Enns' "Faith"

Monday, March 31, 2008

Enns' "Faith"
Currently Reading
Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books (The IVP Bible Dictionary Series)
see related

It has been suggested in a comment to my previous post on Pete Enns that he and those who support him do not contend against the Reformed doctrine of Scripture; including its inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy.

I'm not convinced, however, that Enns himself duly upholds the doctrine of inerrancy. Let's take, for instance, his article “Faith” in the IVP Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books. There he states that “Faith” in the OT does not refer to “saving faith” or “faith in God”. He says that that notion is far too abstract. But what is even more disturbing is the way he dismisses the NT's interpretation of faith in the OT. For instance, Enns writes:

“The fact that in the NT both Hebrews and James cite Rahab's act as an example of faith does not settle the issue of how the story functions in its original literary and historical context . . . Appeal cannot be made to these NT text to settle the issue of faith in the historical books”

I could be wrong, and perhaps I have been asleep in all the reading I've done in Reformed theology, but this doesn't seem to me to be a Reformed understanding of the NT's interpretation of the OT. I was under the impression that Scripture is its own interpreter, and how one passage of the Bible interprets another is authoritative for the believer. But Enns, and other profs at WTS, have made a great deal of their popularity on teaching us not to interpret the OT according to the NT. However, if God is one, and he has inspired all of the Scriptures, and if all of Scripture is inerrant, then why is Enns encouraging us here to NOT interpret OT faith in light of how the NT defines it? This hermeneutic may be many things, but it is not Reformed and does not reflect a traditional understanding of inerrancy.

Second, Enns also states this disturbing teaching:

“Here Nehemiah certainly appeals to Abraham as an example not of 'believing' in God, but of obeying God; his covenant faithfulness to God is contrasted to the sinfulness of Israel's confession of sin. . . “

Enns cites this in support of his earlier claim that “faith” does not so much mean belief, but “faithfulness” and “obedience”. Faith is, for Enns, not a matter of conversion but of a disposition of the heart.

Wow! This not only denies the doctrine of “faith” according to the Westminster Standards, but it explicitly introduces a contradiction in the text of Scripture. According to the NT Abraham's faith was belief in God, and because of that belief God credited Abraham with righteousness. But, according to Enns, when the text of Genesis says that Abraham believed in God, what it means is that he was obedient to God and was faithful to the covenant.

Well, to be sure, Abraham was faithful to the covenant. But that is not how that verse is cited by Paul, for instance, in Romans. So, which is it? Who is right here about faith? Paul says that Abraham's faith was a trust that came apart from works of obedience, Pete says that the OT teaches that Abraham's faith WAS works of the law!

Enns' error here is two fold. First, he has just confused faith and works in a way that denies the gospel. But second, he allows a contradiction in the teaching of Scripture. Last I checked, inerrancy teaches that there cannot be any contradictions in God's revelation.

So, is it a fundy move, is it being anti-intellectual, to presuppose that the self-contained ontological Trinity has consistently revealed himself in his Word, in both OT and NT? Higher criticism has always maintained that we may not come to the Bible presupposing the inerrancy of Scripture, and that we must not accent the divine nature of Scripture. If we do that then we are being unscientific. And we are being arrogant to assume that the Bible is inerrant.

What, then, really is the difference between this and what Enns is saying? To be sure, he is a careful theologian. He does not explicitly deny inerrancy. But he also doesn't explicitly affirm it either. And the way he handles Scripture certainly doesn't reflect that commitment. But that is what happens when you place the accent on the humanity of Scripture rather than its divinity.

One last thing, this does not mean that we may shirk the hard questions. To accent the divinity of Scripture MAY and it CAN be used as an excuse easily dismiss the hard questions. But not necessarily so. Robert Dick Wilson, Geerhardus Vos, E.J. Young all faced the hard questions. And they answered them. They did not shrink back from facing them. But they never once lost their grounding in the Bible as the divine Word, and accenting that.

Its in this connection that we must set forth a truly biblical incarnational theology. Historically, remember, in the two natures of Christ the accent was never on his humanity. While Chalcedon affirmed that Jesus was both fully God and fully man, it also affirmed that the humanity of Jesus did not have personal existence in itself (this is what they called “anhypostasis”). But Jesus received his personality by virtue of the assumption if the humanity by the divine Logos (this is what they called “enhypostasis”). Jesus is fully God and fully man, but both natures are not equally ultimate.

And perhaps this is what is so disturbing about Enns' model. Its not so much his doctrine of Scripture as it is the Christology which is reflected in it. It is adoptionistic at best, Ebionite at worse. And for a seminary committed to traditional orthodox and Reformed theology, there is no place for that.