Archive for the ‘Peter Enns’ Category

Peter Enns and the Historical Adam

May 16, 2012

Peter Enns’ latest post suggests that he has identified the biggest theological objection to rejection of the historical Adam, the first man, specially created by God. Enns thinks that the biggest problem is the wrath of God. Adam’s sin in the garden is important to explain why God’s wrath is against the human race.

Obviously, I don’t agree with much of what Enns says. As far as I am concerned, it seems pretty clear that he has rejected the Word of God, and consequently is outside the fold. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see which theological topics Enns thinks are most directly affected by a rejection of the literal sense of Genesis 1-2.


Finally, I can Agree with Peter Enns about Something

April 5, 2012

“You and I Have a Different God, I think,” is the title of Enns’ post, and he goes on to state that “I think we have a different God.” In that much, I think he’s right.

He claims:

And the Gospel certainly does not teach me that God is up there, at a distance, guiding the production of a diverse and rich biblical canon that nevertheless contains a single finely-tuned system of theology that he expects his people to be obsessed with “getting right” (and lash out at those who don’t agree).

But my God declares, by the mouth of Jude: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 3)

I don’t adopts Enns’ caricature of our position, but even his caricature highlights the difference between us.  Enns does not think that the history of Genesis 1 is true history.  He does not believe that God created the world in six days.  If he does not believe what is plainly stated, should we be surprised that he doesn’t appreciate debate over fine points of theology?


Ken Ham Refuses to Compromise …

April 1, 2011

… 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).


Albert Mohler on Inerrancy

August 16, 2010

I see that Albert Mohler has provided an article updating the battle over innerancy, and mentioning the work of Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks, who stand opposed to the Biblical and historical doctrine of innerancy. (link to article) It’s an interesting article to read. The one thing I don’t like is that one might get the idea that the battle over innerancy is only 50 years old. It goes much farther back, with folks like the Manichaeans alleging errors in the Old Testament Scriptures.

You can sense some irritation in Augustine’s response:

If the Manichees were willing to discuss the hidden meaning of these words in a spirit of reverent inquiry rather than of captious fault-finding, then they would of course not be Manichees, but as they asked it would be given them, as they sought they would find, as they knocked it would be opened up to them. The fact is, you see, people who have a genuine religious interest in learning put far more questions about this text than these irrelegious wretches; but the difference between them is that the former seek in order to find, while the latter are at no pains at all to do anything except not to find what they are seeking.

– Augustine, On Genesis: A Refutation of the Manichees, Book II, Chapter 2, Section 3

The same applies to the irreligious wretches who today seek to find fault. The Manichaeans came and went, and Biologos will come and go as well. But there will always be those who will seek to find fault with the Word of God. We must always be ready to give an answer to them.


%d bloggers like this: