Reed DePace has a thoughtful post at Greenbaggins on the inerrancy debate to which Pete Enns was a catalyst. His point is that the defenders of Enns are incoherent. The reason is the following syllogism to which Enns’ defenders resort:
1. The Bible contains non-incidental errors.
2. The Bible itself is inerrant.
3. This is not a contradiction.
DePace goes on to worry about the effects of such an incoherent argument on the church:
If I find your arguments incoherent, what do you think the average layperson hears when they read what you’ve written? One of you recently actually said, in the same paragraph, the Bible has errors, and the Bible is inerrant. (A fair paraphrase.) The context of those statements did not remove the onus present in this summary.
Brothers, assume for a second your position is right, and it will be a blessing to the Church in the future. Does not the significance of the subject (the only rule for faith and practice, THE source of spiritual food for the people of God) necessitate more care and caution on your parts?
Not to take away from DePace’ s legitimate point and concern, I wonder if the problem has less to do with incoherence than it does with sentimentality — namely, attaching more sentiment to an object of affection than is fitting. In this case, it would be clinging to a high view of Scripture even though it has all the earmarks of other books from the ancient near east.Â
Actually, what passes for sentimentality here was for J. Gresham Machen an instance of mysticism, and he believed that it fueled much of liberal Protestant piety and its unwillingness to abandon the religion of the Bible.  In What is Faith? Machen wrote:
Mysticism unquestionably is the natural result of the anti-intellectual tendency which now prevails; for mysticism is the consistent exaltation of experience at the expense of thought. . . . In particular, those who discard theology in the interests of experience are inclined to make use of a personal way of talking and thinking about God to which they have no right. . . . All personal communion seems to be a simple thing: yet it is in reality very complex. My friendship for a human friend, for example, depends upon years of observation of my friend’s actions. So it is exactly in the case of the communion of the Christian with his God. The Christian says: “Lord, thou knowest that we are on the same old terms.” It seems very simple and very untheological. But in reality it depends upon the whole rich content of God’s revelation of Himself in the salvation which He has provided through His Son. . . . The experience of the real mystic, then, as distinguished from that experience of direct contact with God in the depths of the soul which is popularly called mysticism — the latter being of course a part of all vital religion — is not Christian experience; for Christian experience is a thoroughly personal thing; the Christian holds fellowship with a Person whom he knows.
Which raises the question — do the advocates of a messy Bible really know and pray to a messy God? Or do they overcompensate for their understanding of the Bible with a piety grounded in a deity who reveals himself reliably and truthfully? If so, it would qualify as plundering the Israelites.
Old Life 
If the moves to castrate the Form of Subscription in the CRC are any measure, it would seem mysticism afflicts views of confessional forms as well. It’s funny to listen to old-timers wax nostalgic about learning the Catechism as children the way one remembers a beloved security blanket. (Maybe “funny†is the wrong word.)
The curious thing about sentimentally high views of either fallible (confessions) or infallible (Scripture) documents is that they really aren’t high views at all but merely high opinions. High views include high opinions, of course, but high opinions alone are finally intolerant of high views. Granted, it’s better than low opinions, as in “paper popes,†but not by much, as they say.
LikeLike
Sorry for being a bit confused, but whom are you targeting as sentimental? Enns et. al. or DePace? And when you say “it has all the earmarks of other books from the ancient near east,” is that a position you hold, or Enns holds, or both? And in what way would that claim conflict with a “high view of Scripture”?
Befuddled,
Andrew
LikeLike
Andrew, I think the short answer is “liberals” are sentimental in their affection for the Bible even while knocking it down several pegs as a human book. I agree with the Old Princeton doctrine of inerrancy.
LikeLike
I’m with Andrew. It is nigh impossible to untangle the ball of yarn that this post is. You’re reply to Andrew above doesn’t really help much.
LikeLike
Make that *your* reply. Usually that particular typo goes the other way…
LikeLike
How about this? “I wonder if the problem [of Enns’ advocates] has less to do with incoherence than it does with sentimentality — namely, attaching more sentiment to an object of affection than is fitting. In this case, it would be clinging to a high view of Scripture even though it has all the earmarks of other books from the ancient near east.”
LikeLike
>How about this? “I wonder if the problem [of Enns’ advocates] has less to do with incoherence than it does with sentimentality — namely, attaching more sentiment to an object of affection than is fitting. In this case, it would be clinging to a high view of Scripture even though it has all the earmarks of other books from the ancient near east.â€
Hm. Then I’d say the downgrade on Scripture among Reformed academics is even further down than I’d suspected. 1) Enns and his supporters, to use John Owen’s words, are nigh unto atheism in their view of Scripture. They hardly suffer from a too high view or too much sentimentality towards it. 2) You seem to be in their camp to some degree if you see Scripture as the same as “other books from the ancient near east” and if you consider this a reason to not have a high view of it.
LikeLike
Xian, everyone seems to be in their camp if they’re not in yours.
LikeLike
>Xian, everyone seems to be in their camp if they’re not in yours.
Did you know atheists intentionally write ‘Xian’ instead of Christian due to their disgust for the name Christian?
Anyway, I’m going by your own words.
LikeLike