My Response to Pete Enns — The Alisa Childers Podcast #39
Mitch Harpur
12/14/2018 10:57:43 pm
Thanks again for a thoughtful and centered response. The arguments against true Christianity, as given by the Apostles, are increasingly full of cunning and straw men. Nowdays, it is not always easy to answer without being regarded as ignorant, foolish and ironically even immoral. At the end of the day we hold onto Jesus even if we can’t articulate it very well in spite of our best efforts. But we must keep trying. I find your articles helpful in this regard so thanks again
Wow, great podcast Alisa. Thank you for doing it. The only thing I really struggled with and that I constantly struggle with in our fight as conservative evangelicals against progressive Christianity is this idea that inerrancy is not a part of the rule of faith. I know my position makes me a minority amongst more educated members of the church today and also pits me against certain statements in the great Chicago Statement, but I’m still not convinced I’m truly a minority amongst all Christians today and I certainly would be in the overwhelming majority among Christians, including the leadership, before 1700, probably even 1800 or even as late as 1850. I genuinely think it is a stretch to say that the doctrine is not an essential of the faith both from a theological perspective and a historical perspective. I think it is the crux of the difference between orthodox Christianity and liberal “Christianity.”
Brian Fisher
12/15/2018 09:31:22 am
What stood out most to me in the podcast was the issue of culture. The Biblical writers often found themselves in the midst of a culture of debauchery, and were swimming upstream against it, NOT embracing it. In the midst of a plethora of legitimate doctrinal debate, the embracing by many progressive Christians of some of the more evil elements of today's post-modern society is the most clear evidence of the error that is being propagated by some of the movements' leaders. While Peter Enns was gracious in his rebuttal, his views nonetheless subtly represented a disdain for traditional Evangelical thought.
I have always believed, and numerous scriptures bear this out (Genesis 8:21 just one of many examples) that the natural inclination of the human heart is evil, and a supernatural, spiritual change is needed to change that. That "change", of course, was made possible by Jesus' death on the cross, and Romans 12:2 is a clear plea by the Apostle Paul to not be conformed to the world, but be transformed my the renewing of our minds. Many progressives discount this or ignore it completely.
It is my strong conviction that as Christians we are to prudently interact with culture WITHOUT embracing it completely.
Alisa, appreciate you taking time out of your vacation to address this.
Jane Gruber
12/17/2018 09:46:37 am
I appreciate your answer, Brian! I agree with your statement about interacting with culture without embracing it completely. I try to live out Christ through actions and sometimes having to hold my tongue because words are not always necessary if our faith is working right. I feel that Progressives tend to discredit sin in people's lives so that the Bible is not seem distasteful — to me this does more harm. There is sin and it separates us from God–it also waters down the need for Christ as our Savior and Redeemer. If there is no sin, why do we need a Savior? I do find, at times, that I walk on eggshells and I'm not brave enough at times to speak out against Progressive Christianity in fear of "offending" someone. Maybe it's not just lacking bravery but also fear of doing/saying the wrong thing. I also realize that Satan is at work in those thoughts. My pastor likes to say there is a real heaven and a real hell and real people are going to both. If people are not taught that sin separates us from God, then how can they know the truth?
This is my first introduction to Mrs. Childers and and it left me grateful to find another excellent Christian apologist. There's a number of things about your podcast that impress me. It's clear, concise, concrete content, relevant and gracious, but committed. I really appreciate the way you structure your arguments or responses and engage critique. I love listening to someone and finding myself wishing I had more of their skills, I felt that way after listening to this podcast. Thanks for what you are doing, I am sharing it.
Jane Gruber
12/17/2018 09:33:30 am
Alisa,
Thank you again for your thoughtful and thought-provoking response. I appreciate your knowledge and study of apologetics in today's world. I wonder, at times, if the apostles had a hard time not "adopting" the "if it feels right" faith that many people today are adopting. It's hard not feeling alone at times in trying to stand on historical Christianity which is why I agree with you that we must be planted in a strong historical church with fellow believers who keep us accountable, help us grow, and encourage us in our walk. Your response to the podcast was intelligent and graceful. I'm blessed to know you.
