Mr Fisher, I would be happy to discuss the Matthew Lynch posts rather than Greg Boyd’s book at this point, if you like (though the book would be very good to discuss down the road).
There’s no hurry. Thanks.
Excellent observation. Yes, it may appear that I am making the same error that I chided Dr. Mohler for making… that he was defending inerrancy in the basis that, “if we didn’t have inerrancy, we couldn’t believe cherished doctrine X.”
In my defense, I would point out that would would never (intentionally) defend the doctrine of inerrancy on such a basis. My belief in inerrancy is the result of an entirely different train of reasoning, none of which involves, “but I want to continue to believe doctrine X.”
Having arrived at my belief in inerrant revelation on other grounds, however, at that point I can examine various other logical consequences of that belief… one being that my position on inerrancy, alongside such God-inspired writings as Lamentations, etc., logically leads to and consistently and soundly entails the belief that “God, in true fact, actually and literally and personally invites us to passionately wrestle with him.”
More of what I was attempting to do above, however, is to point out the vacuity of Dr. Enns position on the subject. He seems very badly to want to support the idea that it is legitimate for us to wrestle deeply with God, with our doubts, pains, heartaches, etc. in similar honesty as in Lamentations or Ecclesiastes.
I am simply observing that his position on inspiration of Scripture does not allow or logically entail a belief that God invites us to so wrestle with him. Rather, it precludes such belief entirely. If he is consistent, then the most he can say is that some ancient people (of the same ilk that invented those horrendous Canaanite massacres), for their personal or cultural needs, invented the idea out of whole cloth that God invites us to wrestle with him. This is a “reimagining” (on their part) of who God is based on their preferences, needs, and cultural situation… it does not reflect in any eternal or finally true sense who God really is. Is this who God really is? Who knows? God never communicated this to us as if we have the “teacher’s manual” that says so with some kind of final word. It is baseless speculation, of the same sort as anything else Scripture claims about God.
So no, I am not trying to defend inerrancy on the basis that it allows us to believe certain doctrines… but I am trying to make clear that one most certainly cannot believe certain doctrines (consistently) while rejecting biblical inerrancy in the way that Dr. Enns does.
1 Like
Precisely… so either he was lying and being deceptive, in the manner of various politicians, denying what he knew very good and well he was about to do anyway… or he really meant what he said, that he was not abolishing the law and the prophets, and any additions, clarifications, or deepening he was about to give them ought not be interpreted as abolishing.
Either he was in fact a law-abolisher (as Dr. Enns and others seem to want to believe) and Jesus was merely placating them with deceptive words worthy of modern politicians that “I have not come to abolish…” (“you can keep your doctor…”?) or I stand by my basic understanding… that the language of “you’ve heard it said, do not commit murder, but I tell you…” does not mean he thought and wanted to teach that the command to murder was somehow arbitrary, open to or reinterpretation, or of being discarded or rejected as we invent a new morality.
And that of course I have no issue with. But going beyond the law to expand, clarify, or deepen is different than taking away from, denying, or otherwise abolishing the law. He in no way undermined, abolished, ignored, or minimized the importance of the command against murder by going beyond it and exposing the evil of the roots of murder in our hearts.
So many books, so little time…
I think I’d like to focus on Boyd’s… you seem to see significant merit in his overall approach, and thus I’m curious to understand it better… it sounds well researched, so if no major objections, that is where I’d like to start, I may have a bit of time today and tomorrow will start to read through Boyd’s “Cross-Vision.” And after that I’d be happy to take on others as time permits.
1 Like
Mr Fisher,
Thanks. That’s fine!
Re inerrancy above–would you consider re clarifying your reason for claiming inerrancy (as opposed to Mohler)? I’m sorry if I missed it. Thanks!
Below is a brief (and incomplete; I can see some problems with it) overview of a post by Boyd–but ti’s a conversation helper.
Thanks.
I do think that Boyd adds a lot to the conversation. You would enjoy his story–“Benefit of the Doubt” outlines it–how he came to Christ from atheism, but struggled with a house of cards from his initial evangelical impressions; to finally come back to Christ alone.
