Below are the fifth and sixth 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 Waltke’s 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
Read Part Four of my response here

Here are parts five and six of my response to Waltke’s follow-up piece:

(5) Failure to Define Precisely What Divine Inspiration Entails with Respect to Scripture

That is correct, and is also correct of anything I have ever read on the topic, including Waltke’s recent articulations. Failure to “define precisely” describes us all. The point of books and articles is to move toward further precision and clarity, sometimes by offering grand, programmatic pieces, other times more focused studies.

An incarnational model is an attempt to define what inspiration entails by giving an account of the breadth of biblical phenomena, a small fraction of which was covered in I&I. The model may not be to Waltke’s liking, but pointing out imprecision, which is ubiquitous and unavoidable in these discussions, is not a counter-argument. The accusation of failed precision can find universal applicability, and so is not a compelling criticism.

Rigorous Exegesis is Needed to Defend an Incarnational Model
This criticism follows somewhat upon the previous one.

I want to stress that an incarnational model is not “my” model, which Waltke seems to imply. To be sure, I am applying it to issues that others have not and to an extent that some may not be comfortable with. I am very much aware of that. But the model itself is not one of my own devising.

I would say, though, that no model, including an inerrantist one, can be demonstrated on the basis of ‘rigorous exegesis.’ In fact, it is precisely rigorous exegesis that led me to question the model of inspiration Waltke seems to profess, and I am advocating something that I find more compelling as a point of departure, one that I argue accounts better for why the Bible looks the way it does.

(6) “The Community of Faith Must Judge”

I have heard this before and I remain puzzled by it. Who, exactly, is this community of faith, and in what sense do they judge? What does this even mean?

Does Waltke mean an ecclesiastical court or a judgment in the eyes of popular opinion? If the latter, is it a matter of trading anecdotal evidence? Or do we leave it to the self-proclaimed gatekeepers, of which there seems to be no lack nowadays. If the former, which court? Which denomination? And more importantly, on what basis should that court be judged competent to pass judgment on others on some of the technical matters under consideration?

This does not mean that Waltke is entirely wrong. In fact, I would say that submitting ideas to a community of faith for judgment is precisely what Waltke and I are engaged in here. We are a part of that process by which God’s people gain clarity. Rather than there being a court, outside of this discussion, popular or “official,” to which Waltke or I need to submit our work, we are an important step in that process. We are, in fact, among those whose advice any “court” should seek in an effort to reach informed conclusions.

I know what that sounds like: “Enns is arrogant. He thinks that you need a Ph.D. in Biblical Scholars in order to determine doctrine because they are the only ones who have enough expertise in the Bible.” No, I don’t mean that. But, neither do I find at all constructive the unguarded statements of those not trained in these matters who dismiss with little forethought the work of modern biblical scholarship, and make sweeping and binding pronouncements. And yes, these issues do require training in biblical and related studies to handle well on the level of sophistication needed. Neither ordination nor expertise in related disciplines qualifies one to determine the direction of these discussions.

I am not in any way, shape, or form advocating a separation of disciplines. Actually, I am calling for the exact opposite. As I have said on numerous occasions [e.g., this article, published in the Calvin Theological Journal], what is needed is true discussion among scholars of various disciplines to seek greater clarity about the nature of the Bible at a time when there is, to say the least, growing dissatisfaction with formulations that have been worked out in isolation from the very challenges we face.

Times have changed. We cannot rest on the comfort of a familiar past. There is much work to be done. There is no place for fence building or posturing.

Tags: Uncategorized // Comments Off