Helen Hoffmann
12/17/2018 04:31:51 pm
Thank you Alisa. As always, your tone is Christ-like, open and generous. You think highly of everyone you debate and I pray that you will not grow weary or be discouraged. Our battle is not against people but against lies that originate with the enemy of God. I am so very appreciative of the countless hours you give to study, reading and sharing all your research with your readers and listeners. You are at the forefront of responding with truth to the deception that calls itself 'progressive Christianity'. Keep at it Alisa; God is using you in ways you will only see in eternity! Like you, my heart is broken for dear friends who have rejected truth to follow this path but be encouraged that many are standing behind you in prayer. Thank you for being obedient to the call God has placed upon your heart. God's Word will bear fruit.
Audrey Wagner
12/18/2018 10:45:48 am
I loved this podcast, Alisa. I especially appreciate you exposing the non sequiturs and strawmen presented by those in the progressive camp. The work you are doing is much needed. My prayers will be with you as you continue to research, write, and record podcasts.
David
12/18/2018 08:01:14 pm
Your analyses, logic and Biblical backing are more grounded than those of many theologians with doctorate level education, and your arguments and tone are firm yet kind. What a delicate balance you so skillfully strike, much like Ravi Zacharias does, only you tend to come from gentler directions without sacrificing the forces of your points. Please keep battling worldly error with God's truth – you are rapidly becoming one of my favorite apologists.
Hendrik
12/19/2018 08:43:39 pm
Hi Alisa
While I agree with much of what you have said there is one thing that I disagree with. You seem to be suggesting that today’s evangelicalism is the same the same as historic christianity. It’s worth remembering that the israelites believed that the earth was flat and the sky was a solid dome that kept back the cosmic ocean above.
Come on Hendrik, you and I have been debating these accusations of yours for weeks and you have not come close to proving these things. You simply constantly link to Enns and never ever answer me when I point out how you never interpret key narratives from the NT according to the same exegetical principles you use to come to these conclusions from the OT.
Hendrik
12/20/2018 12:40:13 pm
Hi Dan
If you use the exegetical principle of trying to discern what the writer intended to communicate you can reach that conclusion. In the New Testament I think the writers were trying to communicate the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament I this they were trying to communicate the creation of the cosmos to a group of people who thought that the earth was flat and the reason the sky was blue was because there was a cosmic ocean above that was held back by the firmament.
Hendrik, you are HANDS DOWN one of the nicest theological opponents I have ever debated against. Hence, I really want to be as nice as I can, so please don't read too much into my tone. Any intensity that is coming across is due to my passion for these subjects and is not due to any dislike towards you. I genuinely think we could have a beer together and have a very nice time.
With the absolute utmost respect Hendrik, countless NT scholars and liberal theologians, who are far more articulate than Enns, argue that the NT writers did not intend to communicate a literal bodily resurrection. They use very similar arguments about cultural context, similarity of wording and phraseology, etc., as does Enns regarding Enn's rejection of traditional readings of Genesis and the OT as a whole. So it really doesn't matter what you think, or what I think, or what Alisa thinks, what matters is what the authors actually meant as you state. And you have to actually make the case and not simply say what you think and constantly just link to other articles.
Further, even if what you say is true, how does this help you in any way? The famous Bultmann, who was one of the most learned and robust scholars of all time, spent his entire career arguing that much of what the NT authors intended to say, including the bodily resurrection, is irrelevant because they were speaking according to the constraints of their time and culture and we today are not under such constraints and it is absurd when "fundamentalists" like myself try to place us back under those constraints. And this is exactly how Enns and you are arguing regarding the OT. But if the OT authors could be so badly mistaken, why can't the NT authors be equally badly mistaken? And if the NT authors can be badly mistaken, how do we know they are not mistaken regarding the bodily resurrection of Christ? And if they could be mistaken on that point why should I or anyone else believe this doctrine? Bultmann would persuasively argue that we can't and so we have to only glean from the NT what is palatable to us today as modern humans. What argument from your perspective can you offer to counter him?
Saying, as you have said before, that Christianity without the resurrection doesn't make very much sense to you, or that you don't have answers for everything, or that maybe you are a heretic after all but all well, do nothing for me or anyone in my camp. You want to argue according to science, academia, logic, etc., when it comes to the OT, but then you want a completely subjective, postmodern, relativistic, emotive argument to win the day when it comes to the NT. Such is simply incoherent, I'm sorry, it just is. And this incoherence marks everything Enns and Evans advocate all of the time.
If you guys can just go according to what emotionally makes sense to you regarding the NT, why can't we do the same regarding traditional readings of the OT? I'm not saying that I believe in traditional readings of the OT for simply emotional reasons, but if I did, why does that matter so much when you do the same when it comes to the NT?
