Counterpoint Series

Book Review: Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy

/ J.K. / 2 Comments

Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)

My Rating: Must Read

Level: Moderately difficult (four of the five are academics and some of the terms/phrases used reflect this), medium length (300+)

Summary

I’m finding this harder to summarize than you may think. If you grew up in the conservative Christian world, as I did, you’ve doubtless heard the word ‘inerrancy’ without much clear meaning, making this book incredibly compelling. You might not know that the inerrancy as you know it came from a relatively recent development and statement called the ‘Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy‘ from the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. This book is more a debate on the statement, specifically its use, than inerrancy writ large, though that is discussed. If you haven’t read the statement, go read it before reading this book. Due to this, and the multitude of discussions that can come from the topic, this book is different than others. So in this series have clear delineations – the world is thousands vs. billions of years old, the millennium is pre/post rapture, etc. – yet, even in those, often, the writers speak past each other and don’t always remain in topic. This is the most dramatic of those instances, except, the essays are so far apart, that it actually works, for the most part. 

This is one where you need to read the introduction, they explain that they sent these authors the assignment or reacting to the Statement, then sending back three problematic verses that challenge the statement. The editors then editors then selected three of the verses and each author was to respond. The authors were chosen to be on different spectrum of evangelism, and in different disciplines with Frank/Vanhoozer being theologians, Bird (who wrote one of the best systematics out there)/Enss as Biblical Scholars, and Mohler being a historical theologian (if you listen to his podcast, you know that he changes his title often, but in reality, at this point, he is a political pundit). 

In the intro, the editors point out how different the essays ended up being, and so grouped them differently than planned, so they broke the book into three parts – Perspectives on Inerrancy and the Past (with Mohler writing what he calls the ‘classical view’ and Enns writing that inerrancy isn’t what the Bible does), then a break into the International View from Bird who writes that inerrancy isn’t necessary, and finally, Renewing and Recasting Inerrancy (Vanhoozer writing for an ‘Augustinian View’ and Franke writing the Racasting essay). As is typical in this series, after each essay were responses from the other authors. Unlike others, there was no rejoinder, probably due to length (and possible the jumbled way the essays mixed), which was a good decision overall. While this likely had the best Intro, it probably had the worst Conclusion of any in the series, but it still made some good points.

My Thoughts

I understand why the editors set it up they way they did, I’m sure it was a long and agonizing debates, trying the suffel these essays around in a coherent flow. As I wrote, I came up with other ways to rearrange, but as I finished, all but one were clearly inferior. However, I do think there is a better way (I doubt my idea is unique, and it was surely discussed and discarded for reasons, likely behind the scenes, of which I am unaware), that would also flow better in the typical ‘views’ sense – I’d keep Mohler first, as the cheerleader view, then group Bird/Vanhoozer together as generally supporting inerrancy in concept (maybe they disagree) but not supporting the Statement/ICBI or how it has been used, and then finishing the book with Enns/Franke as supporting neither the Statement/ICBI, how it has been used, nor the concept itself. This layout also accomplishes having a theologian/scholar in each section. 

That being said, I was excited to read this book, it has been on my list for about five years before I finally got around to it, which is too bad, I wish I had read it years ago. I don’t want to sound fanboy, but just having Enns, Bird, and Vanhoozer in one book is worth the cost. I had never heard of Franke before, and after reading his essay, I see that is probably due to him being outside of my perspective, so that is a nice addition. Overall, the book lives up to the hype and is the best of the Counterpoint Series, and contro a comment from Bird in the book, the place I would recommend someone start if they want to dive into theological topics. I will attempt some brief thoughts on each essay and then an additional recommendation on how I think the book could have been improved.

Few Christian authors today have the rhetorical flourishes and persuasive writing abilities of Mohler. I read his essay and came away think, ‘how is this a debate, all Christians should affirm the Statement as written’, even if I was a little skeptical of his historical claims. Then you read the responses, which were universal (in a way unlike any other essay) in pointing out that he didn’t actually say anything. Again with universal agreement, the responses criticized both his use of classical and history, as well him more advocating his interpretation as inerrant that the Biblical text. In this sense, his essay very aptly pointed out all that is wrong with the statement and how it has been used, that the remainder of the book will point to. But man, is his writing good. I think now (almost 10 years after writing the book) that he has solved CRT, he can move on to a life fully in politics.