Blessings!
I’m typically a bit suspicious of theological conclusions that depend on us being scientifically smarter than the ancients. Theologically more informed, yes - thanks to Christ’s revelation and teachings - but theologically smarter - might also be an open question in my view.
This may well be true - but only because so many have been erroneously brought up to think of it as a zero-sum competition between religion and science. Under such a delusional dichotomy, they are trying to reduce theology to a mechanically predictive tool to be verified or rejected using the same measuring sticks science uses. This would be like comparing “life questions and theories” (analogous to religion) to “arithmetic” (analogous to science); and pretending that the two are in competition with each other. We notice that arithmetic always gets its sums correct, or is easily corrected when it doesn’t. The much more complicated “how to live life” category is much more difficult, messy, and often seemingly wrong or not verifiable in any case. So we decide that arithmetic “wins” and we should jettison our engagement with life questions. And so the bankruptcy of the competition model is revealed since it was a silly notion to begin with. One does not avoid “life questions” and dwell solely on arithmetic; rather they enlist arithmetic as one part, among many things, of what helps them out in life. Religion is no more in competition with science than your entire body is in competition with its own kidneys. I think Biologos is helping to bring light to this situation and helping to call into question the very creationist narratives that are unwittingly helping to fuel this cultural delusion.
I’m not so sure that rejection of that is so “liberal”. There are those who make the compelling case that prior to St. Augustine, there wasn’t any “original sin” - at least not in the way it’s been built up into a doctrine of genetic transmission today. So I would characterize it instead as a necessary shedding of an historical accretion that was mistakenly added onto the message of the apostolic church.
Those were good thoughts, Al, and I’m sorry if I let them provoke me in directions you didn’t intend. I think we still (as evidenced in this very thread!) struggle with the apparent “two-facedness” of God because we have this persistent inclination (and rightly so) that God is One, when it comes to justice, mercy, love, and yes - even wrath in its subordinated status to those prior attributes (but no less fearsome if that is only face presented us when we persist in our wicked ways.)
I think it does. Even if all the stories and poems are fully human, if they are what God gives us to draw us into relationship, then their diversity and intertextual wrestling strongly suggest that God invites our wrestling. If God didn’t want wrestling, we’d expect to get a book with a single account of Israel’s history, a single gospel, a single view of why bad things happen, and a single perspective throughout.
The belief that God invites our wrestling depends on God choosing a rich, multivalent book as the means of divine revelation, not on the book providing inerrant accounts of actual, literal, personal wrestling with God. (Though those accounts can also factor in, even if one views them without inerrantist lenses.)
Perhaps so, but I don’t see how that’s the case. In the case of Lamentations or the lament psalms, I’m not even sure how inerrancy factors in. How are statements like “How long, O Lord?” judged errant or inerrant? For those portions of Scripture, it would seem that even an inerrantist moves to something closer to Enns’ view, where Scripture contains the honest human perceptions of God (or even of God’s absense).
As for the accounts of humans directly wrestling with God, such as Abraham or Moses arguing with God until God changes course, I doubt most inerrantists read these texts as revealing that God changes course due to human input. And if we can’t trust the texts to accurately tell us about God’s side of the encounters, why should we trust them to tell us accurately that it’s okay to wrestle with God? If it only looked like a change of mind, maybe it only looked like arguing. If the revelatory value is all-or-nothing, then there doesn’t seem to be a way to get an endorsement of wrestling out of texts where God seems to do what one’s systematic theology prohibits.
If one adds that the Bible with all its diversity suggests that God is not averse to our wrestling, I think we reach firmer ground from which to make that claim.
I have often wondered if the expression “wrestling with God” is just another way of expressing my belief that God calls humankind to “rise above their (God-given) animal instincts” to expand upon the moral goodness so seldom manifested thru our Selfish Genes. This view accepts the premise that we humans cannot participate in the true co-creation that God offers us unless we accept both the sacrifice and hardship it requires.
