Comments on: The Suspension of Peter Enns http://www.dennyburk.com/the-suspension-of-peter-enns/ A commentary on theology, politics, and culture Sat, 11 Feb 2012 07:44:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Denny Burk » Peter Enns and Evangelical Debates over Genesis http://www.dennyburk.com/the-suspension-of-peter-enns/#comment-35538 Denny Burk » Peter Enns and Evangelical Debates over Genesis Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:26:27 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=1665#comment-35538 [...] with talk about the suspension of Peter Enns from the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary (see my previous post). So my ears perked up on Tuesday when the President of my college announced in chapel that there [...] [...] with talk about the suspension of Peter Enns from the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary (see my previous post). So my ears perked up on Tuesday when the President of my college announced in chapel that there [...]

]]> By: Denny Burk » Peter Enns and Evangelical Debates over Genesis http://www.dennyburk.com/the-suspension-of-peter-enns/#comment-35537 Denny Burk » Peter Enns and Evangelical Debates over Genesis Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:23:18 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=1665#comment-35537 [...] few weeks about the suspension of Peter Enns from the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary (see my previous post). So my ears perked up on Tuesday when the President of my college announced in chapel that there [...] [...] few weeks about the suspension of Peter Enns from the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary (see my previous post). So my ears perked up on Tuesday when the President of my college announced in chapel that there [...]

]]> By: Ferg http://www.dennyburk.com/the-suspension-of-peter-enns/#comment-35055 Ferg Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:10:26 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=1665#comment-35055 Thanks for acknowledging me Brett. I've mentioned my thoughts a couple of times in various posts on this site and no-one seems to respond. All they do is pick out something like Pinnock being an inclusivist, something which i too appreciate but don't necessarily agree with. I never mentioned anything to do with that but yet they will not refer to anything else in my post. i genuinely think i'm slightly invisible here. perhaps it's because i'm not straight up arguementative!! Thanks for acknowledging me Brett. I’ve mentioned my thoughts a couple of times in various posts on this site and no-one seems to respond. All they do is pick out something like Pinnock being an inclusivist, something which i too appreciate but don’t necessarily agree with. I never mentioned anything to do with that but yet they will not refer to anything else in my post. i genuinely think i’m slightly invisible here. perhaps it’s because i’m not straight up arguementative!!

]]> By: Darius http://www.dennyburk.com/the-suspension-of-peter-enns/#comment-35035 Darius Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:27:26 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=1665#comment-35035 #39 should be ahead of #38, not sure why they got switched. #39 should be ahead of #38, not sure why they got switched.

]]> By: Darius http://www.dennyburk.com/the-suspension-of-peter-enns/#comment-35033 Darius Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:26:12 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=1665#comment-35033 On that count, I applaud Denny for avoiding unhelpful retorts even when people throw ad hominems in his direction. If only I had that forbearing restraint. On that count, I applaud Denny for avoiding unhelpful retorts even when people throw ad hominems in his direction. If only I had that forbearing restraint.

]]> By: Daniel Davis http://www.dennyburk.com/the-suspension-of-peter-enns/#comment-35030 Daniel Davis Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:09:48 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=1665#comment-35030 by being an inclusivist, is pinnock denying that Jesus is the only way of salvation? just because he "loves" people, does that mean he would rather diminish the truth about the wide-open gate that leads to hell? love without truth; truth without love - both are wrong. theology from the heart vs theology from the head? one without the other is misguided. ultimately, truth theology is from God. where do we get such truth and love? from the Holy Spirit and the Word. by being an inclusivist, is pinnock denying that Jesus is the only way of salvation?

just because he “loves” people, does that mean he would rather diminish the truth about the wide-open gate that leads to hell?

love without truth; truth without love – both are wrong.

theology from the heart vs theology from the head? one without the other is misguided. ultimately, truth theology is from God. where do we get such truth and love? from the Holy Spirit and the Word.

]]> By: Brett http://www.dennyburk.com/the-suspension-of-peter-enns/#comment-35005 Brett Fri, 04 Apr 2008 04:47:50 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=1665#comment-35005 Ferg, People here officially think you're not a Christian anymore and are adding you to their prayer lists! In regards to the open theists, I actually love Pinnock and Boyd because they do theology from the heart and not from the head. A genuine love for people drive many of their beliefs, and I hope we can all appreciate that. I'm not saying we ignore the Bible, but I am saying we shouldn't be strict, rigid Bible interpreters who hold to a Pharisaic hermeneutic (which many, many, many do). Pinnock is an inclusivist b/c he loves people, and I appreciate that. He can't stand the thought of people spending eternity in a place called hell, and none of us should rejoice in the reality and eternality of hell, but rather grieve for people if we think they are on that path. Bottom line, I think God is much more pleased with Boyd and Pinnock than many strict conservative reformed evangelicals (now I'm not a Christian anymore Ferg!) Ferg,

People here officially think you’re not a Christian anymore and are adding you to their prayer lists!

