Science and the Sacred: Enns, Pete
Pete Enns is Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture. You can read more about Enns here.
Blogs by Enns
What Inerrancy Isn’t: CSBI Article XIII
August 17, 2011
The framers here assert that inerrancy is a proper theological term for describing the “complete truthfulness of Scripture.” The denial portion of this article fleshes out a bit what the framers mean by “truthfulness,” or better, what they do not mean by it. All in all, I think these are very reasonable qualifications.Comments (5)
Is the Bible Historically and Scientifically Infallible and Inerrant? CSBI Articles XI and XII
August 9, 2011
So, once again, we are up against a familiar problem. Much of what burdens CSBI can be summed up as failing to reflect adequately on the nature of inspiration. The irony is clear. In their efforts to protect biblical authority, the framers define inspiration in a way that does not account well for how the Bible actually behaves.Comments (16)
Can I Have Your Autograph? CSBI Articles IX and X
August 4, 2011
The two Articles we will look at today deal with falsehood in Scripture and the autographs. The first is an issue that CSBI returns to repeatedly, and so we will not spend much time there. The second issue, the well-known assertion that inspiration is only the property of the autographs, is key for CSBI and we will look at that more closely.Comments (18)
What “Happens” in Inspiration? CSBI Articles VII and VIII
July 29, 2011
A perennial theological problem with Scripture is articulating the nature of inspiration, namely how a book can be inspired by the Spirit of God and yet be written by human beings. Simply put this is to ask: What is inspiration? How does it work? What “happened” to the biblical writers as they were writing?Comments (5)
How Much of the Bible is Actually Inspired? CSBI Article VI
July 26, 2011
As is well known, the modern study of Scripture has challenged some traditional views of Scripture. As a result, non-traditional theories of inspiration have arisen to try to account for these challenges. In Article VI, the framers of CSBI seek to address one such theory they consider threatening to a traditional Evangelical model of inspiration: the Bible is inspired in part, not in whole, and largely on the level of concepts, not words.Comments (31)
What Kind of “Progress” Does Scripture Make? CSBI Article V
July 22, 2011
As with a number of other Articles, the view expressed here is on one level wholly unproblematic. We read here that Scripture is progressive, but (1) such progress does not extend beyond the Bible, namely past the completion of the New Testament, and (2) at no point in the progress of revelation does later revelation contradict or neutralize earlier revelation.Comments (11)
Does Human Language Limit God? CSBI Article IV
July 19, 2011
Scripture has a built-in problem that theologians and philosophers have long remarked on. Language is a product of the development of human cultures and so is subject to ambiguities, interpretive difficulties, and various limitations. Yet, the Bible is written in three of those languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. How then does the Bible escape the limitations inherent in all other forms of language-based communication?Comments (5)
The Bible Binds and Barth is Bad: CSBI Articles II and III
July 15, 2011
What we see here in Article II is nothing less than the heart of the Protestant faith: Scripture is the final authority and no human authority will be over it. As CSBI puts it, Scripture alone is the norm that has the authority to “bind the conscience.” This phrase has behind it a history of spirited Protestant discussion over the authority of Scripture.Comments (3)
What Does it Mean to “Receive” the Bible as Authoritative? CSBI Article I
July 11, 2011
Listing one’s beliefs in the form of what is affirmed and correspondingly denied is a helpful, and quite common, way of expressing a set of beliefs. (for example, Answers in Genesis has a statement “Affirmations and Denials Essential to a Christian (Biblical) Worldview”) Denials are essentially clarifications of the affirmations, though from another angle.Comments (11)
Debatable Assumptions: CSBI and Summary Statement 5
July 5, 2011
As we have seen in the previous three posts, the Summary Statement of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) comprises five declarations that summarize the content and general disposition of the Articles of Affirmation and Denial that follow. In brief, they set up an understanding of inerrancy that the framers consider axiomatic for their more detailed thoughts to follow.Comments (7)
The Scope of the Bible’s Authority: CSBI Summary Statements 3 and 4
July 1, 2011
If the framers have in mind here something more along the line of spiritual or devotional meaning of Scripture, there is less of a problem with their claim. If, however, they are suggesting that proper biblical interpretation in general is limited to Spirit-led Christians who will necessarily agree with each other, common experience dictates a very different conclusionComments (14)
Imprecise Language about the Bible’s Authority: The Second Summary Statement of CSBI
June 24, 2011
The second summary statement focuses on the notion of biblical authority, which is a central concern of CSBI: inerrancy and biblical authority are two sides of the same coin. Since Scripture is the work of the Holy Spirit, it is authoritative, and it follows that it must be inerrant. And the reverse: since Scripture is the work of the Holy Spirit, it is inerrant, and it follows that it must be authoritative.Comments (6)
“God is ‘Truth’”: The First Summary Statement of CSBI
June 21, 2011
What is a bit more thought-provoking is how “truth” is so quickly highlighted as the first quality of God to be mentioned. Of course, no one would object as if God is “Falsehood” or that he “speaks falsehood.” There is nothing incorrect about designating God in this way. My concern is that “truth” is an ambiguous idea. No Christian would disagree with the idea in general, but the devil is in the details, so to speak.Comments (7)
