Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann has assisted my understanding of genre and authorial intent in the so-called “first creation story” (Genesis 1:1-2:4a). I will distill his treatment from An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination. Work slowly through each point until it builds to the crescendo at the end.
- Genesis 1-11 “frame the more concrete ‘historical’ materials of the Old Testament in a cosmic perspective and, in sum, they constitute a brief theological ‘history of the world.’”
- The narrative materials in Genesis 1-11 were “appropriated by Israel from older, well-developed cultures. In some cases, we have available parallel texts that are older and which evidence the antecedents to the biblical texts. These texts, moreover, have been formed, used, and transmitted in the great cultic centers of major political powers. They functioned in those contexts, surely liturgically, as founding statements for society, authorizing, legitimating, and ordering certain modes of social relationships and certain forms of social power.”
- The narrative materials are “myths,” the usage of which “does not imply ‘falsehood’ as the term might be taken popularly. Rather…. the term refers to founding poetic narratives that provide the basic self-understanding of a society and its raison d’être, a foundational formulations of elemental reality that are to be regularly reiterated in liturgical form in order to reinforce claims of legitimacy for the ordering of society. The poetic narratives characteristically portray great founding events in which ‘the gods’ are the key actors and the actions undertaken are primordial in that they precede any concrete historical data. The Old Testament clearly emerged in a cultural world where founding myths were commonly shared from one society to another. It is evident that Israel readily participated in that common cultural heritage and made use of the same narrative materials as were used in other parts of that common culture. . . . Biblical literature did not exit in a cultural vacuum, but in lively conversation with its context.”
- “Primary accent in theological interpretation has been placed especially upon the creation texts of Genesis 1:1-2:4a and Genesis 2:4b-25 with its related narrative in 3:24, the narrative of Cain and Abel (4:1-16), the great flood narrative (6:5-9:17), and the account of the Tower of Babel (11:1-9). Each of these narratives reflects older Near Eastern traditions, so that it is impossible to ask questions about ‘historicity.’ Rather, these materials may better be understood as complex, artistic attempts to articulate the most elemental presuppositions of life and faith in Israel, attempts that understood the world in a Yahwistic way. The end result of the interpretative process is a text that provided an imaginative context for the emergence of Israel in the midst of older cultural claims, visions, and affirmations.“
- “The key issue in reading these texts according to the central traditions of church interpretation is to see the canonizing process of editing and traditioning has taken old materials and transposed them by their arrangement into something of a theological coherence that is able to state theological affirmations and claims that were not intrinsic to the antecedent materials themselves.”
- “The two creation narratives, in very different modes, articulate that the (“heaven and earth”) belongs to God, is formed and willed by God, is blessed by God with abundance, is to be cared for by the human creatures who are deeply empowered by God, but who are seriously restrained by God. The creation narratives are an affirmation of the goodness of the world intended by God.“
- “While Genesis 1-2 draw a lot of interpretative attention because they stand first in the biblical text, in fact they need to be understood in terms of an older, already extant liturgical tradition on creation. The primary and proper context in which Israel articulated its creation faith is in doxology, the public, liturgical practice of lyrical, poetic utterance whereby Israel sings its awe and wonder about the glory and goodness of God’s creation. Our term “creation stories” is to be understood in the context of that exuberant liturgical tradition. “
- Genesis 1:1-2:4a: “This text is a solemn, stately, ordered symmetrical text that is more like a liturgical antiphon that it is a narrative. It has close affinities to the well-known Enuma Elish, an older Mesopotamian account of creation. As indicated, however, the creation text with which the Bible begins has been shaped and reshaped as a vehicle for Israel’s faith.”
- “The sustained affirmation of this liturgy of creation is that the world (all of heaven, all of earth) is willed and seen by God to be ‘good,’ that is, lovely, beautiful, pleasing (1:10, 12, 18, 21). This reiterated affirmation that we imagine to be a congregational response to a priestly litany, culminates in verse 31 with the intensified phrase ‘very good.’ This affirmation of the goodness of creation has been decisive for the Jewish and Christian traditions as a foundation for a life-affirming, world-affirming horizon with a determined appreciation of the good of the material world in all its dimensions . . . including sexuality and economics. This tradition will have nothing to do with world-denying, world-denigrating, or world-escaping religious impulses that characterize too much popular faith in U.S. culture.”
- “The creation narratives appeal to a common stock of cultural myths and liturgies, with particular reference to Babylonian materials. The use of these materials, however, is an act of powerful subversion whereby the narratives of dominant culture are utilized to voice a claim alternative to the claims of dominant cultural materials.“
- “It is a widely held assumption of scholarship that this text––along with the Pentateuch––reached its final form during the sixth-century exile. In that context, the claim that the world belongs to the God of Israel is a mighty and daring alternative to the dominant, easily visible claim that the world is governed by Babylonian gods. Thus the liturgy of YHWH’s goodness connects the character of the world to a particularly Jewish vision of God, articulated through the various interpreted points noted above. The text makes these large theological claims to be sure, but it functions in and through these cosmic claims to sustain the specific community that relies on this imaginative tradition. That is, its purpose is concretely existential. Given that canonical reality about the final form of the text, it is self-evident that the text is not about ‘the origin of the world’ as that phrase is usually employed, and thus it has no particular connection to the ‘creation versus evolution’ debate or, more broadly, to the issue of ‘science and religion.’ Such expectations of the text, in my judgment, completely miss the point and function of the text in its original setting or in its durable canonical articulation.”
DISCLAIMER #1: I acknowledge there are other scholarly readings of the creation story that should be weighed. Like all readings, this one has its strengths and shortcomings. Nevertheless, I am fascinated by Bruggemann’s reading because if the Book of Genesis was finalized during the sixth-century exile, a historic or scientific account about the origin of the universe would not bring solidarity to the exiled people of Israel like a liturgical poem (or hymn) that proclaims the supremacy and creativity of Yahweh in the pagan pantheon.