Hendrik
12/26/2018 12:23:58 pm
Hi Dan
You really are too generous. I can’t really comment on the work of Bultmann as I am not familiar with it. My concern is that Genesis 1, especially verses 6 and 7 do not make much sense to modern christians. The most compelling explanation for these verses (to me at least) comes from understanding the cosmology of the ancient near east. I have posted a link to the below article as I think this provides a good explanation of how the ancient Israelites understood Genesis 1:
https://biologos.org/blogs/brad-kramer-the-evolving-evangelical/deep-space-and-the-dome-of-heaven
That’s exactly what Bultmann said about the resurrection, the Trinity, the incarnation, miracles, and many other core doctrines of the faith. Many progressive Christian leaders such as Spong, Crossan, and Borg say similar things. You need to familiarize yourself with all of these scholars and issues and stop solely relying on biologos, because until you do so and start answering my objections, you are a walking contradiction and therefore not a lot of what you say is very convincing.
Hendrik
1/9/2019 08:39:45 pm
Hi Dan
The following verses provide sufficient Biblical evidence that the firmament or vault refers to a solid dome: Ezekiel1:22; Job 37:18 and Psalm 148:4.
Hendrik, I've already answered this argument on my blog and you are well aware of this. And I just answered on my blog your last three comments where you bring up this canard yet again. This argument is so unbelievably weak, please stop using it.
Hendrik
1/13/2019 10:53:17 am
Hi Dan
I don't think this is a canard. Most mainline protestant churches and even the NIV accept ANE cosmology in the Bible .( https://www.thenivbible.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/NIV_FaithLife_Illustrated_Bible.jpg)
Hendrik, I feel like I've been pretty nice and fair to you, so I really hope you don't take what I'm about to say too harshly, but this response from you is extremely frustrating.
I've taken painstaking measures in almost all of my responses to you to say that no one is denying that ANE cosmology is present in the biblical narrative. So for you to suggest otherwise is very misleading and means that you are not reading my responses to you with a great deal of care. But ANE cosmology is a very broad topic and you and those like you simply assume that the pagan versions of ANE cosmology must have predated the biblical doctrine and that when the Bible reflects ANE cosmology that it must be COMPLETELY in line with pagan versions of it in all of its particulars. But this simply is not so. We maintain that the biblical doctrine preceded the pagan versions and that it was the pagan versions that corrupted the pure authentic account of what actually took place. But on a lot of points there is still agreement between the two and even where there is disagreement often very similar language is used.
And the canard I was referring to is not the reality of ANE cosmology in the Bible, but the idea that the three texts you constantly point to prove that the Bible teaches that the sky is an impenetrable dome. As I've said to you so many times the fact that there was water above the sky at the time of creation does not prove this, the Psalms and Ezekiel references certainly do not prove this, especially the Ezekiel text, and the Job text is simply the infallible recording of the very fallible statements of Elihu.
As far as most Mainline Protestant churches go, most are Liberal Protestant or Progressive Christian and are therefore apostate. They make countless arguments that are terribly weak, circular, and are usually simply pandering to the culture. 100 years ago not a single Liberal Protestant church would have defended gay marriage, but today almost all do so. And why is this? Is it because biblical scholarship on this point has gotten so much better as they so often claim? Nope. Not by a long shot. It is because the culture says that if they don't believe this they are bigots and so bam they all quickly got in line. So, respectfully, I do not care one iota what most Mainline Protestant churches and denominations believe. Please make actual substantive arguments and stop always appealing to others. This is the logical fallacy of appealing to authority and you engage in it quite often.
Thanks Hendrik.
Hendrik
1/24/2019 11:17:57 pm
Hi Dan
If the raqia in Ezekiel is not solid then what is it? If the sky was not assumed to be solid then how could it be stretched out or rolled up? Why are the sun and the moon set in the raqia but the birds fly in front of it? If you want to argue that the Israelites had a different understanding of the firmament than the other nations surrounding them then that is something that is up to you to have to prove.
My earlier point about the mainline protestant churches was not an appeal to authority but rather I wanted to emphasize that this is an important point that affects many christians and so is deserving of serious debate and consideration. It is worth noting that there are also many prominent christians who have accepted evolutionary creationism: https://biologos.org/blogs/brad-kramer-the-evolving-evangelical/famous-christians-who-believed-evolution-is-compatible-with-christian-faith?
