Incarnation and Inspiration emphasized an ‘incarnational’ understanding of the bible. I understand it to be analogous to the incarnational understanding we have of Jesus as Fully Human. I think that is an excellent idea to prevent a definition of ‘inspiration’ becoming mechanical, that the writers of Scripture were stenographers in their day.
But I do not think that is the whole story. To understand and interpret Scripture as a Christian relies on the very Trinitarian nature of God.
The very idea that God gave us this book, that God inspired the writers, that God guided the selection process that has assembled the Canon of Holy Scripture is mind-boggling to me. We are looking at thousands of years of discernment among sinful, fallible human beings to give us what we have today. Dare I call it miraculous?
Peter Enns really sparked this thinking with his focus on the incarnational aspect of Scripture. It is truly the work of human hands, out of a human context, representative of the human written traditions of the times and places from which the bible emerged. One critique leveled against Professor Enns is that he speaks of the similarities of other cultural writings to the bible as a challenge to the authority of the bible. That may be in some circles, but for me, the similarity is proof to the bible’s inspiration. God did not drop something new from the sky, but interacted with his created order to provide us with the Truth of Jesus Christ.
But the final person of the Trinity is what really drives inspiration in my mind. That is the presence and witness of the Holy Spirit. That is what separates my finding in the bible the promise of salvation and the stranger finding nothing more than moral tales and religious ceremonial instruction in it. The Spirit is the presence that makes one heart stir at the preaching of God’s Word and its absence makes another heart drift into sleep.
I think that is another critique of Peter Enn’s book, the lack of focus on the activity of the Holy Spirit in reading and understanding Scripture.
2 comments:
Fair enough, but you have to judge a book by its aim and not critique it by what you wish the author might have said or what directions the author might have taken the subject.
If the aim was to focus on "the activity of the Holy Spirit in reading and understanding Scripture" then I would also think that Pete failed miserably. But that was not his aim and it is patently unfair to critique him on this level.
I take your point. I guess I fall into the 'what I wish he'd said' mindset. Inspiration and incarnation, as theological terms, not Prof. Enns' title, have specific meanings.
I think most of the criticism of Prof. Enns is misplaced because they are looking for a systematic theology in a rather specific Old Testament exegetical and analytical text.
My personal aim is to interact with Prof. Enns in a wider theological consideration.
Post a Comment