By the nature of the blog title it is not hard to see that I am intentionally putting up a flag for blog search engines to  catch onto key words. At first I wasn’t going to blog this exchange because it involved two of my professors at the National Evangelical Theological Society, an exchange that some have said was critical. But after waiting several days for any kind of word from others who were actually in attendance (I was not, I listened to both their lectures and all the Q & A from a friends recording who was present), I have gotten more anxious to hear what non-Westminster Scholars thought of this study session (Peter Leithart has shared some of his). So, what I have decided to do is voice some of my own thoughts as a student of both Tipton and Enns in order to generate possible categories or points of tension and similarity between these two papers.

A brief word toward my own testimony in relation to these men: I’ve completed all the classes available for an MDiv student under Dr. Enns and Dr. Tipton, beyond adding elective credits (I actually did a 2 credit independent study under Dr. Enns in 2nd Temple Literature focusing upon Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha). I know something of these men’s characters as professors, and something of the way they do theology and biblical exegesis. Both men are very careful and responsible in their fields, both men are pastoral in the choice of topics in their classes, and both men are very well respected on our campus for their theological soundness and all these praises I carry for both of these servants of our Lord and his people. 

A brief word toward my own relation to these ETS lectures: I did not attend, I listened to a students recording and from what I could tell the tone of both these men was pretty much what you would hear in our classes, that being said I can not offer commentary on the non-verbal tone of their lectures or for the social atmosphere of the entire study session, for that I leave further commentary labor to others who were present.

Dr. Enns Lecture: Pete spent the first half of his talk working out some of the views of Warfield, Bavinck, and Ridderbos as they understood incarnation as an analogy for scripture. Pete acknowledged that he felt they had not gone far enough in their analysis of difficulties but that they had laid down a trajectory for how we are to handle problems that arise from the human context of the original authors. The rest of Pete’s lecture acknowledged a few of his current projects or forthcoming journal articles that will tease out his book, some of the areas that he feels an incarnational analogy could be worked out more, and his own evaluation of an ‘infalliblity’ ascription or doctrinal language as it relates to describing the Bible.

How much of the ‘incarnational analogy’ does Dr. Enns adopt into the actual practice of dealing with OT difficulties - its easy to see Dr. Enns point to the human-ness but what about the divine qualities working themselves out in the text of scripture, could he be more balanced or more divinely driven was one question I thought was raised? If I was not Reformed it could be a concern of mine that what drives Peter Enns incarnational analogy is more an area of particular concern and particular theological parsing of nouns and adjectives of description for them than for us; in this regard in light of a broader audience that Dr. Enns’s work has been influential within my hope is that his historical theology or history of theological interpretation could expand to include non-Reformed voices, what was your experiences in this regard? What were the questions from the Q&A that were helpful for you and which ones did you feel that Dr. Enns did not answer adequately? On this last matter did you find Dr. Enns explanation of speaking of Scriptures coherence instead of its unity helpful? (On a more personal note I was blessed by Pete’s book, my Pastors wife in Florida struggled greatly with ‘Problems in the OT’ in her college days. I only wished Pete’s book had been written earlier, it would have helped her see Christ in the midst of the problems in a natural way rather than in a contrived manner.)

 

Dr. Tiptons Lecture:  Point of clarification before I begin, Lane was not speaking to Dr. Enns book or to Dr. Enns personal views, everyone else present was but Lane expressly stated he was not (In an email to me Dr. Tipton said Michael Grisanti, the seminar moderator invited him to speak). One thing I noticed almost from the beginning is that both Enns and Tipton argued from Reformed Systematics, particularly from Warfield, and Bavinck, Lane added additional focus upon Kuyper. What was most pressing for Dr. Tipton was to set out the emphatic importance that when we speak of an incarnational analogy we do so first in terms of focusing on the divine while subordinating the human, that we do so acknowledging the importance of other metaphors like humiliation and resurrection, and that we do not allow the pneumatic role to be lost in our discussions but rather that we pay greater attention than we have on the role of the Spirit as we address problems.

I must admit that Lane’s lecture, as a Systematic Theological address, was a surprise partner in an OT Literary Study Session and the specificity of his fields language and concerns were a difficult voice for some in the room (no doubt filled with many OT Scholars which demonstrated itself in the Q&A topics). I’m curious to hear what you as attendees think about how it fit into the whole study group? Another question I had was do you feel as observers that Dr. Tipton dealt fairly and in a genuine fashion with the problems of the Old Testament, sense his particular field is Systematic Theology? Because Dr. Tipton choose to give his lecture in an OT Study Group did he do an amiable job of conveying his points in a relevant fashion to them, did he hear their questions and their points, if he did not is it a personal failure or something more expressive of the ‘value worlds’ of different departments in Seminary educations?

A word about a conversation here: I expressed to our dean of faculty, Carl Trueman, my own personal desire as a student at Westminster to see Dr. Enns and Dr. Tipton carry a dialogue before us as students, not as much on Pete’s book as on their approaches to an incarnational analogy of scripture. I hope such a dialogue occurs. I intend to ask both professors to at least consider it for our sake in understanding their views.

I have only asked a few questions because I’m still pretty timid to wander into a discussion I was not physically present to witness. I hope that some of my questions as a student under both these men where helpful, and I hope that you will take the time to leave some of your own thoughts and reflections on these two papers. I realize that two other papers were given but seeing that these are my professors I am more concerned to raise questions toward their papers, sense as their student the import of knowing the content and character of their dialogue is hightened. Most of my questions are raised in order for me as their student to better understand how their work is being recieved by the other Evangelical communities, as well as to have a read on how their interactions were viewed at ETS. I hold neither of these men in a poor light, and I hope that their demonstrations were good representations of us as their students to you. As students we’re often thought of in terms of our teachers witness…