DISCLAIMER #2: The conversation on Evangel has motivated me to do further research. I think a Christian layperson should have a few references in their personal library for precisely this kind of inquiry. I turned to the entry on Genesis in the highly acclaimed Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, edited by Kevin Vanhoozer. This entry is written by OT scholar Gordon Wenham (King’s College London). Here are the two most important things I learned:
- AUTHORSHIP: Scholars do not know who wrote Genesis. Tradition assumes it was Moses. The “documentary hypothesis” emerged in the mid-nineteenth century and came to be widely accepted by biblical scholars until the last quarter of the twentieth century when there were multiple assaults “so that it is now widely agreed that a better explanation of the growth of the Pentateuch ought to be found” (see R. N. Whybray, Making of the Pentateuch). The main figure behind the documentary hypothesis was Julius Wellhausen, author of Prolegomena to the History of Israel (1878). “This appraoch distributes Genesis into three main sources, J (Yahwist, 950 BCE), E (Elohist, 850 BCE), and P (Priestly, 500 BCE). These three sources were combined successfully, so that Genesis reached its final form in the fifth century BCE, abut 800 years after Moses.”
- INTERPRETATION: “Symbolism was important in early Christian interpretation of Genesis, but that is not to say that they took the stories allegorically. They accepted as literal accounts of the origin of the cosmos, just the the patriarchal narratives that followed them were understood historically. The problems posed by modern science did not trouble Christian interpreters till the nineteenth century. The Reformers and their immediate successors continued the same essentially literal approach to Genesis, with less emphasis on the symbolic dimensions of the book.”
Based on the above, I realize that Walter Brueggemann is probably sympathetic to the documentary hypothesis because an adequate alternative has not been developed yet.
I also realize that tradition provides a compelling reason to adopt a literal interpretation of Genesis. That said, tradition alone should not guide the hermeneutics of the church. Reason and experience also have significant roles. We simply cannot read our Bibles like Christians did before the modern scientific revolution because, as Herbert Butterfield says in The Origins of Modern Science, “that revolution overturned the authority in science not only of the middle ages but of the ancient world—since it ended not only in the eclipse of scholastic philosophy but in the destruction of Aristotelian physics—it outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes, mere internal displacements, within the system of medieval Christendom.”
I propose that we greet the challenge of reading our Bibles after the scientific revolution with faith, hope and love: faith that no discovery will undermine our belief, hope that the tensions will be adequately resolved, and love for the majesty and artistry of the Creator. Science is not the enemy – it never has been and never will be. God is sovereign over an enterprise that studies the natural world. All the glory to God alone!
August 13th, 2010 | 2:54 pm | #1
This is helpful, Christopher. I would add the following in light of the discussion lately around here about creation and creationism: a thoroughly biblical theology of creation needs to be informed by all that Scripture says about creation. If all the theological weight is placed on Gen 1 and 2 (and, to placate Frank’s repeated demands, Ex 20), then it’s not a biblical theology of creation. You need to attend to the many creation psalms, Job, John 1, and Colossians 1.
The problem with all forms of creationism is that they are based on a truncated witness of Scripture. But if we look at all of the creation texts, we can easily see that they are not primarily about how creation was done in some mechanical sense. They are about Who the Creator is and how creation attests to His nature and character.
August 13th, 2010 | 3:03 pm | #2
Joel: I’m glad that you found this post helpful. Brueggemann’s treatment of the first creation story resonates with a “plain sense” interpretation because it keeps the original context and audience in mind. The Book of Genesis, finalized during the sixth-century exile, was probably not written to provide Israel a historical account or primitive science about the origin of the universe. On the contrary, it was written to liturgically articulate Israel’s faith in the Creator. If you were an exiled Israelite, history or science would not provide much consolation. Israel found solidarity by singing its “awe and wonder about the glory and goodness of God’s creation. Also, thanks for this necessary reminder: “If all the theological weight is placed on Gen 1 and 2, then it’s not a biblical theology of creation.”
August 13th, 2010 | 3:12 pm | #3
Christopher Benson: “Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann has greatly assisted my understanding of genre and authorial intent in the so-called “first creation story” (Genesis 1:1-2:4a).”
Thanks for letting us know who greatly assisted your understanding as currently constituted.
August 13th, 2010 | 3:14 pm | #4
I’d also reiterate Joel’s great thoughts and textual citations. I’ve been thinking about Colossians 1 a lot in this discussion: “by Him all things were created…all things were created by him and for him…in him all things hold together…”
I’ve done a lot of study here. Ironically, a lot of commentators say that Colossians 1:15-20 is an early high Christological hymn. But the fact that it’s poetic, regardless of whether Paul redacted the hymn or not, doesn’t mean that Jesus didn’t create.
More quandaries: does this view mean that Jesus actively holds all the universe together with his bear hands, and if he released for a second, the universe would implode? OR does this view mean that our view of Newtonian physics is true, in which case God just created the laws of physics that hold together the universe. Can it mean both? I suppose I’m really asking, is God’s causal agency active or passive? A primary or secondary cause?
I suppose my theological presupposition is that God’s creation and preservation of the universe is active. Until that presupposition is removed, I probably can’t leave much room open for theistic evolution, though I don’t find it to be out of step with orthodoxy provided TE believe in a historic Adam and Eve.
August 13th, 2010 | 3:17 pm | #5
Also got to add Hebrews 1:1-3 to Joel’s list.
August 13th, 2010 | 4:30 pm | #6
Chris Benson.
My, my, why the fascination with such as Walter Brueggemann, and 6th century exile interpretation. Have you not read the works of P.J. Wiseman and his explanation of the Hebrew toledoths? What say you about P.J. Wiseman’s scholarly work?
August 13th, 2010 | 5:01 pm | #7
Steve Drake and Truth Unites…and Divides: Walter Bruggemann is not the only scholar that I have consulted on the creation story. See the “DISCLAIMER” that I added above. Other OT scholars that have influenced my view include Tremper Longman, author of How to Read Genesis and co-author of An Introduction to the Old Testament; Gordan Wenham, author of the Genesis entry in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible; and Bruce Waltke, author of An Old Testament Theology.
To nuance things a bit, I have also put a question mark at the end of my post’s subtitle.
I would like to hear your engagement with Brueggemann’s reading. What do you like about it, and why? What do you not like about it, and why?
August 13th, 2010 | 5:01 pm | #8
When you start making claims that the Bible slowly evolved over centuries, with later Jewish editors making major alterations, as you seem to be doing here with your last point, that is dangerous territory I’m not going to muddy myself with. I would rather accept the teaching that Genesis was given by Moses himself as a preamble to the Law. No doubt the story is poetic, and no doubt it is very old, older than Moses (after all, it IS the creation story) — and it is not at all surprising that other cultures would have similarities in their creation stories, if in fact the creation actually did happen in real history (just as many cultures have the story of Noah).
