Take a Moment...

Questions for our pro-abortion friends, church leaders, and politicians...

Where did the New Calvinism come from?

Does ignorance drive both science and theology?

Evolution: What about God?

Who cares about conferences?!

Peter, Paul, and Inspiration

Peter Enns has a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations from Harvard University, has taught at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) for 14 years, was a Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation, and is currently on faculty at Eastern University teaching courses in Old and New Testaments.

In other words, Enns is no slouch. In fact, I have appreciated the limited interaction I have had with him. He is cordial and helpful, as well as intellectually honest (which has left me asking many questions). To be sure, the depth and intensity of these recent questions have been rivaled only by my introduction to Calvinism many years ago, and my (sort of) recent interactions with hell (if so inclined, you can also read my review of Rob Bell’s Love Wins).

Part of the recent din surrounding Enns is the discussion over the historicity of Adam. This discussion has undoubtedly held a prominent place within the blogosphere over the last few months (not least by Enns, Scot McKnight, and Kevin DeYoung). And yet, amongst these various discussions, I have not yet read anything on the doctrine of inspiration as it relates to Pauline and Adamic studies (which I know could simply be my own oversight).

What might be most helpful is to define inspiration:

By inspiration of Scripture we mean that supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit on the Scripture writers which rendered their writings an accurate record of the revelation or which resulted in what they wrote actually being the Word of God.[1]

And, of course, inspiration is a consequent of revelation:

God created thoughts in the mind of the writer as he wrote.[2]

Therefore:

While revelation is the communication of truth from God to humans, inspiration relates more to the relaying of that truth from the first recipient(s) of it to other persons, whether then or later. Thus, revelation might be thought of as a vertical action, and inspiration as a horizontal matter.[3]

And, herein lies a critical question: If we believe Paul’s writings were inspired (2 Tim 3:10), that they were supernaturally influenced, are we not attributing error to God if we attribute error to Paul? This question stems from Enns’s assertion in The Evolution of Adam that Paul’s assumptions about human origins might not necessarily display a unique level of scientific accuracy (95). Simply put, if Enns thinks Paul was wrong about the historicity of Adam, is this not also an affirmation that man’s error can supplant God’s sovereignty in revelation and inspiration?[4]

It seems that this is where Enns is headed. In his writings on inspiration, a major theme is accounting for the incarnational aspect(s) of inspiration (i.e., the human-ness of the authors). Accounting for the human element is necessary (God is not a puppet-master), and yet, I feel a sense of unease focusing too much on the humanity of scripture (although we must understand that the text was written in a specific historical and cultural context). For instance, it seems most appropriate to affirm that God himself took on human form rather than a man becoming divine.

Paul Helm puts it nicely:

[I]f the account of his deity is controlled by data about his humanity – including his physical and mental growth, his bodily weakness, his ignorance, his emotional life – the result may be a Christ who is very different from a Christ whose divine nature is given priority.[5]

This is also, at least for me, the appropriate interpretive process for the Bible; namely, the Bible is breathed by God and authored my humans. Bruce Waltke, in his review of Enns’s Inspiration and Incarnation, states, “To be sure, the Scripture is fully human, but it is just as fully the Word of God, with whom there is no shadow of turning and who will not lie to or mislead his elect”.[6]

So, what are we to think?

Is Paul wrong?

Is Enns Wrong?

What do we have the right to conclude about the nature of revelation and inspiration?

How should revelation and inspiration affect our interpretive process?

These are some of the questions I am currently working through…

---

[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 225.

[2] Ibid., 213.

[3] Ibid., 225-226.

[4] Enns has appropriately pointed out that this syllogism only works if the above definition of inspiration is affirmed. But, converesely, Enns’s affirmation that God’s purposes in revelation and inspiration will not be supplanted by the human element is only true if we accept his definition of inspiration. 

[5] http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2008/01/analysis-extra-inspiration-and.html

[6] Bruce K. Waltke, “Revisiting Inspiration and Incarnation,” The Westminster Theological Journal 71, no. 1 (2009): 94.