Al Leo
Am sry busy at work this week, will try to get a response to you before too long. Will at least start to try to read some of Boyd’s descriptions.
1 Like
I think we aren’t too terribly far apart at this point. But A few clarifications…
But how do we know that these texts are God-given in order to do exactly that? Now we’re getting into questions of canon, it I think it an important question… How do we know that Ecclesiastes should or should not be included in “what God gives us”? How do we know God isn’t more like what we would read strictly from Proverbs and Deuteronomy, and that God doesn’t detest the attitude shown in Lamentations and Job? Why not the Koran for that matter? If canon only reflects our preferences, then again, they tell us nothing about God in himself. Dr Enns view as I understand it is that these aren’t books that “God gave” us, as if a list of books in the canon dropped out of the sky… rather he sees these books as those our religious community selected for their own needs based on their own cultural preferences and agenda. If so, even the diversity you observe here reflects, to rephrase your words…
“their diversity and intertextual wrestling strongly suggest that ancient people invite our wrestling.”
Again, I come back to the basic point… if these are all simply and solely human inventions, human ideas projected into God, and if the Bible is a collection selected strictly by human preference based on our various cultural needs across time as we invent and reinvent the deity in ways that seemed right to us at the time… Why is Lamentations categorically any different than the Koran, Enuma Elish, Baghivad Gita, or Mein Kampf? Or the recent horoscope in yesterday’s newspaper, or the most recent written sermon from Westboro Baptist, for that matter? These are all “pictures of how various humans experience God,” and we could embrace them all, as valid portraits requiring us to even further diversify our understanding of God, no? Why could we not say that God “gave” all these writings to us to draw us into an even greater experience of diversity and intertextual wrestling? Unless some are inherently more true, or dare I say, less “erroneous” than others, from God’s perspective?
If the Bible is essentially what Enns says it is, then none of these “pictures of how various humans experience God” can be any more valid or invalid than another.
Fundamentalist that I am, I insist that some manners and beliefs in the experience of God are valid, some are not.
I concur, and here is one prime example why “inerrancy” is a singularly inept and inadequate word.
But following on from above, I can observe, for instance, that there are right and valid ways of complaining to God, of crying out, of wrestling., and they are very raw and brutally honest. There are, if I trust scripture, however, ways of complaining (or grumbling) that he will not tolerate.
Thus, Lamentations, psalms of lament, confessions of sin, and the like are “inerrant” only I’m the sense that, if they are God’s inspired prayers, inscripturated songs, they are demonstrations or templates of how God invites his people to pray, not categorically unlike the Lord’s Prayer in that regard. invites they demonstrate a true, valid, “God-approved” and appropriate way and example and demonstration of not simply that, but how, he invites his children to wrestle.
I’m not a fan of the word “inerrant” for this very reason. I see it’s unfortunate necessity, but yes, this very area shows it’s greatest flaw.
1 Like
I owe you a much more thorough response before too long. But one quick observation to focus our discussion… as I just noted to Marshall, inerrancy is a singularly inept and unfortunate word. It describes a subset and consequence of my actual and more core belief, that of being the idea that God actually, in fact communicated, and communicated discreet, actual, concrete truth-content, truths about things that we simply could not know had God himself not revealed them.
Do angels exist? Does God get angry? Does he punish? Is he involved with this world at all? Does he actually love? is it true that we will be resurrected toward eternal life? There is no way we could know this, or have a clue about it, unless this was revealed from “beyond the veil.” These I think actual, discreet “truth claims” that were, in some form or fashion, communicated by God into this world for humanity to grasp and capture and understand.
If God has not so communicated, or has “communicated” only in the vague, mysterious way that only gives us feelings, impressions, experiences, etc., then we have nothing but our vague impressions. If that is what some believe, fine… but we ought have no confidence in so discreet and concrete a truth-claim as physical future resurrection from the dead. Resurrection at that point becomes one more example of baseless speculation if long dead ancients who were inventing and reinventing truth for their own needs based on their own experiences. No different, essentially, than the folks at Westbrook Baptist seem to be doing.