Science, Faith, and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
June 17, 2011
These statement were written at a time when numerous influential Evangelical leaders were growing concerned that the church’s doctrine of inerrancy (at least how they understood it) was coming under increasing attack both from within and from outside of Evangelicalism. In many respects, these papers were a galvanizing moment in the Evangelical tradition.Comments (12)
Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Summing Up
June 14, 2011
But the matter is certainly much more complicated than that. What the Bible says and does not say, and how one makes that determination, and how that determination applies to any given issue, including evolution, puts us squarely—and unavoidably—in a deeply theological and hermeneutical conversation.Comments (6)
Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Wesleyanism, Part 5
June 7, 2011
But there are some problems with this line of thinking. Subjectivity is not simply restricted to personal experience, but involves the other quadrants as well. Scripture, as we have seen, must inevitably be interpreted by human beings, which introduces the personal, subjective, flawed, presence of the interpreter.Comments (0)
Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Wesleyanism , Part 4
June 1, 2011
Particularly in Christian theology, reason is not the neutral and objective guide of theological truth. Instead, reason is informed by and in dialogue with Scripture, tradition, and experience. In other words, reason is every bit a part of this mutually informative dialogue among the four quadrants as we have seen scripture and tradition to be.Comments (1)
Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Wesleyanism, Part 3
May 27, 2011
In other words, one always sees Scripture through the lenses of our traditions, our ability to reason, and our experiences as human beings. One of the great strengths of Wesleyanism is in being forthright about the interconnection of these four factors.Comments (1)
Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Wesleyanism, Part 2
May 23, 2011
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is a spatial metaphor for describing how to gain true theological knowledge. Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience—each has its own quadrant and the four are mutually dependent. As we begin here, it will be helpful to keep in mind that the Quadrilateral does not say how theological knowledge ought to be gained, but how in fact it is gained.Comments (1)
Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Wesleyanism, Part 1
May 17, 2011
In this respect, I feel that the Wesleyan tradition broadens our discussion beyond Calvinism’s focus. In saying so I do not mean to pit one tradition against the other. I have been very clear throughout that I am interested in no such facile debate. I also hope I have made it clear that Calvinism has in its “system” an approach to Scripture (incarnational) that invites the kinds of dialogue we are seeking here.Comments (1)
Evolution and our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 15
May 13, 2011
And this stamp is not to be observed theoretically nor as an unfortunate concession. Rather it is an affirmation that the human element of Scripture is worthy of the most careful and thoughtful reflection, with potentially important, theologically significant payoff. This is a distinctive and vital mark of the Calvinist legacy.Comments (13)
Evolution and our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 14
May 10, 2011
As one can see by the title, this is now the fourteenth post on how Calvinism has approached biblical interpretation—and even here we have only scratched the surface, in part because we have focused on that branch of Calvinism best known for its defense of traditional views of inspiration and biblical authority.Comments (3)
Evolution and our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 13
May 6, 2011
What Machen may not have fully appreciated is how the Jewish background of Paul specifically and the New Testament in general can wind up being a theologically reorienting experience. Paying attention to the historical context of Scripture can begin a process of rethinking how Scripture is to be understood.Comments (0)
Evolution and our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 12
May 3, 2011
Machen and Vos were well aware of this pressing issue in New Testament scholarship, though they approached it from different angles. The bottom line for both, however, is that our growing knowledge of the historical background of the New Testament must affect how we read it.Comments (10)
Evolution and our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 11
April 29, 2011
In fact, when we turn to these Dutch Calvinists, we see that they were actually critical of their own tradition for failure to develop an “organic” doctrine of Scripture, i.e., one that takes account of its humanness as well as its divine authority. We see this in the writings of two guiding lights of Dutch Calvinism, Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) and Herman Bavinck (1854-1921).Comments (1)
Evolution and our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 10
April 26, 2011
I do not mean to imply that Old Princeton would be walking arm in arm with BioLogos or any other “theistic evolution” position as articulated today. That would be too much to expect. What I mean to say is that we see in Old Princeton a very important philosophical commitment being articulated—reading the Bible in light of it historical contexts.Comments (19)
Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 9
April 23, 2011