Take a Moment...

Wanting God to exist is more important than believing in God

Some reflections on Enns and the Evolution of Adam

What I learned at seminary

Are the best Paul scholars today mostly non-Calvinist?

What is Christian music? Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, and Part Five

Take a Moment...

The Power of Complements and Egalitarians

Does Christianity have a masculine feel?

God desires all to be saved, and grants repentance to some

If you're selling scorn for conservative Christianity, the market is hot!

A survey of views on the historicity of Adam and Eve

Take a Moment...

Why is war so easy for American Christians?

A long (13 parts), but still worthy set of posts to read about the continued Adam, Eve, and Evolution discussion: Evolving Evangelicalism (I am simply supplying the first part - it's on you to find and read the rest!!)

Can homosexuals be Christians?

A short essay on Hell by Richard Bauckham...

New (and FREE) issue of Credo Magazine...

Take a Moment...

As a Chaplain, Must I Always Publicly Pray in Jesus's Name?

How to Smartly Engage with the Young Doubters in Your Midst

What Biblical Scholars Do...

Could Jesus Have Sinned?

Should Christians Believe in Evolution?

Take a Moment...

Stop Telling People to "Be Jesus to People"...

"Losing Salvation" in Hebrews...

Abraham and Israel for Normal People...

John Walton and Tremper Longman on Genesis 1-2...

Are Porn Sites or Religious Sites Worse for Web-Users?

Take a Moment...

N. T. Wright talks about some important stuff...

3 Types of Christian Scholarship...

Is the Megachurch the New Liberalism?

Scot McKnight begins interacting with Matt Chandler's "The Explicit Gospel"...

Why Fiction is Good For You...

A review of Peter Enns' "The Evolution of Adam"...

Questions about contextualization...

Evangelical resistance to the Gospels...

Jonathan Edwards, the Holy Spirit, and Evolution: Part One and Part Two

A biblically positive view of women...

Take a Moment...

What's Wrong with Theistic Evolution?

Ben Witherington on Homosexuality and Scripture...

Three Questions to Ask Before you Post Something on Facebook...

Is Theology the Queen of the Sciences?

God is Not a Genie in a Bottle...

Questions

Do Adam and Eve have to be historical figures?

What are the theological implications if they are, in fact, not historical?

Take a Moment...

A Guide for Staying Christian in Seminary...

Making the Gospel Explicit: An Interview with Matt Chandler...

I think we have a different God...

The Gospel of the Gospel Coalition...

Porn Stars, Prostitutes, and the Scandalous Grace of God...

Did Paul Get Adam Wrong?

I appreciate both the biblical acumen and practical ministries represented by those within The Gospel Coalition. They are men I respect and often look to for biblical/theological insight. Recently, though, I have begun to see the importance for my own spiritual journey in not simply re-affirming the declarations of TGC (or other people/organizations I normally agree with), but, rather, completing the appropriate due diligence on the issue-at-hand.

A few weeks ago, I began a series on thinking through the historicity of Adam. On a much more popular level, this was followed up by Kevin DeYoung, as well as responses from James McGrath and Pete Enns (amongst many others).

After reading (and re-reading) their posts, I wanted to offer a few ruminations.

To begin, we ought to be cautious when declaring that those “others” are either not E/evangelicals or that they are trying to destroy what the Bible is teaching. Admittedly, I am not far-off from having done this (e.g. see my review of Rob Bell’s book); however, I have eased a bit since then by attempting to build bridges, rather than walls. In other words, although I might stridently disagree with someone over a specific issue, my conviction is that Christ will not be honored and people will not be satisfied with snarky, arrogant attitudes. I am, however inadequately, trying to do my part in building bridges.

Moving on…

I do not think that denying the historicity of Adam is necessarily a capitulation to evolution (theistic or otherwise). God, in his divine majesty and incomprehensibility, could have determined to historically create our founding father and mother as well as prescribe for the Genesis account to be written a specific way. In other words, I am not yet comfortable affirming evolution (theistic or otherwise) primarily out of ignorance to the scientific data (or lack thereof).

