Author Brian Godawa appeared on my radar back in the early 2000's when Christian publications called attention to his participation in the 2001 film To End All Wars. For my part, I didn't really care for the film - all the more as I refuse to accept some of the assumptions at work in the Anglo-centric narrative.
Godawa was an open Theonomist and was pointed to as an example of positive Christian cultural engagement. He seemed to be something of a rising star in those circles but then I didn't really hear about him again for the next decade or so. Then in the mid-2010's he popped up on my radar again in connection with his fictional works on the Antediluvian world and the Nephilim. I listened to and read some of his material in connection to these themes and found it palatable, interesting, and sometimes refreshing.
I could be mistaken, but it seemed to me that when Michael Heiser's work became very popular around the time of his 2015 publication of The Unseen Realm, this also gave a boost to Godawa who had already been talking about these things for some time.
I was never entirely comfortable with Heiser (1963-2023). I was thrilled in some respects about the topics he was addressing and the idea of a more robust Biblically-oriented supernaturalism but I was always a bit dubious about him. I continue to believe that he was (at heart) a theological modernist and Biblical sceptic who retained (in a kind of Barthian fashion) a belief in supernaturalism and revelation. This allowed him to profess belief in Christ and interact with the Scriptures but not view these texts in the kind of authoritative terms that most Protestants and Evangelicals are accustomed to. There was always something a bit off and as such I have from time to time looked for other authors and thinkers who embrace the broad sweep of the 'Divine Council' worldview (as it were) and yet in more Biblically faithful terms than Heiser.
By Divine Council worldview I am referring to the idea that the Scriptures teach a great deal more with regard to the cosmology, angelology, and even a general supernaturalism than is typically supposed, and this in turn affects and interplays with understandings of 'means' (in this case the Council of elohim), how Providence works, as well as questions of ethics, world events, and the Christian's place in the world in light of these things. It opens up new aspects of redemptive-history, hermeneutics, and the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven and even questions of spiritual warfare and activity in this world. These things are of course delicate and require caution, restraint, and wisdom - and are very easily subject to abuse.
We can decry those who stubbornly (and against all evidence) reject the New Testament's embrace of the 'fallen angels' reading of Genesis 6, but at the same time we are well aware of the wild speculation that is out there regarding the Nephilim and the like - which can prove as problematic as those 'conservatives' who simply try and explain it all away. And for those who simply don't see these things as important or of practical value, then I question their understanding of Scripture and perhaps even their grasp of the nature of divine revelation.
One of the problems is the Scriptures hint at things, provide glimpses, suggest larger paradigms, but then don't elaborate upon them. Are we to pursue these paths by means of utilizing extra-Scriptural and historically contextual sources in order to 'flesh out' these concepts? Or, would it be more prudent to utilize these resources in order to understand how contemporary readers might have understood and interacted with the passages in question - and yet in the end, limit what we can definitively say?
I believed Godawa to be one of these more conservative voices. I was willing to overlook his Theonomy and (I presume) Reconstructionism as it doesn't seem to be very prominent in connection to these discussions, and it may be that his views have changed somewhat over time. I eagerly picked up a copy of his 2014 work When Giants Were Upon the Earth: The Watchers, the Nephilim, and the Biblical Cosmic War of the Seed, but was immediately dismayed to discover the foreword was written by Michael Heiser. I had missed this, and the foreword alone (along with Heiser's glowing endorsement) was enough to sow some serious seeds of doubt.
The book ended up being a big disappointment as Godawa has clearly succumbed to what I call the Academic Evangelical understanding of Sola Scriptura - which I contend results in a very low understanding of Scriptural authority. Basically the 'academy' and its assertions of Hebrew syncretism and the supposed appropriation of surrounding pagan culture and religion is accepted, and yet framed in terms that allow for it to receive a Divine sanction. The Theological Liberal paradigm is more or less correct but the Scriptures are saved by Divine intervention so to speak.
The Scriptures are (under this model) the productions of men who beg, borrow, and steal from their pagan neighbours and yet by means of inspired artistry, re-cast and re-appropriate narratives, symbols, and the like for a divine purpose. I will revisit this anon but I contend this view represents a functional rejection of Sola Scriptura - the idea that Scripture Alone is the Church's authority for doctrine and life. It's quite common and I believe growing in popularity. I'm even encountering it in 'conservative' Anabaptist circles.