In regards to the open theists, I actually love Pinnock and Boyd because they do theology from the heart and not from the head. A genuine love for people drive many of their beliefs, and I hope we can all appreciate that. I’m not saying we ignore the Bible, but I am saying we shouldn’t be strict, rigid Bible interpreters who hold to a Pharisaic hermeneutic (which many, many, many do). Pinnock is an inclusivist b/c he loves people, and I appreciate that. He can’t stand the thought of people spending eternity in a place called hell, and none of us should rejoice in the reality and eternality of hell, but rather grieve for people if we think they are on that path. Bottom line, I think God is much more pleased with Boyd and Pinnock than many strict conservative reformed evangelicals (now I’m not a Christian anymore Ferg!)

]]> By: Ferg http://www.dennyburk.com/the-suspension-of-peter-enns/#comment-34984 Ferg Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:47:12 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=1665#comment-34984 I have Ware's book, God's lesser Glory and I find it slightly disturbing and thoroughly unconvincing. I, like Denny have wrestled with the two views and upon reading Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock, and Ware, Piper and countless other reformed heads, I find myself an open theist as i find it is most consistent with scripture and dare i say it, my own personal relationship with Jesus. I'm very very slow to say that, as last time I mentioned that I was annihilated because my relationship with Jesus isn't in scripture and apparently thats the only place we can learn about him. wonders, anthropomorphisms always strike me as being disingenuous. God saying that he grieves over Saul when he didnt do exactly what God had foreordained him to do, when actually he didn't. As Ware following Calvin would say "God is not sorrowful or sad" but "remains for ever like himself in his celestial and happy repose” Calvin, Ware and the others hermeneutic presupposes that sovereignty means domination, and so biblical texts that go against this understanding are read differently. God he says uses anthropomorphisms because “we cannot comprehend him as he is”. God graciously accommodates himself by “lisping” to us as does a nursemaid to a young child. Calvin himself admits that his theological decree of election is “terrifying”, but says it nonetheless comes from the “abyss” in God, which ought to be reverenced. The tension with all this though arises when the very same people talk about prayer in a very very different language. It is as though God does, in fact, respond to our prayers, is receptive and enters into reciprocal relationships with his creatures, Calvin speaks of the fatherhood of God in our lives, however it is not a father to whom our concerns, joys and sorrows make a difference. if they did, then God would be affected by us, which implies some degree of conditionality in God. I could go on but i fear the post getting too long. they are a few of my musings in relation to ware etc. I have Ware’s book, God’s lesser Glory and I find it slightly disturbing and thoroughly unconvincing. I, like Denny have wrestled with the two views and upon reading Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock, and Ware, Piper and countless other reformed heads, I find myself an open theist as i find it is most consistent with scripture and dare i say it, my own personal relationship with Jesus. I’m very very slow to say that, as last time I mentioned that I was annihilated because my relationship with Jesus isn’t in scripture and apparently thats the only place we can learn about him.
wonders, anthropomorphisms always strike me as being disingenuous. God saying that he grieves over Saul when he didnt do exactly what God had foreordained him to do, when actually he didn’t. As Ware following Calvin would say “God is not sorrowful or sad”
but “remains for ever like himself in his celestial and happy repose”
Calvin, Ware and the others hermeneutic presupposes that sovereignty means domination, and so biblical texts that go against this understanding are read differently. God he says uses anthropomorphisms because “we cannot comprehend him as he is”. God graciously accommodates himself by “lisping” to us as does a nursemaid to a young child.
Calvin himself admits that his theological decree of election is “terrifying”, but says it nonetheless comes from the “abyss” in God, which ought to be reverenced.
The tension with all this though arises when the very same people talk about prayer in a very very different language.
It is as though God does, in fact, respond to our prayers, is receptive and enters into reciprocal relationships with his creatures, Calvin speaks of the fatherhood of God in our lives, however it is not a father to whom our concerns, joys and sorrows make a difference. if they did, then God would be affected by us, which implies some degree of conditionality in God.
I could go on but i fear the post getting too long. they are a few of my musings in relation to ware etc.