But if God has so communicated any such discreet facts… then we evangelicals presume that what he communicated, at the point he communicated it to humanity, is in fact “true.” And true, in the context I mean it, means “not false.” Not false” meaning “not erroneous”… and you see where I’m going.
If God has actually, in fact communicated discreet facts, then it is at least one reasonable deduction, I think, that said facts that God so communicated can be depended on as “true.”
2 Likes
It may be worth clarifying, that making such a prayer could well be judged to be morally erroneous or morally righteous. Me believing in the “inerrancy” of the psalm book entails this.
There are some sentiments that I think it safe to say God would judge as morally repugnant and thus “erroneous”, and some sentiments he would judge with approval, “you are not ‘wrong’ for either feeling or expressing that.”
Finding “how long O Lord”, in the Psalmbook, This evangelical naturally judges it to be the latter… approved by God, endorsed, and thus to serve as a God-inspired template for our prayers.
Dr Enns position still seems to result in answering the question of “Does God approve such language in prayer?” With the answer, “who knows?” Some ancient Hebrew thought it appropriate. But whether God shares that sentiment? We simply don’t know. God was not specially involved in any way of the crafting of those specific words. They are the invention of men, of men of such imperfections as gave us the book of Joshua.
Let me approach this from a slightly different angle, since I think this significant, and please let me know if this makes any sense…
I re-read the section in the “five views” book again to make sure I wasn’t mistaken in my impression of Mohler’s argument. Again, it does certainly seem to me that he is essentially arguing for inerrancy on the basis of it being necessary in order to establish or maintain belief in various Christian doctrines.
This I do find erroneous, as an argument for inerrancy.
But there is a related observation (not argument so much) that I think very vital and important and valid in this regard, and Mohler’s observation is getting at that. I don’t think it can logically be used to argue (not directly, at least) for inerrancy, but I think it nonetheless a very fair and accurate observation, one which clarifies the logical options.
That being, either God has communicated some truths about him from the “teacher’s manual” (to borrow Dr. Enns’ language), or we simply know very little about him and his doings. If everything in Scripture is essentially and solely human impressions, experiences, feelings, and thoughts about God, thus open to our sifting and selection based on human criteria - And if Scripture is not also God’s communication about himself in some inerrant form or fashion, then we simply can’t know many things about him.
Is God a trinity? Was he incarnate in Christ? is God loving? Does he forgive sin? Is sin even a thing? I recall Dr. Enns saying somewhere that he can in good conscience recite the Apostle’s creed in good faith. This I also think erroneous. There are certain doctrines contained therein that require some kind of inerrant revelation. Jesus Christ is the only son of God? Does he believe that because, (“ahem”), “The Bible Tells Him So”? Because that is a truth that was communicated from beyond the veil, from an inerrant source?
Or the fact that “…he is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.” This is not something we can know by empirical evidence, scientific examination, forensic or historical study, religious experiences, or anything else. If this “fact” is true, that Christ will actually, in fact, come again and will pass some kind of judgment on both living and dead, this is a fact that had to come from the “teacher’s edition” if it has any meaning at all.
Same I could outline regarding “the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.” These are things we can’t know apart from divine and true revelation of these facts.
Either these are truths that God revealed, thus they are true, absolutely true, non-erroneous, correct, factual, and “inerrantly” true… or they are a complete fabrication of human imagination. I see no logical alternative, it is either one or the other.
Those are two horns of a logical dilemma, and you can’t embrace both: Either Dr. Enns needs to acknowledge that at least some truths have “dropped out of the sky” from a proverbial teacher’s manual and been communicated to us (including the incarnation of God himself in the person of Christ, the final judgment, resurrection of the dead, etc., etc.), or he needs to reject significant parts of the Apostle’s creed as the fanciful imaginings of ancient religious adherents that are simply not based on reality in any sense.