But I’ve always wondered, why does it have to be EITHER history OR poetic? Why can’t it be both? One of the earliest hermeneutical schools of thought in the Christian church was the idea that you had to simultaneously read the Scriptures literally, figuratively, spiritually. There was the plain meaning of the text, such as that Moses lifted up a rod with a serpent in the desert; and then there was the figure, such as that the rod and serpent look forward to the Cross.
August 13th, 2010 | 5:04 pm | #9
Anthony Mator: My other post, which quotes Tim Keller’s BioLogos paper, offers one argument for why authorial intent and genre do not lead us to a literal interpretation of the first creation story.
August 13th, 2010 | 5:05 pm | #10
Another interesting point. If you take the genealogies seriously, Abraham was only around three generations removed from Noah, who was only about three generations removed from Adam (as in, Noah’s timeline intersects with those who would have known Adam).
Bearing that in mind, the true account of the creation would not have had to pass through many people before being taught to Abraham, and through him to Moses.
August 13th, 2010 | 5:06 pm | #11
Christopher:
Sorry, man, but I’m gonna have to side with Turk on that one. The Bible itself seems a clear witness to the literalness of the story.
August 13th, 2010 | 5:15 pm | #12
“Steve Drake and Truth Unites…and Divides: Walter Bruggemann is not the only scholar that I have consulted on the creation story.”
As a minor note, I did not say that he was. I’m well aware that you cited other scholars in your previous posts.
“I would like to hear your engagement with Brueggemann’s reading. What do you like about it, and why? What do you not like about it, and why?”
Thank you for the kind invitation. I need some time to ponder it and then get back to you.
August 13th, 2010 | 5:21 pm | #13
Christopher Benson,
Can you not at least check out the works of P.J. Wiseman while I check out the works of Bruggemann? What say you brother?
August 13th, 2010 | 6:10 pm | #14
Chris,
Unbelievable Chris,
My post # 14 was totally wiped out from this thread. Are you going to eliminate this post and comment as well? If these are your tactics brother, then what similarity do darkness and light have?
Let me see this post in the thread if you are so bold, and respond to my allegations that you are cutting and modifying my words. Are you a man of integrity or not?
August 13th, 2010 | 6:13 pm | #15
Well it seems that Evangel has turned into an apologia for Biologos and others who are embarrassed by the creation account as given to us in Scripture. Not sure the reason for the name Evangel if the Gospel seems to be such a minor feature of this blog.
August 13th, 2010 | 7:10 pm | #16
Chris Benson,
I’m crying foul, brother. How can i respond to your query in #7 above, when the link you post concerning Brugemann is to Amazon.com to buy the book for $19.77? This in addition to a post before my #14 above that was totally wiped out and not even included in this thread? I repeat my charge, are you or any staff modifying the words of those who post on this thread?
August 13th, 2010 | 7:31 pm | #17
Todd Pruitt: Since when did “Gospel = creationism”?
August 13th, 2010 | 7:33 pm | #18
Relax, Steve. I edited my name from “Chris” to “Christopher.” Have you paid attention to my byline?
August 14th, 2010 | 4:06 am | #19
My post # 14 was totally wiped out from this thread.
If anyone’s comments are being deleted, please contact me directly.
And please don’t close comments on active threads.
August 14th, 2010 | 4:17 am | #20
Brueggemann, a liberal modernist who accepts openness theology, is probably not the best source to defend your position.
Since all of the contributors to Evangel subscribe to inerrancy (or at least that was one of the requirements), it would be odd to try to convince the audience using a source that rejected the doctrine in favor of liberal form criticism.
August 14th, 2010 | 4:31 am | #21
Christopher Benson said:
Relax, Steve. I edited my name from “Chris” to “Christopher.” Have you paid attention to my byline?
Steve Drake: Fair enough, but to also edit out a word or words that give nuance to a statement is foul play. And to completely wipe out a statement in response and explanation is just plain manipulative.
August 14th, 2010 | 6:01 am | #22
I thought the excerpts from Breuggemann were great and very interesting. I believe Pope Benedict has said that there is no real conflict between creationism and evolution. Perhaps some people really are missing the point.
August 14th, 2010 | 7:29 am | #23
“…if the Book of Genesis was finalized during the sixth-century exile, a historic or scientific account about the origin of the universe would not bring solidarity to the exiled people of Israel like a liturgical poem (or hymn) that proclaims the supremacy and creativity of Yahweh in the pagan pantheon.”
Doesn’t a literal, historical or scientific account proclaim the supremacy and creativity of Yahweh more than a fictional poem?
Psalm 19:1-2 “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.”
August 14th, 2010 | 9:18 am | #24
Derrick: Why do you assume that a poem is fictional? Poems can communicate truth as much as science or history, as you demonstrate by quoting Hebrew poetry. The challenge for us is to discern which truths are being communicated in the poetry. Regarding the creation story, this much seems clear:
• the origin of the world and of life was no accident; there is a Creator – God;
• God made everything there is;
• all that God made was good;
• of all God’s marvelous creation, people are special; they alone are made in God’s “likeness” and given charge of everything;
• God’s six “days” of creative activity, followed by a “day” of rest, sets the pattern for working life
August 14th, 2010 | 9:40 am | #25
Joe Carter: To be clear, I said WB has “assisted my understanding of genre and authorial intent in the so-called ‘first creation story.’” That is different than saying he is “the best source to defend [my] position,” especially when my position is not yet fully worked out – and maybe never will be. Also, the subtitle of my post has a question mark. I’m wondering if WB’s reading of the creation story offers a solution to the science-religion debate. The end of my post has a disclaimer, where I acknowledge that this reading – like other readings – has its strengths and shortcomings. If the creation story is a liturgical poem, it still communicates the essential truths that should bind Christians who subscribe to various “origin of life” views, as I said to Derrick in comment #24.
I’m aware that WB is a liberal mainline Protestant but that doesn’t mean evangelicals can’t learn a thing or two from him. I don’t know whether he “accepts openness theology.” Because nothing is worse than hearsay, I would direct Evangel readers to WB’s own remarks on biblical authority in order to arrive at a conclusion of their own: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2104. WB can’t be all that bad when he was a major contributor to the Renovare Spiritual Reformation Bible along with Eugene Peterson, Dallas Willard, and Richard Foster.
August 14th, 2010 | 9:42 am | #26
Joe Carter,
While I definitely disagree with Bruegemann’s apparent doctrinal errors, I don’t know that they are relevant here. Furthermore, referring to form criticism as “liberal form criticism” makes no sense to me without some further explanation. Is there something specifically “liberal” about the idea that the literary “forms” in Scripture make sense in a given historical and cultural context? After all, it’s not like the Bible dropped down straight out of heaven with no conditioning by the human cultures that it was designed to address.