]]> By: Wonders for Oyarsa http://www.dennyburk.com/the-suspension-of-peter-enns/#comment-34935 Wonders for Oyarsa Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:53:11 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=1665#comment-34935 Hi Bryan L., <i>It is a nice telling of the narrative of scripture (although leaving out some key parts like the kings and exile and return to the land, etc.).</i> Naturally, naturally - I was telling it through the lens of those two Old Testament passages we were discussing. <i>I am not sure what you are trying to say though. When you say myth is truer than historical facts, ok, but what is considered myth and what is considered historical facts? And how is it truer? And since the bulk of the story you laid out has to do with the historical account (and it’s theological interpretation) what does that mean then to say myth is truer than historical fact. Is there a myth within scripture that is truer than the historical account you just laid out?</i> The account I laid out was largely that of myth (at least in the two OT stories - the latter one far less "mythological" than the first). Myths are not allegories, nor are they necessarily unhistorical, but they are a way of understanding ourselves and our history and the work of God in terms of arch-typical stories. They are different from both blow by blow historical accounts (the history isn't "in focus" - as C. S. Lewis would say) and allegories/fiction/etc (in that the story therein is meant to be understood as having happened in some sense). The truth of myth lies in the integrity of the story and the characters, rather than the technical precision of the details. <i>And the question still remains where do passages about God repenting, changing his mind and being surprised fit into all of this?</i> They set the stage. They show us the precariousness of our position and the weight of our sins; the wrath of God mixed with his perseverance and kindness; and the central and monumental role that man plays in bringing forth the redemptive love of God. They help us enter into the central paradoxes of the faith. Hi Bryan L.,

It is a nice telling of the narrative of scripture (although leaving out some key parts like the kings and exile and return to the land, etc.).

Naturally, naturally – I was telling it through the lens of those two Old Testament passages we were discussing.

I am not sure what you are trying to say though. When you say myth is truer than historical facts, ok, but what is considered myth and what is considered historical facts? And how is it truer? And since the bulk of the story you laid out has to do with the historical account (and it’s theological interpretation) what does that mean then to say myth is truer than historical fact. Is there a myth within scripture that is truer than the historical account you just laid out?

The account I laid out was largely that of myth (at least in the two OT stories – the latter one far less “mythological” than the first). Myths are not allegories, nor are they necessarily unhistorical, but they are a way of understanding ourselves and our history and the work of God in terms of arch-typical stories. They are different from both blow by blow historical accounts (the history isn’t “in focus” – as C. S. Lewis would say) and allegories/fiction/etc (in that the story therein is meant to be understood as having happened in some sense). The truth of myth lies in the integrity of the story and the characters, rather than the technical precision of the details.

And the question still remains where do passages about God repenting, changing his mind and being surprised fit into all of this?

They set the stage. They show us the precariousness of our position and the weight of our sins; the wrath of God mixed with his perseverance and kindness; and the central and monumental role that man plays in bringing forth the redemptive love of God. They help us enter into the central paradoxes of the faith.

]]> By: Bryan L http://www.dennyburk.com/the-suspension-of-peter-enns/#comment-34930 Bryan L Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:48:31 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=1665#comment-34930 Wonders, It is a nice telling of the narrative of scripture (although leaving out some key parts like the kings and exile and return to the land, etc.). I am not sure what you are trying to say though. When you say myth is truer than historical facts, ok, but what is considered myth and what is considered historical facts? And how is it truer? And since the bulk of the story you laid out has to do with the historical account (and it's theological interpretation) what does that mean then to say myth is truer than historical fact. Is there a myth within scripture that is truer than the historical account you just laid out? And the question still remains where do passages about God repenting, changing his mind and being surprised fit into all of this? And although you are not an open theist (which I've known) I am and so I decided to jump in when Denny mentioned it. BTW, nice to see you around again. Blessings, Bryan L Wonders,
It is a nice telling of the narrative of scripture (although leaving out some key parts like the kings and exile and return to the land, etc.).

I am not sure what you are trying to say though. When you say myth is truer than historical facts, ok, but what is considered myth and what is considered historical facts? And how is it truer? And since the bulk of the story you laid out has to do with the historical account (and it’s theological interpretation) what does that mean then to say myth is truer than historical fact. Is there a myth within scripture that is truer than the historical account you just laid out?

And the question still remains where do passages about God repenting, changing his mind and being surprised fit into all of this?

And although you are not an open theist (which I’ve known) I am and so I decided to jump in when Denny mentioned it.

BTW, nice to see you around again.

Blessings,
Bryan L

]]>