Now, I still maintain and reject Dr. Mohler’s approach, which as I read it, seems to argue for inerrancy on this basis. It sure sounds to me like he is saying, in effect, “We need to continue to believe in the incarnation and final judgment, etc… therefore, inerrancy must be true.” This direct argument I would maintain and continue to maintain is completely logically backwards, and question begging, thus erroneous and fallacious.
But I still think it a very important observation to clarify the options involved. One simply can’t reject the basic concept of inerrant revelation in some form or fashion, and then continue to embrace traditional doctrines of the faith that do in fact require inerrant revelation for us to hold them. This is equally erroneous and fallacious.
So all that to say, I would use the observation that once inerrant revelation falls, many, many, many traditional doctrines of the faith fall, to make sure people understand the issues involved and clearly understand the choice they are making. In my many discussions with people, both live and electronic, I think many people think they can embrace the basic position of Dr. Enns as it comes to Scripture, and yet maintain belief in a loving God, one who will resurrect them to eternal life, eternal life in heaven, forgiveness of sin, the deity of Christ, etc. But it simply doesn’t work that way. You have to choose one package or the other.
I recall my absolutely favorite episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, when a Romulan Defector was somewhat hedging the consequences of his defection, saying, “I cannot betray my people.” and Captain Picard told him flat out: “You’ve already betrayed your people, Admiral. You’re made your choices, sir. You’re a traitor. Now, if the bitter taste of that is unpalatable to you, I am truly sorry. But I am not going to risk my ship and crew because you think you can dance on the edge of the neutral zone. You’ve crossed over, Admiral. You make yourself comfortable with that.”
That is the same sentiment I would want to (kindly) express to Dr. Enns and others of that approach - it seems to me they want to reject any inerrant revelation, and maintain Scripture is solely the result of human invention - yet then maintain belief in various doctrines that absolutely require inerrant revelation from God. But once you choose to “cross over” to reject any inerrant revelation, then you have to embrace all the logical consequences of that belief, and thus reject many, many traditional Christian doctrines.
Now, that dilemma being laid out, being clear that it can only be one or the other, is the foundation for part of my philosophical reasons for believing in inerrancy. But that I’ll save for another post. But it basically follows the Sherlockian maxim of, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
2 Likes
I think you are a very good spokesman for your position, Mr. Fisher, and I look forward to reading Randy’s reply as I think he too feels the tension you describe so well. Admittedly I don’t know from direct experience, but I would think there is room in the middle to hold on to belief in a loving God whom one hopes will be and do what one reads the Bible as saying. It just seems more fitting to admit no one knows the mind of God with certainty. The Bible informs what Christians hope for but it can’t realistically be thought of as a contract. After all, to whom could one turn to press their grievance if the conditions one interprets as being stipulated in it aren’t met?
3 Likes
I am very interested and open to the idea that there is a middle position, but I simply can’t see it logically. I would grant of course a certain “middle ground” or gray area that you hint at - that being that of course we don’t know God’s mind in detail, exhaustively, or in any such manner as we can claim some kind of certitude one way or the other. There is plenty of room for mystery, uncertainty, and thus humility in things that we don’t know.
For instance, I personally am open to discussing the idea that “inerrant revelation” exists but ought not be identified with Scripture. For instance, there is a position that suggests that Christ’s words alone should be embraced as inerrant. While fully human and limited as such, nonetheless, his divine nature gave him access to knowledge “beyond the veil,” and this in conjunction with his sinlessness and perfection would ensure he would never say anything erroneous that he was not certain, via access to such divine knowledge, was absolutely true. This position, while I don’t hold it, I would find logically consistent - and those doctrines and beliefs that Jesus demonstrated and taught about resurrection and eternal life and God’s love could thus be embraced and believed wholeheartedly as revealed truths… the gospels, while not inerrant themselves, are reliable enough witnesses of his words that such revealed truths could be so transmitted. I don’t agree with this position for various reasons (not least of which Christ’s apparent endorsement of Scripture as also revealing absolute truth), but I don’t have a logical objection against it.
