Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
LIBERAL!!!!!1Peter Enns agrees with both the inspiration of scripture and the incarnation of Christ.
Incarnation and Inspiration, p57: (emphases in original)
... 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. Christians confess that Jesus is both God and human at the same time. He is not half-God and half-human. He is not sometimes one and other times the other. Rather, one of the central doctrines of the Christian faith, worked out as far back as the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, is that Jesus is 100 percent God and 100 percent human - at the same time.So Peter Enns thinks Christianity is an entirely historical religion, Christ is both man and God all the time, and that the encultured qualities of the Bible are wholly integral to its communication.
This way of thinking of Christ is analogous to thinking about the Bible. In the same way that Jesus is - must be - both God and human, the Bible is also a divine and human book. Although Jesus was "God with us," He still completely assumed the cultural trappings of the world in which He lived. In fact, this is what is implied in "God with us." Perhaps this is part of what the author of Hebrews had in mind when he said that Christ was "made like his brothers in every way" (Heb 2:17). Jesus was a first-century Jew. The languages of the time (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic) were his languages. Their customs were his customs. He fit, He belonged, He was one of them.
So, too, the Bible. It belonged in the ancient worlds that produced it. It was not an abstract, otherworldly book, dropped out of heaven. It was connected to and therefore spoke to those ancient cultures. The encultured qualities of the Bible, therefore, are not extra elements that we can discard to get to the real point, the timeless truths. Rather, precisely because Christianity is a historical religion, God's word reflects the various historical moments in which Scripture was written. God acted and spoke in history. As we learn more and more about that history, we must gladly address the implications of that history for how we view the Bible, that is, what we should expect from it.
This way of thinking about the Bible is referred to differently by different theologians. The term I prefer is incarnational analogy: Christ's incarnation is analogous to Scripture's "incarnation."
Wow! He must be a liberal theologian! I see him liberally applying sound doctrine throughout the book, after all.
Say what you will about his conclusions, but I believe his methodology is not only theologically sound but fundamentally God- and Bible-centered. I'd side with him any day rather than the YECs who think the canopy is code-word for a big shroud of radiation-blocking water vapor, or that stretching out the heavens refers to the relativistic expansion of space-time ...
Sure, in fact right after the part I quoted he continues:I don't have the book with me, but I believe Enns stated shortly after that (or somewhere else in the book) that this analogy is not perfect, but rather a starting point. Not to knock down anything you said, I just wanted to clarify that Enns does not see this analogy as absolute - it does contain flaws.
LIBERAL!!!!!1
Although the Holy Spirit spoke directly to men, human speech and language being no human inventions, yet in writing He employed human agencies. But whether He dictates directly, as in the Revelation of St. John, or governs the writing indirectly, as with historians and evangelists, the result is the same: the product is such in form and content as the Holy Spirit designed, an infallible document for the Church of God.
Hence the confession of inspiration does not exclude ordinary numbering, collecting of documents, sifting, recording, etc. It recognizes all these matters which are plainly discernible in Scripture. Style, diction, repetitions, all retain their value. But it must be insisted that the Scripture as a whole, as finally presented to the Church, as to content, selection, and arrangement of documents, structure, and even words, owes its existence to the Holy Spirit, i.e., that the men employed in this work were consciously or unconsciously so controlled and directed by the Spirit, in all their thinking, selecting, sifting, choice of words, and writing, that their final product, delivered to posterity, possessed a perfect warrant of divine and absolute authority.
It does not alter the case that the Holy Scripture shows so many seams and uneven places, and looks different from what we should expect. The chief virtue of this masterpiece was so to enfold Gods thoughts in our sinful life that out of our language they could form a speech in which to proclaim through the ages, to all nations, the mighty words of God. This masterpiece is finished and lies before us in the Holy Scripture. And instead of losing itself in criticizing these apparent defects, the Church of all ages has received it with adoration and thanksgiving; has preserved it, tasted it, enjoyed it, and always believed to find eternal life in it.
I don't think you do know how I feel or, more importantly, how serious evangelicals are about this. This is an exposition of the most important text for Bible believing Christians.
The connection of theistic evolution to liberal theology is inescapable. I worry that you have no idea how serious the subject matter is for evangelicals.
That is a strange thing indeed to hear from an evolutionist. You preach tolerance and open mindedness but what I see practiced is a no holds bared attack on creationists. Not a single poster to these forums is admonished for being unduly harsh with creationists, in fact, every thread has someone who does little more the hurl insults at them.
More importantly, you really don't understand that Ken Ham considers himself a watchman on the wall.
This isn't about source material for homeschoolers. This is about Christian conviction regarding the authority of the Word of God. I do hope you will understand that the charge of undermining the authority of Scripture is not to be taken lightly.
Understand this, we are not talking about marginal differences of opinion. We are talking about a clash of world views, one that believes the Genesis accounts and one that does not. I fear that you have no idea how serious the theological implications are for the subject matter. I would suggest you take a good look at the creationist view from a New Testament perspective and consider just how much weight the theological implications have for evangelicals.
It would be like watching P.T. Barnum debate St. Augustine.I think the real question here is, would you order Enns vs Ham on PPV?
I sure would.
(Debate or UFC style, either way)
It would be like watching P.T. Barnum debate St. Augustine.
Well is doesn't accept the incarnation be his liberal, and probably not Christian depending of how he phrases his disbelief.
Are you talking about non-belief in the incarnation or thinking that the creation story is metaphorical?
Probably meant to be literal.
Thanks again, mark. I guess I just don't find labeling in idea as "liberal" a convincing argument against it.
Peter Enns would argue that the "essential doctrine" you hold to is a product of modernist assumptions and does not reflect what Paul actually thought about these things. That's why just calling Enns a liberal instead of dealing with his argument doesn't convince me that you're right.It's not a label, Peter Enn clearly seeks to redefine essential doctrine in light of modernist naturalistic assumptions. That includes all miracles but he has to be careful to never make a clear statement, liberal theology is notorious for this.
Peter Enns agrees with both the inspiration of scripture and the incarnation of Christ.
That's false witness. Peter Enns believes in both inspiration and incarnation.He clearly believes in neither.
Peter Enns would argue that the "essential doctrine" you hold to is a product of modernist assumptions and does not reflect what Paul actually thought about these things. That's why just calling Enns a liberal instead of dealing with his argument doesn't convince me that you're right.
Yes, yes, I get it mark. Peter Enns is wrong ("liberal") because his interpretation of Paul doesn't agree with yours. I get the gist of your argument.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?