I've been wrestling with this subject for a long time and perhaps more so in recent years. This has led to lots of notes in passing, whether while listening to podcasts at work or even at church - as the pastor of where I attend is definitely affected by this Academic Evangelical tendency. It certainly limits and muddles his ability to effectively and authoritatively preach the Word of God.
For a long time I was troubled by the seeming problem of Scripture Alone and the fact that it has generated so many divisions. A study of Church history also reveals how in some respects this aspect of the Magisterial Reformation led to a fragmentation of society and an epistemological crisis that really did create a lot of chaos in the context of the 16th and 17th centuries - so much so that for many people who lived through these times, faith was broken and the door was wide open to the Age of Reason (as it is sometimes called), which in turn laid the foundation for the full blown (and certainly misnamed) Enlightenment in the 18th century.
But the reader would be wrong to think this has led me to question the validity or viability of sole Biblical authority. And yet it must be admitted that while so many make the Scripture Alone claim, very few seem to realize that it's also somewhat meaningless as there are many different understandings as to what this even means. So again, I contend the problem is not Scripture Alone being unworkable or even absurd. The problem is there are simply a great many people and groups that claim the notion and yet (I argue) don't really follow through. They pay lip service to the idea of Scriptural authority but don't actually believe it.
These are all topics that I have covered at one time or another but in this case we hope that rather than simply providing a list, a kind of ongoing and dynamic interaction between the various positions will help readers evaluate and weigh these issues. It can be quite confusing, so maybe by outlining things in this fashion, it will help.
To start with, we must consider the Confessional camp, the Lutheran, Reformed, and other bodies which claim the mantle of the Magisterial Reformation and its Solas (including Sola Scriptura) and yet over the course of the 16th and 17th century felt compelled to compose long-form creedal statements of confessions that in ordered fashion spelled out their belief systems - which they argue are based on Scripture and accurately reflect its teaching. They would insist these confessions are not on par with Scripture but are accurate enough that they can (and should) be quoted chapter and verse, and they additionally bind their ministers (and in some cases members) to these documents by means of oath.
Critics (such as this author) argue these works function as deutero-canonical authorities that in reality are often placed above Scripture and force interpretations of it. As such, though these groups trumpet their adherence to Sola Scriptura, in reality they have subordinated it, if not set it aside altogether.
Confessionalism is by no means monolithic. There are debates with regard to subscription and how far to press it and whether exceptions are allowed. This latter point (regarding exceptions) is prevalent within the Reformed sphere and yet almost non-existent within Confessional Lutheranism. This point always raises my eyebrows given the considerable size and scope of The Book of Concord. It would seem that for all their ministers and members to just subscribe to it would require that it never be treated in depth.
The Reformed do tend to go in depth on questions related to their confessions and this is what spawns the debates, exceptions, divisions, and a sometimes wide spectrum of understanding - especially when it comes to certain disputed issues.
There are some who embrace the confessions while yet retaining something of an Aristotelian or Thomistic epistemology and approach to theological and philosophical questions - which are closely related for those who would attempt to forge coherent confessional statements or construct a systematic theology, especially in concert with experience-informed human reason.
Others would take a more Platonic view, deeming philosophical tools as only being of real utility in light of faith - a view often associated with the likes of Anselm of Augustine.
The confessional tradition differs significantly on the continent with regard to questions pertaining to the Mosaic Law and ecclesiology with many continental bodies retaining more liturgical forms and tendencies toward high worship and some even retaining episcopacy. These groups would also lay claim to the Sola Scriptura moniker and yet differ considerably from the British Reformed tradition. In their case Scripture Alone means something quite different when it comes to ecclesiology.
And of course the Lutherans tended to limit the Sola Scriptura question to gospel-related issues, which has allowed them to retain many traditions and practices from before the Reformation - many of which have no Scriptural warrant at all. Already we can see that this concept (Sola Scriptura) is not monolithic.
Within the Reformed world there is the additional nuance that emerged with the rise of Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics or 'Biblical Theology' as it is often called. Some Confessionalists decry this school of thought (associated with figures such as Vos and Kline) and its methodology as it prioritizes context, historical development, and thematics over coherence and theology born of deduction. It tends to be more dynamic and places less emphasis on an overarching system.
That said, there are many who embrace it and yet also remain committed to their confessional traditions and systematic theology. They believe (wrongly I would argue) that these commitments and methods can be harmonized. While I often find their exegesis to be better informed, it is nevertheless tethered and frankly thwarted.