That said, I find very few people that hold even this view - even Christ was a product of his time, his beliefs and what he taught were the product of his culture, he was mistaken about various things, etc. I personally wonder if this is so because even limiting inerrancy to Christ’s words doesn’t “get God off the hook” of the things people are wanting to excise out of their faith. I appreciate C. S. Lewis’ observation about hell: “There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this, if it lay in my power. But it has the full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord’s own words.”
So, it makes me suspect at least the possibility that at least some people reject the doctrine of inerrancy in toto, whether of Christ or of Scripture, in order to justify excising certain doctrines or problems from the faith. I suspect this because, if it were simply a problem with embracing Scriptural inerrancy, a very obvious alternative belief, that doesn’t have the problems I outlined above, would be to embrace Dominical inerrancy (Jesus word’s alone are inerrant)… the idea that the Lord Jesus was inerrant in all he said. But then one is still left with all the same repugnant doctrines - a God who is retributive, who will punish, etc.
Thus, it seems to me at least, that at least some people appear ready to reject any inerrancy in Christian doctrine, as this gives us the apparent freedom to discard any repugnant doctrines from the faith. The problem still remains, though, that this process ends up discarding practically all doctrines from the faith, not simply the ones we initially wanted to reject as repulsive - it ends up discarding all the beautiful doctrines we wanted to keep, about God’s kindness, longsuffering, love, mercy, forgiveness, patience, empathy, promise of resurrection and eternal life, etc. By cutting off any and all inerrant revelation, we have successfully sawn off the branch containing those repulsive doctrines of judgment and wrath and retribution, not realizing that the same branch was also holding the other fruit we wanted to keep.
But to your original observation, I agree in the grand scope there is plenty of gray area and things we don’t know that we must be humble about. But once we get down to the level of any particular religious belief, I can’t see any logical alternative - any particular religious belief about something that we can’t know (because we humans have no direct access to such knowledge) is either absolutely true because God in some form or fashion revealed it, or it is sheer and utter speculative invention on our part.
(I should mention… Technically, there is a 3rd logical alternative, that being that God has spoken to us, but is lying. There will be no resurrection from the dead, and Jesus with divine knowledge knew that was the case with absolute certainty, but he told us a falsehood for some reason. The consequence of this option is essentially identical to the 2nd - we are left with no idea what is or isn’t true religiously. This option I reject for all sorts of other reasons, but I would acknowledge that it is, technically, a logical alternative. But I doubt we need to pursue that option here!)
1 Like
I appreciate your honesty and analytic ability. As you probably know I do accept that
In addition to all that science can reveal about the empirical world there is also unresolvable mystery. I can live with that. Actually, I kind of like that. Also the heart can know things which the mind cannot prove.
1 Like
Appreciated - while I obviously do not agree, I find that a logically consistent position, in general - it is perfectly appropriate to acknowledge one’s lack of knowledge on a subject.
My only concern or objection would be is if one were to maintain agnosticism in the face of evidence or opportunities for knowledge that could lead to such religious knowledge, or to claim certainty that we have no access to such knowledge. It is one thing for a person in 1491 to claim ignorance (geographic agnosticism?) about whether there were a continent across the ocean west of Europe. In 1499, however, if someone was maintaining such agnosticism, they would be doing so in spite of increasingly sufficient evidence.
In other words, if you don’t mind me asking… do you know (with certainty?) that God or ultimate reality outside of our physical/empiric world is unknowable?
It seems like you are conflating inerrancy and inspiration. Plenty of people who can’t affirm inerrancy (I think Enns is one of them) still affirm that the Bible is inspired and that it is divine self revelation. You don’t need inerrancy to affirm those things, you just need to believe God is, in some way, the source of truth in Scripture. I don’t believe Boyd or Enns would ever say anything close to “The Bible is just a human account of experiences people thought were with God.” Yes, of course there are truths revealed in the Bible that we can only know from reading the Bible. It is revelation. No one is saying it isn’t divine revelation. But divine revelation is not the same thing as inerrant.
