Enns, Evolution, and Al Mohler

Dr. Jim Hamilton has written two helpful posts (here and here) responding to some recent comments from Peter Enns on evolution and the reliability of the Bible. Along the way Dr. Enns takes issue with Al Mohler's commitment to the reliability of the biblical record of origins.

Doubting Who?

Not ones to mince words, the folks at Triablogue have a few things to say about Pete Enns and his work with Biologos.

Their words mirror my own concern about Biologos and the biblical scholars that have been recruited to advance their agenda of ridding the church of full confidence in the Bible as God's unerring Word. Indeed, it is clear that while modern scientific sensabilities are to be honored, the Bible is to be doubted, challenged, and even dismissed as intellectually unsatisfying.

Does it matter if Adam was an historical person? (2)

The situation with Dr. Bruce Waltke has now been featured on ABC News. The report features Pete Enns who was forced to leave Westminster Theological Seminary for holding and teaching a doctrine of Scripture that was not in accord with the Westminster Confession of Faith (All teachers at WTS pledge their belief in and commitment to teach in accord with the WCF). Dr. Enns once professed a belief in an historical Adam but now apparently no longer holds that position. Interestingly, Dr. Waltke holds firmly to the fact that Adam and Eve were historical persons and the fall was a real event. If he is wanting the approval of modern scientists then he will need to jettison those beliefs.

I found Dr. Enn's words troubling. Will the Bible ever put a student at odds with something he hears in his biology class? I imagine so. I also know that what that student learns in his biology class will put him at odds with what his parents learned in their biology class or what may be taught in the same class the following year. How about belief in the virgin birth or resurrection of Christ? Will that put our hypothetical student at odds with what they learn in biology? How about the substitutionary atonement or the necessity of faith in Jesus if one is to be saved? Will these put us at odds with what we learn at school? Will these beliefs put us at odds with our culture? This obsession with the approval of our cultured despisers always marks the slide into theological liberalism which leads to apostasy.

It does matter whether or not Adam was an historical person. Robert Strimple lays out the issue clearly in an article posted by Westminster California.

You see, biblical Christianity, over against all other world and life views, is unique in viewing human sinfulness as the result of a Fall. Other religions and philosophies – and myths – look to sin's origin elsewhere; e.g., in the very constitution of man as composed of a lower as well as a higher nature, or in man's evolutionary past and his natural tendency to revert to a more primitive stage, or in the fact that he has not yet evolved beyond such a stage in certain respects. (And it is evolutionary theory regarding man's origin, of course, which has caused many to deny the biblical teaching regarding man's creation as a holy being whose sin is the result of his own mysterious free act of transgressing God's law.)

Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, views human sinfulness as a Fall – an unnatural development, a lapse from man's proper state – and thereby asserts that to find sin's "explanation" in the original constitution of man is to slander the holy Creator – and thereby also assures man that there is hope: hope for restoration, hope for redemption, hope for Paradise Restored.

On other views of the origin and nature of sin, human sinfulness must be seen as really inevitable (Adam = all men = sinner; to be human is to be sinner); and therefore how can sin ever be remedied or removed? The Bible, on the other hand, gives grounds for hope because, as another has written, the Bible “represents the ills in which man is involved not as the necessary faults of a being low, earthy, and animal by his constitution but as (the) effects from the fall of a being made in the image of God.” (3)

The biblical pictures of fallen human nature are painted with very dark colors, speaking, e.g., of man's heart as “deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt” (Jer. 17:9 RSV). But we must never forget that what is so pictured is not man but fallen man – not man as God created him but man as he has turned his back on God – not man the co-laborer with God but man the rebel. And the hope of the Gospel is that through the accomplishment of the Second Adam and the power of the Creative Spirit, man may be all that he was meant to be.

Read the entire article HERE.

"Non-Overlapping Magisteria"

Mark Jones has written a good piece on the recent controversy over statements made by Pete Enns' unsurprising and Bruce Waltke's rather surprising comments concerning evolution. Moreover, Jones offers some helpful thoughts on the effort to harmonize evolution and biblical faith.

