Thread: Bruce McCormack on WTS Enns' Report

Marty,
If you find online responses to the essay, would you be so good as to post links to them?

The prof sounds very intelligent (much smarter and well read than me), and I don't doubt he has a cogent perspective. I like the fact that he desires a Protestant theology. But, I can't help but wonder about certain parts of his approach, however. How much of it is refracted through the lens of his p-c assumptions, and the late modern attempt to form God out of human (shifting) values? Does this perspective imply a tendency in his reading of sources: ancient, Reformation, and modern?

I have a feeling at the end of the day we would ultimately differ on what the nature of Protestant theological enterprise is all about.

This is interesting. Seems the WTS group is getting caught with it's pants down. I read Enn's book. If I am getting it right his thesis was to question the popular view of "inerrancy" ie what biblical text "must" look like in regard to views of historical accuracy and uniqueness. To do this he suggested an analogy between the incarnation of Christ(human and divine aspects) and the biblical text. Suggesting that each be seen in the human and divine combination(whatever that looks like, no Christology intended here). His point was that defined "inerrancy" in it's expectation of historical accuracy and uniqueness was leaning too much toward the divine at the expense of the human element. As I read the book I thought the incarnation analogy may not be the best as like most analogies it can be broken down. I think he could have made his point just as well without the analogy. It is this analogy that seems to be at the heart of his detractors attack. If so, I think they are grasping at a straw. Straw man that is. I do not see how one could take Enn's work to have a defined Christology in view at all, it was just being used as a loose analogy. See Carson's review, Carson takes Enn's apart on his scholarship but does not seem to think high Christology is intended. I have not read the HTFC report just the article by McCormack. If I am missing the mark let me know. Whether one is in agreement with, find curious or is offended by Enn's view of "inerrancy" to attack it on grounds of Christology seems to me dishonest.

There's a response on the HB.

I just read it, and must admit I was not terribly impressed. He shows a good deal of freedom in admitting that other people got things wrong; but I can think of a more likely possibility....

Dear Bruce,

Yes, I'll update the thread if and when people interact with McCormack.

McCormack calls himself an "evangelical" (as does just about anyone these days). In reality his theology moves in the realm of Barthianism. Hence, I found it interesting to hear the opinion of someone quite outside the WTS tradition looking in and making observations--not least about what he perceives to be traditionally "reformed".

This controversy (as I see it) in the blogosphere has focused on everything (especially personalities!) but Enns' actual position on Scripture. Hence McCormack bypasses the doctrine of revelation for Christology, not at all an unimportant issue but not what the controversy is focused upon. Moreover, much attention has been given to Lillback's paper on the WCF view of sola scriptura.

But what about Enns' notion that some biblical authors thought they were writing history but in actual fact were writing non-historical myth? Surely that is hard to square with Enns' claim to believe in inerrancy? Or Enns' claim that the NT writers used the OT without consideration of the latter's context?

Every blessing.

Ok, some blogs responding to the McCormack essay on WTS Christology:

Here is Mark Jones' response.

Moreover, Stephen Holmes weighs in with some general thoughts about being confessional here.

Thank you Marty. Please keep up, as you come across them (and you have time).

I appreciated both of the reactions. I suppose I have more in common with th.goodwin there, but I also appreciated the Holmes reply, including his comment:

...my overwhelming sense is that the real problem is that WTS was not confessional enough, or at least not secure enough in its own confessional status. What was needed was a paragraph, at most two, saying ‘Peter Enns published the following statements which we judge to contradict such-and-such an article of the Westminster Confession of Faith,’ which could then have been argued over by interested parties. Instead,... [emphasis Holmes' own]

I think the last is true, and demonstrates the lingering ambiguity in WTS' recent quest to discover its own identity (or find it again). I wish them well--for Machen's, Young's, and Stonehouse' sakes, and others'.

Well the debate with McCormack is hotting up ...

McCormack has a reply to R. Scott Clark here.

And Mark Jones has already posted a response to this here!

I found Mark Jones' remarks very helpful.

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

For those interested here is an interesting piece by Princeton theologian Bruce McCormack on the Christology of the WTS Enns' Report. It is interesting because of its interpretation of what makes Reformed Christology. Comments?

Marty,

Fasinating post! Thanks. The analogy Enns posits is not so new. More than 30 years ago James Daane used to tell us impressionable kids at Fuller that inerrancy was a docetist approach to the Bible, utilizing the analogy of Christology. He actually gloried in the "errors" in the Bible as literary analogs to the fact that Jesus sweat, breathed, defacated, etc.

BTW, the map in the background of your avatar is off center. Don't you know that California is the center of the universe?

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

There's a response on the HB.

Excellent response! (all the way down to the reference to my old prof, officiant at my wedding 34 years ago tomorrow, and scholar with whom I have sooooo many theological disagreements these days, Bob Gundry).

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

McCormack calls himself an "evangelical" (as does just about anyone these days). In reality his theology moves in the realm of Barthianism. Hence, I found it interesting to hear the opinion of someone quite outside the WTS tradition looking in and making observations--not least about what he perceives to be traditionally "reformed".

To call McCormack an evangelical is, as you say, easy. Who isn't one these days? Besides, he graduated from a Nazarene college (Point Loma) and seminary (Kansas City)! How evangelical can you get?

To speak of him as moving into "the realm of Barthianism" is like calling Beza a Calvinist! He is a member of the Karl Barth-Stiftung in Basel, Switerzland and North American editor of the Zeitschrift fuer Dialektische Theologie, published in Holland. Besides, his 1995 research, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development, 1909-1936 (Clarendon Press, 1995), has stood up quite well as a definitive piece on Barth.

I believe that Scott's comments are to point. He is reading this conflict through Barthian eyes. In another post, I recall James Daane's similar use of Barth's christology to argue against inerrancy more than three decades ago when I was a young seminarian.

Well here is the next installment! R. Scott Clark has replied to McCormack's response to him here.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

The analogy Enns posits is not so new. More than 30 years ago James Daane used to tell us impressionable kids at Fuller that inerrancy was a docetist approach to the Bible, utilizing the analogy of Christology. He actually gloried in the "errors" in the Bible as literary analogs to the fact that Jesus sweat, breathed, defacated, etc.

Dear Dennis, yes, when one hears the word "docetic" in a discussion about inerrancy it usually means something Barthian is about it rear its head!

What amazes me about Enns' position is that he claims to believe in inerrancy?! I can't quite figure that one out?

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

BTW, the map in the background of your avatar is off center. Don't you know that California is the center of the universe?

Actually to tell you the truth all maps of the world are upside down, because Australia really is the top of the world ...

God bless brother.

Well folks the debate continues.

[1] Lane Tipton has defended the Christology of the WTS HTFC report here.

[2] Bruce McCormack has challenged Tipton to something of a duel here.

The debate continues! Here is the second part of McCormack's response to his critics.

Enns is posting some on subject on his blog.

For me personally it's fun to read Bruce McCormick's essays, and wonder why so many actually think he's writing something challenging. It's the same old neo-orthodoxy historical revisionists approach to the Reformation and what it's all about. Yet he seems to gain an audience with Enns-friendly Reformed minded people.

I think Van Til is wondering why no one is reading his book "Christianity and the New Modernism"