tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6192890897676744726..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Errant EnnsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57169840060990494642010-07-08T17:54:29.774-04:002010-07-08T17:54:29.774-04:00Steve, You say that BIOLOGOS, Enns, Sparks, are at...Steve, You say that BIOLOGOS, Enns, Sparks, are attempting to justify their infidelity, and you imply that they hate God, and that is the REASON behind the BIOLOGOS website. <br /><br />Now read Sparks and Enns' books as listed on my list of five books every Christian apologist ought to read, and deal with the rational arguments that first raised questions in each of their minds. They did not start out with a wish to justify any sort of infidelity. They studied the questions that a wide range of scholars have been asking about the OT, and began asking their own questions in each of their books. <br /><br />Please stick to addressing the questions in their books.Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30808721484153588782010-07-07T16:27:39.168-04:002010-07-07T16:27:39.168-04:00"And that applies to other things as well.&qu...<i>"And that applies to other things as well."</i><br /><br />Unless a Bible writer actually meant to give a strictly true account of events, his account is not erroneous in case the sequence is false rather than true.<br /><br />"Innerancy is tied to intent" is what liberals believe. If Paul is not <i>intending</i> to give us a true historical account of the first humans, but rather is <i>intending</i> to teach us about Christ, about love, about becoming a new creation etc., then it is no problem that his account of the first humans is not true. In fact, he can still be inerrant.Srnechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10474493908162946111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27245982558008864712010-07-07T09:25:38.998-04:002010-07-07T09:25:38.998-04:00LAYMAN SAID:
“If I understand you correctly, the ...LAYMAN SAID:<br /><br />“If I understand you correctly, the answer is that yes, it is inerrancy and Christianity (in which case, would it be fair to say that Christianity for you necessarily entails inerrancy?) or bust.”<br /><br />i) Christian identity is bound up with its status as a revealed religion.<br /><br />ii) The Bible describes inspiration in terms of verbal inspiration.<br /><br />iii) That entails inerrancy.<br /><br />iv) The only way around that conclusion is to either posit:<br /><br />a) That while inspiration is plenary, God is fallible (a la open theism).<br /><br />b) Or that while God is infallible, inspiration is partial.<br /><br />v) Apropos (a), I’ve argued against open theism.<br /><br />Apropos (b), this is difficult to implement. For instance, Moses is the paradigm-case of prophetic inspiration. However, the Pentateuch contains a number of different literary genres. Therefore, the scope of inspiration doesn’t discriminate between one genre and another. <br /><br />“With the caveat that this is not a concern because it is impossible that inerrancy could ever be ‘disproven.’"<br /><br />Actually, I meant two things. But let’s break it down a bit more:<br /><br />i) Hypothetically speaking, the Bible makes some logically falsifiable claims (e.g. 1 Cor 15:14,17). However, that’s not a live possibility.<br /><br />ii) The question is moot in the sense that I don’t think there’s anywhere else to turn. There are no viable alternatives.<br /><br />iii) And, yes, for reasons I’ve given, I think Scripture is empirically unfalsifiable.<br /><br />iv) Of course, I also think there are compelling, positive lines of evidence for the inspiration of Scripture. Internal evidence, external evidence, and the argument from experience.<br /><br />“IMO, it is possible that the Gospel authors -- for example -- were more concerned with ‘topical arrangement’ or the organization of their narrative than with strict measures of chronology in places. They did not always intend to speak to matters of chronology. I think their genre has a role to play here in understanding their intent, though genre cannot be an excuse for disguised errancy.”<br /><br />Inerrancy is tied to intent. You can’t miss a target unless you were aiming at the target. Unless a Bible writer actually meant to give a strictly chronological account of events, his account is not erroneous in case the sequence is topical rather than chronological. And that applies to other things as well. Inerrancy makes allowance for various literary conventions.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38915106115979064202010-07-06T22:13:03.310-04:002010-07-06T22:13:03.310-04:00Steve,
If I understand you correctly, the answer...Steve, <br /><br />If I understand you correctly, the answer is that yes, it is inerrancy <i>and</i> Christianity (in which case, would it be fair to say that Christianity for you necessarily entails inerrancy?) or bust; with the caveat that this is not a concern because it is impossible that inerrancy could ever be "disproven."<br /><br />Would it be fair to take the Chicago Statement as an agreed statement of the doctrine of inerrancy? If so, I ascribe to that statement. But despite the specificity of the Statement, this may not resolve all questions. <br /><br />Excerpts:<br /><br /><b>* We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.<br /><br />* We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.</b><br /><br />IMO, it is possible that the Gospel authors -- for example -- were more concerned with "topical arrangement" or the organization of their narrative than with strict measures of chronology in places. They did not always intend to speak to matters of chronology. I think their genre has a role to play here in understanding their intent, though genre cannot be an excuse for disguised errancy. <br /><br />I think this approach may fit within the Chicago Statement. I was curious about your thoughts. And I apologize if you have a standing post on inspiration an inerrancy, I'd be happy to check it out if you give me some guidance.