With that being said, I think that both McGrath and Enns, in their respective responses to DeYoung, are correct in stating that narrative does not necessarily equate with history (although it can be historical at times), and that poetry does not always have to be non-historical in nature. We cannot simply affirm the historicity of any ancient document because it is in narrative form. We must allow other factors to contribute to, and perhaps determine, our affirmations about historicity.

This is also why DeYoung’s quotation of Keller irks me. He quotes Keller as stating that, “When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of biblical authority…” But this is most certainly an interpretative difficulty, wholly dependent on whether one believes that the author clearly wants the reader to understand the specific text in question as literal. For me, it seems most appropriate to suspend judgment on the literary genre of Genesis (in particular), being that I have not had sufficient time to study it on my own, nor do we have anything less than a “hung jury” on this matter of genre interpretation.

To be sure, though, Enns is not allowed to get away free and clear. It appears that Enns’ affirmation consists of viewing the Bible through a scientific lens, rather than viewing science through a biblical lens, or, perhaps, attempting to permit both science and the Bible to run as parallels. Now, as stated in my previous post, I am by no means a scientist, nor, at this point, even in the same realm of Old Testament scholarship as Enns. With that said, I am not yet comfortable affirming a scientific view of the Bible contra to a biblical view of science.

Enns, along with another dear friend who has been helping me think through this issue, seems to think that Paul misunderstood the historicity of Adam based on his scientific ignorance and possible misinterpretation of the Creation story. This, from their perspective, is what leads Paul to provide the following argument in Romans:

Paul expects to face the following argument from the Judaizers in Rome:

If the Jews received the Law/circumcision from God, then they are righteous/justified before God.

They did receive the Law/circumcision.

Therefore, they are righteous/justified before God.

Which also provides the following corollary:

If the Gentiles did not receive the Law/circumcision from God, then they are not righteous/justified before God.

They did not receive the Law/circumcision.

Therefore, they are are not righteous/justified before God.

Paul’s response to them is as such:

If Adam is the father of all, then Jews are equal to Gentiles before God.

Adam is the father of all.

Therefore, Jews and Gentiles are equal before God.

Now, if Paul did misinterpret the Creation story, we could still make an argument for the inclusion of Gentiles (i.e. the scope of salvation) based on the authority of Christ and Old Testament prophetic literature, but should we assume that Paul got it wrong?

Could Paul have had a better understanding of the genre and intent of Genesis than we do?

Should we take a scientific view of Scripture, or should we take a biblical view of science?

Can they run as parallels?

What do you think?

Take a Moment...

Much discussion surrounding Piper's recent message (note - I love John Piper; he's been a "game-changer" for me; but he still can make mistakes...): Rachel Held Evans, Tim Gombis, Michael J. Kimpan, Michael F. Bird, and J. R. Daniel Kirk - Part 1 and Part 2.

Kevin DeYoung offers 10 Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam; James McGrath responds...

Know your enemy...

Win the man, not the argument...

Truth...

Take a Moment...

A few concerning posts surrounding Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3...

The blog tour for Pete Enns' The Evolution of Adam has begun...

Numbers in the Church: Is Bigger Badder or Better?

The Humanity of Christ Matters...

Adam: Actual or Allegory?

It has been almost 10 years…

I remember the summer after I turned 20 when I was first challenged with a new theological perspective: Calvinism.

Up to that point I had not heard much, if anything, about Calvinism, but I remember being simply blown away by the idea of God’s electing love, efficacious call, etc.

Since that summer I have not been simply blown away like that by another biblical/theological topic…until now.

This new (well, perhaps new for me) concept has given me reasons for pause.

My reasons for pause are twofold:

The first reason is somewhat similar to my recent attempt to precisely outline my theology of hell based on the controversy surrounding Rob Bell’s most recent book, Love Wins – you can read my review here. My hope is that throughout this process I might be able to precisely outline what I believe and, perhaps more importantly, why I affirm said belief. In other words, whether a critique has been issued from a differing perspective or I am attempting to provide some insight to those within the same perspective, my desire is to be able to provide a clear, intelligent, and biblical argument for my affirmation(s).

