Another stimulating two days have passed with Iain D Campbell and the other four doing the week's course at JOC.On Day 2 we looked at Calvin - first the Institutes Book 1 and then, more interestingly, various places in the commentaries – the authorship of 2 Peter, early remarks in the Psalms, comments on Genesis 1 and 3, Matthew 2:6, 27:9 and 1 Peter 1:12. There is an essay on Calvin and inerrancy by Jim Packer in Volume 4 of his Shorter Writings. (See here too).
Then we came on to Karl Barth. I am not familiar with Barth but given that Greg Beale has accused Peter Enns of Barthianism and the fact Andy McGowan seems much under the spell of the Barthian Torrances his current influence cannot be denied. (Apparently Kevin VanHoozer has traced the recent history of this in Karl Barth And Evangelical Theology edited by Sung Wook Chung).
Then we came on to Karl Barth. I am not familiar with Barth but given that Greg Beale has accused Peter Enns of Barthianism and the fact Andy McGowan seems much under the spell of the Barthian Torrances his current influence cannot be denied. (Apparently Kevin VanHoozer has traced the recent history of this in Karl Barth And Evangelical Theology edited by Sung Wook Chung).
Barth's view, it appears, is rather elusive, but he distinguishes the Bible and revelation, speaks of recollection and anticipation, preparation and accomplishment and warns against absolutising a word that is always human. He calls the Bible the Word of God but what he means by that is not what we may mean. Bruce McCormack has labelled his view "Dynamic infallibilism". Barth spoke of the Word of God as the Word of GOD – God not being the object; the Work of God – an event not a storehouse of facts and the Miracle of God. He also warned against trying to shield ourselves from its offensiveness. He does not see the presence of God inhering directly in the book as such and says that we cannot decide just when the Bible is the Word of God. God, he says, is not ashamed of the fallibility of the word nor should we be. Mark Thompson has identified certain motifs in Barth - God's Lordship – he can't be mastered by a text; the centrality of Christ and the fact that God reveals himself dynamically so that things can change (see Gibson and Strange's Engaging with Barth).
We finished off the day with a summary of Peter Enns' very controversial Inspiration and incarnation. We mentioned the book in a previous blog here. Since then Enns has ceased to be a professor at Westminster. He has a blog here. This blog is not recommended by any means.
We finished off the day with a summary of Peter Enns' very controversial Inspiration and incarnation. We mentioned the book in a previous blog here. Since then Enns has ceased to be a professor at Westminster. He has a blog here. This blog is not recommended by any means.
On Wednesday we carried on with Enns this time in more critical fashion, considering some of the so called problem texts that he mentions in Proverbs, Acts, etc.
We then went on to the answer to Enns produced by Greg Beale The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism
We took up Beale's criticisms of the way Enns uses the incarnational analogy and Dr Campbell traced the more recent history of the subject. Gaussen (Theopneustia) and Shedd (in his Dogmatics) are in favour of it and Kuyper and Bavinck (as Gaffin reveals in his God's Word in Servant Form: Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck on the Doctrine of Scripture see sample here) go into overdrive with it. Barth is fairly happy with the idea but sees overlappings and contradictions. Tom Torrance is similar.
It is Warfield who cautions against misusing of the analogy. Christ is a divine human person, Scripture is a divine human work. The analogy is therefore remote. Andy McGowan is not happy either (pp 119, 121). James Scott writing on Enns (WTJ Spring 2009) says it is a mistake to see Christ trapped in his culture. He concludes that Enns is saying something huge in his book when he writes as he does as the idea that the incarnate Christ misunderstood things is a major error.
We were also referred to John Goldingay's book on Model for interpretation of Scripture (pp 248-251 and a Lane Tipton article here. He points out that if the hypostatic union is unique, it cannot be an analogy. The only way forward is to focus on then on pneumatology. He also draws attention to the resurrection and ascension and how Scripture brings about regeneration, sanctification, etc.
We took up Beale's criticisms of the way Enns uses the incarnational analogy and Dr Campbell traced the more recent history of the subject. Gaussen (Theopneustia) and Shedd (in his Dogmatics) are in favour of it and Kuyper and Bavinck (as Gaffin reveals in his God's Word in Servant Form: Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck on the Doctrine of Scripture see sample here) go into overdrive with it. Barth is fairly happy with the idea but sees overlappings and contradictions. Tom Torrance is similar.
It is Warfield who cautions against misusing of the analogy. Christ is a divine human person, Scripture is a divine human work. The analogy is therefore remote. Andy McGowan is not happy either (pp 119, 121). James Scott writing on Enns (WTJ Spring 2009) says it is a mistake to see Christ trapped in his culture. He concludes that Enns is saying something huge in his book when he writes as he does as the idea that the incarnate Christ misunderstood things is a major error.
We were also referred to John Goldingay's book on Model for interpretation of Scripture (pp 248-251 and a Lane Tipton article here. He points out that if the hypostatic union is unique, it cannot be an analogy. The only way forward is to focus on then on pneumatology. He also draws attention to the resurrection and ascension and how Scripture brings about regeneration, sanctification, etc.
We ended the day with summarising Andy McGowan's The Divine Spiration of Scripture. More tomorrow, God willing.
2 comments:
Sounds like you had an interesting time. Garry W will be leading a seminar on Scripture at Bradford on Avon next Weds. Sadly I have to be in London for a Kensit Trust meeting. Ah well.
Gary Andrew Magowan book on Sepration of Divine Scriptures is not putting it right as he argues that he denies what the Scriptures are saying and he put it in a libral way not reformed Evangelical as i have a copy of his book and have read some of it and totaily dissagree in what he is saying.
Post a Comment