Re: In defense of Paul Seely

I'm nearly through chapter 3 of Enns and enjoying the book; it's a good read. He's introduced details that I hadn't focused on before, mainly because I teach NT and not OT. To some of us the points he makes about diversity in Scripture are old hat, but it is good that he is presenting them from within a conservative perspective of one who promotes "a high view of Scripture."

Bob
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Michael Roberts
  To: David Opderbeck ; gmurphy@raex.com
  Cc: Robert Schneider ; Ted Davis ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 4:08 PM
  Subject: Re: In defense of Paul Seely

  David

  I am with you on this one. I am very close to Warfield and Stott's definitions of inerrancy but cant buy into popular ideas

  I must read Enn's book

  Michael
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: David Opderbeck
    To: George L. Murphygmurphy@raex.com
    Cc: Robert Schneider ; Ted Davis ; asa@calvin.edu
    Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 8:28 PM
    Subject: Re: In defense of Paul Seely

    Wow -- amazing how a dumb typo on my part sparked all this! Paul, if you're still listening, and others -- I've really enjoyed and appreciated Enns' book, not only on how he handles some questions regarding Genesis 1-11, but also how he handles other tough hermeneutical questions (like the NT's often decidedly non-historical-grammatical exegesis of the OT). But Enns teaches at Westminster, an institution with an "inerrancy" component in its statment of faith. I've been trying to get Enns' email address to see how he puts his accomodationism and the Westminster statement of faith together, but it's not publicly listed and the seminary hasn't gotten back to me with it. I did see an earlier Westminster Journal article by Enns in which he addresses this to some extent.

    Anyway, I realize for many here that "inerrancy" isn't an issue, but I'm wondering how something like Enns' views can fit into an "evangelical" framework, which usually implies some notion of "inerrancy." Some definitions of "inerrancy" seem possibly plastic enough (such as Millard Erickson's or maybe John Jefferson Davis'), but others certainly aren't. This is a tough question for many of us evangelicals, because by culture and local church commitment, most of us need to play within an "inerrancy" framework. Personally, like John Stott, the term "inerrancy" makes me a bit uncomfortable, and I wish the historical circumstances had played out differently so that evangelicals could be comfortable with a more nuanced theology of scripture while still maintaining our core committment to a high view of scripture's integrity, authority and truthfulness. But I've got to believe that folks at many of the evangelical seminaries and colleges have wrestled with this same thing and have found ways to maintain integrity while still defining themselves as part of their evangelical communities.

     
Received on Tue Jun 6 21:28:59 2006