Read more on Inerrancy: A Very Different, Divine Sort of Thing…

It was somewhat frustrating to read the first part of the book because I had already read Beale’s articles (and rejoinders) along with Enns’ responses. What you get in the first few chapters is basically this exchange (Enns’ responses are summarized) with some modifications. I do not understand why Beale chose this format having the benefit of Enns’ responses. His critique is extensive and Enns’ original responses are short (as responses should be) so, at the end, you do not get a balanced exchange (plus most people will probably not bother to read Enns’ articles although Beale encourages us to do so). I do not mean to imply that Beale isn’t asking good questions or doesn’t have some valid points (this back-and-forth is what should be happening). What I did not appreciate was the format and the fact that Beale seems to put Enns in the worst possible light. This part of the book will satisfy those who didn’t like Enns’ book and irritate those who did.

Read more on The Erosion of Inerrancy…

There are some books that have the ability to drastically shape your worldview. This is one of them, at least for me. I found the book to be quite a challenging read and made me think about things I had never thought of before.

This book sort of reminded me of my experience reading Peter Enns’ book “Inspiration and Incarnation.” Whereas Enns focused primarily on the Old Testament, the scope of this book is a lot broader, and I felt that the author wrote as much as he wanted to get his points across without worrying about making it easier for a general audience. To me, that’s one of the strengths of the book. I liked Enns’ book quite a bit and, after all the controversy surrounding it, I have come to the conclusion that one of Enns’ book’s primary weaknesses is that it should have probably been double its size. Although Enns wrote the book for lay people at a popular level, it is quite apparent that many evangelicals are not ready for this type of book (given all the objections against it). You not only have to be nuanced when writing about the nature of Scripture, you also need to spend the time building your case from the ground up. You need to interact with other people and attempt to answer more questions than you ask even if they are tentative or preliminary. And I think Sparks’ book does a better job in that sense.

But Sparks comes from a very different perspective. At the end of his book, he says, “the importance of my project rests in its attempt to assimilate the useful methods and reasonably assured results of biblical criticism to a healthy Christian faith” (356). Perhaps it is this attempt at assimilation that is the book’s greatest strength and weakness. On the one hand, he grapples with the implications of biblical criticism and what it would mean for a Christian to engage in what he likes to call believing criticism. On the other hand, many will be put off by the fact that he believes that biblical criticism has yielded “reasonably assured results.” Many will not agree with that and may dismiss the premise of the book as fanciful. This would be a mistake. I think that the reader who may be bothered by the author’s apparent approval of the results of biblical criticism will still benefit from his discussion of what it would mean for Christians to take some of the results seriously and still believe in the inspiration and authority of the bible. Although I don’t know enough to pass judgment on most of the critical readings of the bible, I know that some of my readings are not traditional and some are. This book has made me think about how I can hold both readings and still be faithful to the word of God. This book has certainly encouraged me to dig deeper and read more broadly.

Read more on God’s Words in Human Words…

This book is about the formation of the New Testament canon. The author does a great job describing the Evangelical movement to set the context of the debates about the authority, inspiration, canonicity and inerrancy of the bible. He basically talks about how the bible came to be formed and looks at the merits of three different theories: 1) the NT was a spontaneous occurrence, 2) the NT was formed in the second century and 3) the NT was formed in the fourth century (p. 41). The differences in these theories can be attributed to the way historical evidence is interpreted (p. 87). The rest of the book analyzes these three theories and concludes that, while we can talk about Scriptures being recognized as authoritative in the first and second centuries, it is anachronistic to talk about a canon in this period. Even in the fourth century, despite the list of Athanasius in the West and Carthage in the East, there was still a lot of fluidity.

Read more on A High View of Scripture?…