All the best,
Hendrik
Daniel Hawkins
2/15/2019 04:37:32 pm
“But ANE cosmology is a very broad topic and you and those like you simply assume that the pagan versions of ANE cosmology must have predated the biblical doctrine and that when the Bible reflects ANE cosmology that it must be COMPLETELY in line with pagan versions of it in all of its particulars. But this simply is not so. We maintain that the biblical doctrine preceded the pagan versions and that it was the pagan versions that corrupted the pure authentic account of what actually took place. But on a lot of points there is still agreement between the two and even where there is disagreement often very similar language is used.” (Emphasis mine)
Probably jumping into a long abandoned thread here, and likely missing some context behind some of the statements here, so forgive me for that.
Dan, you state here that “people like Hendrik” assume that ANE cosmology predated the biblical narratives, but then you come right back with what could very well be an assumption of your own (at least in terms of the lack of evidence provided here) that it was the other way around. Realistically, neither side of that argument can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt which predated the other. However, I think there is substantial evidence to back the claim that the ANE cosmology (again an admittedly broad subject, but here I am specifically referring to the ANE belief of cosmic geography including a dome or firmament with waters above and waters below, and pillars upon which the land rested) pointed to by Hendrik predates the Genesis narratives, at least in the form as we now have them. (I am aware that there is a possibility that the narratives contain elements of oral tradition that may be much older than the written text itself.)
Firstly, the text itself in both the Genesis 1 creation account as well as in the Genesis 6-9 flood narratives make reference to the above stated cosmic geography in their descriptions of creation and the flood. That would indicate that either these texts are the origins of this cosmic geography (a problem which will be discussed next, and, if they are inerrant, significantly clashes with what we know about our planet today), or, as is more likely, they were using a common cultural understanding in order to communicate with their intended audience.
Secondly, the view of waters above and below being divided can be demonstrated in multiple ANE creation accounts, including Enuma Elish, which dates to roughly sometime in the mid-late second millennia BCE. These accounts pre-date the Genesis narratives in most of mainstream scholarship, and are at best a rough temporal, although not geographical, contemporary to the Genesis narratives in the most conservative scholarship that maintains Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. (See for example commentaries by Spiers, Speiser, Wenham, Westermann, and Matthews, to name just a few that come readily to mind.) Even if the Genesis narratives predated the other ANE texts that hold the same cosmic geography, the likelihood of the cultures that produced those texts subscribing to the creation account of what would have been essentially a wandering band of people at this point is highly unlikely. Granted, I suppose one could counter that the oral traditions behind the Genesis narratives trace back to (insert a satisfactory source here), but such an argument is speculation without evidence at best, and ignorant of substantial evidence to the contrary at worst.
I hope that is coherent, and helpful for possibly filling out the argument that Hendrik seems to be making.
Thank you for commenting on my thoughts Daniel, I very much appreciate it and the tone in which you approach this discussion. But I do have to say that no, you are not following my argument. I will do my best to explain why.
I do not deny almost anything you said from a purely factual standpoint and when taking each point in an itemized fashion. That has never been the issue for me on this topic generally or with Hendrik in particular. My issue is the myopic way those like Hendrik and Enns want to approach this issue. I can when required look at this issue in a myopic fashion and totally agree that all things being equal the position that states that the Genesis narrative and the OT as a whole teach what is often termed "traditional" ANE cosmology is PROBABLY the best position given the evidence. The probably I have with Hendrik and Enns is that they then want to take this myopic approach and apply it in much broader ways to biblical and systematic theology in ways that simply do not work and are in reality, with the utmost respect to them, completely dishonest, inconsistent, and incoherent.
I have consistently maintained for well over a decade now of engaging in apologetics with people, including apologetic methodology with those in the church, that we as Christians need to be more honest about the very real apologetic problems that exist regarding the case for Christianity. I have written very clearly in my most recent book that apologetic problems are extremely real and that in my estimation far too many otherwise solid conservative evangelical apologists try to gloss over these problems and I for one do not appreciate it. I would put the question of "traditional" ANE cosmology squarely within that category.
Having made that clear, I am also equally clear in my book and to Hendrik that the overall case for Christianity is so overwhelming that it trumps all apologetic problems. And I'm also very clear that there exists no apologetic fatalities when it comes to the case for Christianity and that is highly significant. That cannot be said for any other religion, faith system, philosophy, or worldview. What so many people do not understand who do not have a great deal of background in history is how painfully difficult it is to prove just about ANYTHING historically speaking in an incontrovertible fashion. Hence, we can say, for example, that it is an incontrovertible fact that the Roman Empire existed and we can assert many incontrovertible facts associated with that Empire, but on many subjects we cannot say that we know something happened with that degree of certainty, even many countless things that we often assert with an extremely high degree of certainty.
