I am thankful for those who keep in the ring fighting the battles for a high view of the Bible. It must get tedious after a while. I know it feels that way to me. Generally the arguments for a lower view are old but dressed in new clothes with new winsome personalities.
Andrew Wilson is one of those doing this journeyman’s work. He wades in and goes the full number of rounds. He has danced the ring with Rob Bell and Steven Chalk. And now Peter Enns. Enns at his blog chose Wilson’s recent critique of Enns’ book, The Bible Tells Me So, as representative of the kind of kickback he is getting on his view on the Bible.
Wilson essentially says “not much here to see, we’ve heard this before.” Sure there are challenges to a high view of the Bible. And new charismatic figures make those challenges seem like new ones. Thank God for equally capable conservative scholars who can match wit for wit without rancor.
Here is Andrew Wilson’s podcast response to Enns.
Aside from answering Enns’ assertions, Wilson necessarily points out that Enns has no positive project. His project does not include strong assertions for what it means for the Bible to be the inspired Word of God. It is at this point that Enns gets rather mushy and indistinct. It sounds like the neo-orthodox version of the Bible. The reader meets God in reading the Bible. Of course, this does not require anything like inerrancy and one begins to wonder what it means for the Bible to actually be inspired. It’s at that point that Enns, like his predecessors, does not bring to the front much that is extrinsic to the reader’s own self-consciousness.