... and suffers the consequences for standing up for his convictions (link to story). Hats off to Ken Ham for opposing Peter Enns and Enns' agenda. You can visit the Answers in Genesis website for more information. Specifically, here is the post that got Ken Ham in trouble (link to post).
-TurretinFan
Friday, April 01, 2011
13 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
Susan Wise Bauer called the disagreement between Dean and Ham a "huge ideological clash between two men who have the same view of Scripture."
ReplyDeleteTFan, I don't think this is an accurate observation by Susan Wise Bauer. Do you? I don't think they have the same view of Scripture. I think Ham's is higher than Enn's.
Dean and Ham may have the same view of Scripture. Enns does not. Enns' view is considerably lower.
ReplyDeleteI'm not familiar with Enns or the Great Homeschool Conventions. But accusing anyone who doesn't view the world through Ham colored glasses as corrupted by secular ideas and compromising the authority of Scripture is Ken Ham's schtick. It's unpersuasive, naive, or worse... iniquitous and young earthers should be better represented.
ReplyDeleteI understand that Mr. Ham is zealous to stick up for what he believes, and that is fine. But the fact that Mr. Ham relies on poisoning the wells with pejorative labels and condescending demeanor, rather than engaging in open dialogue while showing some respect, makes his comments ever so ineffectual to those that can recognize such childish behavior.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what does it mean to say that Dr. Enns' view of scripture is "lower"? Does he take God's word less seriously? I don't entirely agree with Dr. Enns on several issues, but I'm convinced now that Mr. Ham's approach to scripture does it a great disservice, not least in preventing us from understanding God through His creation (i.e. it reduces science to absurdity).
Just my thoughts...Mr. Ham's rhetoric is finally wearing on me.
Yes, Enns denies inerrancy. That's a lower view of Scripture. Enns does need to be marked out and avoided. I'm sorry if that makes "open dialog" with him difficult.
ReplyDelete-TurretinFan
I am only broadly familiar with Dr. Enns' work, but I am convinced that to say "Enns denies inerrancy" is overly simplistic. He denies it in the terms that Mr. Ham employs the doctrine—as do/did many Christian scholars, from Calvin to Warfield. But in Dr. Enns' own words:
ReplyDelete"I affirm that I am committed to the Bible’s inerrancy as a function of its divine origin...the Bible as it is is without error because the Bible as it is is God’s Word."
With the qualification elsewhere:
"So, yes, I&I “denies” an inerrancy that says, for example, historical background information should play a marginal role, if any role, in coming to grips with what Scripture is..."
This is a far cry from the views of, for example, John Shelby Spong and Barry Lynn, both of whom were still approached in Christian compassion and open dialogue for the sake of proclaiming the truth. So why should approach to Enns should consist of name-calling and censorship?
Ham's take on inerrancy is, in my opinion, a theological novelty. His use of Genesis—in assuming perfect scientific concordance unknown to the author and original audience—to reconstruct geological events, while arbitrarily invoking changes in natural law to fill in the gaps, does not strike me as a 'higher view' of scripture. Rather, it is quite limiting.
When Christian scholars apply historical study to understand the grammar, vocabulary, and syntax behind New Testament language, and resolve apparent contradiction in the synoptics, they are called 'apologists'. When Dr. Enns and others do the same with the OT, they are called 'liberals'.
Chemostrat1646: On the issue of Scripture's reliability, Enns' group has promoted Kent Sparks' heretical view (see the discussion here). And no, contrary to what you may have been told, that was not the view from Calvin to Warfield.
ReplyDelete-TurretinFan
Is it just me, or did you decide to delete my comment?
ReplyDeleteSo rather than deal with Enns' words (which I didn't intend to defend, but simply to accurately represent), you've declared him guilty by association (a guest author on a *discussion forum* of which he is a part said something heretical, therefore all authors on that forum hold equal responsibility?).
Secondly, I never suggested Enns' view = that of Warfield/Calvin. I said Ham's view != that of Warfield/Calvin in terms of how one defines 'inerrancy'.
But if one actually reads Enns' work, his view on inerrancy is merely an extension of Warfield/Hodge. Would you also disbar the latter from Christian fellowship?
It's not about "what I've been told", it's about "what I've read" in Calvin's Institutes, and Warfield's work on inspiration.
Ham's view on inerrancy is the same as Calvin's or the Chicago statement. Enns view on inerrancy is not.
ReplyDeleteWhether one wants to call Enns' view an extension of the erroneous position of Warfield or the weak view of Hodge, Enns view clearly compromises on the issue of inerrancy. Whether we would have (or should have) given more or less slack to Hodge and Warfield is a separate (and much less important) question.
-TurretinFan
TF,
ReplyDeleteWould you care to expand on your allusion to Warfield's "erroneous position" on the inerrancy Scripture, or possibly point me toward a resource that discusses the topic?
In Christ,
CD
Warfield is alleged to have said:
ReplyDelete“I do not think that there is any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as given in Genesis 1 and 2 or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed to evolution.” B. B. Warfield
It is Warfield's erroneous position on evolution that I was referring to.
Thanks TF.
ReplyDeleteI've not looked into Warfield's position on evolution, but I'll check into it since I otherwise appreciate much of his work.
Do you have any reason to suspect that his erroneous view on this topic may have crept into any other aspects of his work?
For example I have a few Warfield tomes in my personal library and have found them edifying. He seems to have held a quite high view of Scripture, other than perhaps on this issue.
In Him,
CD
I am not aware of the extent to which his compromise of the truth in this area affected other areas. I have often recommended his work "Counterfeit Miracles," and will continue to do so.
ReplyDelete