Peter Enns, A.A. Hodge, and Inerrancy

[Confessor]

I am currently debating a fellow who basically follows Peter Enns and his ridiculous teachings on the "Incarnational Model" of Scripture, but one thing I was not expecting to come across is quotes of A.A. Hodge that apparently support Enns's view.

It must be remembered that it is not claimed that the Scriptures, any more than their authors, are omnscient. The information they convey is in the forms of human thought, and limited on all sides. They were not designed to teach philosophy, science, or human history as such. They were not designed to furnish an infallible system of speculative theology. They were written in human languages, whose words, inflections, constructions and idioms bear everywhere indelible traces of human error. The record itself furnishes evidence that the writers were in large measure dependent for their knowledge upon sources and methods in themselves fallible, and that their personal knowledge and judgments were in many matters hesitating and defective, even wrong.​

-A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield, Inspiration (Grand Rapids Baker, 1979), 12-13, emphasis Enns's; qtd. in Enns, "Preliminary Observations on an Incarnational Model of Scripture: Its Viability and Usefulness"; Calvin Theological Journal 42 (2007): 219-236.

http://peterennsonline.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/CTJ Article - Peter Enns.PDF

Did Hodge deny inerrancy? Or was this just a quote taken mightily out of context?

 

[greenbaggins]

This is a very important quotation and, taken in its context, provides a great deal of nuance to the inerrancy position. It does NOT mean what Enns thinks it means. He thinks it means that the Scriptures themselves are in error. What Hodge and Warfield are after, however, is a statement that shows us that the Scriptures are honest in what they portray. The personal knowledge and judgment of authors was not allowed by the Holy Spirit to introduce error into the actual text. Hodge and Warfield are here guarding against a view of Scripture that says that the authors were always infallible. But the record of their fallible judgments is infallible. The sources upon which the human authors drew (while fallible) were not allowed by the Holy Spirit to result in error in the text of Scripture.

 

[Confessor]

But the record of their fallible judgments is infallible.

That's what I needed to see. Thank you.

 

[larryjf]

From "Inerrancy" by:Geisler, pg 156...

A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield asserted...the historical faith of the church has always been, that all the affirmations of Scripture of all kinds...are without error, when...the original autographs are ascertained and interpreted in their natural and intended sense...

 

[A5pointer]

This is a very important quotation and, taken in its context, provides a great deal of nuance to the inerrancy position. It does NOT mean what Enns thinks it means. He thinks it means that the Scriptures themselves are in error. What Hodge and Warfield are after, however, is a statement that shows us that the Scriptures are honest in what they portray. The personal knowledge and judgment of authors was not allowed by the Holy Spirit to introduce error into the actual text. Hodge and Warfield are here guarding against a view of Scripture that says that the authors were always infallible. But the record of their fallible judgments is infallible. The sources upon which the human authors drew (while fallible) were not allowed by the Holy Spirit to result in error in the text of Scripture.

I am not sure you are representing Enns view here. I think you know him. Would he really say "He thinks it means that the Scriptures themselves are in error."? I read his book and while I do not think his analogy of Christ and scripture being human is appropriate I did not get the sense he would express his view in such a way. I guess it depends on how one defines "in error".

 

[Confessor]

The guy I'm talking to said he "mirrors" Enns's view, and the guy holds that the Bible is fallible on historical things and infallible on doctrinal things.

Then he linked me to that article by Enns, which certainly seems to put error in the Bible.

 

[Prufrock]

I guess it depends on how one defines "in error".

"Messy."

Enns' work placed far too much emphasis on the accommodated nature of revelation, to the point that there is no necessity for scripture to be a coherent, perfect, harmonious whole if the text "demands" otherwise.

 

[MW]

Did Hodge deny inerrancy? Or was this just a quote taken mightily out of context?

It must be remembered that Hodge and Warfield's view of inspiration introduced greater scope for human instrumentality in the writing of Scripture than what had usually been espoused in the reformed tradition. The Incarnational model is flawed for the simple reason that it does not properly apply the principles of the incarnation to the inscripturation process. Jesus Christ is not simply God and man existing side by side in the one person; He is a divine person Who assumed human nature, and that human nature was specifically created by a miraculous act of the Holy Spirit, Luke 1:35. On this principle there is no basis for maintaining that the authors of Scripture were providentially superintended to write what they did, as affirmed by the Princeton theologians. The old view of dictation or immediate inspiration is the only explanation which secures the truly divine origin or theopneustos of holy Scripture, and it is only on the basis of immediate inspiration that human error is properly guarded against.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Did Hodge deny inerrancy? Or was this just a quote taken mightily out of context?

It must be remembered that Hodge and Warfield's view of inspiration introduced greater scope for human instrumentality in the writing of Scripture than what had usually been espoused in the reformed tradition. The Incarnational model is flawed for the simple reason that it does not properly apply the principles of the incarnation to the inscripturation process. Jesus Christ is not simply God and man existing side by side in the one person; He is a divine person Who assumed human nature, and that human nature was specifically created by a miraculous act of the Holy Spirit, Luke 1:35. On this principle there is no basis for maintaining that the authors of Scripture were providentially superintended to write what they did, as affirmed by the Princeton theologians. The old view of dictation or immediate inspiration is the only explanation which secures the truly divine origin or theopneustos of holy Scripture, and it is only on the basis of immediate inspiration that human error is properly guarded against.