I think I have read all of Enns’ book so far (if you haven’t, this is probably a good intro to Enns), so I mostly new what he was going to say. His essay was twofold in pointing to our modern view of ‘inerrancy’ and reading the Bible as if it were written by journalist is a completely different way the Bible would have been read for thousands of years, which is why there are clear contradictions (but only insofar as we have overly literalized our reading of the text) and that we are making a category mistake in the way we approach the Bible. The second part criticizes the Statement/ICBI itself as being a small subset of evangelicals from the beginning, being a political statement, and essentially arguing a hermeneutic more than a view of scripture. While the Statement saw the Bible has truth in what it affirms, but then states that science cannot overturn the Bible. Whether you want to admit it or not, this latter statement necessarily implies a literalist interpretation. Enns calls the statement an intellectual disaster for evangelicals. 

Bird’s essay is probably the best of the book for me, as I tend to agree with most of his scholarly and theological points. He is also an outsider from the American evangelical world (which is why he doesn’t know that the Canada has its own football, distinct from American, or that only yankees say ‘iced-tea’, Southerns says sweet tea or simple, tea), which separates him from the Moral Majority/Political right playbook interpretation of scripture that Mohler is beholden to. Bird is also funny, you get funny visions like ‘Kim Kardashian attending a Jihadist for Jesus fundraiser’ and bad puns like ‘not for all the iced(sic)-tea in Kentucky (presumably pointed at Mohler?). Bird affirms what he calls infallibility, which is an actual historical use and term. He agrees with most(all?) of the points of the Statement, but mostly criticized for its narrow view of interpretation and the fact that the ICBI is about as ‘international’ as the winner of the ‘World’ Series (see, that’s funny). He rightly points to it being used as a bully pulpit of hermeneutics in that if you don’t agree, you are rejecting scripture and therefore God, and that there are over a billion Christians around the world who do not insist on inerrancy nor does the Westminster or London Confessions use the word. 

Vanhoozer’s essay similarly affirms infallibility and most of the words of the Statement, while criticizing its use and interpretation, but from the (American evangelical) inside. He differs slightly from Bird in that while Bird seems to say drop it or rewrite it entirely (this time actually internationally), vanhoozer would like it to be revised. The crux of his argument is an interpretation based on Augustine’s view of scripture, which took a high view, stating that if something seemed wrong it was either the translation (though he was referring to the poor latin copies in existence in that day, during the decline of Kiona Greek) or in his understanding. Yet, it seems Augustine would reject the Statement, as he doesn’t think it has to do with science (he did not believe in a six day creation, though not due to ‘science’ as it was in his day). Vanhoozer also points to the ‘affirm’ piece of inerrancy (which is somewhat contradicted elsewhere in the statement) in that the Bible is not a textbook for geology/biology (also, an actual historical view as Calvin said ask an astrologer). Vanhoozer is a long writer and uses pretty high end academic terms, so get ready.

With all due respect to Franke and his position, I don’t have much to respond to. While I really enjoyed all of his responses (probably the best responder behind Bird), his essay was, well, odd. He clearly rejects inerrancy as a concept, but not in the concrete way that Enns does. In fact, I’m not entirely sure what he believes. He refers to an understanding of the Bible as a ‘missional community’, and at times sounds like a charismatic/pentecostal while at others sounds more like a ‘classical’ liberal protestant. He refers to himself as post-liberal, post-modern, and post-foundationalist. As with the others, he had many criticisms of how the statement is used and I found myself in agreement or learning for these, but not much from his positive articulation. He simarlily uses high academic language, including concept I had to go look up, such as foundationalsim.

He did bring up one interesting critique of this volume itself, that it is five white guys talking about inerrancy.  While that is a little too reductionistic, as I think it diminishes Bird’s view as a non-American (though maybe he deserves it for disparaging football), just for the problem of being white.That being said, various surveys put black Christians as making up about 1/4 to 1/6 of the US Christian population, depending on how you define things. Let’s meet in the middle can call it 1/5 and there are five authors of this book. I would have been very interested to hear a black church (either a historically black denomination or a SBC pastor who serves in a black community) theologian/scholar talk about the view on inerrancy in the black community. I think this would have been more valuable than Franke’s essay (I’m an American in the South, so my apologies to the international readers, as this clearly would benefit them less). 

A few other concluding thoughts, the attempt to interpret the three scriptures was a mixed bag, but perfectly illustrates the issues of true ‘inerrancy’.  I don’t know if this is an academic thing, or just because it is a ‘Christian’ publication, but I liked that everyone praised each other before disagreeing with them, I think that attitude of humility is sorely needed right now. While it was disjointed at times, I think the diversity of perspective or even essay topic helpful and interesting. I think for anyone interested in inerrancy, Biblical interpretation, Biblical studies, theology, American evangelicalism, or even study the Bible, this book is a must read. 

