tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post4858733953143625710..comments2024-03-18T18:19:19.002-07:00Comments on bylogos: Making Sense of Ennsjohn bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-3361520390917830472011-02-18T08:38:17.813-08:002011-02-18T08:38:17.813-08:00Calvin Student
Thanks for your comment. You make ...Calvin Student<br /><br />Thanks for your comment. You make an excellent point, with which I fully concur. The problem I have with Enns is his contention, as I noted, that <em>"the humanness of the Bible is manifested in the Bible's numerous errors and contradictions."</em><br /><br />In an earlier post <em>"Is the Traditional View of Genesis Reformed?"</em> I cited with approval P.Y.DeJong's view of organic inspiration. He stated that, while the authors may have different styles, education and vocabularies, <em>"the human authors were completely controlled and guided by the Holy Spirit even in their choice of words" </em>(p.102). DeJong wrote,<em> "The Bible, as a holy book written by men for men, abounds in popular forms of speech. Yet these do not detract in the least from the accuracy, the inerrancy of what is therein revealed to us" </em>(p.163).John Bylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-42682133840735211352011-02-17T21:59:21.837-08:002011-02-17T21:59:21.837-08:00Dr. Byl,
Near the middle of this post, you refere...Dr. Byl,<br /><br />Near the middle of this post, you referenced Enns' view that the Bible is human and divine, and you seemed to treat that idea with disdain. I know that you are trying to defend against an attack on Scriptural authority, but I think that the inerrancy of Scripture and its absolute authority can be upheld even with this idea present, and that this idea can even add to our appreciation of the grace of God and the perfection of Scripture. In other words, I agree with Enns’ basic idea that the Bible is both human and divine, but I take that to mean a totally different thing than he does and I draw completely different conclusions from it.<br /><br />Obviously, this proposition requires quite a bit of qualification: <br /><br />First, I think we would agree that God didn't merely dictate his words to the human authors of Scripture, but instead (in an admittedly mysterious way) graciously guided them to use their own words in accordance with his preordained will so that what they said fit what he wanted to be said perfectly and without error. This is one aspect of what I consider the humanity of Scripture, and I think it shows an even more gracious condescension of God to use even fallen men to convey his perfect Word.<br /><br />Second, I think Enns analogy between Scripture and Christ holds, in that just as Jesus was human and divine, so also is the Bible. However, I consider what he does with this analogy to be quite egregious. He uses the humanity of Scripture to account for “errors" in the text. He seriously errs in this: being human is not analogous to being fraught with errors. Being human does not require sin, as we saw in Adam and Eve and as we obviously see in Christ—“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15 ESV). Christ was human and yet he did not sin, and there was no error in him. The Bible, then, can have a human aspect and yet not err. <br /><br />The analogy Enns uses is actually more useful, then, in arguing for the historical faithfulness and authority of Genesis, since the perfection of Christ (even in his humanity) transfers quite readily and directly to Scripture.<br /><br />--Calvin StudentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-26021754824844282792010-03-05T08:52:49.232-08:002010-03-05T08:52:49.232-08:00In this latest post Enns elaborates on his mythic ...In this latest post Enns elaborates on his mythic view of Gen.1-11. Enns proposes that Adam is not historical but symbolizes Israel. Enns says:<br /><br />"But the “Adam is Israel” angle is at the very least a very good one—and in my opinion a much better angle than seeing Adam as the first human and all humans are descended from him. Genesis does not support that reading.<br />"This “Israel-centered” reading of Adam is not a stretch. It is widely recognized, not only in modern scholarship, but by pre-modern interpreters. And you have to admit there is one distinct advantage of this reading that readers of BioLogos will recognize immediately: if the Adam story is not about absolute human origins, then the conflict between the Bible and evolution cannot be found there.<br />"The conflict is found elsewhere in the Bible—namely in the New Testament and specifically in two of Paul’s letters."<br />"I am saying that Gen 2-3 is not historical but mythic, symbolic, archetypal (to pick up on Walton’s language)."<br /><br />So it is clear here that Enns is adapting the Bible to evolution, that it effects not only Gen.1-11 but also Paul's letters, which he says he will address next. With Enns' view of biblical inspiration, hermeneutic and authority not much will be left of the Bible as God's Word.john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-83546274457821539122010-03-04T14:12:23.764-08:002010-03-04T14:12:23.764-08:00Dr. Byl,
I greatly appreciate your blog. Could yo...Dr. Byl,<br /><br />I greatly appreciate your blog. Could you comment on the scriptural issues raised by Enns with regard to the early chapter of Genesis in this recent posting at BioLogos?<br /><br />http://biologos.org/blog/adam-is-israel/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com