I think this is a patently wrong characterization of what they actually say.
3 Likes
I’m still struggling to understand which two packages of beliefs you are contrasting. Is it a choice between viewing the Bible as fully inerrant or fully errant? Sometimes this seems to be the case, as if rejecting inerrancy necessitates that every statement in the Bible is false. But other times, the choice seems to be between accepting that there are at least some inerrant truths in the Bible or not accepting this. This choice lends itself more easily to a dichotomy, but it results in Pete Enns and you on the same side, so I doubt it’s what you intend.
Perhaps this only looks like inconsistency to me because I haven’t understood why, to you, a fully inerrant Bible and a Bible containing a few inerrant truth claims among plenty of other material is pretty much the same thing. Likewise, you seem to view rejecting inerrancy as akin to saying there is no revelation from God and so there is nothing in the Bible we can trust as being true.
I can see how this would make sense given one more assumption: the Bible is the only way God has spoken. If this is the case, then either the Bible contains inerrant revelation (to some degree) or we are left with nothing. So all those who reject inerrancy, even in a diluted form, seem to be left with nothing.
If this is the case, let me assure you that rejecting inerrancy does not mean rejecting that God has spoken. I believe God spoke most clearly in Jesus, but also spoke to many others before and after. The Bible is the church’s collection, canonized through God’s delegated authority, that conveys that revelation.** Even if the Bible only contains fully human accounts of how people experienced God (a slightly different perspective than my own), it provides human accounts of divine revelation. If a fully human process of relaying that revelation renders it nonexistent, we’re in trouble, since the processes of textual transmission, translation and interpretation are also fully human (even accepting that God’s Spirit is providentially at work through them).
I know you also believe that God really spoke in ways that go beyond the inspiration of Scripture. But perhaps, in the desire to form a dichotomy that makes inerrancy essential, you neglected that Christians on the other side also believe this?
** No, I’m not assuming the church’s infallibility, but I see wisdom and God’s leading in the process of canonization, even if there is some blurriness at the edges (such as slightly different canons in some portions of the church). I think the move to the church’s infallibility and the Bible’s inerrancy were parallel reactions to modernism and its deification of empirical, scientific truth, both unhelpful.
1 Like
Christy, I’d never intentionally mischaracterize. Having never read Boyd, I could not comment. Having read Dr. Enns extensively, however, I truly think I am being quite fair and accurate in my understanding and characterization. For instance…
words like “inspiration” and “revelation.”… "However we define these terms, the Bible is not something dropped out of the sky. Rather these writings unambiguously reflect the various cultural moments of the writers. The Bible speaks the “language” of ancient people grappling with things in ancient ways… The incarnation leaves no room whatsoever for the idea that Jesus in any way kept his distance from participating in that particular humanity. That means, among other things, that Jesus was limited in knowledge along with everyone else at the time… that may sound irreverent or offensive, but it is an implication of the incarnation . Jesus wasn’t an omniscient being giving the final word on the size of mustard seeds, mental illness, or cosmic and biological evolution. He was a 1st century Jew and he therefore thought like one.
It is one thing to concur that Jesus was limited in knowledge - another to affirm he was just as limited as any other first century Jew. I can only presume that a first century Jew thinking like one could similarly not give the “final word” on our final resurrection or eternal life. Everything I’ve ever heard Dr. Enns say or communicate says essentially this - neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor anyone else in the Bible was giving any kind of revealed truth that can in any sense be an absolute or final truth. I would never intentionally mischaracterize, so everything I’ve said about Dr. Enns is precisely what I understand him to have said and meant having read him extensively.
But I have not read his entire corpus, and it is impossible for me to prove a negative, so I cannot prove that he has never affirmed anything like “there are truths revealed in the Bible that we can only know from reading the Bible.”
So I stand to be corrected - if you or anyone can point me to a place where Dr. Enns affirms the revealed nature of any particular such religious truth (that there is some truth that came in some sense from a “teacher’s manual” of sorts), I will certainly take back my characterization.