a time to tear down | A Time to Build Up Further Interactions with Bruce Waltke: Introduction Part 4 AudioPlayer.setup("http://peterennsonline.com/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/audio -player/assets/player.swf?ver=2.0.4.

.1", {width:"290",animation:"yes",encode:"yes",initialvolume:"60",remaining:"no",noin fo:"no",buffer:"5",checkpolicy:"no",rtl:"no",bg:"f8f8f8",text:"666666",leftbg:"e eeeee",lefticon:"666666",volslider:"666666",voltrack:"FFFFFF",rightbg:"cccccc",r ightbghover:"999999",righticon:"666666",righticonhover:"ffffff",track:"FFFFFF",l oader:"9FFFB8",border:"666666",tracker:"DDDDDD",skip:"666666",pagebg:"FFFFFF",tr ansparentpagebg:"yes"}); ol.footnotes li {list-style-type:decimal;} ol.footnotes{font-size:0.8em; color:#666666;} .wptable { border-width: 1 px; border-color: #E58802; border-style: solid; } .wptable th { border-width: 1px; border-color: #E58802; background-color: #E58802; border-style: solid; } .wptable td { border-width: 1px; border-color: #E58802; border-style: solid; } .wptable tr.alt { background-color: #F4F4EC; }

home about cv articles books i & i testimonials reviews odds & enns itinerary media

Further Interactions with Bruce Waltke: Introduction Part 4 Posted on June 2nd, 2009 by Pete Enns This is the fourth of several posts continuing the exchange between Bruce Waltke and me, posted earlier on this site, that first appeared in the Westminster Theological Journal. Click here to read Waltkes follow-up to that exchange (PDF), which has already appeared in the latest issue of WTJ (and is also posted here with permission.) Read Part One of my response here. Read Part Two of my response here. Read Part Three of my response here Here is the fourth part of my response to Waltkes follow-up piece: Waltke is No Fundamentalist I can understand why, in view of my previous response, Waltke would want to point out that he holds views that are considered progressive and therefore problematic by fundamentalists. He is open to multi-authorship of Isaiah, an

exilic date for the final form of the Deuteronomy, and theistic evolution. I am already aware of this, although those who look to Waltke to champion their fundamentalist causes should take careful note how much Waltke is conceding on these points. Waltke is to be commended for expressing himself so clearly. Still, given the groundwork that Waltke has laid thus far, I wonder if he would not be more consistent if he did maintain a fundamentalist posture on these issues. For, as Greg Beale has recently reminded us (The Erosion of Inerrancy), any talk of multi-authorship of Isaiah is to discredit the very words of Jesus himself, who quoted from various portions of the book but referred consistently to Isaiah. If, after all, Scripture is the very truth of God revealed, and if there can be no foible or misrepresentation of historical fact, must we not take Jesus testimony with utter seriousness, lest we attribute to Scripture nonsense and human error? How can we arrive at conclusions Jesus himself did not and would not accept? The same goes for pentateuchal authorship, and most certainly for evolution. To accept these progressive views, even as a possible options, seems to me to be more problematic for Waltke than he admits. I would suggest that for Waltke to maintain his progressive (and correct) views, he must employ a hermeneutic and derivative doctrine of Scripture that are more subtle than the principles he employs with respect to my arguments. In other words, I dont think he can have it both ways. The manner in which he argues against some of my views discredits some of his own more progressive views. ShareThis Tags: Uncategorized // Comments Off Comments are closed.

As a medical doctor who has struggled with the issues expressed in your book Your book was not written in vain RSS Subscription

Contact Peter Enns If you have a question or would like to interact about something on this website, feel free to email me at OTProf@mac.com

Recent Comments .dsq-widget ul.dsq-widget-list { padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; } img.dsq-widget-avatar { width: 32px; height: 32px; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 3px 3px 0px; float: left; } a.dsq-widget-user { font-weight: bold; } a.dsq-widget-thread { font-weight: bold; } p.dsq-widget-meta { clear: both; font-size: 80%; padding: 0; margin: 0; } li.dsq-widget-item { margin: 15px 0; list-style-type: none; clear: both; } span.dsq-widget-clout { padding: 0 2px; background-color: #ff7300; color: #fff; } table.dsq-widget-horiz td { padding-right: 15px; } Richard HeyduckSince I dont buy into the divorce between the descriptive and the normative, I dont have trouble thinking its possible. I was just curious how he did it. I guess Ill find out when I read the book. Have Evangelicals Made the Bible Impossible? (a sociologist says yes) 19 hours ago peteennsRichard, I suppose the question is "why cant he?" He may be in a unique position to see things more clearly. But, more importantly, publishers pick titles to grab readers attention. Have Evangelicals Made the Bible Impossible? (a sociologist says yes) 21 hours ago Richard HeyduckHow does his sociological account defend the apparently normative claim of his subtitle? Have Evangelicals Made the Bible Impossible? (a sociologist says yes) 3 days ago Carson T. ClarkI got linked over here from a comment under my blog post. Glad I did. Definitely want to read this book... And if anyone wants to read that post, heres the link: "Miniblog #71: The Bible is... Have Evangelicals Made the Bible Impossible? (a sociologist says yes) 1 week ago peteennsIt is easily accessible--far easier than GWHW. Also, it is not a book that argues anything about the Bible from the Bible, but more observes evangelical behavior. So, comparing to GWHW and I&I is... Have Evangelicals Made the Bible Impossible? (a sociologist says yes) 1 week ago Powered by Disqus Contents About Peter Enns Articles and Essays Book Reviews Books by Peter Enns Current and Coming Can the Bible be Read both Critically and Religiously? CV

I&I Inspiration & Incarnation Media Odds & Enns Reading the OT as Jesus Did Act 3 Biblical Forum Testimonials Welcome Itinerary Recent Posts Have Evangelicals Made the Bible Impossible? (a sociologist says yes) Pre-order Ecclesiastes and Evolution of Adam Brazos ad for The Evolution of Adam Gunnar, Viking Theologian of the Hanging God Starting on a New Book Archived Posts by Date June 2009

S M T W T F S

May

Sep

1 2 3 4

5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30

Archived Posts by Year/Month Select Month July 2011 (6) June 2011 (1) May 2011 (1) April 2011 (4) March 2011 (3) February 2011 (4) December 2010 (2) November 2010 (5) October 2010 (8) September 2010 (7) August 2010 (6) July 2010 (11) June 2010 (3) May 2010 (4) April 2010 (7) March 2010 (6) February 2010 (6) January 2010 (2) December 2009 (5) November 2009 (2) October 2009 (3) September 2009 (6) June 2009 (8) May 2009 (11) April 2009 (5) March 2009 (4) February 2009 (3) January 2009 (1) December 2008 (6) November 2008 (8) October 2008 (6) September 2008 (4) August 2008 (6) June 2008 (5) May 2008 (1) February 2008 (4) January 2008 (4) December 2007 (4) November 2007 (1) Links An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution Beyond the Firmament BioLogos Foundation Huffington Post on Religion and Science Jesus Creed (Scot McKnight) Science and Theology: Exploring the Nexus The BioLogos Forum Site Administration Log in Entries RSS Comments RSS WordPress.org

Copyright 2007 Dr. Peter Enns | Coffee Break Theme by Anthony Baggett | Contact the Webmaster