Rev. Winzer,
Why do you think they introduced greater scope for human instrumentality in the writing of Scripture than what had usually been espoused in the reformed tradition?

CT

-----Added 6/19/2009 at 04:46:05 EST-----

From "Inerrancy" by:Geisler, pg 156...

A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield asserted...the historical faith of the church has always been, that all the affirmations of Scripture of all kinds...are without error, when...the original autographs are ascertained and interpreted in their natural and intended sense...

Since we do not have the original autographs, it would seem that we have a problem?

CT

 

[larryjf]

From "Inerrancy" by:Geisler, pg 156...

A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield asserted...the historical faith of the church has always been, that all the affirmations of Scripture of all kinds...are without error, when...the original autographs are ascertained and interpreted in their natural and intended sense...

Since we do not have the original autographs, it would seem that we have a problem?

CT

Yes, i find Warfield's position to be a problem.

One issue that i have, even with modern statements such as the Chicago Statement, is that everything rests upon the non-existent autographs.

In essence saying that the apographs are authoritative, but only in so far as they agree with the autographs...and yet because the autographs don't exist the authority of the apographs then falls to the ground.

 

[greenbaggins]

From "Inerrancy" by:Geisler, pg 156...

Since we do not have the original autographs, it would seem that we have a problem?

CT

Yes, i find Warfield's position to be a problem.

One issue that i have, even with modern statements such as the Chicago Statement, is that everything rests upon the non-existent autographs.

In essence saying that the apographs are authoritative, but only in so far as they agree with the autographs...and yet because the autographs don't exist the authority of the apographs then falls to the ground.

But this is only a real problem if one does not believe that the original autograph lies in the midst of all the copies we have. Surely it's there, isn't it? One has just as much of a problem going the other direction and saying that the apographs are just as inerrant in and of themselves as the autographs, for then you have to deal with the fact that NO one manuscript is obviously exactly the same as the autograph, not to mention the fact that some copyists had an agenda, and none of them copied perfectly. There are differences no matter which manuscript family one advocates as superior to the others. There is just as much variation in the Byzantine tradition as there is in the Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean traditions (if one accepts the latter as a text type) and among themselves. Warfield's points are just as valid if one is a TR advocate as if one is a CT advocate. We are still left with having to do textual criticism.

You know, one thought that one of my professors gave to me in seminary which has stuck with me is this: why has God not preserved the actual autograph manuscripts of the Bible? We would sure have a lot easier job if God had done that. And the answer my professor gave me is this: at least one reason God did not preserve the actual autographs is so that we would not be tempted to worship a piece of paper.

 

[larryjf]

Since we do not have the original autographs, it would seem that we have a problem?

CT

Yes, i find Warfield's position to be a problem.

One issue that i have, even with modern statements such as the Chicago Statement, is that everything rests upon the non-existent autographs.

In essence saying that the apographs are authoritative, but only in so far as they agree with the autographs...and yet because the autographs don't exist the authority of the apographs then falls to the ground.

But this is only a real problem if one does not believe that the original autograph lies in the midst of all the copies we have. Surely it's there, isn't it? One has just as much of a problem going the other direction and saying that the apographs are just as inerrant in and of themselves as the autographs, for then you have to deal with the fact that NO one manuscript is obviously exactly the same as the autograph, not to mention the fact that some copyists had an agenda, and none of them copied perfectly. There are differences no matter which manuscript family one advocates as superior to the others. There is just as much variation in the Byzantine tradition as there is in the Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean traditions (if one accepts the latter as a text type) and among themselves. Warfield's points are just as valid if one is a TR advocate as if one is a CT advocate. We are still left with having to do textual criticism.

You know, one thought that one of my professors gave to me in seminary which has stuck with me is this: why has God not preserved the actual autograph manuscripts of the Bible? We would sure have a lot easier job if God had done that. And the answer my professor gave me is this: at least one reason God did not preserve the actual autographs is so that we would not be tempted to worship a piece of paper.

Lane,

Yes, there are problems with saying the apographs are inerrant...that's why i used the word "authority." I'm unaware of how it can objectively be shown where exactly we have the originals and where we don't for every passage of Scripture, therefore those passages lose their authority if it is tied to the autographs.

As far as "no one manuscript is exactly the same as the autograph"....how do we know that? Isn't it possible that one manuscript is exactly the same as the autograph?

None of the copyists copied perfectly... How do we know that?

Aren't these hypotheticals since we have no way of objectively measuring them against the autographs?

You say that there is as much variation within the Byzantine family as the other families...perhaps, perhaps not (i've read that it was less variant). The family debate is a whole other issue.

Yes, we must do textual criticism, and we should not exclude any of the evidence that is before us. However, there is a huge difference between evidence and the interpretation of the evidence.
The question is not whether to do textual criticism, but how to give authority to the text we have in hand. If it is linked to the originals we have a problem as they don't exist.

I think it's presumptuous to say that we would worship the originals if they existed....they don't, so we can't objectively say whether or not we would worship them. Regardless, it doesn't mean that's the reason God did not preserve them. Consider that God has allowed many things to be worshiped in idolatry and then condemned those for giving such worship - as in the bronze serpent from the OT.
God does not keep us from temptations to idolatry, rather He tests us through them.
I suggest speaking of God's will to be constrained to what we know it is...and we simply don't know why He hasn't preserved the originals (or if He hasn't and we just haven't discovered them yet).

 

[ChristianTrader]

Since we do not have the original autographs, it would seem that we have a problem?

CT

Yes, i find Warfield's position to be a problem.

One issue that i have, even with modern statements such as the Chicago Statement, is that everything rests upon the non-existent autographs.

In essence saying that the apographs are authoritative, but only in so far as they agree with the autographs...and yet because the autographs don't exist the authority of the apographs then falls to the ground.

But this is only a real problem if one does not believe that the original autograph lies in the midst of all the copies we have. Surely it's there, isn't it? One has just as much of a problem going the other direction and saying that the apographs are just as inerrant in and of themselves as the autographs, for then you have to deal with the fact that NO one manuscript is obviously exactly the same as the autograph, not to mention the fact that some copyists had an agenda, and none of them copied perfectly. There are differences no matter which manuscript family one advocates as superior to the others. There is just as much variation in the Byzantine tradition as there is in the Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean traditions (if one accepts the latter as a text type) and among themselves. Warfield's points are just as valid if one is a TR advocate as if one is a CT advocate. We are still left with having to do textual criticism.

You know, one thought that one of my professors gave to me in seminary which has stuck with me is this: why has God not preserved the actual autograph manuscripts of the Bible? We would sure have a lot easier job if God had done that. And the answer my professor gave me is this: at least one reason God did not preserve the actual autographs is so that we would not be tempted to worship a piece of paper.

As far as the worship goes, couldn't that argument be extended to actually having in one spot (after some form of textual criticism) a book identical to the autographs?

CT

 

[Confessor]

As far as the worship goes, couldn't that argument be extended to actually having in one spot (after some form of textual criticism) a book identical to the autographs?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Excellent point.

What I always thought regarding the fact that the originals do not exist is that the outrageous textual evidence we have for reconstructing the originals is better than having the originals. For if we had the originals, all it would take is one wicked person to alter them, whereas it is basically impossible to significantly alter the thousands upon thousands of manuscripts we have now.

-----Added 6/20/2009 at 12:18:01 EST-----

On this principle there is no basis for maintaining that the authors of Scripture were providentially superintended to write what they did, as affirmed by the Princeton theologians. The old view of dictation or immediate inspiration is the only explanation which secures the truly divine origin or theopneustos of holy Scripture, and it is only on the basis of immediate inspiration that human error is properly guarded against.

Can you explain specifically what the "old view of dictation" is, especially when juxtaposed with the Islamic view of dictation? And how did that differ exactly from the "providential superintention" theory of Old Princeton?

 

[Cranmer1959]

The Scriptures are indeed the product of both human authors and the inspiration of God. So they are incarnational. While the human writers were not robots nor did they write by divine dictation, God so guided their thoughts and words that the Bible is the very words of God in written form. God can control and guide providentially even the thoughts of man. (Proverbs 21:1). The Scriptures in fact prove the sovereignty of God over against the Arminian view of free will.

 

[MW]

Why do you think they introduced greater scope for human instrumentality in the writing of Scripture than what had usually been espoused in the reformed tradition?

Theological liberalism threw enough mud at the miraculous to make some of it stick. Inspiration was therefore deemed more respectable if defended according to the principles of a mechanistic universe.

 

[MW]

Can you explain specifically what the "old view of dictation" is, especially when juxtaposed with the Islamic view of dictation? And how did that differ exactly from the "providential superintention" theory of Old Princeton?

Islamic dictation is external, static, and unrelated to history, whereas Christian dictation is internal, dynamic, and historically progressive -- holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. According to the old view all the words are immediately given by God, whereas the new view posits the medium of the writers' psychological, social, intellectual, religious and emotional state and allows for degrees of inspiration.

 

[Confessor]

Can you explain specifically what the "old view of dictation" is, especially when juxtaposed with the Islamic view of dictation? And how did that differ exactly from the "providential superintention" theory of Old Princeton?

Islamic dictation is external, static, and unrelated to history, whereas Christian dictation is internal, dynamic, and historically progressive -- holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. According to the old view all the words are immediately given by God, whereas the new view posits the medium of the writers' psychological, social, intellectual, religious and emotional state and allows for degrees of inspiration.

Thank you for clarifying. When I see "dictation" used, it is usually used in the Islamic sense, so I was a bit worried.