This may seem like a rather obvious statement from our vantage point, but in Green’s day, reading the Bible in its historical context was a cause of concern for many, especially as biblical scholars were learning more and more about that context in the second half of the nineteenth century.Comments (76)
Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 8
April 19, 2011
Old Princeton was very keen to defend the essential historical value of the Old Testament, but that does not mean that its scholars were oblivious to the need to treat new and challenging data fairly and to adjust views when needed. They were quite aware of the need to interpret the Old Testament in its historical context, and that advances in our understanding of that context should affect the interpretation of Scripture.Comments (6)
Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism , Part 7
April 16, 2011
In my last post, I mentioned that there were three intellectual challenges to Christianity in the nineteenth century: European Higher Criticism, Biblical Archaeology, and Evolution. These three issues were pressing matters for the theologians and biblical scholars at Old Princeton, and they handled these challenges differently. Today we will look at the first of these challenges.Comments (1)
Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 6
April 13, 2011
John Calvin was not a Calvinist. Many of the marks of Calvinism today—namely, adherence to one or more Reformed creeds (e.g., Westminster Confessions of Faith)—are theological developments intended by Calvin’s followers to maintain trajectories that Calvin began. However, Calvin and Calvinism are not the same thing.Comments (2)
Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 5
April 8, 2011
Today, however, we know that the Israelites were not the first to make this deduction, but Babylonian and Egyptian stories were there long before. The point is that the Israelites were describing the sky overhead not simply “as they saw it,” but within the context of the religious environment they shared with their influential, super-power neighbors. This, of course, raises the perennially troubling issue for some: that Israel’s Scripture contains ways of thinking that it shares with pagan religion.Comments (19)
Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 4
April 5, 2011
The three distinctives mentioned above unite to point us toward a single hermeneutical dilemma that Christians still face and that is immediately relevant to the hermeneutical dimension of the science/faith discussion: How do the Old and New Testaments relate to each other, especially when we try to respect each in the historical context of their own revelatory moment?Comments (139)
Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 3
April 1, 2011
Calvin, however, being a keen observer of the New Testament, observed what even casual readers of the New Testament have seen: the New Testament authors do not always follow the intention of the Old Testament writers. In other words, they do not necessarily follow a grammatical-historical approach.Comments (3)
Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 2
March 29, 2011
In other words: Calvin sought to respect the context of the Old Testament while also realizing that Christ makes a difference in how one appropriates the Old Testament. This, I would suggest, is an unavoidable tension for all Christian readers, and it comes to bear on the science/faith discussion (i.e., how to read Genesis), which we will get to after we look at the next two distinctive of Calvin’s hermeneutic.Comments (9)
Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism
March 25, 2011
Calvinism has been a dominant Protestant theological tradition since its teachings were first systematically articulated by John Calvin (1509-64). Many, both Calvinists and others, would argue that there is no more intellectually potent tradition to come out of the Protestant Reformation, and not without reason. It is known for its intellectual depth and detailed argumentation.Comments (7)
Theological Traditions and the Dialogue with Evolution
March 22, 2011
The dialogue between Christianity and evolution evokes a wide range of responses from people who otherwise have a lot in common: Evangelical Christians. Self-identified evangelicals hold to many similar core doctrines. Nevertheless, with all this in common, evangelicals often have widely different opinions on how evolution and Christianity can be in conversation.Comments (50)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: Some Final Thoughts on Cain
March 8, 2011
As we have seen for the past several weeks (see sidebar), ancient interpreters produced some inventive interpretations of the story of Cain. The story is ambiguous in places, and some of those ambiguities could be theologically objectionable if left to themselves. This week I want to end our discussion of the story of Cain by listing three other issues that early interpreters felt needed to be addressed.Comments (1)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: Cain Caused the Flood
March 1, 2011
Cain was a “logical” candidate of sorts because his act was the only truly wicked act recorded in the chapters preceding the flood story. Cain’s murder of Abel, therefore, was understood not just an isolated wicked act, but a crucial factor in God’s decision to destroy the world in a deluge. One clear example is from the apocryphal book Wisdom of Solomon 10:3-4.Comments (13)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: Good vs. Evil in the Cain Story
February 22, 2011
What I have said in previous posts bears repeating here: the reason why we are even taking the time to look at how early interpreters handled Genesis is to encourage interpretive self-consciousness and humility on the part of readers today. The opening chapters of Genesis, however pivotal they are for Christian theology, are nevertheless notoriously challenging in some details.Comments (18)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: What Was Wrong with Cain’s Sacrifice?