 

Book Review: Four Views on Creation, Evolution,& Intelligent Design

/ J.K. / 3 Comments

Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)

My Rating – Put it on your list

Level – Medium length, moderately to highly (especially the last chapter) scientific/technical language (from three of the authors)

Summary
The format is the now standard Counterpoint Series – Essay/Argument, responses from the other three authors, then a rejoinder. Also, intro and conclusion from an editor (this time, from one that is affiliated with one of the other authors, which I don’t think I’ve seen before, however, he does acknowledge this up front).

The four views are Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth/Progressive Creationism (also often known as Day-age Creation), Evolutionary Creationism (also known as Theistic Evolution, but she explains why they is a weak and broader term than her view, which I found compelling), and Intelligent Design.

My Thoughts
I was torn on how to rate this. Three of the authors made this a five star, must read, but the first author was just a disaster. I would give him a zero if possible. I’ve read probably 10 of the Counterpoint books and his essay was the weakest one I’ve ever read. He weakens not just this book, but the entire series.

Ham has no education or training in either science or theology and it shows. He doesn’t seem to understand how science works, and is unrelenting in his belief that his theological interpretation is the only valid one. His understanding of church history (claims that his view is the historical one, which is demonstrably false) and Hebrew is also lacking. His responses boiled down to ‘na-uh’, putting things in ‘scare quotes’ the he didn’t agree with, and questioning the salvation of the other authors.

The editor even pointed out in the conclusion that he refused to shorten his essay, due to be the only one to support Biblical authority (the editor also expressed dismay over the lack of charity). Obviously, this is incorrect as there are multiple conservative (SBC, PCA, etc.) pastors, theologians, commentaries authors, Hebrew scholars, and seminary professors that do not share his view. I assume when he said he wouldn’t meet the standards everyone agree to, that he threaten to leave the project, and it is a shame that the editor and publisher didn’t just allow this to happen and move on without him. The book would have been far superior with his absence.

Now back to the good part. Ross was likely my favorite writer of the group. He made compelling arguments for the ‘Day-age’ view of creation. So, he uses the more general ‘framework theory’ of Genesis 1, not that they are literal days. He agrees with geology and physics that the world is Billions of years old, but not with biology that we evolved (explicitly reject the ‘common descent’ evolution). He sees God involving himself in the changes to species throughout time, creating new ones in history. He also had a fascinating argument that one reason there have been no new species since humans came on to the scene is because God rested from creation. Not sure if I believe it, but compelling and interesting nonetheless. He take the order of creation to be literal, so expects that science will prove that at some point. I generally agreed with his interpretive view, but I wonder about picking some science and not others.

Haarsma took the Evolutionary Creation view, making the point that creation is the point and evolution modifies it, not the other way around, as with Theistic Evolution. Also, ‘theistic’ is no necessarily the God of the Bible. She accepts science on both age of the earth and evolution. She also takes the ‘framework view’ which is common among Evangelical scholars. She doesn’t take the creation order as literal and supports common ancestry. Her organization (Biologos) seems to be focused on evangelism to those in the scientific field, so she starts with accepting science, and then moving to God and Christ.

This is a different approach from Meyer. His group, The Discovery Institute, isn’t focused on evangelism or apologetics, but instead focuses on the issues within the science, and the argument that the science itself calls for a creator. In that way, his group does not have faith statements for the God of the Bible or Christ and has other religious and non-religious people within his organization; though he himself is a committed orthodox Christian. His focus was entirely on the science of biological evolution, and did not make much of a theological argument (which is fine, that is how his organization works). He accepts all science on age of the earth and biology in regards to evolution, his point is to argue that is was directed by God (which is not really different than Haarsma essay). His article was maybe the most interesting, but certainly the most technical, so get ready, it might take awhile.

Three of the authors have PhD’s in science, and then there is Ham. Due to this, there are some technical aspects of the writing in all chapters. There is also the academic argumentation that occurs in, well, academic/scientific research, but for some reason it seems odd in this book. Maybe that was an editorial decision. It is also likely, unavoidable, though, were I the editor, I don’t think I would allow arguments that use scientists who point out issues with evolution, yet still fully support it. That is just how science and research work, and the fact that these issues don’t sway those scientist somewhat undermines the argument.

Most of the authors cited widely, with the exception of Ham, who only cited himself (which is fine if you are published) or his organization (or their printing arm). He also labeled others who disagreed that were cited elsewhere as ‘atheistic’ regardless of what they actually believed, I assume in an attempt to scare people. Again, I would just cut him out entirely, so I’ll ignore the other issues with him.

Another editorial change would be to lock down some definitions. There seemed to be at least four working definitions for evolution alone, which sometimes lead to people talking past each other. I would have liked to see some more discussion of ‘special creation’ for those who support evolution, but I guess Haarsma mentions a few things that makes her views clear, while Meyer stuck to science and no theological arguments.

I’m actually still torn on the inclusion of Meyer. His arguments were inline with the others, with huge agreement with Haarsma. It is just that his tactic is different. Ultimately, I think he brought a lot of value, but due to his nature, it didn’t leave much for the others to interact with. Haarsma and Ross, agreed with him and his critiques of science, respectively. As I mentioned above, he article was maybe the best, but as he isn’t really arguing a different ‘view’, it left the chapter feeling a little disconcordant.

If you have interest on the science (mostly settled) and theology (all over place) of creation, this is a book to put on your list. As for age of the earth, if you are a committed young earth, this book will help you understand the old age arguments and show how it doesn’t have to end your faith. If you are trying to understand young earth, you should probably look elsewhere, as Ham is a street corner preacher that yells at people as the pass bye. Certainly there are better sources out there. The strength of the book is evolution science (though Ross and Haarsma have PhD’s/academic careers in the astro-physics realm, which does come up and is quite good), so if that is what you are interested in (while still maintaining a Christian belief, or if you don’t want to see the Christian belief that discusses evolution seriously) then this book is a must read. If you interest is the theology of evolution, this is still good, but the Four Views on the Historical Adam (my review) is better. If you are trying to read everything you can about all these, put it on your list.

 

Book Review: Four Views on Hell

/ J.K. / 2 Comments

Four Views on Hell: Second Edition (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)

 

As you know, I’m a big fan of the Counterpoint series, and I had (somewhat) recently purchased the Four Views on hell. However, recently I saw the updated second edition on Netgalley. This review is for the second edition. After I read the original, I’ll make a few comments on it as well.

My Rating -Put it on the list

Level – Medium length, get’s mildly technical, but overall fairly easy.

Summary
As the title say, the book argues four thoughts on hell. Well, really it is three views of hell, and another who goes on a tangent. All authors believe that hell is real, that it is punishment, and that it is the place that those whom die without the knowledge of Christ are destined to go.

Denny Burk argues for the ‘traditional’ view of hell, i.e., that it is a place of eternal punishment. John G. Stackhouse, Jr. argues for ‘annihilationism’ or that those punished in hell will eventually destroyed. They will cease to exist and therefore not receive eternal punishment. Robin A. Perry argues for a Christian Universalism, a term I’m more familiar with is universal reconciliation – that Christ will eventually reconcile all to him, even those in hell. Jerry L. Walls also takes what he calls the ‘traditional’ view, which is purgatory. As far as hell goes, he more or less aligns with Burk, in that it is everlasting conscious torment, but that few people will eventually end up there. Most will end up in purgatory, and then head to heaven.

Eternal punishment is probably the most widespread belief among Christians today and throughout history. Burk’s basic argument is that God’s goodness is so infinite compared to us, that our sin (against God) likewise needs to be punished infinitely.  Burk makes strong arguments, but where he really shines is in his responses to the other authors.

Annihilationism, as Stackhouse points out, dates back as far as the early church fathers, including Origen. He basic premise is that through Christ, we have eternal life, but in sin, we only have death and destruction. Stackhouse probably uses the most Biblical proofs for his argument including the ‘Lake of Fire’ in Revelation.

Universalism seems to be more based on hope than on extensive Biblical texts. The idea that God saves even those in hell and that all will eventually be saved is something all Christians should hope for. I certainly do, I just do not see it in the Bible. He focuses most on the morality of eternal punishment (or how it isn’t) and the verses that say things such as, ‘takes away the sins of the world.’

Purgatory is an interesting chapter. Walls believes in eternal torment, but that most will not experience it. Instead, they will go to purgatory and then enter heaven. He argues, somewhat convincingly, that purgatory is the only answer to questions the Bible leaves open about what happens after death and beliefs in heaven and hell. The chapter is a good primer on Purgatory, but as you read it, as well as his response articles, you are left wondering, ‘why are you here?’ He seems to be only tangentially related and possibly should have been in a different book all together. Maybe something about what happens after death, or even one on heaven, or something along those lines. This is really more on the editors, but he does seem out of place.

My Thoughts
As I said earlier, I hope for universal reconciliation. I just do not think it is the case. I generally land somewhere in between (or rather, go back and forth) eternal punishment and annihilationism, often more to the latter as I see more Biblical support for the idea. I won’t list this as a must read, due to the tangent on purgatory, but for anyone willing to challenge themselves and learn about the different views on Hell, this is a book you should put on your list.

 

 

Professional ReaderI received a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.

Book Reviews: Four Views on the Historical Adam

/ J.K. / 4 Comments

Four Views on the Historical Adam

My Rating – Put it on Your List

Level – Somewhat technical, requires a higher level knowledge of Genesis and some theology, somewhat short, but at times reads longer than it is.

Summary
This book is exactly what the title says, though there is one different aspect that I haven’t seen in other volumes of the series. Outside of the intro but the series editors and the four chapters on the different views, there is a final chapter called ‘pastoral reflection.’ This is basically a ‘unity & love’ chapter, ostensibly because this is a very touchy subject. In fact, Barrick, who in my opinion makes the weakest argument, implies we should be suspicious of the salvation of those with different views than his own. It is a very disappointing view for an author in this series.

The four views are as follows:

Evolutionary Creation – Denis O. Lamoureux
His view is essentially Theistic Evolution, but prefers this name on a semantic level. There is no historical Adam, and there doesn’t need to be. God created the natural order and the world proceeded in an evolutionary way. He has interesting arguments on ‘ancient science’, that is, what the writers of the Bible would have understood as fact. Even if you completely disagree with everything he says, his chapter is worth reading solely for this, as it will challenge you to understand the Bible as the original audience may have viewed it. A clearly brilliant man, with two PhDs, has to waste too much of his word limit ‘proving’ his Christianity.

Archetypal Creation – John H. Walton
Again, we have old-earth creation that views much of the first few chapters of Genesis through a literary lens. However, he is never conclusive as to whether or not there is a historical Adam. He may personally believe there was, but under this view, it can be either way. Basically, ‘Adam’ is an allegorical representation. He is ‘elect’ and chosen, much in the same was as Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Moses, though some of them clearly existed. That isn’t the point of the story, though. Great info in this chapter pertaining to the writings and beliefs of the Ancient Near East.

Old-Earth Creation – C. John Collins
Collins isn’t too different than Walton. He would agree with most of my summary above, but on Adam and Eve he has a little more nuance. He still does not require historic, first human Adam, but he does view him as historical. He has an interesting view of historical but not ‘literalistic,’ while arguing that we should not get too bogged down on this historical person of Adam.  So, it is history, was written to be history, was read as history, it’s just not a type of history (historicity) that we deal with today. This is an important distinction for many evangelicals to consider while researching their view of Genesis 1-11 in general and Adam in particular.

Young-Earth Creation – William D. Barrick
This is the view that people think of or the media mean when they use the term creationist. That is, a focus on the world being created exactly as described roughly six thousand years ago. This obviously is in great conflict with science, as well as most Christians and theologians. Science aside, this view also fails in light of literature and history, which is clearly demonstrated by the other views. There is not much evidence proposed in this chapter and is fairly weak in my view.

My Thoughts
Of course, I think everyone should be reading books in this series. However, I couldn’t quite put this on the must read list. Partly because I like to keep those in that rating small, but also this book does get somewhat academic. That being said, if you are already familiar with the theological issues involved with a historical Adam and have a broad understanding of the relations between Genesis and the age of the universe, then this book would probably be considered a must if this is an issue that you care about.

I personally found myself in agreement with multiple points from the first three authors. I thought Walton made an interesting point of Genesis 1 vs. 2, as being two completely different stories. The idea of historical Adam and billions of years old universe are important issues. I still haven’t full development my own theology on the issue. I tend to lean towards an understanding of an historical Adam, but I in no way think the world is not millions and billions of years old. My view is somewhere between Archetypal and Old-Earth, that is an ‘elect’ historical Adam that had some sort of special interaction/relation with God, but isn’t necessarily a special or first creation.

Zondervan Counterpoint Series

/ J.K. / Leave a comment

I’ve posted many articles about reading recently and wanted to highlight a series here. I first came across these a few years ago and was instantly intrigued. I thought it was a great way to show differing views with the spectrum of Evangelical Christianity. After reading a few, I’ve put them on my list of must haves for anyone interested in gaining a deeper understanding of a topic.

The book starts with a topic (Adam, Hell, Women in Ministry, etc.), and then has three to five people make their case for their particular view. The authors are usually scholars who have written many books or commentaries on the subject. However, the generally do well writing to a broad lay audience. After each makes their proposal, the others make short critical responses. The original author then has a chance to briefly respond to the criticisms.

I really can’t imagine a way for Christians to get such an in-depth, but (fairly) short and simply written scholarly discourse. Every Christian who has an interest or struggle in belief in a certain issue should start with the Counterpoint series.

If you are interested in buying, you can find them quickly through my amazon store.