My point with Hendrik and Enns and so many others is that the ANE cosmology arguments are not incontrovertible and they need to stop acting like they are. There is nothing in the Bible that absolutely DEMANDS the ANE arguments they are trying to make. And because there is so much evidence for biblical Christianity as a whole, something I do not assume but thoroughly prove in my book, a book that has been referred to many times with Hendrik, we must conclude that the ANE arguments must be rejected because they contradict biblical theology as a whole and we are fully warranted in taking this position because the evidence is not incontrovertible and because of the undeniable wealth of evidence in favor of biblical Christianity, the paltry evidence for all other faiths, and the definitive apologetic fatalities that exist within all other worldviews.
Hendrik and Enns want to stick with the evidence in favor of the ANE arguments in the teeth of so much other evidence other than simply the myopic evidence for the ANE case, which again, taken in itself is impressive, but that misses the broader point. And if you go back to my blog and to the entire thread between Hendrik and I you will see that this is not at all bare assertion on my part. I repeatedly challenge him to hold to his position consistently and he utterly refuses to do so, but ALWAYS simply parrots the evidence for the ANE case, which is rather pointless as I've made it clear to him so many times that I don't deny the strength of the evidence in itself, I simply deny that the evidence is incontrovertible (it isn't) and that he can hold to it and his overall progressive position consistently.
Daniel Hawkins
2/20/2019 02:50:37 pm
I think I am beginning to grasp what you are saying now. Thank you for taking the time to concisely bring me up to speed so to speak. There are however several points of clarification I would like before responding.
Firstly, could you perhaps provide a singular example of a way which you see people like Enns apply “this myopic approach” of ANE cosmology to biblical and systematic theology? Do you mean the general idea that the bible communicates in an encultured way? Ie. that God spoke, and speaks, in the cultural understanding of those to whom he was addressing (comes down to our level so to speak), hence the use of commonly held ANE cosmology to make inspired statements about how God is different from other ANE deities and how he interacts with his creation? I am trying to understand exactly what you mean, or see as their false extrapolation.
I think I understand your position on history and the difficulty of “proving” things as all history is accessed through subjective lenses, and the ancient past even more so as the evidence for interpretation becomes sparser.
I would also ask what may be a silly question, but could you define exactly what you mean by “biblical Christianity” and “biblical theology,” just so we are on the same page? I realize that may be impossible to do with any thoroughness (a la Church Dogmatics by Barth) but a concise statement I hope will suffice for clarity.
I guess this is connected to what you would see above as Enns et al.’s false extrapolation, but could you provide an example of how you see “ANE arguments” contradicting biblical theology?
I believe I am just still a little fuzzy on the connection between our agreeance that when the text of Genesis for example is analyzed that the evidence points to the influence of ANE cosmology, but that this conclusion must be rejected because of outside conclusions from “biblical theology.” I can certainly respect a desire for consistency and a robust and logical “biblical theology,” but such a rejection of what we have both agreed is a solid, evidence based, analysis of an individual text, be it “incontrovertible” or not, based on “outside data” in my opinion does not do justice to a solid exegetical process and borders on eisegesis. I have been trained that the parts must be allowed to speak for themselves in their own context before we can then see how to plug those parts into a larger “biblical theology,” as a larger “biblical theology” that is not made up of accurate and faithful exegesis of the texts that make up the bible cannot really be considered a “biblical theology” at all.
I hope that made some modicum of sense.
I wasn't going to respond to Hendrik's last response to me because I was just going to let him have the last word as I don't really get anywhere with him, although I do admit that he has been one of the nicest and most respectful Progressive Christians I have dealt with and I've dealt with a lot since 2008. But I will respond to him here with you so that it does not seem like I cannot respond.
As far as raqia in Ezekiel, there is nothing that remotely demands a solid dome interpretation. Simply read the text. If Hendrik wants to say that at the least the concept of solidity is there, I guess I could grant that as a possibility. But again the text is hardly definitive. The language of rolling out is used elsewhere of Scripture to say that when Christ returns the sky will be rolled back like a scroll. Does this imply that the Israelites believed the sky was similar to the material of a scroll? Of course not, no one would assert such a thing. But this fact shows that the biblical authors were not at all averse to using such figurative language to describe the sky. Hence, it is entirely possible that from the beginning the Israelites used figurative language to describe God's creating of the sky, saying that He rolled it out. But God does not have physical hands and we know from general revelation that the sky is not solid. Thus, the reasons why today we take such language as being clearly figurative.
