Biblical Scholar Alert

Published on by D. G. Hart

Pete Enns continues to mystify with the following:

Lincoln thoughtfully and clearly articulates the responsibility of theologians and teachers to reflect on ancient creeds in terms of present states of knowledge. Frankly, I’m not sure a good argument can be made for not doing so.

To think otherwise invariable leads to the bizarre thought that the Creator needs to be protected from the wonders of his own creation.

In light of our current understanding of the cosmos, the creedal claim “I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth” is not diminished but magnified beyond comprehension.

Does Pete actually think that science or history will answer the question of how to be right with God? Might the Bible’s answer to that question be a reason for maintaining that Scripture is unique, authoritative, and worth defending? Might the significance of Christ be a reason for claiming the Bible’s truthfulness? Or is Scripture just one important part of the religious experience of humankind?

Then again, if you think the Bible speaks to all of life — like Shakespeare, plumbing, and trigonometry — then Pete might have a point. But who believes that? Not the church creeds — no chapter on literature, architecture, or math.

11 thoughts on “Biblical Scholar Alert”

  1. “Frankly, I’m not sure a good argument can be made for not doing so.”

    What a Dan Dierdorf-ian display of writing.

    Like

  2. Extra-biblical information can be used to deconstruct or buttress. Depends what you’re looking to do with it. You can make a case against biblicism and simpleton literalism and simultaneously reinforce the uniqueness of Special revelation.

    Like

  4. Enns appears to be cracking up or losing his religion.

    What Creeds need to be is circumspect in the subjects that they address. Can you imagine what a creed written by some of the more, (ahem), ambitious, members of the Presbyterian & Reformed world today might look like? We would have articles on Austrian Economics, purity balls, Southern Slavery as it Was, and all manner of such “timeless truths”.

    Like

  6. DGH- “Does Pete actually think that science or history will answer the question of how to be right with God? ”

    I am afraid he does.

    Like

  7. Lincoln quote from the original article: “Our access to the [creedal] truths is through historically, culturally and socially conditioned interpretations.”

    So what about scientific truths? Why limit our suspicion to theology?

    Lincoln: “The consequence is not that all doctrinal truth becomes relative but that the Church in succeeding generations through it theologians and teachers, through its worship and practice, is inevitably involved in the hard work of interpretation of the truths that shape its life.”

    Really, which theologians in which churches? Enns and the PCA are helping along Nicaea, Augsburg, and Westminster? Glad to know the calvary is on the way.

    Lincoln: “After all, one of the tasks of theologians is to explore and restate central doctrines in the light of developments in human knowledge.”

    It is if they want to earn tenure, sell books, and talk with like-minded poindexters at conferences. I doubt I will find much hope in this “restatement” at the hour of my death.

    Like

  8. I can understand the tension, though, wow, about new developments. How to be cutting edge without dispensing of orthodoxy is a challenge. I’m just the guy who likes to read about planets and the webcam on the space station is rad. I like looking at pics of Mars from the rover. Childhood dreaming and stuff..and all childlikeness ain’t bad after all.

    But yes, what’s revealed is what’s revealed. I’m meandering, time to turn my phone off. Later.

    Like

  9. Darryl, the fact is, the yahoo’s out here in the webernet all look the same, they simply take up different hobby horses. There’s a limited number of people who really go at it out here. The only question that faces you, I imagine, is which yahoo raises his hand and speaks up today.

    Fore!

    Like

  10. They want you to come to the salon on a regular basis so they tell you that you need to get a haircut every four to six weeks, but it’s just a way for them to make more money. main light based permanent hair removal technique for men. light of one wavelength, not of an entire spectrum like a light bulb.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.