It seems that saying that the intention of a given form is “x” is very different from saying that there is an error in Scripture.
August 14th, 2010 | 9:46 am | #27
I see the comment thread is back on. Very good.
Christopher,
With all due respect your reply to me was plain silly. How is it possible for you to infer from what I wrote that I was suggesting that the Gospel=creationism? Let’s play fair, shall we?
I was simply making an observation that it seemed odd that a blog entitled “evangel” was becoming an apologia for Biologos. Your appeal to Brueggemann (whom I used to read religiously) only heightens the suspicion that we are probably not working from the same presuppositions concerning Scripture. If that is the case, fine.
Biologos has as an agenda to rid the church of the doctrine of inerrancy. Kenton Sparks and Pete Enns have given themselves to this project. Why then would a blogger for Evangel (supposedly committed to inerrancy) want to shill for such an organization?
August 14th, 2010 | 10:30 am | #28
Todd Pruitt: I’ll “play fair” by systematically addressing your points. No, Evangel hasn’t turned into “an apologia for BioLogos.” I’m one blogger at Evangel who has expressed sympathy for the BioLogos viewpoint. There are more than 20 bloggers on the masthead who undoubtedly hold different viewpoints. And no, I’m not “embarrassed by the creation account as given to us in Scripture.” I love the creation story and want to understand its genre and authorial intention. I’m trying to follow Pastor Tim Keller’s hermeneutical advice: “The way to take the Biblical authors seriously is to ask ‘how does this author want to be understood?’ This is common courtesy as well as good reading. Indeed it is a way to practice the Golden Rule.”
I’m not persuaded by the Creationists that the author of Genesis wanted the creation story to be understood as a scientific or historical account. Viewing the creation story as a liturgical poem doesn’t entail a rejection of inerrancy because, as I’ve pointed out to Joe and Derrick above (#24 and #25), it communicates all the essential truths that bind Christians who subscribe to various “origin of life” views. Appealing to Brueggemann does not exclude my interest in the work of other scholars.
And finally, show me an official statement from the leadership of BioLogos Forum that demonstrates its agenda “to rid the church of the doctrine of inerrancy.” There might be scholars associated with BioLogos who don’t uphold biblical inerrancy, but it’s not fair to say that’s the “official” position. Here’s what G. Kyle Essary said in comment #104 of my post, “Multiple constituencies in the science and religion debate”:
August 14th, 2010 | 12:46 pm | #29
Steve Is there something specifically “liberal” about the idea that the literary “forms” in Scripture make sense in a given historical and cultural context?
You’re right, I framed that poorly. Form criticism is, of course, a legitimate and useful approach. What I meant by adding the adjective “liberal” is that he takes the standard liberal theologian’s position that certain forms are ahistorical.
For example, if a section takes the form of a myth then the liberal theologian assumes it is not conveying historically accurate information since that form is usually used to convey non-historical claims.
August 14th, 2010 | 1:05 pm | #30
Evangel reader: Please note that I have added a second disclaimer to this blog post after doing some more research last night.
August 14th, 2010 | 1:49 pm | #31
The TeamPyro co-authors have a number of posts about Biologos. Click the following:
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/search/label/BioLogos
From oldest (June 21st, 2010) to most recent (August 13, 2010):
(1) “Trojan Horse” by Phil Johnson
(2) “Humanistic Religion and the Origin of Life” by John MacArthur
(3) “Middle of the Road: RIP Kermit” by Phil Johnson
(4) “My Semester With an Evolution-Nazi” by Phil Johnson
(5) “Socianism in Lab Coats” by Phil Johnson
(6) “Everyone is an Inerrantist” by Dan Phillips
(7) “Two Radically Different Ways of Thinking, and Their Cause” by Dan Phillips
(8) “A Spectacle for Our Very Eyes to Gaze On” by Frank Turk
(9) “More than a Mere Distinction” by Frank Turk
August 14th, 2010 | 2:12 pm | #32
Christopher,
It is clear from the postings and articles at Biologos that they have set themselves fully against the doctrine of inerrancy. So what if Keller and Waltke have written for them. Waltke has appeared on Biologos for the purpose of asserting theistic evolution. Biologos has clearly set for themselves an agenda to rid the church of such notions as inerrancy, the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the fall. Now they are going after the flood narrative.
I will moderate my statements if Biologos invites Keller, Waltke, or better, Greg Beale to write a series of posts defending the doctrine of inerrancy. I won’t hold my breathe.
August 14th, 2010 | 2:28 pm | #33
Todd: We’re at an impasse because you failed to provide an official statement from the leadership of BioLogos Forum that declares a mission “to rid the church of such notions as inerrancy, the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the fall.” I’ve read a lot of the literature on the BioLogos website and nothing substantiates this charge. You believe what you want to believe, and in so doing you’re castigating people of goodwill, not to mention brothers in Christ. To cite just two examples from BioLogos, Waltke and Keller have robustly defended inerrancy, the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the Fall.
August 14th, 2010 | 3:15 pm | #34
Christopher,
Their “official statement” is the content of their site. Please be serious.
I cannot speak to their will, good or bad because I do not know them. What I can speak to is the content of their site which is hostile toward the doctrine of inerrancy.
In asking Kent Sparks to write six posts attacking the doctrine of inerrancy along with Pete Enns denying the historicity of Adam and Eve the agenda of Biologos seems quite clear. Biologos is under no obligation to recruit someone like Greg Beale or D.A. Carson to refute those noxious ideas. However, to claim that they are not actively seeking to dismantle the doctrine of inerrancy is naive at best.
August 14th, 2010 | 3:30 pm | #35
Todd: So far, I haven’t encountered any literature on the BioLogos website that rejects biblical inerrancy, the historical Adam and Eve, or the Fall. Take a look at the “The Questions” tab on the website.
I’ve done a little homework today on the controversy surrounding Peter Enns. Not having read his book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, I’m ill-equipped to say whether I agree or disagree with the decision of Westminster Theological Seminary to suspend his professorship, later resulting in his resignation.
The vote count is worth considering. The Board “voted 18–9 to suspend Enns from his position….though the faculty voted 12–8 that the work falls within the parameters of the Westminster Confession of Faith.” Notice the faculty vote is more divided than the Board vote, which is not surprising because the faculty are in a better position to evaluate Enns’ scholarship. “Following the Board’s vote, nine trustees resigned from the board.”