As far as the language about the sun and the moon being set in the sky, I would like most conservative evangelicals interpret this language as phenomenological based on general revelation and the fact that such an interpretation hardly does any violence to the text, but still fully gets across Moses' point. I would say the same things regarding the language about the birds.
Hendrik then says that I have to prove the point that the Israelites had a different understanding of the cosmos than their ANE neighbors and I would agree with him. But I have done this indirectly in my book and he refuses to interact with it. I am not going to rehash the extensive apologetic case I provide in my book every time I respond to him in a comment. I already get accused of being too long winded in my comments as it is!
His comments about Mainline Protestantism completely miss the point. I have made it clear to him that I do not accept Liberal Protestantism as Christian. That religion has consistently advocated heresy and so to simply point to them as those who hold to positions similar to his own and so I have to take him more seriously is indeed a form of appealing to authority. I have to do no such thing and he needs to make better arguments for his positions instead of always referring to others or trying to point me to links.
As far as Christians who hold to evolutionary creationism, I do not deny their existence. In fact, in contrast to a lot of conservative evangelicals, I do not even believe that they are all heretics. Both Warfield and Machen held to similar beliefs. My point is I simply disagree with that position and that I reject any position that seeks to defend evolutionary creationism or any other doctrine by denying inerrancy and/or asserting the doctrine of extreme accommodation. To do either of those things is heretical and leads to endless contradictions and absurdities. And again, that is not bare assertion. As I said to you, I have over and over and over again demanded that Hendrik apply his hermeneutic consistently across the board and he simply will not do so because on some level he knows that he can't.
Hey Daniel, I'm responding to this comment only because it would not allow me to respond to your comment below. Sometimes after posting a comment though, Alisa will place it in the right place and hopefully that will be the case. Either way, this comment is intended to respond to your latest response to me.
I'm happy to answer all of your questions from your latest comment, but it would need to be a very long response and so I would want to do so over on my website. If you are down to move things over there just let me know. If you say no, then that's that, I'm not going to try to fully respond here. If you say yes, I'll write a full blog post in response to all of your questions and then you can comment on my article as often as you would like from there. Thanks.
Daniel Hawkins
2/20/2019 04:25:46 pm
Sure, I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be fine.
Perhaps after you post, make another comment here with a link to the discussion on your site, if that is acceptable to the moderator of this post?
Ok, sounds good Daniel, it will be up within the next couple days. A link won't be necessary. If you see that arrow by my name every time I comment, that connects anyone interested to my website. From there, they can go to the blog and it will be very easy to find the article. It will be clearly labeled. Talk to you soon.
Brian
10/14/2019 10:15:43 am
Hi Alisa,
I recently listened to Pete Enns' podcast on this, and then your response, and I recognize this discussion is pretty old at this point. But looking at the comments I didn't see anyone responding to the following, so I thought it might be worthwhile to share my reaction.
(By the way, your response to Pete was very gracious– it's really great to see these kinds of dialogues.)
Overall I think you've misunderstood what Pete was describing as fundamentalism. When he said a cluster of ideas that are non-negotiable, he was describing a very particular cluster of ideas that are associated with fundamentalism– for example, inerrancy would be on of the central things in that cluster. (He was not saying there are no non-negotiables in Christianity.) Your podcast response spent a lot of time establishing the importance of having some core faith tenets as reflected in the historic creeds, and I think Pete would agree with you on that. In his rejection of fundamentalism, I think he was referring more to the additional ideas (beyond the historic creeds) that some conservative Christians teach as non-negotiable, e.g. Biblical inerrancy. From what I've read from Pete, his view of inerrancy is that God gave us the Bible he wanted us to have– but it's not separated from the human context of its authors, so it's naturally delivered from an ancient perspective that often requires us to work a lot harder to interpret & apply to today's culture.
Anyway, I know I'm late to the conversation, but I thought that would be a helpful distinction.
– Brian
Brian, this was extremely well put. Thank-you. I found myself constantly frustrated by this back and forth and couldn't figure out why…. it was like listening to two people talk about different things to each other graciously.
Kendra
12/28/2020 08:35:17 am
Bingo! I don't think she actually grappled with the nuanced substance.