February 15, 2011
But no rationale is given for why God found Abel’s offering more acceptable. What is especially puzzling is that both types of offerings—animal and agricultural—are commanded of Israel later on (on grain offerings, see for example Leviticus 2). As we have seen so often in these opening chapters of Genesis, there are “gaps” in the text that raise natural questions, then and now.Comments (17)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: Why Did Cain Murder his Brother?
February 8, 2011
This week we look at an entirely different issue: Why did Cain kill Abel? What was it that “made” him do it? On one level, the story seems clear enough. Nevertheless, answers to these questions—however important they are—are not obvious because the text does not address them specifically.Comments (15)
Jesus the Artist
February 1, 2011
In a recent post, my colleague Mark Sprinkle drew a very helpful analogy between Jesus’ use of parables and the creative expressions of artists. There is one part of that post that I think is particularly important for BioLogos readers to grapple with, and I would like to expand on it below from the point of view of a biblical scholar.Comments (17)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: Cain’s Birth, Part 1
January 25, 2011
After Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden, they have two children: Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:1-2). The birth of these two figures, especially of Cain, raised some questions in the minds of early interpreters—just as they continue to for contemporary readers of Genesis.Comments (23)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: The Devil was Jealous
January 18, 2011
Understanding the serpent as the devil, however, leaves open a pretty basic question in Genesis: why did the devil want to trick Adam and Eve in the first place? Granted, if the devil is God’s archenemy and wants to undermine God’s works, tricking Adam and Eve into disobeying God is a good idea. But why does such an archenemy exist in the first place? Is there something behind what Genesis 3 is telling us?Comments (9)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: Working and Guarding the Garden
January 12, 2011
In Genesis 2:15, we read that God put Adam in the Garden of Eden to “work it and keep it.” English translations differ on how to handle the Hebrew words behind this simple clause. “Work” is from the Hebrew word `avad and in this context probably means something like “till.” In other words, Adam is given the role of tilling God’s Garden.Comments (68)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: Adam and Eve’s Nakedness
December 14, 2010
After their disobedience in the Garden, Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened and they saw that they were naked (Genesis 3:7). They cover themselves with leaves, and after God pronounces the curses on them and the snake (3:14-19), he makes “garments of skin” for them (3:21) before casting them out of the Garden.Comments (97)
Challenging Old Assumptions
December 9, 2010
In this video “Conversation,” Pete Enns addresses some assumptions about ancient readers and writers that are relevant to the way we should read Genesis in the 21st century. One such assumption, says Enns, is that ancient people share the same view of the cosmos as do we. This is a flawed assumption, however, because ancient peoples did not think about outer space in quite the same way.Comments (19)
When Was Genesis Written and Why Does it Matter? A Brief Historical Survey
December 8, 2010
The question of when Genesis was written is not a new one. It has been a focus of modern biblical scholarship since the eighteenth century. How modern biblical scholarship has handled this question is not unanimous and has hardly been above criticism. Vibrant debates about when Genesis was written will likely continue, and we should all welcome any viable attempt to achieve greater clarity.