Returning momentarily to the larger cosmological issues raised earlier in connection to Godawa, this redemptive-historical school is more likely to take these texts seriously and in context have the ability to read them rightly.
That said, confessional adherence and systematic theology often work counter to this - leading many (I think) to try and avoid the topic altogether, often subjecting it (along with the culture) to ridicule. The more vigorous systematics factions remain the most hostile as such dynamic, complex scenarios that defy resolution are suspect and problematic. This is especially the case for some Calvinists who struggle with views that (according to their logic) conflict with their commitments to God's sovereignty and decretalism.
Another issue or struggle within the systematics camp surrounds the issue of apologetics. This sometimes generates confusion for those who limit their thinking on this topic to methods concerning the defense of the faith. There are debates over the most Biblical and God honouring method, but the debate here is more fundamental as it deals with epistemology and man's ability to predicate in the realm of metaphysics, theology, and the like.
The Aristotelian-influenced camps (which admittedly have a historical (or rather traditional) leg to stand on) proceed with great confidence in man's ability through sense experience, syllogism, and the like in order to work out the truth.
Those opposed to this way of thinking argue on Biblical grounds for a more profound understanding of the Fall and man's limited ability to interact with nature and inductive reasoning. There are multiple presuppositional camps and yet the best known faction is found among the followers of Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987). Others (such as the disciples of Gordon Clark) also rely on a form of presuppositionalism but one deeply formed by and given to a rationalism that plays out in all areas of theology leading to further debates over the confessions and how historical doctrines are to be properly understood.
The apologetic debate actually concerns questions of prolegomena - first questions and fundamental principles that have to be established, that will govern subsequent discussion and method.
For many such questions are simply assumed either under the aegis of modernity and Enlightenment reason, or the historic philosophical traditions of Western Christendom, which for centuries was dominated by Aristotelianism.
Like Immanuel Kant in some respects, the presuppositionalist camp has tended to focus on transcendent arguments, preconditions, and questions of commitment - and yet unlike the Königsberg philosopher, these camps build their arguments on Scripture. The Van Tillian group can make a robust claim for their adherence to Scriptural authority and though there's much to be appreciated about this school, it still exhibits a tendency toward philosophical theology. There's a laudable attempt (among some) to limit concepts and embrace dynamics, but all too often the concepts are (in the end) limited not by legitimate Scriptural ambiguity but by the confessions.
Another form of Sola Scriptura exists in the context of (and is undermined by) a strong commitment to Baconian methodology and the scientific method. This seems counter-intuitive as Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are usually reckoned as falling prey to anti-intellectualism and an anti-science ethos and in some sense that's true. However, many within these camps (especially Fundamentalism) have a strong belief regarding the ordered nature of reality and they are confident that the Word of God, revelation, and even to some extent miracles must be explainable, coherent, and rational. This plays a substantial role in how the Bible is read and (they insist) understood. The ironic result is that at times they actually resort to naturalistic explanations of what are normally understood to be supernatural events - such as the Noahic Flood and the physics and logistics of the ark.
This camp is most likely to pursue Creation Science and be the most troubled about questions of cosmology and chronology. They will often obsess over the minutiae surrounding dates and insist the prophecies were and will be literally fulfilled - or (as I would put it in reference to their view), literalistically. The Bible often functions like an encyclopaedia or almanac complete with charts and spreadsheets - something to be data-mined.
This tendency and these factions emerged from the context of 19th century Scottish Common Sense Realism and they continue to echo its claims and arguments in the face of theological modernism (or liberalism). They pursue this course even though so many other Christians (and certainly the philosophical and scientific academies) have dismissed their basic epistemological views as obsolete, misguided, and actually unbiblical.
This group insists they are the only ones taking the Scriptures seriously, however their critics have repeatedly demonstrated that they actually misread the text and (unbeknownst to them) they are functionally imposing a hermeneutical grid on the text that the text itself does not support. This actually brings them into conflict with the apostles and leads them to reject how the apostles themselves read and interacted with the Old Testament. Those of the Dispensational school are especially guilty of a Judaized hermeneutic, looking for prophetic fulfillments outside of Christ - in direct contradiction to New Testament teaching.
As such, though they certainly hold the Scriptures in high regard, like the Confessionalists, their underlying or secondary commitments result in a rival authority structure that more often than not forces Scripture into a subordinate role.