A big ‘thank you’ to David for the Enns book!
Oh I have been enjoying delving into Barth's Gesamtausgabe books Jim West sent. In particular the small book Fides quaerens intellectum is turning out to be a real eye-opener. Not only has it become clear to me that I have totally misunderstood Anselm's proof of God's existence in the past, but at last I see how Anselm's so-called 'ontological proof' can stand next to his fides quaerens intellectum – faith seeking understanding. This may end up a very important little book in my own theological pilgrimage. Great fun!
However, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank someone else for their amazing generosity. David Vinson, who I previously mentioned here (after he sent me a copy of the very thought-provoking and opinion-moulding The Making of the Fittest in the post!) is simply bowling me over with his kind gifts. This time he sent me a copy of Peter Enns' brilliant Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament! I must say, what I have read thus far is just excellent and deeply encouraging. Many many thanks AGAIN, David! I am so grateful! (It is difficult to express out the measure of my felt sincerity just through a keyboard, but it is there!). Proping up the book is Anja's Karlchen (don't ask):
The more I read, the more it looks like this Enns' book may really help me to clarify many of my thoughts on the nature of the inspiration of scripture. In fact, an added bonus is watching how conservative reviewers get themselves into knots responding to his simple thesis – a situation that has led to some highly dubious reviews (for example here and here). Be that as it may, at least these chaps actually took the trouble to read the book (even if hardly with a teachable hermeneutic).
Anyway, tune in tomorrow for more on the 'Chris is a lucky git' channel!
posted by Chris Tilling @ 11:38 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Chris, in one of the reviews you pointed to, I was shocked to read,
"Thankfully, Dillard died of a heart attack while Longman went elsewhere."
How can someone even think that...?
Hi Chris,
I second your positive response to Enns' book. Would you consider reveiwing the book as a guest post series on Per Caritatem?
Best wishes,
Cynthia
Just got done with Steve Hays' review of Enns' book -- 'dubious' was certainly a fitting description.
I find it funny how all the 'good commentaries' seem to be the ones that agree with Hays. And am I the only one noticing that by 'traditional' he really means 'fundamentalist'?
I haven't read Enns' book but it definitely seems like something worth checking out. I would imagine that Hays' intention was to disauade his readers from purchasing the book and truth be told, I've come to expect no less from those of the presuppositionalist camp. They have all their answers before they ask their questions. We should all be so 'blessed' :)
Congrats on your Barth books and the Enns book. However, even though I love Barth, I have never been sure his interpretation of Anselm was anywhere close to correct. It is, shall we say, a very unique interpretation of Anselm that sounds more like Barth than a Medievalist.
And just where do I send The Prayer of Jabez, so that I, too, can bless and be blessed?
[[Mike, I found that one of the more distasteful sentences I've read from a professing Xian on the web in quite some time. Not sure where Hays is coming from as Dillard-Longman is a good conservative text...]]
I read Enn's book about a year ago. I don't remember every detail of it. But I had two criticisms at the time. First, he could have done a better job on biblical diversity. I mean, there are slight contradictions in the Bible that can coexist, and there are CONTRADICTIONS that are harder to reconcile. He focused more on the former, probably because doing so was theologically easier.
Second, he did a good job explaining the concept of interpreted Bible, and he showed that the New Testament authors embraced the Bible and several interpretations that were associated with it. But I was disappointed by his attempts to theologically account for that. I mean, do we as Christians have to see apocryphal literature and midrashic legends as inspired like Scripture? Plus, if the early Christians could take passages out of context, why can't we? I vaguely recall that he tried to answer these questions. But I do not remember his answers, which is probably because I was not satisfied.
Mike, JB, Nick etc. I suspect that Steven Hays' comments is evidence of heresy. It is deeply sad and unchristian rhetoric.
Hi Cynthia, thanks for the honour - to guest post on Per Caritatem. I'm snowed under with work at the mo, but can I simply try to write a review and if I do send it to you then?
James, thanks for that helpful comment. I'll bear those point in mind as I read through it.
Michael, thanks for your thoughts. Not being an Anselm man I have nothing to say. What is the general scholarly consensus on Barth's interpretation, do you know?
Chris and the others commenting on the Triablogue review. Sadly, that is so typical of the group there. When they are writing strictly theological posts, they are capable of reasoning cogently and intelligently -- if incorrectly, but then I think all Christian arguments are incorrect. But when they have the opportunity to engage in personalities, they can't resist the temptation to be offensively nasty.
Post a Comment
<< Home