Comments (41)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: Some Thoughts about Eve
December 7, 2010
Immediately after this announcement, God forms the animals out of the ground (v. 19). Adam names all of the animals, but among these creatures “there was not found a helper as his partner” (v. 20). Now it seems as if Plan B is put into place. In vv. 21-25 the woman is fashioned out of Adam’s side rather than from the ground in order to ensure that this helper will fill the proper role.Comments (15)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: Garden Paradise
November 30, 2010
Early interpreters speculated what might be special about this Garden—special enough to have been off limits after Adam and Eve’s transgression. The fact that sin barred humans from the Garden and that there was a Tree of Life in the Garden that provided eternal life (3:22) suggested to some interpreters that the Garden is where righteous people go after death to live forever.Comments (46)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: It Was Eve’s Fault
November 23, 2010
The Garden story is about something that started right and quickly went very wrong. The forbidden fruit was eaten with lasting effects for humanity. But who is to blame, Adam or Eve? That was a common question asked by ancient interpreters.Comments (68)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: A Crafty Serpent
November 16, 2010
The earliest interpreters of the Bible—just like modern ones—where curious about the serpent mentioned in Genesis 3. He is introduced as “more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made” (v. 1). He then proceeds to dupe Eve into eating from the forbidden tree of knowledge.Comments (31)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: “On the Day You Eat of It…”
November 9, 2010
For the past several weeks, we have been looking at some episodes in the first creation story in Genesis 1 and what early interpreters have said about them. Today we move to the second creation story. As you can well imagine, the stories of Adam and Eve, the Garden, and the serpent posed as many questions then as they do now.Comments (38)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: Before Creation
November 2, 2010
Over the past few weeks we have seen some examples of how ancient interpreters read Genesis. They were very “active” readers; they would dialogue with the text, ask it questions, and seek clarification. They would ask questions like “Why doesn’t Genesis talk about the creation of angels?” or “Why doesn’t Genesis mention Wisdom’s role like we see in Proverbs?”Comments (15)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: Who is “Us”?
October 26, 2010
On the sixth day when God created humanity, Genesis 1:26 says something that has attracted the attention of biblical interpreters from early on until today: “Let us make humankind in our own image, according to our likeness....” Why the plural? There are two problems here.Comments (58)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: What about Angels?
October 20, 2010
Angels play a visible role in the Old Testament, but ancient interpreters wondered why nothing is said in Genesis about when they were first created. Genesis is a “gapped” text, as we have seen over the past few weeks, but no mention of angels is a pretty big gap.Comments (17)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: Let There Be Light
October 12, 2010
Genesis 1:3 raised some questions among ancient interpreters. What does it mean for God to say, “Let there be light” on the first day of creation? There was no light from the heavenly bodies until day four, so: What was its source? Why is it the first thing God did? Why was it needed at all?Comments (49)
Adam, Eve, and the Culture Wars
October 6, 2010
In this video Conversation, BioLogos Senior Biblical Fellow Peter Enns discusses why Adam and Eve seem to be at the center of the Culture Wars. In particular, he considers why questioning the historicity of this particular origins narrative is so threatening to evangelicals.Comments (198)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters, Part II
October 5, 2010
We saw last week that wisdom was represented as a woman in Proverbs. (We looked at Proverbs 8:22-31, but you can see it almost anywhere in Proverbs 1-9.) This is called “personification,” i.e., when human traits are given to something abstract to make it seem more concrete. We do this today, for example by referring to death as the Grim Reaper.Comments (49)
After You Believe
September 29, 2010
In this video Conversation, BioLogos Senior Biblical Fellow Peter Enns speaks with the Rev. N.T. Wright about some of the concepts explored in his latest book After You Believe. Enns begins by asking Wright what prompted him to write the book.Comments (21)
Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters
September 28, 2010
Genesis and the creation stories have been read, discussed, thought about, pondered over, debated, and written about since well before the time of Jesus. Much of my graduate study was focused on the literature of this time period and how these authors interpreted the Bible. These early biblical interpreters began to flourish sometime after the return from Babylonian exile and into the first century A.DComments (28)
America’s Culture Wars: A Different Perspective
September 22, 2010
In this video Conversation, senior biblical fellow Peter Enns asks Rev. N.T. Wright to respond to a common question of readers regarding the disconnect between science and religion. Specifically, he asks Wright why he thinks there is such controversy in evangelicalism about evolution. Is this a “culture war” issue?Comments (31)
The Problem with Literalism: Chronicles (3)
September 21, 2010
These examples show that these two historians have very different reasons for writing their histories. The writer of Samuel/Kings is focused on why first the northern kingdom was taken captive by the Assyrians (722 B.C.) and then the southern kingdom by the Babylonians (586 B.C.) The Chronicler’s focus is on the returning southern kingdom and their future as the people of God.Comments (23)
Paul’s Perspective on Adam
September 15, 2010
In this video Conversation, senior biblical fellow Peter Enns asks Rev. N.T. Wright to respond to the question of how Adam functions theologically in the Old Testament and whether a historical Adam is central or important for that “Adam theology” that is brought up later in Paul’s letter to the Romans, where he describes Christ as the “new Adam.”Comments (132)
The Problem with Literalism: Chronicles (2)
September 14, 2010
Chronicles and Samuel/Kings differ significantly in how they portray Israel’s monarchy as a whole. These two different accounts were not given to us by the Spirit of God in order for us to blur the distinctions and make the two into one. The distinct message of 1 and 2 Chronicles is God’s word to the postexilic Israelites. It is worthy of our full respect and attention.Comments (47)
What Do You Mean by ‘Literal’?