When the seminary and Enns decided to part ways, the official statement says: “The administration wishes to acknowledge the valued role Prof. Enns has played in the life of the institution, and that his teaching and writings fall within the purview of Evangelical thought. The Seminary wishes Prof. Enns well in his future endeavors to serve the Lord” (emphasis mine). If Enns had rejected biblical inerrancy, I guarantee that the administration at Westminster Theological Seminary would not say his teaching and writings “fall within the purview of Evangelical thought.” Perhaps Enns has subsequently rejected biblical inerrancy. But I doubt it. Therefore, it seems he is the subject of another fundamentalist smear campaign.
August 14th, 2010 | 4:01 pm | #36
It’s about defining our terms. When someone says that there are errors and myths in the Bible but that’s okay because God inspired those errors and myths (this is how Enns wants to retain inerrancy) then I think most reasonable people can agree that view does not truly constitute inerrancy.
Of course Kent Sparks dismisses inerrancy as intellectually unsatisfying. The Bible is “warped” and in need of redemption.
Have you not read the posts at Biologos? I am stunned that you can write that there is not, “any literature on the BioLogos website that rejects biblical inerrancy, the historical Adam and Eve, or the Fall.” Have you not read the posts by Enns and Sparks? Are you genuinely suggesting that Sparks does NOT deny inerrancy? Are you genuinely suggesting that Enns does NOT deny an historical Adam and Eve?
August 14th, 2010 | 5:59 pm | #37
Todd Pruitt,
Tim Keller is a teaching elder in the PCA. He has taken vows to teach and defend the cardinal doctrines of the faith, one of which in the PCA is inerrancy. Your blog says you’re a pastor and you apparently hold Reformed convictions. So you probably already know what I’ve just said. So if you think he believes or acts contrary to his ordination vows, stop wasting your time at blogs casting aspersions on the sincerity and credibility of his beliefs and CONTACT HIS PRESBYTERY. The PCA has a system of government in place to investigate and adjudicate such charges.
If you want to engage in substantive, critical discussion instead of bullying, then back up your assertions with evidence. Try this: “I’m incredulous that anyone at Biologos affirms inerrancy for the following reasons: …”
August 14th, 2010 | 6:34 pm | #38
Joel,
Thanks for your concern.
I have not ONCE accused Tim Keller of denying inerrancy. How you drew that conclusion is truly remarkable. Please be more careful.
As to your challenge for me to produce evidence for my claim that Biologos is invested in denying inerrancy I thought I had already done that. Is there any part of Kenton Sparks’ anti-inerrancy series of posts that you did not understand?
August 14th, 2010 | 7:21 pm | #39
Todd: You’re not a very close reader of what I wrote. I said “So far, I haven’t encountered any literature on the BioLogos website that rejects biblical inerrancy, the historical Adam and Eve, or the Fall.” The “so far” in that sentence means I haven’t read all the literature. There’s a lot of it. I haven’t read anything yet – focus on the “yet” – that substantiates your claim about Peter Enns. And I haven’t read anything so far – focus on the “so far” – from Kenton Sparks. Maybe I will discover they reject the things you say they reject. And maybe not. I read Susan Wise Bauer’s review of Enns’ book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, in Books & Culture (May/June 2006): http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2006/mayjun/3.8.html. While Enns asks some daring questions, there’s nothing from Bauer’s review that suggests his views are outside the purview of Evangelical thought. Of course, a review is not a substitute for reading the book myself. Anyway, this has become rather tiring. You’re convinced, it seems, that BioLogos is a cult.
August 14th, 2010 | 7:53 pm | #40
Todd,
Re: Keller. Sure, how could anyone have thought you were accusing him of such things from your comment #32? Or this in the same comment:
I will moderate my statements if Biologos invites Keller, Waltke, or better, Greg Beale to write a series of posts defending the doctrine of inerrancy. I won’t hold my breathe.
No, you’re not accusing Keller of denying inerrancy. That’s why you won’t “moderate your statements” until he defends the doctrine publicly to your satisfaction.
Re: Biologos and inerrancy. Like Evangel, it’s a big tent. I suspect if you poll the esteemed contributors to Evangel, a significant majority will disagree with the scientific claims made at Biologos. As for Evangel, if Christopher Benson posts something favorable toward theistic evolution, does that mean I’m entitled to conclude that all Evangel contributors agree with that position? Of course not. To do so would be (granting your premise that they are in error) to smear through guilt by association. But you’re not doing that to the Biologos contributors, so why am I even explaining this?
Perhaps the owners of Evangel would do everyone a favor, since it seems that for some evolution is a point over which to separate fellowship, to simply agree to a policy about the subject so that we all know what ideas are permissible to discuss openly without one’s orthodoxy being called into question.
I’ll even suggest one: “Requirement 493(g) for Evangel contributors: I deny that humans are descended from a common ancestor with the great apes, or that there is any merit to such a claim.”
As to your challenge for me to produce evidence for my claim that Biologos is invested in denying inerrancy I thought I had already done that.
No, actually you haven’t.
Is there any part of Kenton Sparks’ anti-inerrancy series of posts that you did not understand?
All of it. Since we’ve predictably derailed from a post concerned with the theology of creation found in the Bible to inerrancy, why don’t you connect the dots while we lie here in the wreckage. Type slowly. For me.
August 14th, 2010 | 7:54 pm | #41
Christopher,
Don’t be silly. I never called Biologos a cult. You can put words in my mouth if you would like but it does not reflect very well on your ability to make a point effectively.
To your lack of knowledge concerning the content of Biologos, it seems I have read them more carefully than have you. I am surprised that you would so zealously defend them when you are so unaware of much of the content of their site. Once you read the site more carefully we can perhaps have a more fruitful conversation.
Until such time I must agree with you. This has become rather tiring.
August 14th, 2010 | 8:05 pm | #42
Joel,
I don’t think I can type that slowly.
Anyway, I am curious as to how you can so thoroughly misread my statement about Biologos inviting Keller, Waltke or Beale to write a series of posts defening inerrancy. I don’t expect Keller to have to defend himself any more than I expect Greg Beale to defend himself. As far as I know, Keller has never mocked the doctrine of inerrancy. I could rewrite the statement but I think we both know it would not make any difference.
By the way, I will believe that Biologos is a “big tent” when they welcome contributors who will challenge theistic evolution and defend the doctrine of inerrancy and the historical Adam and fall. Of course, Biologos does not have to be a big tent. They have every right to advance their agenda. I simply do not understand why we would deny what is so clear.