Travis
7/19/2020 01:04:37 am
I believe part of the problem is that some people want to say that they are Christians, but they don't really believe that JHVH, the God of the Israelites, created the universe and everything in it from nothing, at present holds all created things together by His will alone, and has, always has had, and always will have complete control over every particle that exists and every soul and spirit that exists, that He exists eternally as one Being in three Persons, that the second Person of God was made flesh, was born a male human child to a Hebrew virgin, that He died for the sins of His people, was bodily raised from the dead on the third day, physically ascended into the heavens in the sight of His disciples, that He will one day judge every created human that has ever lived or ever will lived for each of our deeds and for the secret thoughts of our hearts, that He is soon returning to destroy the governing authorities of the world and to establish Himself visibly as King of the earth in Jerusalem, and that this God has written a book, the Bible, is unable to lie, and is perfectly holy, righteous, and loving.
If you don't believe that all of this is literally true about reality, why call yourself a Christian, as you only make yourself a hypocrite, which is probably worse than an honest skeptic?
Call on the name of Jesus while He is near! Repent, the kingdom of heaven is at hand and the day of JHVH, i believe, is soon approaching! How long will you hesitate between two choices? If JHVH is God and Jesus is God the Son, worship Him and believe what He says! If it is all merely ancient middle Eastern mythology, why pretend otherwise?
Nevertheless, it is actually all true. "Evil shall slay the wicked and those who hate the righteous shall be condemned. JHVH redeems the souls of His servants, and none of those who trust in Him shall be condemned."
– Psalm 34
Hendrik
8/3/2020 01:47:57 am
Hi Travis
I hope that you're doing well.
I think that you're making the same mistake as many atheists. I remember watching a video on youtube recently where a prominent atheist scholar was mocking christians who believed that they were eating the body and blood of Christ during communion. I wanted to explain to him that something can be two things at once. It is just bread and wine, but at the same time it is also the body and blood of Christ.
I believe that the Bible is the same way. It is a human book, filled with ancient near-eastern cosmology, such as a flat earth and a solid dome in the sky, and yet it is at the same time also the word of God.
All the best.
Travis
8/18/2020 09:07:41 pm
Hi Hendrik,
Thank you for engaging with my comment. I am well enough. I hope the same is true for you – or that you are even better. : )
Without getting into the transubstantiation / consubstantiation question, i do not quite understand what you are trying to say. If the Bible is (merely) a human book, how is it also the word of the eternal infallible God?
It seems that you believe that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat. I assume that you do not believe this yourself. My question then is: How do you decide which parts of the Bible you will believe and which parts you will not?
Do you believe that God spoke to Moses and gave him the ten commandments?
Do you believe that the second Person of God was incarnated as the Man Jesus of Nazareth?
Do you believe that He was crucified, died for our sins, and was bodily raised from the dead on the third day?
Do you believe Jonah survived inside the belly of a fish for over a day?
Do you believe that Daniel was taught by God the correct interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream?
If you do not accept all of the Bible as true, having been written by the Spirit of God, then what system do you use to determine which teachings of the Bible are really and truly true? Whatever that system is, it is that which you believe, not the Bible.
Or so it seems to me.
God bless and Peace,
(By the way, i hope this doesn't sound 'judgy'. It is not easy from a human perspective to believe all of the Bible. Nevertheless, we all must one day choose. Will we believe God and what He says? Or will we believe ourselves and other people, who think they know better?)
Hendrik
8/19/2020 02:40:25 am
Hi Travis
I am doing well thanks. May God bless you as well.
The short answer is that I believe all of the Bible. It's not like I have an either/or approach. It's true that some "progressive" christians have two buckets, one bucket is for parts of scripture that they accept, and the other is for parts they reject. I don't think that this is the correct approach.
I believe that each passage of scripture is both human and Divine, and that we should approach it accordingly.
If we look at the creation accounts in Genesis, we need to look at it critically as a piece of ancient literature, but we also need to look at it as Divine revelation. From the human side we can see a creation story that resembles some of the other older creation stories from surrounding cultures and which to some extent has a connection to the 7-day temple consecration rituals of the ancient near-east. We can also see elements of ancient cosmology, such as the firmament in Genesis 1:6.
