Thread: Enns on the new athiests...

I have to admit that a part of me thought that all of the uproar over Prof. Ennis was overplayed. It seemed just to much to be believed that a well known member of the faculty could be so off base to justify his dismisal.

And then I read this.

a time to tear down | A Time to Build Up A Thought on the ?New Atheism? and Old Testament Morality

WOW.

If Peter Enns is saying that the gospel is not fully understood unless we consider both testaments, he's right. But I'm not sure that's what he's saying; at least not completely.

Yes, grace is all over the Old Testament, even to the heathen. The book of Ruth is all about grace to a heathen girl. Israel was supposed to be a "light of revelation to the gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6; Luke 2:32).

I am resistant to shutting up the whole counsel of God because a certain group has stigmatized part of the Word of God.

We should also note well that such a realization on our part must face squarely the notion that the Christian Bible itself presents such a moral trajectory, which means not everything written there is equally ultimate. I realize that other Christians explain the problem of OT morality differently. For example: the slaughter of the Canaanites is not a moral problem, but a preview of God’s judgment on sinful humanity. It is a demonstration of what all humanity deserves, an acting out on God’s part of what the fate of all would be were it not for his grace

Well this is my take on the slaughter of the Canaanites. It has a valid moral purpose in the particular circumstances. God could have done it with a tidal wave but He did it by His people, in anticipation of the work of judgement and salvation that is evangelism in the New Covenant.

Prof. Enns seems to be coming close to saying - if not saying - that God changes His moral standards - and it doesn't matter if God is a moral relativist. This would be a notable concession to NA.

Prof. Enns fails to mention that the Israelites weren't asked to kill or go to war with all their neighbours, anyway. There was a special judgement to be carried out on certain nations in the Land which were extremely wicked, and which wickedness had been incubating for 430 years under God's common grace and patience. According to their theory atheists are unlikely to understand this as atheism cannot account for moral evil. In an atheist world all deeds should be morally neutral, although some may be more painful or unpleasant than others. Why are atheists getting morallly hot under the collar about the death of Canaanites?

Also nations like the Philistines that threatened the Covenant people's existence and therefore opposed God, were to be fought.

On the other hand Israel was to be a light to the other nations, and when the nations saw the laws of Israel, moral, ceremonial and civil, and realised that God was among Israel, they were to show their new found faith by adopting the laws and become incorporated into the Commonwealth of Israel.

That this did not happen more must be put down to the responsibility of the Jews as ineffective witnesses (Deuteronomy 4:6-8). If the Israelites had been more zealous in true faith and obedience, they'd have made better neighbours to their neighbour-nations. The same goes for the Christian and his neighbours.

Latterly this whole area of relations with the outsider or neighbouring outsider became tainted with the spirit of Pharasaism, as did everything else. Jesus corrected these distortions, not the OT itself. Of course Jesus aswell as correcting Pharasaical distortions came to introduce a new administration, the New Covenant, which was suitable for the period between the First and Second Advents.

I'm not familiar with the specific works of Mr. Enns, only general accounts of his dismissal.

When we say "grace," in reformed theology, the "covenant of grace" is the term used to describe the substantial means of redemption from immediately after the Fall until the present day.

All the Old Testament believers as well as New Testament believers are redeemed by grace through faith alone, the substance of the "covenant of grace."

While administered somewhat differently and less explicitly revealed in the Old Testament, it is of that same substance- by grace through faith in Christ's righteousness alone (looking toward that in faith).

The covenant of grace was and is God's plan of redemption for Old and New Testament believers.

In my opinion, Ennis gives too much credibility to the NAs and ignores the Biblical teaching concerning the mind of the unbeliever: Ps 14:1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”" and a whole lot more verses I don't need to cite.