September 8, 2010
In this video Conversation, senior biblical fellow Peter Enns asks Rev. N.T. Wright to respond to a reader question about science and faith. Specifically, the reader asks, “If you take Genesis in a non-literal fashion especially the creation stories, why take anything in the Bible literally—such as the Gospels? Do you take the Gospels literally?”Comments (75)
The Problem with Literalism: The Books of Chronicles (1)
September 7, 2010
The problem, though, is that Chronicles and Samuel/Kings both claim to report history, yet they report that history differently—and significantly so. By minimizing those differences, a literalistic reading risks missing the theological point the anonymous author (typically referred to as the Chronicler) makes.Comments (75)
Does the Slippery Slope Always Go to the Left?
September 1, 2010
In this video Conversation, Peter Enns asks author and theologian N.T. Wright to respond to a question from a BioLogos Forum reader about the implications of the relationship between politics and religion within the evangelical movement.Comments (37)
The Problem with Literalism: Introduction
August 31, 2010
As the logic goes, once you start down the road of not taking the Bible literally, there is no telling where that road will end. In fact, that road becomes a slippery slope to unbelief. Individual Christians will be free to pick and choose what parts of the Bible are binding and which parts aren’t.Comments (89)
Understanding the Humanity of Jesus
August 24, 2010
In this new series, BioLogos senior fellow Pete Enns asks N.T. Wright to respond to questions that have come to BioLogos via Twitter, email, and its blog. The first question for Wright is as follows: What do you think is the biggest misunderstanding that western 21st century evangelicals have about Jesus and how does it stunt their understanding and witness?Comments (49)
What Does “Image of God” Mean? Part 4
August 17, 2010
So, what does it mean for Christians to be image bearers of God? It means we are called to live daily in such a way that embodies more and more what that image looks like. Jesus is both the cause of our renewed image and the model we follow as we try to live that way.Comments (21)
What Does “Image of God” Mean? Part 3
August 9, 2010
We can begin where we left off last week, with Psalm 8. This psalm praises God for how he has exalted humanity: man is a little lower than God, crowned with glory and honor, and everything has been placed under his feet. Humankind, in other words, is one step below God, given authority to rule creation. Psalm 8 is fully consistent with Genesis 1:26-27 where “image of God” is described as ruling over all of creation.Comments (44)
What Does “Image of God” Mean? Part 2
August 3, 2010
There are two reasons why Israel was told not to make images of Yahweh. First, unlike the other gods, Yahweh is distinct from what he has made. He cannot be captured by a carved image of animals or any other piece of creation. Second, God already made an image of himself: humankind, a living image.Comments (32)
What Does “Image of God” Mean? Part 1
July 27, 2010
There is nothing here about a soul, the ability to reason, being conscious of God or any other psychological or spiritual trait. As John Walton points out, as important as these qualities are for making us human, they do not define what image of God means in Genesis. Rather, those qualities are tools that serve humans in their image-bearing role.Comments (39)
The Creator is the Redeemer
July 20, 2010
Central to all of this is the resurrection of Jesus. Rising from the dead is the true beginning of this new mode of existence in which believers—right here and now—take part. Believing in Jesus means you are benefiting from Jesus’ resurrection already now in the new life you experience by the power of the Spirit.Comments (42)
Jesus and the Sea
July 14, 2010
Up to this point Jesus’ ministry has been characterized by some healings (which were enough to make the people take notice) and some powerful and challenging speeches, such as the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7. But this act of calming the storm raises the ante: it shows that the healer and teacher also controls the elements of the created order—specifically, the sea. This act is infused with theological significance.Comments (36)
How Should BioLogos Respond to Dr. Albert Mohler’s Critique: Pete’s Response
July 8, 2010
Dear Dr. Mohler, I watched your articulate presentation “Why Does the Universe Look So Old?” and along with Dr. Giberson, I have some questions. For me, those questions concern how you approach biblical interpretation.
Comments (46)
The Benefit of Doubt
June 30, 2010
Doubt is an assault on faith. We know this because doubts leads to such destructive emotions as fear, depression, anger, irritability, and stress. Clearly, God does not want us to doubt. Right? Wrong. There is a benefit of doubt. Doubt is a gift of God to move us from trusting ourselves to trusting him.Comments (50)
Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, and the Flood, Part 3
June 22, 2010
Yes, the biblical story is a distinct piece of theology. It offers a very different view of God and the role of humanity. But that does not mean that the biblical story is of a “higher order” than the extra-biblical stories from a historical or scientific point of view.Comments (44)
Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, and the Flood, Part 2
June 8, 2010
Like all ancient flood stories, the version in Genesis is trying to say something distinct. The Israelites were making a point about God, not simply relaying meteorological information. It is important to keep in mind both the similarities and differences between the biblical and other ancient flood stories. The distinct elements of Genesis carry forward its theological message, all the while working within the familiar conventions of the time.Comments (44)
Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, and the Flood
June 1, 2010
The biblical flood story (Genesis 6-9) has certainly taken a beating over the last two or three centuries. The problems began in earnest once geologists realized that a literal submersion of the entire earth in water is contradicted by clear scientific evidence.Comments (69)
The Second Creation Story and “Atrahasis”
May 25, 2010
Last week we looked at Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish. Another very important discovery in Ashurbanipal’s library is the story commonly referred to as the Atrahasis Epic. Though in the nineteenth century only fragments of the story were found, a more complete version was found in 1965, dated to the seventeenth century B.C.Comments (36)
Genesis 1 and a Babylonian Creation Story
May 18, 2010
In the middle of the nineteenth century, archaeologists discovered thousands of clay tablets written in a language that came to be known as Akkadian (a distant and much older cousin to Hebrew). [...] It was the religious texts found there that got the most attention. One of those texts bore striking similarities to Genesis 1. How people viewed Genesis would never be the same again.Comments (146)
Israel’s Two Creation Stories (Part 3)
May 11, 2010
One thing that these two stories have in common, though, is their high view of humanity. This distinguishes the biblical creation stories from other stories of the ancient world. We will look at this more in following posts. Here, we will note how the two biblical creation stories depict differently this high view of humanity.Comments (21)
Pete Enns on the Incarnational Model of Scripture
May 8, 2010
An incarnational model is by no means the only model for thinking about the Bible. Neither is it necessarily the best model. It is just a way of talking about the Bible where the challenges of historical study can be seen in a different light.Comments (48)
Israel’s Two Creation Stories (Part 2)
May 4, 2010
Last week I discussed how Genesis 1 and 2 are two different creation stories—they are not meant to be harmonized or read sequentially. I gave three reasons why this is the case: the number of days differ (six as opposed to one), they begin differently (watery chaos as opposed to arid land), and they have an entirely different sequence of events. Here are two more reasons.Comments (25)
Israel’s Two Creation Stories (Part 1)
April 27, 2010
Beginning in the 18th century, European Old Testament scholars discussed this point in earnest. The next two centuries brought the discovery of numerous creation stories from ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Canaan. With the discovery of these creation stories, scholars could now see clear evidence to support a nonliteral reading of the Genesis texts, since each biblical story shares characteristics of different Near Eastern stories.Comments (71)
Why We Fight About This
April 20, 2010
Passions run high because evolution seems threatening. Christians feel unsettled because evolution challenges something meaningful and non-negotiable—their scriptural understanding of God, of ultimate reality, of how the parts of their existence fit together and make sense.Comments (556)
Creating Adam
April 6, 2010