Those who refer to themselves as theistic evolutionists need to be pressed on “the blind watchmaker thesis” that is so crucial to Darwinism. As noted in the previous chapter, Richard Dawkins has explained the idea of the “blind watchmaker” and its implications for how we view the theory of evolution: “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.”[15] The blind watchmaker thesis explains the philosophical implications of evolution, which cannot in any way be squared with what the Bible says about creation and providence. Phillip Johnson claims that he has found it “very difficult to get theistic evolutionists to discuss the blind watchmaker thesis.”[16] No wonder. How can a Christian, in any meaningful sense of the word, admit that life, generally speaking, has no purpose? Plus, to insist that God would choose natural selection as his undirected creative method seems to require more faith than the idea that God created animals of their kind (Gen. 1:24). Darwinian evolution cannot guarantee that humans would have come into existence. Of course, a theistic evolutionist could maintain that God intervened from time to time to provide the required mutations to ensure that humans would eventually evolve, but this becomes mere philosophical speculation, and technically not science. Indeed, this position is neither Darwinism nor Christian theism. Collins assumes the truth of Darwininsm and then he constructs his own form of Christianity that will not contradict his understanding of evolution.

Historically, Reformed theologians have addressed the relationship between science and theology by beginning with the idea that the God of the Bible is a personal God who knowingly and willingly decrees all events. In other words, they begin with God, not Darwin.[17] Darwinism appeals to naturalists because, at present, it remains the most suitable explanation for explaining the diversity of life assuming that God had nothing to do with the process. That is a big assumption, of course. But the Christian can point to defects in the fossil record, the origin of life problem, the irreducible complexity of organisms, and many other problems in the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, to rest secure that Darwinian evolution has not provided a better alternative to the Bible in explaining how the present world came to be. Collins admits that modern science still cannot explain the origin of life, but “this is not the place for a thoughtful person to wager his faith.”[18] Coming from a supposed theist this comment is interesting. Collins argues for God’s existence based on moral life (i.e. altruistic behaviour among humans), but he urges extreme caution for God having anything to do with creating life. Moreover, Collins finds the Darwinian explanation for the moral law unsatisfying and therefore bases his belief in God in part on the argument for moral law. Yet, his reasoning about the origin of life problem should be equally applied to his reasoning for the moral law. Perhaps Darwinians will one day provide a satisfactory explanation for a moral law? Indeed, a number of scientists have done their best to explain altruistic behaviour among animals (which, for them, includes humans).[19]

In the end I expect that Darwinians will not find [Francis] Collins’ synthesis sufficiently convincing; nor do I expect Christians to be overly enamored with his various proposals. Theistic evolution is basically a contradictory worldview, and Collins’ synthesis should be rejected with fervor. And yet Bruce Waltke has explicitly embraced Collins’ version of evolution, which is Darwinian evolution, not evolution which can be empirically observed. Of course, Waltke has theological commitments that he cannot abandon. The problem for him, at least, is that he cannot maintain with any consistency his theological commitments and his appreciation for Collins’ work.

Read the entire article HERE.

Bruce Waltke on Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve have been taking a bit of a beating from some well known scholars within the Reformed tradition. Tremper Longman made statements recently that allowed for the first couple to be mythical as has Pete Enns. Bruce Waltke, one of the world's great Old Testament scholars recently made statements that seemed to indicate he too allowed for Adam and Eve to be something less than historical figures. I was therefore encouraged by the following clarification by Dr. Waltke:

I had not seen the video before it was distributed. Having seen it now, I realize its deficiency and wish to put my comments in a fuller theological context.

1. Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.

2. Adam is the federal and historical head of the fallen human race just as Jesus Christ is the federal and historical head of the Church.

3. I am not a scientist, but I have familiarized myself with attempts to harmonize Genesis 1-3 with science, and I believe that creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position. I apologize for giving the impression that others who seek to harmonize the two differently are not credible. I honor all who contend for the Christian faith.

4. Evolution as a process must be clearly distinguished from evolutionism as a philosophy. The latter is incompatible with orthodox Christian theology.

5. Science is fallible and subject to revision. As a human and social enterprise, science will always be in flux. My first commitment is to the infallibility (as to its authority) and inerrancy (as to its Source) of Scripture.

6. God could have created the Garden of Eden with apparent age or miraculously, even as Christ instantly turned water into wine, but the statement that God “caused the trees to grow” argues against these notions.

