Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
http://www.opc.org/review.html?review_id=40
The book concludes with a plea for temperate discussion, apart from "judgmental suspicion" and "polarization and power plays." Enns anticipates being vilified, writing, "The problem is that true Christians erect a wall of hostility between them, and churches, denominations, and schools split" (p. 172).
This plea cannot smooth over the troubling fact that Enns writes beyond the boundaries of the Reformed tradition as exemplified by chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession. When he says the Bible looks human, he means it does not look divine. When he says Genesis is part myth, he means it is not true in historic, narrative particulars. When he says "conflicting theologies," he means the Bible contradicts itself. This book has the cumulative effect of lowering conservative preconceptions about the inspiration of Scripture. It seems unlikely that it will raise any liberal-leaning preconceptions. Liberals believe the Incarnation is a myth.
Originally posted by New wine skin
. . .anthropological stories that best captures a truth that explicit language cannot convey.
Originally posted by CJ_Chelpka
Originally posted by New wine skin
. . .anthropological stories that best captures a truth that explicit language cannot convey.
I'm not sure I understand what is meant by this. Could you unpack it a little for me?
For all practical purposes, is there really any other kind of language with which we interact?By anthropological language, I mean human language....