He starts out early, " NA is quick to point out that no reasonable, compassionate person would model his or her morality by much of Old Testament behavior." He then gives a tilted straw-man view of how Chrisitians would respond to this criticism then Ennis notes, "I don’t think this observation by NA is cynical or driven by a blind bias (as some of their observations are). Rather the observation is correct. Here the Christian reaction, motivated as it is to defend their understanding of the Bible against criticism, is unconvincing." Ennis therefore implies that believers must be "unreasonable" and "uncompassionate".

I don't have time to write a dissertation on repeated incidents of unbiblical thinking Ennis presents here, but I think this might be a good article for my Apologetics class to critique.

One thing that I think is critical to understand the behavior of OT Israel and God is this:

God was the Sovereign King of the nation of Israel, and still is the Sovereign King of spiritual Israel. As King, He had the right to direct the armies of Israel to take other lands for themselves. The lands taken were from people who were guilty before Him and rightly deserving of judgment. Israel was the tool with which that judgment was brought about.

This wasn't an issue of "our God is better than your god", it was sheerly the King waging a campaign against His enemies, the rebels of humanity. My question then is in what way is this unjust, as well as to what standard would you hold God, who espouses the standards?

Part of the "problem" that Enns is attempting to address is the idea that the slaughter of innocent (relatively speaking) women and children strikes most believers as evil and unjust. Given this, we have to deal with what God did in the OT. I can follow Enns to a certain point, but I think he fails to see that the model he condemns (the "judgment on sinful humanity" model) can be used in a redemptive historical explanation of what occured. If he is implying that what was once right for God is now wrong for God (i.e., God has changed), then he is desparately wrong. If he is saying that in a certain redemptive historical context it was right under certain very narrow circumstances but is wrong generally, then I think he makes a good point.

I do think the Bible presents some very difficult challenges with the one Enns is addressing being one of the more difficult. We can too quickly give easy, pat answers to these problems instead of recognising the challenges they present. I don't think any of us would say that what the Muslim terrorists do (targeting innocent women and children) would be okay but for the fact that God has not commanded them to do it. What they do is simply wrong. But this recognition then forces us to wrestle with parts of Scripture that seem to conflict with this ideal. Enns solution seems to be to abandon the authority of Scripture when the problems become too difficult. We cannot do this; however, we have to be willing to rethink these issues and address in light of our position in redemptive history. Perhaps we can come up with a better explanation than one given 500 years ago (then again, perhaps not).

Sounds like Enns being classically Enns-ish. "Oh sure, the Bible is inerrant, but it's chock full of errors!"

His argument here seems to be, "Look, the Israelites were barbarians, plain and simple. There is no preview of God's judgment here, rather we need to juxtapose the horrors of the OT (none of which actually happened) with Christ."

I don't know anything about Enns.

All the so-called "moral problems" of the Old Testament

(a) Polygamy

(b) Permission to divorce

(c) The genocide of the Canaanites

(d) The various wars with surrounding nations that don't fit Christian Just War Theory

(e) The large number of offenses for which the death penalty was ascribed.

can be accounted for in one way or another e.g. Israel was the childhood state of the New Covenant Church, the hardness of their hearts had to be accomodated. Some cases are just bad behaviour on the part of old Testament saints.

The NAs would have to tell us how they would have been wiser than God and have arranged things differently with a New Atheist morality; which seems to be "Whatever!" as long as God doesn't approve. Then they would also have to tell us how they can account for any morality whatsoever on the basis of their worldview

I don't see it as unjust for God to ask for the genocide of the Canaanites or for the death penalty for Sabbath-breaking. It is a revelation of God's absolute justice which He could have achieved through natural means. We may as well ask if it's just for anyone to die.

Am I glad that I live in the more gracious New Covenant - if it is more gracious. Yes.

The New Atheists would commit the same atrocities if they were in charge, just as their fathers Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have done before them. They would gladly cut down whoever gets in their way of "progress."

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

The New Atheists would commit the same atrocities if they were in charge, just as their fathers Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have done before them. They would gladly cut down whoever gets in their way of "progress."

An irony I suspect they would miss. Imagine that!