7. I believe that the Triune God is Maker and Sustainer of heaven and earth and that biblical Adam is the historical head of the human race.

8. Theological comments made here are mostly a digest of my chapters on Genesis 1-3 in An Old Testament Theology (Zondervan, 2007).

Bruce Waltke, Professor of Old Testament Reformed Theological Seminary

Inspiration, Incarnation, and Inerrancy

In the last issue (Spring '09) of the Westminster Theological Journal there is an excellent article by James Scott entitled "Inspiration and Interpretation." Scott's immediate concern is to address and critique Peter Enns' Inspiration and Incarnation. In the process however Scott provides a robust defense of the historic doctrine of the Bible's inerrancy with reference to its impact on biblical interpretation.

Scott writes:

Central to the Christian doctrine of Scripture and well articulated in traditional Reformed theology is the teaching that the Scriptures are the written word of God. This is repeatedly taught by Scripture itself, most commonly whenever the NT introduces an OT quotation with such words as "God said" (e.g.; 2 Cor 6:16) or "the Holy Spirit says" (e.g. Heb 3:7), especially when God is not the speaker in the OT passage (e.g. Acts 13:37, quoting Ps 16:10). "The word of God," to which Hebrews 4:12 refers, includes the Scriptures (along with God's spoken words), as is clear from the repeated statements in the previous verses that God has spoken the words of Scripture. Also, the NT's characterization of the OT as "the oracles of God" (e.g., Rom 3:2) "fairly shouts to us," concludes Warfield after thorough study of this expression, "that to its writers the Scriptures of the Old Testament were the very Word of God in the highest and strictest sense that term can bear - the express utterance, in all their parts and each and every of their words, of the Most High." The consistent witness of Scripture to itself is that it consists of verbal communication from God to man. That is, God is the originator, or author, of Scripture. What Scripture says, God says.

Scott also demonstrates effectively the limits of the incarnational model of biblical interpretation.

It would be unfair to accuse Enns of simply looking at the data of Scripture in Inspiration and Incarnation without any theological framework. He does have a framework for his analysis of the biblical evidence, and he lets readers know that up front. That framework is the incarnational analogy between inspiration and the incarnation. However, he makes no attempt to derive that analogy from Scripture. He simply asserts that it is true and will guide his discussion. He quotes no passage of Scripture that sets forth the incarnational analogy, for there is no such passage. One could perhaps build some sort of analogy from a combination of passages, much as the doctrine of the Trinity in constructed, but Enns has not attempted to do so in print. Furthermore, he presents no evidence that Scripture itself ever argues on the basis of the analogy. That is, no biblical writer ever explains some aspect of Scripture (or of any passage of Scripture) by comparing it with Christ. Enns's approach is essentially pragmatic: the analogy works, by answering difficult questions; therefore, we should accept and use it...

Enns asserts that Herman Bavinck's statement of the analogy, which he quotes in its entirety in defense of his own use of it, 'represents my own deep Reformed commitment.' But his view is not that of Bavinck. Bavinck says only that the word of God entered the creaturely world of humanity 'in all the human forms of dream and vision, of investigation and reflection,' that is, in the processes of revelation and human preparation for writing Scripture - which is a far cry from Enns's notion that God entered into and adopted the pagan worldviews and non-Christian views and methodologies of the ancient world, as vehicles to convey his message...

It is one thing to develop a doctrine of Christ and a doctrine of Scripture, both from the didactic passages of Scripture, and then to observe an analogy between them and consider how far it extends. It is something quite different to observe that certain characteristics of Scripture are analogous to certain characteristics of the incarnate Christ and then to argue that Scripture has certain other characteristics because analogous ones can be discerned in the incarnate Christ. Yet that is what Enns sets out to do in Inspiration and Incarnation: to 'build a doctrine of Scripture' by making 'an attempt to flesh out (as it were) the Incarnational Analogy.' There are two related problems with this approach. First, as Irving M. Copi observes, 'No argument by analogy is ever valid, in the sense of having its conclusion follow from its premises with logical necessity.' Such arguments can only be suggestive: the more points there are of established similarity, the greater the probability is that there will be similarities at other points - but it is still only a probability, never a demonstration. Hence, an analogy is inherently a precarious foundation upon which to build a doctrine of Scripture. Christ and Scripture may well correspond at points A and B, but it does not necessarily follow that they correspond at point C. Second, as Enns himself admits, the analogy does not always work. Indeed Warfield comments that 'between such diverse things there can exist only a remote analogy; and, in point of fact, the analogy...amounts to no more than that in both cases Divine and human factors are involved, though very differently.'

