Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

What’s Evangelical about This?

by

One of the latest wave-making academic books within evangelicalism is Kenton L. Sparks’s God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008).

Today the Old Testament Department at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School had a stimulating “brown bag seminar” for an hour during lunch to discuss this book. I left that meeting thanking God for Trinity’s gifted OT faculty.

  1. Dennis Magary moderated.
  2. Dick Averbeck summarized and evaluated.
  3. James Hoffmeier summarized and evaluated.
  4. Willem VanGemeren summarized and evaluated.
  5. Lawson Younger offered comments.
  6. John Monson (who was friends with Peter Enns while they both studied at Harvard) offered comments.

I don’t feel at liberty to publish my notes or their handouts online, but suffice it to say that the OT faculty agrees that Sparks’s book is deeply flawed and dangerous. (I’m paraphrasing, not directly quoting.)

Sparks uncritically accepts critical views and is overconfident in his conclusions while severely criticizing evangelicals like D. A. Carson, Robert Yarbrough, Kevin Vanhoozer, and James Hoffmeier. Sparks takes the debate beyond Peter Enns’s Inspiration and Incarnation. The book’s subtitle should not include the word “evangelical”: God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship.

More reviews of this book are forthcoming. (For example, look for one by Bob Yarbrough in the next issue of Themelios.) Here are a couple of others already published:

  1. The enthusiastic RBL review by Arthur Boulet, an M.A. student at Westminster Theological Seminary and an ardent supporter of Peter Enns, is sad. A sharp friend of mine who is working on a PhD elsewhere emailed me this after reading it: “This review makes me want to cry. May God grant grace.”
  2. The review by Kevin Bauder is a breath of fresh air in comparison.

Updates:

1. S. M. Baugh reviewed Sparks’s book for Reformation21 in August 2008.

2. Gary L. W. Johnson comments on Sparks’s book in the introduction to Reforming or Conforming: Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church (ed. Gary L. W. Johnson and Ronald L. Gleason; Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 23n21:

Sparks in particular paints contemporary defenders of inerrancy in very unflattering colors. Old Testament scholars such as R. K. Harrison, Gleason Archer, and E. J. Young are accused of sticking their heads in the sand to avoid dealing with the real issues raised by critical Old Testament scholars (133ff ) while New Testament scholars such as D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo are said to be guilty of deliberately dodging the issues of New Testament critics (167). Even greater disdain is heaped on Carl Henry, who had the misfortune of simply being a theologian and not a biblical scholar (138). However, the most reprehensible aspect of Sparks’s work is the facile labeling of all defenders of inerrancy as Cartesian foundationalists. Sparks declares Cornelius Van Til, and his presuppositional apologetics, to be Cartesian because Van Til underscored the importance of certainty, which to Sparks’s way of thinking automatically makes one a Cartesian (45). If that is the case, then we must place not only the Reformers and the church fathers in that category, but Christ and the apostles as well! Van Til was no Cartesian. His apologetical approach was rooted in classic Reformed theology, especially in the Dutch tradition of Kuyper and Bavinck, stretching back to the noted Dutch Protestant scholastic Peter Van Mastricht (1630–1706), who was an outspoken critic of all things Cartesian. As Richard Muller notes, “Mastricht’s consequent stress on the necessity of revelation for Christian theology (theology defined as ‘living before God in and through Christ’ or as the wisdom leading to that end) led to an adamant resistance to Cartesian thought with its method of radical doubt and its insistence on the primacy of autonomy of the mind in all matters of judgment.” Richard Muller, “Giving Direction to Theology: The Scholastic Dimension,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28 (June 1985), 185.

3. Robert W. Yarbrough, “The Embattled Bible: Four More Books,” Themelios 24 (2009): 6–25.

4. A Book-Length Response to Kent Sparks

5. “Scripture: How the Bible Is a Book Like No Other,” in Don’t Call It a Comeback: The Old Faith for a New Day (ed. Kevin DeYoung; Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 59–69.

Whose team is Tom Wright on?

by

While blogging through N. T. Wright’s Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, Douglas Wilson pithily observes,

Wright is like a wonderful three-point shooter in American basketball, but one who can’t be troubled to find out who is wearing what uniform, or which team is supposed to be going in what direction, so when he takes to the floor, he scores a dazzling series of points—sixteen for the home team, and twenty-four for the visitors. One can be simultaneously impressed and wish that he would just stop it.

What’s even more sad is that many people don’t take theology as seriously as they take sports (though, granted, the analogy breaks down on several levels when applied to theology). To recall an extreme (and unfortunate) example, do you remember what happened to the soccer player Andrés Escobar after he accidentally scored a goal for the opposing team in the 1994 World Cup?

Two Piper Illustrations

by

Two illustrations from John Piper‘s four-part series on Ruth (September 2008) are noteworthy:

1. Don’t plan your life.

In part 2, Piper gives a six-minute autobiographical sketch (10:20–16:45 in the MP3). It includes how he met his wife, went to seminary, and became a professor and then a pastor. The author of Don’t Waste Your Life here underscores another theme: Don’t plan your life because God already has! One could add qualifications to this (e.g., don’t inflexibly plan your life), but I think the main point is sound. (Indeed, Piper qualifies this in part 3.)

2. Learn to see the hidden hand of God when it looks like he is dealing you bitterness day after day.

In part 3, Piper recounts in 4.5-minutes (2:20-6:50) a dark cloud in the pilgrimage of Bethlehem Baptist Church. In 1993, Piper heard a romantic recorded message from one of the BBC staff members to another on staff. After a “hellish” six weeks, the male staff member finally confessed to seven years of adultery. The upshot was that 230 people left the church, which merely survived and didn’t grow for three years. “It was horrible, and the Lord’s hand was on us for good.”

No Anonymous or Pseudonymous Comments, Please

by

I haven’t laid out guidelines for leaving comments on this blog. Perhaps I should. But here is one request I’d like to underscore: When you submit a comment, please use your full real name and one of your active email addresses. The real name is for the benefit of everyone (including yourself!), and the active email address is for me (i.e., it is not viewable to others) in case I’d like to contact you privately.

Thanks.

A Quibble with John Piper

by

On December 17, 2008, John Piper warmly recommended Leif Enger’s novel Peace Like a River. Jenni and I read it together over the last month and finished it last night.

Enger is a gifted writer who crafts words like an artist, and his novel has several redeeming qualities. The problem, however, is that the story’s plot is far too thin. It starts well but then fizzles. We kept waiting for it to get better, but it never did. Perhaps this says more about us than it does about Enger—sort of like how the only thing being evaluated at fancy art museums is the people looking at the paintings, not the paintings themselves!

Should you read Peace Like a River? A cheeky side of me wants to answer, “No, don’t waste your life.” :-)

Collin Hansen Reflects on Young, Restless, Reformed

by

Collin Hansen reflects on his book Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists. (Cf. my review.)

Note his comments re fundamentalism:

Increasing my coverage of Reformed blogging is not the only change I would make. Readers have emerged from the woodwork to tell me about growing pockets of Reformed interest in Great Britain and among African Americans and fundamentalists. . . . As for fundamentalists, I have heard testimonies of college and seminary students who tell me something big is stirring. Perhaps there is hope that these young Calvinists will rebuild the bridges burned generations ago between evangelicals and fundamentalists.