Peter Enn's lecture on Adam

[Mallon]

Peter Enns agrees with both the inspiration of scripture and the incarnation of Christ.

LIBERAL!!!!!1

 

[Siyha]

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.

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."
​

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.

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 ...

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.

 

[shernren]

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.

Sure, in fact right after the part I quoted he continues:

... As with any analogy, one could highlight places where the analogy does not quite fit. Moreover, we must reckon with the incarnation of Christ itself being mysterious; one could rightly question the merit of using an ultimately unexplainable entity to explain something else! That being said, my starting point is the orthodox Christian confession, however mysterious it is, that Jesus of Nazareth is the God-man. The long-standing identification between Christ the word and Scripture the word is central to how I think through the issues raised in this book: How does Scripture's full humanity and full divinity affect what we should expect from Scripture?
​

The point is that he begins from wholly orthodox assumptions, using wholly orthodox techniques, to arrive at some fairly unorthodox conclusions.

 

[RefCath]

LIBERAL!!!!!1

Enns stands firmly within the tradition advocated by great Reformed theologians such as Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck and G. C. Berkouwer. For example Kuyper writes:

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.

And

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 God’s 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.

 

[crawfish]

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.

Mark, of everything you have said this is the most concerning to me. By over-expressing its importance to the message of Jesus, you seem to be making an idol of the creation account. I don't say this lightly - breaking the first commandment is no way to honor God.

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.

"liberal theology" is just a catchphrase that allows you to group a number of unrelated things together in order to appeal to fear. The term has no real meaning.

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.

I have certainly been guilty of being nasty in the past. I have made it a conscious goal to present a "kinder, gentler" crawfish from here on out (although I tend to be a bit subversive and sarcastic, which to some might seem like an attack, but is not intended that way).

More importantly, you really don't understand that Ken Ham considers himself a watchman on the wall.

I understand fully well what Ken Ham considers himself, and I see him try to accomplish this through less than honest means: fear-mongering, obfuscation and rhetoric.

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.

This is EXACTLY about source material for homeschoolers. If the convention chooses to not be a battleground, it is completely up to them. There are ample places for that to happen; even on the Biologos site itself, which is open to letting the other side speak for themselves even if sites like AiG and ICR do not.

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.

I have considered the creationist view for a long time now. I make it a point to try to understand what the other side is saying, what they believe from their perspective, and what their objections are. I have seen no concerns they have raised that have not been adequately addressed by TE theologians.

I fully understand the threat to YEC theology that evolutionary theory presents. All I can say to you is, have faith: God will prevail. If we are undermining truth then we will be exposed. If you and your fellow YEC's are undermining God's truth, well then you will be exposed as well. I do not worry about such things; I only worry about following the path that God has laid out in front of me.

 

[Siyha]

I think the real question here is, would you order Enns vs Ham on PPV?

I sure would.

(Debate or UFC style, either way)

 

[Mallon]

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.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

It would be like watching P.T. Barnum debate St. Augustine.

I would pay ungodly amounts of money to see that. Heck, to see it acted out would be worth all my worldly possessions.

 

[Assyrian]

Barnum had an elephant

 

[Walter Kovacs]

An invisible elephant?

 

[Siyha]

Augustine was from Hippo... thats like an elephant.

 

[philadiddle]

Hippo? Elephant? Are you guys talking about Leviathan again?

 

[mark kennedy]

Well is doesn't accept the incarnation be his liberal, and probably not Christian depending of how he phrases his disbelief.

The incarnation is essential Christianity, period.

Are you talking about non-belief in the incarnation or thinking that the creation story is metaphorical?

I'm talking about the historicity of Scripture.

Probably meant to be literal.

No, necessarily.

 

[mark kennedy]

Thanks again, mark. I guess I just don't find labeling in idea as "liberal" a convincing argument against it.

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.

 

[Mallon]

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 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.

 

[mark kennedy]

Peter Enns agrees with both the inspiration of scripture and the incarnation of Christ.

He clearly believes in neither. The incarnation is not a mystery, it's redemptive history. He denies that Paul speaks authoritatively with regards to the historicity of Scripture, dismissing Paul's explicit teaching regarding Adam. To abandon apostolic authority is to abandon the testimony of Scripture in no uncertain terms.

I have always known that Theistic Evolution covertly undermined the historicity of Scripture but Peter Enn leaves no doubt that he affirms neither inspiration nor the incarnation.

If he believes in anything remotely Biblical I have yet to see it.

 

[Mallon]

He clearly believes in neither.

That's false witness. Peter Enns believes in both inspiration and incarnation.

 

[mark kennedy]

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 should be noted that the type of coherence offered by source criticism could only be achieved by moving beyond the surface, so-called “plain” reading of the text toward a radical re-reading of the text in light of contemporary worldviews and expectations.” (Theological Exegesis, Peter Enn)​

Persuade you of what exactly? You don't believe in the historicity of the Old Testament nor the explicit teaching of the Apostle Paul. What would you have me persuade you of since Peter Enn is clearly catering to modernist worldviews. That's an abandonment of the historicity of Scripture in an attempt to reconcile 'higher criticisms' of the Scriptures that are brutally critical of the historicity of both the Old and New Testament. This kind of a synthesis is really nothing more then a redefinition of theological terminology, by it, atheists and agnostics can be Christian seminary professors.

He doesn't have an argument, he meanders around and finally makes the Bible coherent and relevant by abandoning the historicity of Scripture.

That is a preference for naturalistic assumptions over miraculous interpolation. Classic liberal theology that simply redefines traditional theological terminology and replaces it with ambiguous, yet clearly, naturalistic assumptions.

You guys have no idea what you are trifling with.

Liberalism - a recurring impulse throughout the history of Christianity currently assaulting historical Biblical Christianity. Liberalism receives its philosophical inspiration from the dialecticalism of Immanuel Kant and religious thought from Friedrich Schleirmacher, Rudolph Bultmann and Paul Tillich.

Liberalism in seminaries reflected social Darwinism's influence in our culture, believing that the Bible merely reflects man's evolving ideas about God and reality. It therefore directly challenged and denied the Bible's accuracy and God's providential design. It rejects God's revelation to man in propositional truth and is instead man centered.

Liberals contended that experience and feeling, not creeds and doctrine, provide the foundation of Christianity. Liberals embrace naturalistic and rationalistic views of interpreting Scripture, employing form criticism, literacy criticism, documentary hypothesis, and redactionism to understand the Bible.​

Glossary of Liberal Theological Terms

This is a group of evangelicals dedicated to counter cult evangelism. Liberal theology is considered a cult because they deny essential doctrine. Then you dismiss an indictment that Peter Enn is expounding on a classic liberal mindset that is nothing more then a dismissal of the supernatural as a label.

I checked out Biologos Foundation and was encouraged to learn that Francis Collins founded it. I know he believes the New Testament, miracles and all. The problem is that I am far from being convinced that Peter Enn does, in fact, I have yet to see any indication that he does.

It's not a label Mallon, make no mistake, it's an indictment. Do you know what Rudolph Bultmann and Paul Tillich believed? Do you care?

 

[Mallon]

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

No Mallon, your not listening. Peter Enn is wrong because he does not agree with Paul. I have no real problem with someone who finds the Genesis account figurative, I really don't. I draw the line at the Apostolic authority of the Scriptures.

None so blind....