The second reason is fairly dissimilar to my recent attempt to precisely outline my theology of hell. Throughout that recent process, I felt comfortable with where I thought I would end up, namely that upon completion of my studies I would remain “where I began” but with a bit more acumen. However, this time, I feel much less comfortable with where I think I will end up. My concern is that I will not end up “where I began.” I am also concerned about the implications of such an affirmation (i.e. How will this affect my theology? What will people think about me? Will I be ostracized from the conservative evangelical “family” because of my viewpoint?).

The above two reasons should clearly demonstrate why this issue is so important for me to think through.

Now, to the issue…

Painting broadly, the issue revolves around a few questions:

Is the Genesis account actually about human origins?

Could it possibly be about something else?

Something bigger?

Something more meaningful?

These are questions that need answers.

I recently posted a similar question as my Facebook status and received several challenges. I think what might be best, at least for me, is to address two of those challenges and demonstrate why, at least for me, they hold little weight within this discussion.

One challenge was posited as such: “[H]ow does one truly know which stories actually happened and which are just narratives? One could use this then to say that the story of Christ is just a narrative.”

I think we can nullify this challenge for three reasons:

1. We need to be sensitive to genre-specific criticism, wherein we are charged with elucidating the text in its appropriate grammatico-historical context
2. “To think that the Israelites, alone among all other ancient peoples, were interested in (or capable of) giving some definitive, quasi-scientific, account of human origins is an absurd logic.” (Pete Enns)
3. The secular accounts of Jesus’ existence (Celsus, Lucian of Samosata, Josephus, Babylonian Talmud, etc.)

A similar comment was made and ended with a declaration that we need to submit to the authority of the Bible. Let it be known: I affirm the authority of the Bible! And yet, I do not think it is that easy. Affirming the authority of the Bible is empty without a proper understanding of the text (i.e. what did the text mean then, before what does the text mean today). More often than not, Christians seek to affirm various texts as authoritative without having first completed their exegetical due diligence. Therefore, it is not enough to simply declare that we must affirm and submit to the authority of the Bible, as this affirmation and submission to authority can be harmful (if not damning) based on our understanding of the texts we declare are authoritative.

A few questions I will be pondering throughout this process:

What was the purpose behind the Genesis account? Was it a declaration of human origins? Was it a declaration of something else? Was it both?

In light of Enns’ statement above, what if God in his wisdom, majesty, and sovereignty determined to reveal (at least in small part) the origin of the universe (and humanity) through his “special” book to his “special” people?

How does theistic evolution, or Adam as metaphor, figure into a Pauline understanding of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15?

As I continue my deliberatoin, my goal is to read several books (I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution, The Evolution of Adam, and Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?) and follow several blogs (Pete Enns, Karl Giberson, and The BioLogos Forum).

I encourage you to engage the issue(s)!

Lastly, please note that in no way am I claiming that I have this issue figured out...

In no way am I claiming any type of scientific or biblical/theological expertise on the matter...

My attempt is to wade through the mire that this issue presents (just as any Christian ought to!). And I do so with great trepidation...

Also, please know that I am open to, and, perhaps, expecting, your comments on this issue (regardless if they are affirmative or critical). Both types of comments should help me and those reading this blog as we collectively think through this issue.

May we have wisdom as we investigate.

Take a Moment...

5 Questions for Pro-Life Advocates...

The Evolution of Adam - Video Interview #1...

5 Myths about Anti-Christian Persecution...

iPad 3 on sale in March...

Why I do not teach Christian living principles...

Take a Moment...

Why does Jesus keep telling everyone to keep quiet about him? (Didn't he grow up singing "Be A Missionary Every Day" in his synagogue?)

A few worthwhile reviews of the Driscoll's newest book "Real Marriage": TGC, Tim Challies, Denny Burk

Why New Year's resolutions don't work...

A New Year's note to self...

Intelligent Design is Dead: A Christian Perspective...