August 14th, 2010 | 9:34 pm | #43
I don’t think I can type that slowly.
*smile* Probably not!
As far as I know, Keller has never mocked the doctrine of inerrancy.
Great! Let’s start with this claim: who *has* mocked inerrancy and would you please substantiate your accusation.
August 15th, 2010 | 2:12 pm | #44
A friend of mine has been following the rancor at Evangel, whereby some people want to turn the religion-science debate into a litmus test of orthodoxy. His perceptive comments are below:
August 16th, 2010 | 5:15 am | #45
The Creation Story is Liturgy: A Solution to Science and Religion Debate?
Better:
The Neo-Darwinian Story is Liturgy: A Problem to Religion and Religion Debate?
A Secular Humanist Declaration:
As secular humanists, we are generally skeptical about supernatural claims. We recognize the importance of religious experience: that experience that redirects and gives meaning to the lives of human beings. We deny, however, that such experiences have anything to do with the supernatural. We are doubtful of traditional views of God and divinity. Symbolic and mythological interpretations of religion often serve as rationalizations for a sophisticated minority, leaving the bulk of mankind to flounder in theological confusion. We consider the universe to be a dynamic scene of natural forces that are most effectively understood by scientific inquiry.
….
Today the theory of evolution is again under heavy attack by religious fundamentalists. … Accordingly, we deplore the efforts by fundamentalists (especially in the United States) to invade the science classrooms, requiring that creationist theory be taught to students and requiring that it be included in biology textbooks. This is a serious threat both to academic freedom and to the integrity of the educational process. …
——
Atheist: Someone who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
I don’t know of any atheist who doesn’t believe in neo-Darwinian evolution.
Atheists promote neo-Darwinian evolution to show and demonstrate that there is no God.
Satan loves atheists and their promotion of neo-Darwinian evolution.
As a Bible-Believing Christian, no thanks to the Father of Lie’s liturgical religion of neo-Darwinian evolution and its doctrine of origins.
August 16th, 2010 | 8:48 am | #46
I’m a regular reader at Pyro and a rare poster there, so let that be my introduction. TUAD posts above that Darwinian evolution is necessarily promoted by atheists. I would absolutely disagree with that assertion.
I would assert that atheists promote the prevailing view of science in that day. Certainly, there have been major upheavals in many areas of science in the last 500 years. What makes any scientist sure that today’s theories are in fact the truth in their own paradigm of what is truth? The fact is that any honest scientist will not make such an assertion. If science is the litmus test for atheism, then it must by necessity reorganize it’s thought and arguments on a semiregular basis with each new discovery that causes a change in the prevailing theory of the day.
The following article from the ID guys’ page was found which discusses a possible mathematical and scientific error in Darwinian evolution. http://www.intelligentdesignfacts.com/intelligent-design-against-evolution-great-darwinian-paradox-8.html
If you accept that science has once again overturned a cornerstone piece of their world view, does that mean that the whole argument comes tumbling down? Not in the mind of science. The new theory will have to be reconciled with all prevailing theories that have pertinence to it. That’s how science works.
An atheist’s agenda is above the mire of this particular debate. In fact, if MM O’Hair were alive, she would revel in this mud wrestling event in the blogosphere. The destruction and eradication of all things spiritual from the public arena is the goal of such people.
I’m sure both sides will now throw rocks in my direction, but that’s what makes this interesting and compelling stuff.
August 16th, 2010 | 9:08 am | #47
Christopher, I think Brueggemann’s ideas are interesting and worth learning from, whether we agree with his conclusions or not. But I’m curious about something. In your second disclaimer you wrote,
Adequate in what way?
August 16th, 2010 | 9:28 am | #48
(Me) “Atheist: Someone who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
I don’t know of any atheist who doesn’t believe in neo-Darwinian evolution.
Atheists promote neo-Darwinian evolution to show and demonstrate that there is no God.
Satan loves atheists and their promotion of neo-Darwinian evolution.
As a Bible-Believing Christian, no thanks to the Father of Lie’s liturgical religion of neo-Darwinian evolution and its doctrine of origins.”
Merlin: “TUAD posts above that Darwinian evolution is necessarily promoted by atheists. I would absolutely disagree with that assertion.”
I did not post that atheists necessarily promoted Darwinian evolution.
But I will say that a large majority of atheists promote neo-Darwinian evolution.
August 16th, 2010 | 9:30 am | #49
Merlin,
I don’t always agree with TUAD, but I think we have to take into account the current state of affairs. For those who seek a naturalistic explanation of biological origins, there is at this time no viable alternative to neo-Darwinism. There are dim hints of other options on the horizon, but they’re hardly viable right now. Therefore as far as anyone knows, atheism entails evolution.
(I’m going to go on with this, even though it may not related to what you wrote.)
The converse is not true. Evolution does not entail atheism. Here’s where I have sympathy with the BioLogos position. There are those who believe the scientific evidence clearly indicates life developed by a gradual process of descent with modification and selection. There is no contradiction whatever between that position and theism generally speaking. The process could have been the unfolding of God’s purposes and plan.
There is also no necessary contradiction between descent with modification and various views of Genesis 1 and 2. Therefore belief in evolution does not entail opposition to theism. Obviously it does entail opposition to young-earth creationism, and to a range of other views that (for scientific or theological reasons) see God as intervening directly into the formation of species with non-linear, non-gradual changes.
So in sum:
Atheism entails evolution.
Evolution does not entail atheism.
Evolution does not entail non-Christianity.
Evolution does entail non-YEC and certain related views.
It is most certainly the case that many godly, Bible-believing thinkers hold the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 as open questions. For them, descent with modification or guided (theistic) evolution can be divorced conceptually from atheism.
From this I take it that although evolution can be and most certainly has been used as a whip against Christianity and theism, it is not necessarily the grand Satan that some present it to be. The issue is not descent with modification. The issue is God vs. naturalism.
August 16th, 2010 | 9:43 am | #50
Having had some interaction with Bruggemann, maybe I could throw a little light here.
Bruggemann actually sees himself as someone who is attempting to resist historical-critical methodologies by taking the theology of the Old Testament seriously. He resists efforts to isolate passages and then claim that they cannot be reconciled. I would not paint Bruggemann as a liberal because he is not at home among those like James Barr who are happy to say that Paul gets the fall narrative of Genesis 2 wrong and thus there are irreconcilable contradictions. His OT theology book is an attempt to find a way to reconcile Israel’s story as a coherent narrative across numerous books written in different periods of time.