<br /><br />And I appreciate your comments. I wish we could match the output of Triablogue but that would be a tough measure to meet.Laymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761410435140602771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73735939448226563702010-07-06T21:35:12.606-04:002010-07-06T21:35:12.606-04:00I would be surprised if this is some sign that RTB...I would be surprised if this is some sign that RTB is moving left. Setting aside OEC vs. YEC for the moment, RTB self defines by quite traditional beliefs. They accept a literal, eternal hell as a place of suffering and punishment. They completely reject evolutionary theory when it comes to questions of origins. They are exclusivists. Some prominent members are outspoken Calvinists.Laymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761410435140602771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77694351974667744472010-07-06T13:19:46.296-04:002010-07-06T13:19:46.296-04:00“If the former, Enns has written lots of material ...<i>“If the former, Enns has written lots of material on understanding the authority of the Bible on an 'incarnational' model.”</i><br /><br />These issues with Pete go back many years when he was still a member of our congregation. I was less in tune with these matters at the time, but when he published his book, everything changed. After reading that and picking my jaw up off the floor, I discussed it with one of my Westminster friends, an elder at my church. He said, "You watch. The next thing that will happen is that he'll deny as nearly as completely as he can the historicity of all the Bible narratives, but especially the historicity of Adam."<br /><br />And he was absolutely right. But if no Adam, then no second Adam. Finally, all that will be left to him is non-faith in something that cannot be believed. And you're right, Pete has never given serious consideration to Reformed arguments on inerrancy and the historicity of the Biblical narratives. He, in fact, says that there are no cogent arguments to be made against his incarnational thesis.<br /><br /><i>“He's trying to allow people to hold onto their faith in the face of the challenge of evolution.”</i><br /><br />Nonsense. Faith, to Enns, is a highly flexible component, much like that asinine "living, breathing document" argument put forth by our leftist friends in government. If it doesn't fit the times, twist it, shape it until it does so. How can anyone reconcile and cling to inerrancy based on that? And no, his book doesn't answer that question. Instead the reader is left wondering why Enns didn't interact with the standard Reformed arguments, which I find, after due consideration, quite compelling. But finally, he leaves us with no compelling reason to think that the Bible is the Word of God in <i>any</i> sense. How is that "trying to allow people to hold onto their faith?"<br /><br />The logical, final end to all of Pete's "noble" efforts is not, as your commenter implied, some kind of confluence of thought where the Christian can reconcile competing systems clamouring for his attention and loyalty. No. The end of Enns is unbelief.<br /><br />By the way:<br /><br /><i>I don’t have a fallback option. I’m not hedging my bets. I got all my chips on the Christian jackpot. For me it’s Christianity or bust. All in or all out. There’s nothing in-between.</i><br /><br /><b>Best comment by Steve Hays. Evah!</b>Pilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36652862676665665782010-07-06T13:09:56.672-04:002010-07-06T13:09:56.672-04:00Biologos does not "simply ignore OEC." T...Biologos does not "simply ignore OEC." There is a continuing dialogue between them and Reasons To Believe, probably the most prominent OEC ministry around.<br /><br /><a href="http://biologos.org/blog/report-on-biologos-reasons-to-believe-dialogue/" rel="nofollow">Report on BioLogos-Reasons To Believe Dialogue</a><br /><br />They have also discussed their views in various posts and Biologos contributors/scientists have commented on RTB podcasts.<br /><a href="http://biologos.org/blog/does-genetics-point-to-a-single-primal-couple/" rel="nofollow">Does Genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple?</a><br /><a href="http://biologos.org/blog/on-living-in-the-middle/" rel="nofollow">On Living in the Middle</a>Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05004165648471327622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89969138783444961712010-07-06T12:56:21.756-04:002010-07-06T12:56:21.756-04:00Steve Hays: "Back to my example. On the one ...<b>Steve Hays</b>: <i>"Back to my example. On the one hand he [Enns] admits that Paul thought and taught that Adam was a real person. The first man. The first human being.<br /><br />On the other hand he believes that this can’t be true. Given what we “know” about the “true” origins of man (a la evolution), that’s not possible.<br /><br />So something has to give. Guess what?"</i><br /><br />What is Enns gives up the historicity of Adam as clearly taught in Scripture in favor of Darwinian macroevolution? <br /><br /><i>"He takes the position that on the correct understanding of Scripture (i.e. his own understanding), Scripture is simply wrong on issues like the historicity of Adam as the father of the human race."</i><br /><br />If Enns says Scripture is wrong on the historicity of Adam, then the gig is up, and there's no intellectually honest way that he can maintain (or anyone else for that matter who happens to deny Adam's historicity) that he's an inerrantist. <br /><br /><i>If you want to say the Bible is “inerrant” even though it inculcates factual falsehoods, then that’s a Pickwickian definition of terms. Who are we fooling?</i><br /><br />Unfortunately, it's not just himself that he's fooling, but others as well.<br /><br />If you deny the historicity of Adam, then you deny inerrancy. It is untenable to say that you are inerrantist while denying the historicity of Adam.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com