JOC Lectures on Scripture 2/3

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).

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.

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 ended the day with summarising Andy McGowan's The Divine Spiration of Scripture. More tomorrow, God willing.

Carey 2010 2

The second speaker was Dr Greg Beale currently at Wheaton but due soon to take up a post at Westminster in Philadelphia. His subject was divine inspiration with special reference to the Book of Revelation. He began by making reference to the current debate over inerrancy with special reference to A T B McGowan.

He then went on to contend that

"John's prophetic commission to write true words is based on the truthful character of Christ and God from whom the words come"

This comes out he said in the very way that John speaks of writing the words of Christ and calling on people to hear what the Spirit has to say.
John is commanded to write down words in a book. The words will be written and true because of the character of Christ. The deduction is quite explicit. It is exegetical not merely deductive.
He then took us to four main passages
Revelation 3:14 (cf Isaiah 65:16, 17 and its reference to the God of amen. Also refer back to Revelation 1:5 to see that the reference in 3:14 is to the new creation)
See also 19:9, 21:5, 22:6. From the context it becomes increasingly clear that this is not just an implication but what John actually says. The blessing is for those who take seriously this written record. The book is called a prophecy identifying it with OT Scripture.
This was the main part of the paper. I think it is the same paper that Martin Downes reports on here which he got from here

Is Revelation unique?
1. In 22:6 John is grouped with other prophets. The allusion is to Numbers 27
2. The repeated commissioning of John to his task militates against such an idea
3. There is also the parallel wit Isaiah
4. There is also a parallel with Daniel and Ezekiel. Okay - just apocalyptic then? But John has clearly added other material and is not just apocalyptic in its genre. Besides this he also puts himself on a par with Moses.
There was other material referring to the psalms and at the start he pointed out that he had no time to look at other matters prepared for the paper.
His main point then was that there is a clear connection between the flawlessness of Christ and God and that of Scripture Inerrancy - the word is not there but the same concept is.
Aware of contra arguments he finally asked whether God would commission John to write faithfully and truly yet knowing there would be some slippage in the inscripturation.
It was a privilege to hear this careful and convincing presentation.
Questions followed.

Inspiration and Incarnation

I'm just back from a reading group I belong to. This is the Theological Study Group of The John Owen Centre in Finchley. Eight of us gathered to discuss the book Inspiration and incarnation by Peter Enns. The subtitle is Evangelicals and the problem of the Old Testament. Enns is an Old Testament scholar and an associate professor at Westminster Theological Seminary. None of us were happy with the book which fails on several levels, being rather imprecise, perhaps naive and a rather unhelpful introduction to the subject.
More than one review against the book has appeared. These include John Currid in the current Banner of Truth Magazine and various articles at Reformation 21. See here and here and here. There are lots of other reviews elsewhere. This interview is also interesting.