Understanding the Adam story in Genesis and Paul’s use of the Adam story in Romans and 1 Corinthians is important and challenging. An informed discussion engages topics such as Old Testament views of creation and challenges in understanding Paul. We have glimpsed these in the previous weeks. But this is just the beginning of the conversation.Comments (180)
Paul’s Adam (Part 4)
March 30, 2010
Here are three final issues that arise when trying to understand Paul’s use of the Adam story. Based on some of the comments I have read on the previous threads, it bears repeating: raising these issues does not imply how they should be addressed, only that they are inescapable elements in the discussion.Comments (58)
Paul’s Adam (Part 3)
March 23, 2010
Thinking through questions like these takes some patience, a fair amount of knowledge, and even more wisdom. At the end of the day, wrestling through these issues will yield a greater understanding of Paul and how his Gospel is summed up in the risen Messiah.Comments (26)
Understanding Origins and the Ancient Mind
March 17, 2010
In this video conversation, Pete Enns sheds light on the key difference between the ancient and modern mind with regard to interpretation of texts. A literal understanding of Genesis from an ancient mind frame would not necessarily be the same as what we now think of as a literal reading—where everything corresponds to reality in a one to one fashion.Comments (7)
Paul’s Adam (Part 2)
March 16, 2010
This raises another sort of question: Is it even necessary for Paul and the Old Testament to have the same exact view of the nature of sin? Can Paul have a clearer view on the true depth of our alienation from God that is not yet present in the Old Testament in general or Genesis specifically? Does Paul’s use of the Adam story actually depend on him not reading it literally?Comments (88)
The Apostle Paul and Adam
March 10, 2010
In this video conversation, Old Testament scholar Peter Enns discusses the Apostle Paul and his understanding of Adam as the progenitor of the human race. While in Paul’s mind, there may be an “organic” connection, Enns points out that for most Christians, this has no bearing on the “literalness” of Jesus.
Comments (116)
Paul’s Adam (Part I)
March 9, 2010
In my experience, a lot of Christians have come to some peace with all of this. They may handle it in different ways, and some may not have arrived at a conclusion, but they at least recognize that something has to be done. They sense that a simple literal reading of the Adam story won’t work without creating a lot of cognitive dissonance, and so they are open to ideas. But, sooner or later, another issue comes up that is hard to get around and for some simply ends the discussion entirely: Paul.Comments (144)
Adam is Israel
March 2, 2010
I am not trying to say that cosmic battle is some magic key to unlock the mysteries of the Bible. But it does open a new window to seeing the ”ancient ways” in which the Israelites thought of creation. It also helps us look at the Adam story from an angle that might be new to some readers here: Adam is the beginning of Israel, not humanity. I imagine this may require some explanation.Comments (120)
Exodus, Mt. Sinai and Creation
February 23, 2010
Here the topic of creation is important. Even though the cosmic battle is over, we have not left the creation theme. Think of the exodus as God “creating” a people for himself out of a cosmic battle. After that act of creation, he gives them two things the people of Yahweh need if they are to be called his people, if they are going to serve him.Comments (11)
Response from One of Jerry Coyne’s Fleas
February 17, 2010
In discussing Kent Spark’s recent post, the noted atheist and evolutionary biologist, Jerry Coyne has referred to BioLogos as a flea that needs to be scratched. Coyne writes that by showing that Augustine and Calvin did not view Scripture as a sourcebook for information about nature, Sparks was setting up some straw men that do not represent Christianity as a whole.Comments (15)
Exodus and the Cosmic Battle (Again)
February 16, 2010
These themes are wonderfully interconnected from Genesis through Exodus: cosmic battle, separation of elements, and deliverance from watery fate. Creation, flood, and exodus are almost versions of the same story: the victory of Yahweh and the salvation of his people.Comments (12)
Exodus, the Plagues, and the Cosmic Battle
February 9, 2010
It is obviously important to spend a lot of time discussing the scientific data. But it is also important to deal with the biblical data. Why? Because our expectations about the Bible affect how we handle the scientific data.Comments (32)