Subscribe via reader
Subscribe via Email
Follow via Twitter
The Issue(s) Concerning WTS & Enns
March 29th, 2008 by James GrantThe question has come up in the comments section and via email concerning the problems with Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation. There are several links that you can read if you are interested:
- Justin Taylor’s Links [Enns vs. Beale, Carson, & Helm]
- Brandon Withrow’s Links [very comprehensive]
Of course it will take some time to follow the links and read the articles. For a short read, I suggest this post by Doug Wilson: “The Problem of the Old Testament.”
In the book, Enns examines the issues in the Bible that create problems for evangelicals in regard to the relationship between the Bible being the Word of God and yet written by men: inspired redaction, Ancient Near Eastern influences, ancient texts from nearby cultures (that are often similar to Old Testament narratives like the creation account and the flood), and the diversity of voices in the Old Testament that often border on inconsistencies. He also examines the New Testament use of the Old Testament and deals with the difficulty of using the grammatical-historical method.
To solve some of these problems, Enns basically proposes an incarnational model of inspiration. By doing this, he is trying to understand the way Scripture is both the Word of God and the Words of Men in the same way that Christ is fully God and fully man. Many evangelicals have argued that Enns does a great job of asking good and hard questions, but his answers are putting him beyond an evangelical doctrine of inerrancy.
Indeed, that is the heart of the debate: the definition of an evangelical doctrine of inerrancy and how it is different from the critical view of Scripture. In this interview about the book, Enns answers a question about how he has been helped by the critiques of his book. This is the last part of his answer:
Another area where the criticism has been helpful is in helping me articulate more clearly in my own mind where the divide might be among evangelicals, and I think it may have to do with the role historical study plays in how we think about Scripture, or perhaps to what extent historical context will contribute to doctrinal formulations that were made before the serious influx of historical information over the past 150 years or so. That is an exceedingly complex matter to untangle, in my opinion, but it is a task waiting to be done.
This is indeed at the heart of the controversy. At what point is the divide among evangelicals concerning Scripture and inspiration. How far can an evangelical go before you are not longer an evangelical in regard to the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. The board of Westminster Seminary believes that Enns has gone beyond that line. On the other hand, some have pointed out that Enns is within a tradition that has developed at Westminster Seminary since the time of Raymond Dillard [the incarnational model is adopted from Dillard], and WTS is only now taking action to deal with it. In his post “Can Westminster Seminary Put the Genie Back in the Bottle,” D. G. Hart also points out that Enns is only part of the broad range of issues that WTS should deal with in its current state in order to “bring it back to the original balance of biblical theology, Reformed orthodoxy, and committed Presbyterianism.” So this issue has several levels to it.
Posted in Reformed Theology | 8 Comments »
March 29th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
The only way I could see an expulsion of Enns being a positive thing for the evangelical camp would be if they are able to answer the questions he poses better than his model does. Thus affirming their evangelical doctrine of innerrancy. Any expulsion while ignoring his comments is much like being silenced, not open inquiry as becoming an academic institution. I say this not be an evangelical, nor holding to innerrancy.
March 29th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Many evangelicals would argue that they have answered these questions.
March 29th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Then how can Enns, himself claiming evangelicalism, feel the answers are not enough to fill the holes of the questions? I mean, that is the impetus of his book is it not?
March 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
On the basis of his incarnational model of Scripture, Enns seems to be comfortable leaving some of his answers in a sort of “messiness.”
But the bigger question is the nature of evangelicalism and Scripture today. The doctrine of inerrancy is on the table in the evangelical world, and so some people are not sure where to draw the line.
However, I will say again, that the question of inerrancy in evangelicalism would be one thing. The question of what constitutes a doctrine of Scripture in a Reformed and confessional institution would be considered something else by many people. In that case, Reformed scholars would argue that previous generations [like Warfield, Vos, W. H. Green, Young, Kline, etc.] have already answered the questions that Enns raises.
March 29th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
JohnO,
Do you think this is the first time someone has raised the types of questions Enns has raised?
But that’s not necessarily what is so problematic about his book. It’s that he has a very wrong idea – or, at least, lop-sided – of what an incarnational Bible should look like. If his view of Scripture was analogous to his view of Christ, I’d say he was an Arian.
Mark
March 29th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Mark,
I’ve not read it, have you? The ad hominem by analogy is not helpful. And of course many have brought it up in the past. The fact that people keep bringing it up seems to suggest that something remains unanswered.
JHG,
Westminster seems to say the doctrine of inerrancy is not on the table whatsoever. At least the statement of suspension seems to state that. Certainly the Chicago Statement holds inerrancy.
March 29th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
JohnO:
I’m cannot carry on the discussion since you haven’t read the book and do not know what I am talking about concerning the contemporary discussions regarding inerrancy. It’s one thing to ask questions for clarification, but it’s another to engage something that you are not familiar with. I really don’t have the time to explain it to you anymore than the links and information that has already been provided.
The same goes for your comment about Mark. If you had read the book and understood what Enns was saying about the incarnational model and its relation to Scripture, you would understand the point Mark is making regarding Arianism.
It would take too much for me to explain right now the issues taking place within evangelicalism over the doctrine of Scripture. There are dissertations on this topic. I can, however, suggest an article:
Richard L. Schultz, “How Many Isaiahs Were There and What Does It Matter?: Prophetic Inspiration in Recent Evangelical Scholarship” in Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, edited by V. Bacote, L.C. Miguélez, & D.L. Okholm (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), pp.150-170.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
JohnO,
I would echo James’ comment. Read Enns and then read two reviews, one favorable one unfavorable. Of the unfavorable ones, try Carson.
And Westminster did hold to innerancy as well as infallibility, they just didn’t use the exact term.