Bruce Waltke on "Inspiration and Incarnation"

The Spring 2009 issue of The Westminster Theological Journal includes some excellent articles on the issues of biblical inerrancy and interpretation. Of particular interest is the interaction between Bruce Waltke and Pete Enns. Dr. Waltke critiques Dr. Enns' book Inspiration and Incarnation. Enns then responds to Waltke to which Waltke offers a response to the response. Follow that?

Waltke writes:

Professor Enns invites evangelicals to interact with his provocative ideas for sharpening theological discussion about the nature of Scripture. Upon my first reading I was struck with his commendable, unflinching honesty. Not allowing dogma to overwhelm data, he attempts pastorally to assist students who think the Reformed doctrine of Scripture is not viable. Enns holds with conviction the concept that both the Word of God as Scripture, and the Word of God as Jesus Christ, become incarnate: fully divine and fully human, as Warfield propounded in his concursive theory of inspiration.

Upon my second reading and more reflection, however, I questioned whether Enns’s answer helped doubters to keep the faith. This forced me to reflect more deeply upon the theologically disturbing cache of texts that Enns so helpfully collected, categorized, and then sought to resolve by his ‘‘incarnation’’ model of thinking about Scripture. A model, however, that represents the Mosaic Law as flexible, the inspired religion of Israel in its early stage as somewhat doctrinally misleading, the Chronicler’s harmonization as incredible,NTteachings as based on questionable historical data, and an apologetic for Jesus of Nazareth’s Messianic claim as arbitrary,would not be helpful to me inmy theological education. Nevertheless, I owe Enns a tremendous amount of gratitude for challenging me to think honestly and soberly about these texts that are troubling to all who hold Reformed convictions about the inspiration of holy Scripture.

Waltke then goes on to critique Enns' handling of texts of Scripture he considers problematic. For example, in Inspiration and Incarnation Enns writes:

Job
If disobedience leads to God’s curse (Deut. 28:15-68), then it is not too hard to reason back the other way: if you are cursed, you must have done something to deserve it. This is the assumption [of Job’s friends]. . . . Anyone well versed in Old Testament teaching would likely have drawn the same conclusion [as Job’s three friends]. (p. 81)

Waltke's response is as follows:

But this statement is not accurate or helpful to me. Is it true that anyone well versed in theOT would draw the conclusion that it teaches that a person who is cursed—I take it that Enns uses the word loosely, for the friends never use it of Job—must have done wrong? A person well-versed in Scripture—so it seems to me—certainly knows that righteous Abel ismurdered by Cain and, while Abel’s blood cries out for justice, themurderer lives out a normal life-span. After Abraham by faith arrived in the Promised Land, God inflicted a famine on the land, a drought so severe that Abraham felt compelled to leave the Promised Land. Innocent Joseph was sold into slavery where he suffered hard iron. Job points to numerous situations where the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper within the divine scheme of things, and that surely his friends also knew. (A person less well-versed in the OT literature may not be aware that in the book of Proverbs the father’s first lecture represents the wicked as dispatching the innocent to a premature death while the wicked fill their house with plunder taken from him [Prov 1: 11-14].)Moreover, one does not have to be well-versed in theOT literature to know from the NT that the righteous Son of God was nailed to the cross and that his apostleswere martyrs for their faith in Jesus Christ. In sum, the three friends illogically drew a conclusion that did not square with the teachings of Proverbs, which is also well aware that the wicked are full while the righteous hunger (cf. Prov 16:8)—but that is not the whole story.

I found this format to be very helpful. Again and again Dr. Waltke demonstrates why he is considered one of the foremost Old Testament exegetes in the world. It also demonstrates why Dr. Enns' book was met with a great deal of dismay among many in the scholarly community.

Read the entire article HERE.