Pete Enns introduces his forthcoming book:
If we come to the Bible expecting (as so many do) something like a spiritual owner’s manual complete with handy index, a step-by-step field guide to the life of faith, an absolutely sure answer-book to unlock the mystery of God and the meaning of life, we are setting up an expectation the Bible simply is not designed to handle.
The end product is a fragile, nervous faith. Faith like that produces stress, because it has to be tended and defended with 24/7 vigilance in order to survive—like a sickly baby robin in a shoebox. And even with constant tending, it still may not survive.
Is a life of faith in God truly supposed to be this stressful? Is this what God wants for us? I don’t think so. So let’s stop making it that way by setting the Bible up to be something it’s not prepared to be and then anxiously smoothing over the rough parts to make it fit false expectations. The cost is too high.
I’m all for avoiding the Bible as a how-to manual. Show me Jesus. But that makes the debates about inerrancy all the more poignant.
Enns still hasn’t figured out the stakes of inerrancy. If the Bible is wrong about somethings, it could be wrong about Christ? And if wrong about Christ, my faith is not merely nervous but as Paul says “vain.”
And Pete still hasn’t figured out the Reformed game face; he spent too many years thinking evangelicalism and Reformed Protestantism are the same. Reformed Presbyterians don’t believe in victorious Christian living because we are theo-political refugees during the last stages of a cosmic war.
[10] Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. [11] Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. [12] For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. [13] Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. [14] Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, [15] and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. [16] In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; [17] and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, [18] praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. (Ephesians 6:10-18 ESV)
Six days of work and waiting, one of rest in when we enjoy a foretaste of the rest to come.
Old Life 
Enns sounds pretty this-worldly as quoted by the DoR:
“According to the Gospels, the gospel is not about the afterlife, but what “kingdom” you belong to here and now. Jesus talks a lot about the “kingdom of heaven” (or “of God”), and this is commonly misunderstood as a kingdom “up there” somewhere. But read what Jesus says about the kingdom. It is about the rule of God on earth, with Jesus as king. “Kingdom of heaven” doesn’t mean “kingdom that is IN heaven” but “kingdom FROM heaven.” God’s reign, though King Jesus, is setting up shop here and now. The question Jesus asks the people is, “Do you want in or not?”
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/peter-enns-the-gospel-is-not-about-how-you-get-saved/
LikeLike
“The end product is a fragile, nervous faith. Faith like that produces stress, because it has to be tended and defended with 24/7 vigilance in order to survive—like a sickly baby robin in a shoebox. And even with constant tending, it still may not survive.”
For faith to survive all it has to be is better than the alternatives.
Professor Doubting Thomas notwithstanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Enns
LikeLike
Dunno. My faith has the Word of God his self behind it. That’s my Bible. So does he describe his faith as weak? Well, Romans 14 (read: God’s Word) has instructions for the stronger brother in relation to the weaker.
Point here, though, is you are right. You start saying the Bible has errors, you better be ready for the implications of such a view.
LikeLike
Hart– Reformed Presbyterians don’t believe in victorious Christian living because we are theo-political refugees during the last stages of a cosmic war.
Enns to Hart—don’t be such a Tonto— Christ has already come and the kingdom is just beginning now that we have NT Wright to tell us what Paul really meant.
LikeLike
CW, quoting Enns: ““According to the Gospels, the gospel is not about the afterlife, but what “kingdom” you belong to here and now. Jesus talks a lot about the “kingdom of heaven” ”
Is John no longer to be counted as a Gospel? N.T. Wright, who has no more enthusiastic fanboy than Enns, managed to write his most programmatic book, Jesus and the Victory of God, with barely a mention of John, much less its repeated promises of eternal life. This kind of s**t drives me bonkers.
LikeLike
But does it matter if anybody knows anything about that scholastic confessional stuff about the cross, if they keeps the commands anyway and thus “by their life” bring in the kingdom?
Does it really matter if anyone knows anything about the deity of Christ, just so long as they know that Christ’s way is the way to the kingdom and that God gives them the grace to do what God requires for that to happen?
Would it matter if we had not read one word or argument from NT Wright and were therefore still holding on to “Western Lutheran logic” about Christ’s work being “finished”?
LikeLike
MarkM: “Would it matter if we had not read one word or argument from NT Wright and were therefore still holding on to “Western Lutheran logic” about Christ’s work being “finished”?”
