Saturday, May 13, 2006

Innerancy & the Bible

Ah, Barry Hofstetter offers a rousing defense (and really good explanation) of Pete Enns' recent book, Inspiration & Incarnation. Barry explains what's up with this whole "incarnational analogy" thing, and asks us to consider how the Bible views itself in terms of "inerrancy." Very good stuff - definitely worth reading.

So I'm with Pete and Barry (and John Murray, and E.J. Young, and Herman Bavinck, and Abraham Kuyper, for that matter) on this one. The real question to be asked here is "Do I believe the Bible because it conforms to some modern definition of 'inerrant'?" -OR- "Do I believe the Bible because it's the word of God?"

[HT: Mark Traphagen]

posted by Pilgrim in Progress @ 4:16 PM   1 comments

1 Comments:

At 6:29 AM, Blogger Pilgrim in Progress said...

Now that's an interesting comment, Brian, because it sounds like you are saying something distinct from what I've heard from others on this.

Many people who are critical of Pete's work and say "Whoa! He's out of bounds, in another camp!" (He's gone too far)

Barry's post on the other hand, says something to the effect of "No, he's well within the WTS/Reformed trajectory which includes the likes of Murray, Young and Bavinck." (He's just right)

You're comment, on the other hand, seems to sound like he hasn't gone far enough in comparison to these others - that he has stopped short of something they said in the conversation. And what I find interesting is that I haven't heard ANYONE saying that.

Since it sounds like you are well versed in Murray, Young, Bavinck -AND- Pete, can you kindly provide some examples of what you mean here? (eg. Show where they're on the same page, then show how they go further/in a different direction than he does).

I'd love to see this if you'd care to share it...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home