on a doctrine or ethical issue? I have done so with one in particular, just in the last year or so. But I don't think I can talk about it here. I really studied and researched it, and what I was once so certain about, now I am not. I was just wondering if anyone else had gone through this.
Have you changed your view...
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by FreeBaptist, May 13, 2019.
Page 1 of 3
-
-
-
This should probably be in the book review forum but here goes. [Opening myself up to criticism] ;)
I’ve been reading and listening to an Kindle/Audible recording of Peter Enns book How the Bible Actually Works (2019) for the past month or more (narrated by the author himself).
It is written in an informal manner, jokes, puns and humorous asides are thrown into the mix of serious theological questioning.
I listened to it a few times: the book is both intriguing and troublesome.
He describes our Scriptures as a very human book, a book of human wisdom but don’t get me wrong, he doesn’t deny that the words are inspired.
In a previous book, he related that we can describe Scripture in a way similar to how we describe Christ, being both 100% fully God, and 100% fully man, a view he calls the “incarnational analogy: Christ’s incarnation is analogous to Scripture’s “incarnation." [Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, second edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 6.]
Enns repeatedly uses the word, “re-imagined” as he marches us through the Scriptures, I initially presumed he meant something along the lines of "progressive revelation" but the more I listened the more I realized it was not a fit.
Why does the book bother me? He confronts various biblical problem passages directly, accepting them at face value and doesn't attempt to explain them away, rather he understands that the people (biblical authors) of the time were working out God’s ways in their own time, in their own way. They were “re-imagining” God.
I eventually had to research exactly what Peter Enns felt about inerrancy, This was the doctrine that was being attacked.
Peter Enns participated in writing yet another book, Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy.
His chapter was titled, Biblical Inerrancy: Peter Enns – An Argument Against Inerrancy
The Bible is a book that tells one grand narrative, but by means of divergent viewpoints and different theologies. It tells of God’s acts but also reports some events that either may not have happened or have been significantly reshaped and transformed by centuries of tradition. It presents us with portraits of God and of his people that at times comfort and confirm our faith while at other times challenge and stretch our faith to its breaking point. This is the Bible we have, the Bible God gave us. Redefining or nuancing inerrancy to account for these properties can be of some value, and some are no doubt content to do so. The core issue, however, is how inerrancy functions in contemporary evangelical theological discourse. This too varies, but when all is said and done, I do not think inerrancy can capture the Bible’s varied character and complex dynamics. Though intended to protect the Bible, inerrancy actually sells it short by placing on it expectations it is not designed to bear—as evidenced by the need for generations of continued publications and debates to defend it. On a deeper and ultimately more important level, inerrancy sells God short. Inerrancy is routinely propounded as the logical entailment of God’s truthfulness, which for many inerrantists leads to the necessary expectation of the Bible’s historical accuracy. The premise that such an inerrant Bible is the only kind of book God would be able to produce, or the only effective means of divine communication, strikes me as assuming that God shares our modern interest in accuracy and scientific precision, rather than allowing the phenomena of Scripture to shape our theological expectations. Zondervan. Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
I've been studying biblical inerrancy for decades and have a whole shelf on the topic. For some reason Enns has made inroads into my thoughts and understandings.
It's a work-in-progress.
Rob -
-
I am curious, about your change in ideology, PM me, I would like to know. -
I'm reporting you for your unhinged and false accusations against me. -
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
RighteousnessTemperance& Well-Known Member
Yes, of course.
-
-
Baptist colleges are run by Jesuits and Jesuit theology these days I am afraid. They teach the same doctrines from those places as does Roman Catholicism, and I could name quite a few.
I worked briefly for a specialized Catholic ministry (which is still around to this day, though moved location), dealing with miracles, saints, daemonology, history, etc that EWTN called 'experts in their field'. -
-
Yes, I used to be a gung-ho pre trib pre mill dispie and now I have repented.
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
And I was 34 years a Catholic. What a waisted life that was.
-
ChurchofChristguy Member
I think my thoughts on the role of the woman in the family and in the church are evolving. I have also completely reversed on a lot of things pertaining to the church, its purpose, and the goings-on in the assembly.
-
Don't worry, brother Walter has done a lot of biblical studying so you should not write off his knowledge about the Christian faith. Pray friend, what do you believe about this thing called Christianity? Where do you get your knowledge and which faith tradition is guiding you? -
-
That is what is called private interpretation by Peter himself (2 Pet 1:20), the person that Rome says that they have authority after (keys).
The faith once delivered to the saints is not how you, they or I "see" it. It is how God defined it, demonstrated it, and is called "the faith of Jesus" (Rev 14:12)
However, I am not here to turn this thread into something which the OP did not intend. Therefore, if you do not mind, may we continue this conversation elsewhere, by starting another thread (you may do so), and we can pick up there and discuss faith, theology, etc., there. -
Page 1 of 3