I have read a lot of Wright and I still hold to the Western Lutheran logic. Whenever he writes a new book, some of our younger members read it, and some of us old folks have to be the ones to say “yes, but…” His history is not as sound as he thinks it is ( the whole exile/return motif he hangs so much on is a textbook example of over egging the pudding, as the Brits would say) and his knowledge of what most of the theologians he denigrates actually say is shockingly superficial, to the point where I have reluctantly come to doubt that he is dealing with them in good faith.
I trust that your questions were rhetorical, and if so please excuse what is probably an over reaction on my part.
LikeLike
Dan, and what do you do with Paul — “to die is gain.”
LikeLike
DGH- “Dan, and what do you do with Paul — “to die is gain.””
I agree with it. Doesn’t seem very fashionable in most places, though. Is part of the problem that deep down these kingdom now types don’t really believe in eternity?
LikeLike
Great post Darryl. I remember reading the Evolution of Adam and being deeply troubled. I just didn’t have the OT or scientific apparatus to martial counter arguments, and like the Psalmist, my foot almost slipped. I think that Enns is correct to argue against the “owners manual” approach to Scripture, but, after wrestling with his arguments and a helpful conversation with OT scholar Peter Gentry, I realised that Enns’ cure is worse than the disease. The sad thing is, he had a rich confessional tradition upon which to draw, but instead took the direction of liberalism.
LikeLike
Erik,
Interesting. I might also add that the supernatural is an important element as well. In other words, without God’s constant help, I’ll not sustain against the blows of this life. It’s the One who did sustain that I look to, for without Him, let’s just say, the whole no hope without it riff, applies here.
To me, anyway. Machen was on to something with those words to Murray.
Together, we look to someone else for help, and are glad and thankful we have Him to look to.
LikeLike
His history is not as sound as he thinks it is ( the whole exile/return motif he hangs so much on is a textbook example of over egging the pudding, as the Brits would say) and his knowledge of what most of the theologians he denigrates actually say is shockingly superficial, to the point where I have reluctantly come to doubt that he is dealing with them in good faith.
mcmark—agreed. The lack of honesty about critics and the history of the reformation is evidence of Wright’s arrogance.
Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges (Paperback), Bruce McCormack, editor, (Baker, 2006) I recommend the book, especially the essay by the editor McCormack. The only truly bad essay in the volume is by NT Wright.
While avoiding the difficult questions (was Adam’s guilt imputed to us humans?), Wright caricatures his critics. Wright is comfortable discarding justification based only on Christ’s finished work because of his confidence in the Holy Spirit using the water of “the church” to make Christians.
I quote from Wrigh, p 260: “This declaration, this vindication, occurs twice. It occurs in the future, as we have seen, on the basis of the entire life a person has led in the power of the Spirit, that is, it occurs, on the basis of ‘works’ in Paul’s redefined sense. As the final justification will consist not in words so much as in an event, namely the resurrection of the person, so the present justification consists not so much in words but in an event, the event in which one dies with the Messiah and rises to new life with him. In other words, baptism. I was delighted to rediscover that not only Chrysostom and Augustine but also Luther would here have agreed with me.”
you see it—they agree with Wright, who is the standard by which we are to judge Luther and Augustine
LikeLike
In context, “to die is gain” is gain for whom? For Christ or for Paul himself?
We do not have to agree about the “intermediate state” (or purgatory) to agree that our hope is not in our current programs of kingdom-building but in Christ’s future second coming.
Psalm 110:1–”The Lord says to my Lord; Sit at my right hand, UNTIL I make your enemies your footstool.”
John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
Acts 3:15–”You killed the author of life, but God raised Him from the dead.”
I Corinthians 15: 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Ephesians 1:18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come
Hebrews 11: 39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.
LikeLike
MarkM:”you see it—they agree with Wright, who is the standard by which we are to judge Luther and Augustine”
Don’t want to hijack the thread, which started out about Enns, but what also gets me is that he confidently proclaims that if one just adopts his views, one also gets all the benefits of the views he rejects. I have tried for at least six years to get my arm around that.
Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation was a thought provoking book that probably needed to be written. Since then he has gone off the deep end. PTSD?
LikeLike
As for the quote citing Enn’s, the olfactory sense improves with age (surprisingly). Paresh.
LikeLike
Enns continues to flounder (joyously) in the deep end:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/03/a-random-thought-on-being-shapers-of-our-theological-traditions/
LikeLike