On the Divine side we can see some of the foundational truths of the christian worldview. From it we can begin to understand sin, shame, suffering, death, gender equality, our relationship with God, and so much more. The first few chapters of Genesis are a treasure trove of truth and insight that has enriched the lives of christians throughout history. From Genesis 1:26 we see that we are created in God's image. From Genesis 3:7 we can understand that sin causes shame and takes away people's dignity. From Genesis 3:19 we can understand the cause of human suffering. From Genesis 3:22 we can understand human death. From Genesis 3:16 we can understand the causes of gender inequality. This is but scratching the surface, I think that a christian who knows the Bible will be much better off than someone who studies gender theory or ethics in university.
For myself, I was only able to enjoy the full spiritual treasure in these verses once I had made peace with the human side of the text. I think that many christians avoid the stories of Noah and Jonah because they are afraid of the human side of these stories.
One of the earliest heresies in the early church was when some tried to deny the human side of Jesus. Perhaps it is also a heresy to deny the human side of the Bible.
Lastly, I don't think that you are being judgy, you were expressing your convictions, and I don't think that you need to apologise for that.
All the best.
Hendrik
Travis
8/20/2020 05:44:12 pm
Dear Hendrik,
Thank you for your graciousness.
I am afraid, though, that i still do not really understand what you are trying to say. I agree that the Bible is God's word, but was written down by humans.
Here is a question:
Genesis 3:4 (in the translation i have in front of me) says:
"Then the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die.'"
Do you believe that long ago a snake talked and had the conversation that is recorded in Genesis 3 with the first human woman to ever live?
Thank you for answering, as you are able. I believe it is helpful in conversation to be clear about what is being said or not being said.
God bless,
Hendrik
8/22/2020 02:44:17 am
Hi Travis
I don't think it can be reduced down to a yes/no answer.
I would invite you read Dr. John Walton's book, The Lost World of Adam and Eve, specifically proposition 14: The Serpent Would Have Been Viewed as a Chaos Creature from the Non-ordered Realm, Promoting Disorder.
In this chapter he discusses the verses not as mythology, but as imagistic history. I have copied the below from proposition 14 in his book:
"Imagistic thinking and representation would stand in contrast to scientific or analytical thinking. We can see the difference if we compare two visual representations of the night sky—one taken by the Hubble telescope, the other presented by Vincent van Gogh’s The Starry Night. People would never consider doing astronomy from the van Gogh and could not do so even if they wanted to; the image contains nothing of the composition or position of stars. At the same time, we would not say that it is a false depiction of the night sky. Visual artists depict the world imagistically, and we recognize that this depiction is independent of science but not independent of truth. The ancients apply this same imagistic conception to all genres of literature, including those that we cannot conceive of as anything other than scientific. Imagistic history, like that preserved in Genesis, is to history as The Starry Night is to a Hubble photograph. As another example, we would not try to reconstruct historically the bombardment of Fort McHenry in the war of 1812 by a detailed analysis of “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Note how our national anthem is set in a historical context but uses the rhetoric of imagery and the power of symbol (the flag) in an artistic way to convey an enduring truth and value that reaches far beyond the War of 1812."
The book is well worth the read, whether you agree with it or not.
Unfortunately that's all I can offer you at this point.
All the best,
Hendrik
Travis
8/24/2020 10:02:40 am
Dear Hendrik,
With due respect, your August 22 answer sounds to me like a 'no'. I hope you don't mind my saying, but it seems to me that you are trying to use fancy words to soften your denial of what God plainly says in His word.
I would ask another question. If you believe that Adam was not really a real person, but that Jesus is, then what are your thoughts about the geneolgy given in Luke 3:23-28 that goes back from Heli, Jesus' grandfather, son to father, all the way to Adam? At what point (and why) do you believe that the names on this list go from being really real people to "imagistic" people?
For me, if you want to deny that the Bible is true, that is fine. Many people do that. It seems to me helpful, though, that if someone wants to not believe the Bible, they at least admit that they don't believe it. If i were to say that i believed that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States, but only in an imagistic historical way as Lincoln should be viewed as an avatar of human flourishing from the Realm of Light, people would think that was odd, i would hope – and so they should.
In any case, God bless and i hope your week has started well,
Hendrik
8/26/2020 02:14:37 am
Hi Travis
I don't know whether Adam and Eve existed as historical persons or not. I'm happy for it to remain a mystery. I don't really care either way. I hope you may find that answer to be sufficient.
Regards,
Hendrik
Travis
8/28/2020 11:41:22 am
Hi Hendrik,
Yes. That is speaking plainly. Thank you.
Peace (with me (Let each person seek God that they might truly find Him and call upon His name in repentance and sincere faith.)) and may you have a good day,
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
