Martyred for the Gospel

Martyred for the Gospel
The burning of Tharchbishop of Cant. D. Tho. Cranmer in the town dich at Oxford, with his hand first thrust into the fyre, wherwith he subscribed before. [Click on the picture to see Cranmer's last words.]

Collect of the Day

The Second Sunday in Lent.

The Collect

ALMIGHTY God, who seest that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves; Keep us both outwardly in our bodies, and inwardly in our souls; that we may be defended from all adversities which may happen to the body, and from all evil thoughts which may assault and hurt the soul; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Collect from the First Day of Lent is to be read every day in Lent after the Collect appointed for the Day.

Daily Bible Verse

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Peter Enns and Presupposing Higher and Lower Biblical Criticism

“The Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God written, and therefore inerrant in the autographs.”    

(From the statement of faith of The Evangelical Theological Society).

Someone pointed out to me that Peter Enns questions the Bible.  But the real question is why?  It would seem that Dr. Enns has presupposed that Scripture is in error and that general revelation and modern biblical science can re-interpret the Scriptures based on those same presupposed errors.  Could it not be that their presuppositions are themselves in error?

Dr. Gordon H. Clark said that everyone is a fideist.  If Dr. Enns believes the critics are inspired by God and have the authority to re-invent Christianity, he is essentially arguing for the magisterium of unbelievers who have the right to tell Christians what to believe and why.  My question, however, is where does Enns get this so-called authority?  It certainly does not come from the Bible.

Any time you put the unbelievers above Scripture and accept skepticism as your axiom for Scripture, the result is always unbelief and worse:

"Is it possible that the persuasive power of historical criticism rests especially in its correctness? Could it be that historical criticism–like the astronomy of Galileo–has been destructive not because it is false, but because the church has often misunderstood its implications?"   If Biblical Criticism Is So Bad for You, How Come It's So Convincing, Huh?  Peter Enns 

One answer to Enns' question is that the reason these people believe the skeptics rather than the Bible is because they have been reprobated from all eternity.  (1 Peter 2:7-8).  It could be that they are elect and will be brought to repentance.  But the bottom line is that no Christian will be affected by unproven skeptical presuppositions.  The Bible claims to be God's Word.  (2 Timothy 3:16).  I will go with Scripture.

Thus it happens that our Society includes the best conservative scholars in the land, and to this end our discussions examine every known phase of Biblical literature, archaeology, theology, and apologetics. At our first meeting, which may be called our constitutional convention, we saw clearly that if the Bible is the Word of God – a phrase even the Neo-orthodox sometimes use – it cannot contain error, for the simple reason that God cannot lie. Conversely, if the Bible contains errors, it cannot, certainly not in its entirety, be the Word of God. Hence the basis on which the Society was founded, and the principle on which it operates to this day, and the statement to which we all subscribe is: “The Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God written, and therefore inerrant in the autographs.”

Gordon Clark (2011-07-02T18:48:21+00:00). God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics (Gordon Clark) (Kindle Locations 1000-1006). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.

No comments:

Support Reasonable Christian Ministries with your generous donation.