On the other hand, Bruggemann does take historical-critical methodology seriously as do many Evangelicals like Bruce Waltke. This means taking seriously claims about dating, composition of various books of the Bible, etc. None of this precludes a high view of scripture, including inerrancy, in my view. One need only read the Chicago Statement’s endorsement of literary genre and the need not to read modern notions of truth (e.g., truth = precision) to recognize this.
When the final composition of Genesis occurred, for example, does not speak directly to the historicity of Adam and Eve. Even historical-critical scholars will place these stories in an Ancient Near Eastern context and thus the stories themselves predate the final composition of the text. In OT research, final composition only means when the book “came off the printing press” so to speak.
Also, we have to re-adjust what we mean by a book anyway. To “publish” a book in the ancient world was to release it to be copied. But we have many examples of books that were copied early and released without the author’s OK. Augustine complains about this with his own works. So, to publish a book in the Ancient Near East would not mean that the book was no longer capable of being edited. It is more akin to publishing a blog, which always remains open to editorial alteration.
August 16th, 2010 | 10:08 am | #51
What? They had no copyright protections?
August 16th, 2010 | 10:55 am | #52
Joel Hunter: “Perhaps the owners of Evangel would do everyone a favor, since it seems that for some evolution is a point over which to separate fellowship, to simply agree to a policy about the subject so that we all know what ideas are permissible to discuss openly without one’s orthodoxy being called into question.
You mean, like Frank Turk quitting Evangel?
“I’ll even suggest one: “Requirement 493(g) for Evangel contributors: I deny that humans are descended from a common ancestor with the great apes, or that there is any merit to such a claim.”
Anyone have a problem with Joel Hunter’s suggestion. It’s a fairly loose minimal requirement; in fact, it’s a rather low threshold, but Evangel does need to have some standards for theological decency.
If everyone agrees, then please, anyone who believes “that humans are descended from a common ancestor with the great apes”, please do not make such comments at Evangel and for the Evangel co-bloggers, please do not post statements from authors advocating such.
Thank you for respecting and adhering to Joel Hunter’s requirement 493(g).
August 16th, 2010 | 11:14 am | #53
They had the same kinds of copyright protections that function today in the Middle East. If you have ever been there, you know you can pick up a copy of about anything for little or no money.
I had a friend pick up a nice version of the third installment of Lord of the Rings for a few dollars. I also bought a “designer” shirt, complete with label and all, for a few dollars the last time I was in Turkey. I also had a friend from Lebanon once tell me he could pick up the entire Oxford English Dictionary on CD-Rom for around $10. I declined that offer thinking it was a little much.
What’s a copyright?
August 16th, 2010 | 11:16 am | #54
Dale Coulter: “I would not paint Bruggemann as a liberal because he is not at home among those like James Barr who are happy to say that Paul gets the fall narrative of Genesis 2 wrong and thus there are irreconcilable contradictions.”
Here’s some other perspectives on Bruggemann:
(1) (Green Baggins, Lane Keister) “Brueggemann has many interesting literary insights into texts. He is an out and out liberal, however, and so he must be read with quite a bit of salt handy.”
(2) (Green Baggins) “Well, Brueggemann does not hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, and leans in an open theist direction, for starters.”
(3) “Brueggemann’s own approach to biblical theology, a dialectical approach that seeks to be sensitive both to the historical forces that shaped the text (“in the fray”) as well as to theological meaning of the final canonical form (“above the fray”), reflects aspects of all three perspectives.
This dialectic is worked out through “imaginative remembering.” The Old Testament does not give us actual history or “reportage” of history, but a “sustained memory that has been filtered through many generations of the interpretive process, with many interpreters imposing certain theological intentionalities on the memory that continues to be reformulated.”
Memory is critical because Israel has transmitted its faith to us through story. “Story is not interested in ‘deep structures,’ in ‘abiding truths,’ nor in ‘exact proofs.’ It does not trade in ‘eternal realities,’” he writes in the introduction to his Genesis commentary. “Story offers nothing that is absolutely certain, either by historical certification or by universal affirmation. It lives, rather, by the scandal of concreteness, by the freedom of imagination, and by the passion of hearing” (all ital orig.).
Biblical interpreters must therefore not be overly reliant on historical, rational, and dogmatic questions, but should instead yield to the “surprise raids” and “surprise assaults on imagination” of the biblical texts. That said, preaching becomes a dangerous business: “Preaching is a peculiar, freighted, risky act each time we do it: entrusted with an irascible, elusive, polyvalent Subject and flying low under the dominant version with a subversive offer of another version to be embraced by subversives”!
When asked in an interview if Scripture was his authority, Brueggemann replied, “it’s the chief authority to me as long as one can qualify that to say that it is the chief authority when imaginatively construed in a certain interpretive trajectory.”
(4) “He[Walter Bruggemann] makes N.T. Wright look like a bible-thumping Fundamentalist.”
(5) “He[Walter Bruggemann] is the darling of the theo-left. Since he often contributes to Christian Century, he receives wide hearing among the other mainliners as well as among some of the emergent folk since he lectures for them too. Red Letter Christians know him from his writings in Jim Wallis’ Sojourners. They love his handling of the OT. He is UCC, duh. His Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy is probably as good as any summary of his current thinking since it was released in the late 90s. I found his division of the OT canon into the notions of ethos, pathos, and logos to be more clever than helpful.
My advice? Stay away from him. He isn’t worth the time.”
Read it all here at Walter Bruggemann.
August 16th, 2010 | 11:56 am | #55
TUAD,
Your quotations get at the problem. Most of those folks reading Bruggemann seem to fail to put him in the proper context. Thus, they don’t get what Bruggemann means by historical.
For example, if your primary opponents are those espousing historical-critical methods, and these folks are the very ones who claim to be concerned with history in terms of concrete, on the ground events, then one method of attack is to undermine their notion of what counts as historical and what does not count as historical. This is what Bruggemann is attempting to do. It is not undermining history, but the method by which one approaches and therefore defines the historical.
Even Tom Wright says that the resurrection is not subject to absolute historical verification. This does not mean it’s ahistorical.
What seems to be confused here is that to deny an approach to the historical is not the same as denying the historical. Historical-critical scholars think they are being much more historical than most evangelicals because they take data from history like archeological findings, other texts, inscriptions, etc., and use them to situate biblical texts.
