRISTÓVÃO DE AGUIAR
Thanks for the Webester recommendation, Steven. I've got it - just need to read it...
"quadrinitarian polyincarnationalism"!!!!!!
I must admitt, I haven't read Achtemeier's book "Inspiration and Authority", Bryan.
I agree w/the use of 1Cor 8, when I'm discussing how we understand the Bible, that is often where I start. Fee has done the same.
The Bible=God is a worn out argument, I'm tired of hearing it. Just read a book that was saying this yesterday...
We've been talking about inspiration and what it means in the congregation where I serve. I may do a series of my own on my blog on this subject, we'll see.
Read a few lines further on p. 17 of Enns to see the more limited point of the analogy: "In the same way that Jesus is--must be--both God and human, the Bible is also a divine and human book." I guess I think Enns is pretty clear that he does not regard the Bible as God. So while I can see why one might see the bit Chris quotes as an overstatement, a lot of the subsequent comments seem misplaced.
Hi Randy, I think James was only joking. I hope my post didn't give the impression that Enns is an idolator!!
Post a Comment