Featured A Critique of Dr. Peter Enns’ Book The Bible Tells Me So

Those teachers and influencers that depart from orthodox Christianity can cause great harm to those who are less sure of their own beliefs. That was the case with the person I know. While seminary trained this person was easily influenced by persuasive arguments.

I am not an apologist for Answers in Genesis. While I believe in a literal six day creation, there are many godly Christians who disagree. But I also believe that theistic evolution dilutes the nature of God and the plain normative reading of scripture. While honest questioning is good (and should be encouraged), day-age and theistic evolution theology makes every other claim the bible makes subject to being re-engineered. After all, if the prevailing creation narrative is wrong, what else is wrong?

 

I disagree with you, in the strongest possible sense about any notion of theistic evolution diluting the nature of God. (But I am not "sick")

 

Reading history you can find similar arguments used against Luther and Galileo.

I believe the key is to maintain dialogue and strive against polarization.

This is the primary problem I have with AIG; it's not their YE stance but their marketing.

Rob

 

Of course you do. I am fine with that.

 

Just wanted to add.....assuming you are of the "reformed theological persuation".....I have found MANY of that perspective in the "camp" that I stay in relative to YE...OE.....evolution etc. Just wanted to make sure you were aware that "we" are not a monolithic (non-cal) group.

 

Ahhh, the scourge of liberalism...run, run away! Chicken Little indeed.

I would recommend actually reading the book, even though it so much easier to just vomit what other people said already.

 

And I would like you to remember that I was not always a Monergist. I know full well the varying beliefs out there c.f. creation.

 

I think I am pretty well versed in Enns' theology. I am not critiquing his book but his general theology.

 

He is a great example of what happens to one who departs from the sure foundation of holding to the scriptures being inerrant/infallible, as they ALL were from the very mouth of god unto us through those who penned them , as all of them were God breathed upon , and the Spirit Himself made sure that the finished product was fully reliable and true...

He wants to accomodate the so called "facts" of modern science and culture, so has to make sure the scriptures are watered down to meey that objective!

 

Maybe you should contact him and ask if he would hire you to be his spokesman.

 

He denies that the scriptures are inerrant and infallible in all that they ascribe, correct?

He does seek to "amend" them in order to accomodate "known scientific" facts then, correct?

he is not one that should be addressing just how to read and understand the scriptures!

 

IF one hold to God using an evolutionary process here on earth, does that not mean that one is accepting dubious "facts" over the clear teaching of the scriptures though?

And how can we do that, since there is NO shred of any proof that there has ever been a process of species change here on earth, and that also denies man as a special creation of god, and that jesus was wrong about that truth?

 

Simple answer....No it doesn't.

Without derailing, there are multitudes of lines of evidence....you just will not accept any evidence that conflicts with your position.

 

Do you know of ANY proof that God used Evolution to migrate species change here on Earth though?
Or that the Bible clearly states man was a direct creation, correct?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCL3gv9kEM

 

How can we square the truth that God created all living things after their own kind at beginnings, and also that Adam was a direct creation of His, and yet also hold to evolutionary processes?

www.teachingtheword.org/apps/articles/?articleid=66780&columnid.

 

Not the OP, but fine.

 

Inerrant and infallible not the same thing as your / suggests.

Typos make second phrase difficult to respond precisely, but what you are generally saying is contrary to he says in the first pages of chapter 1.

 

He denies both of them applying to the Bible though, correct?

 

http://peterennsonline.com/ii/inerrancy/