Secondly, it’s clear that those folks don’t understand how testimony functions. As a Pentecostal who grew up with testimonies being given all around me, I understand how testimony brings together the historical and the spiritual within a framework that serves to communicate and enhance the collective memory of the community. It is no different than the OT prophets drawing on the testimony of the exodus event to say God will deliver from exile. Testimony does not exclude historicity, but it does assault the imagination. If you think miracles are gone, then a testimony about a miracle happening can assault your theological imagination.
Some conservative Reformed folks like the Westminster CA (Scott Clark in particular who has written against testimony) seem to hate the use of testimony even in current Christian discourse. It is not difficult to see how those who think the Pentecostal use of testimony is harmful will also think Bruggemann’s understanding of testimony is deeply problematic.
I continue to think that our theologies are informing deeply the way we approach these issues.
Let me also say how you and other Reformed folks on this blog seem to despise the way stereotypes and unfair labels are used against Reformed theology; and rightly so. Why not extend the same courtesy to Bruggemann instead of saying, “He’s UCC, so he MUST be x.” How is that different from saying, “You’re Reformed, so you MUST think God is a sadist.”
August 16th, 2010 | 12:05 pm | #56
TUAD and Jeff Doles,
As a follow up, let me say to both of you, and others attempting to defend your interpretation of scripture, how much I appreciate the fact that you remain engaged.
Regardless of where this discussion ends, it is vital that we all stay engaged with one another, even in our fits of anger and doubts as to the orthodoxy of the other.
It’s funny that Jeff and I would be on the same side in a debate about Reformed and Wesleyan theologies while you, TUAD, would be on the same side as Christopher Benson. It may be helpful to remember these things as we let iron sharpen iron.
August 16th, 2010 | 12:12 pm | #57
“As a Pentecostal who grew up….”
Geez Dale, there’s your problem right there! :-)
Let’s happily continue the pattern you’ve established.
“He’s UCC, so he MUST be x.”
“You’re Reformed, so you MUST think God is a sadist.”
“Dale Coulter’s a Pentecostal, so he must be a charlatan like Todd Bentley and those other fraudulent holy roller faith healers and goofy floor writhers.”
;-)
A Baptist preacher and his wife decided they needed a dog. Ever mindful of their congregation, they knew the dog must also be Baptist. They visited an expensive kennel and explained their needs to the manager, who assured them he had just the dog for them.
When the dog was produced, the manager began giving it commands. “Fetch the Bible,” he commanded. The dog bounced to the bookshelf, scrutinized the books, located the Bible, and brought it to the manager. The manager then said, “Find Psalms 23″. The dog, showing marvelous dexterity with his paws, leafed thru the Bible, found the correct passage, and pointed to it with his paw.
Duly impressed, the preacher and his wife purchased the dog. That evening a group of parishioners came to visit. The preacher and his wife began to show off the dog, having him locate several Bible verses. The visitors were amazed.
Finally, one man asked “Can the dog do normal dog tricks too?”
“Let’s see” said the preacher. Pointing his finger at the dog, he commanded, “Heel!”
The dog immediately jumped up on a chair, placed one paw on the preacher’s forehead and began to howl. The preacher turned to his wife in complete shock and disbelief. “We’ve been swindled! That manager sold us a Pentecostal dog!”
August 16th, 2010 | 12:19 pm | #58
“It’s funny that Jeff and I would be on the same side in a debate about Reformed and Wesleyan theologies while you, TUAD, would be on the same side as Christopher Benson.”
(choking, eye’s bulging and popping out, nostrils flaring, forehead wrinkled, teeth gritting)
“Dale, I do not find that one bit funny.”
;-)
August 16th, 2010 | 12:26 pm | #59
LOL. Thanks for that story on a “manic Monday”– a nice reprieve.
August 16th, 2010 | 1:08 pm | #60
Christopher Benson: “I am trying to set the record strait on the Old Princeton theology of inspiration and inerrancy which is so often libeled and misunderstood that <b.it angers me. Apparently it is misunderstood by ultra-liberals and ultra-conservatives. I am saddened at the thought that someone like P. Enns might be unjustly maligned in the process. WWBBWS? What Would B. B. Warfield Say?”
Okay. What would B.B. Warfield Say?
For this, let’s be thankful to Evangel co-blogger Justin Taylor. For he posted today the following [by Zaspel]:
“I am persuaded, however, that this understanding is mistaken. [That Warfield was an evolutionist]. Warfield did claim to have accepted the theory of evolution in his youth, but he then rejected it early in his career. Thereafter he remained open to the possibility of it and affirmed that Scripture could accommodate it, if it were to be proven true, but he himself continued to reject the theory. To demonstrate this, we will survey Warfield’s writings first for his foundational assumptions and basic distinctions about creation and evolution, second for his skepticism about evolution as a scientific theory, and third for how Christians specifically should evaluate and respond to evolution. We will then be in a position, finally, to reevaluate the argument and evidence that Livingstone and Noll propose.”
Read it all at Warfield on Creation and Evolution.
Thanks Justin Taylor!!
August 16th, 2010 | 1:12 pm | #61
Christopher Benson: “I am trying to set the record strait on the Old Princeton theology of inspiration and inerrancy which is so often libeled and misunderstood that it angers me. Apparently it is misunderstood by ultra-liberals and ultra-conservatives. I am saddened at the thought that someone like P. Enns might be unjustly maligned in the process. WWBBWS? What Would B. B. Warfield Say?”
Okay. Don’t be angry any longer Christopher Benson. What would B.B. Warfield Say?
For this, let’s be thankful to Evangel co-blogger Justin Taylor. For he posted today the following [by Zaspel]:
“I am persuaded, however, that this understanding is mistaken. [That Warfield was an evolutionist]. Warfield did claim to have accepted the theory of evolution in his youth, but he then rejected it early in his career. Thereafter he remained open to the possibility of it and affirmed that Scripture could accommodate it, if it were to be proven true, but he himself continued to reject the theory. To demonstrate this, we will survey Warfield’s writings first for his foundational assumptions and basic distinctions about creation and evolution, second for his skepticism about evolution as a scientific theory, and third for how Christians specifically should evaluate and respond to evolution. We will then be in a position, finally, to reevaluate the argument and evidence that Livingstone and Noll propose.”
Read it all at Warfield on Creation and Evolution.
Thanks Justin Taylor!!
August 18th, 2010 | 12:41 am | #62
I enjoyed the post. I don’t always agree with Bruggemann, but he’s very insightful at times. And I’ve actually used this book you’re quoting.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact