# Peter Enns Resigns



## greenbaggins (Jul 23, 2008)

Praise the Lord that an amicable solution resulted! This is, I think, a good step for WTS.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 23, 2008)

Just a quick question.

If, indeed, there were severe problems with the man's teaching, is it good that it was amicable? For instance, wasn't there a sort of "amicable" departure for Norm Shepherd from the same institution (in other words, he wasn't booted out for heresy).

I can't comment on the ins and outs of Mr. Enns's theology, but the quotations I've read are (at best) contra-confessional.

Cheers,

Adam





greenbaggins said:


> Praise the Lord that an amicable solution resulted! This is, I think, a good step for WTS.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 23, 2008)

Well, I suppose that could be a matter of opinion. However, the difficulty is that things could have been a lot worse in terms of Christian unity. Everyone at the seminary considers Enns and evangelical and a brother in Christ. Therefore, there is no need for a strife-filled departure.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 23, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Well, I suppose that could be a matter of opinion. However, the difficulty is that things could have been a lot worse in terms of Christian unity. Everyone at the seminary considers Enns and evangelical and a brother in Christ. Therefore, there is no need for a strife-filled departure.



I guess the next question is whether we have actual Christian unity or if there is just an agreement not to talk about this particular problem anymore?

CT


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 23, 2008)

It's not unity in agreement. Otherwise, Enns would have stayed. It is unity in spirit in that Enns and WTS part as friends, not as enemies. They have talked about this until their ears have fallen off.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 23, 2008)

Want to bet Enns ends up at Covenant?


----------



## Jim-Bob (Jul 23, 2008)

Sounds like WTS says "Dr. Enns is evangelical, but has some ideas which may not be 'Reformed' in our understanding", while Dr.Enns says "You guys gotta do what you think you gotta do to be Reformed". May both WTS and Dr. Enns prosper.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 23, 2008)

In my understanding of "unity of spirit" there is not way to divide it from "unity in agreement". In other words, how can there be "unity of spirit" unless there is "one mind, and one soul, striving for the faith of the gospel". The faith of the gospel has propositional content; it is propositional content. If we say that there is unity of the spirit with propositional disagreement, we are at best talking about sentimental unity; which is fine, as far as it goes, but I wouldn't call that what the scriptures mean when they talk about "unity of the spirit." 

Maybe it would be nice to see a little more "gravel in the guts." Or maybe I've been listening to too much Johnny Cash 

Cheers,

Adam





greenbaggins said:


> It's not unity in agreement. Otherwise, Enns would have stayed. It is unity in spirit in that Enns and WTS part as friends, not as enemies. They have talked about this until their ears have fallen off.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 23, 2008)

Jim-Bob said:


> Sounds like WTS says "Dr. Enns is evangelical, but has some ideas which may not be 'Reformed' in our understanding", while Dr.Enns says "You guys gotta do what you think you gotta do to be Reformed". May both WTS and Dr. Enns prosper.



Yes, but it comes back to the definition of evangelical. Maybe those more intimately familiar with his teachings on Scripture can tell us whether or not they can be said to be evangelical when compared to something like the Five Fundamentals or the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. From what I understand most of those who reacted strongly to his teaching would say no.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 24, 2008)

Chris,

How right you are! "Evangelical" is about the most elastic term around these days. While writing this I am watching a clip of one of the women on "The View" (the "Christian one") talking about faith in terms of Joyce Meyers and pentecostal faith healers and explaining that she has had more abortions than she can remember but knows that all of her aborted babies will greet her in heaven with a warm "momma." Yikes! That is evangelical. So is the retired prof and world missions icon who told me at lunch a couple of weeks ago that Islam is just a semitic form of Christianity. So are Billy Graham, Answers in Genesis, AWANA, Pat Robertson, Left Behind books, Norman Shepherd, R.C. Sproul, Ligon Duncan, Campus Crusade, WTS, Fuller, Trinity, Dallas, Talbot, Asbury, Master's, RTS, Inter Varsity, James Dobson, and Pastor Hagee. So are the host of purpose driven, seeker sensitized, folks fishing in the shallows, the promoters of the FV, the pro-gay clubs on the campuses of "conservative" Christian colleges, the feminists who say Paul "erred" in 1 Timothy, annihilationist John R.W. Stott, and the wingnuts claiming to have raised the dead. And, evidently, by his co-editorship of a recent door stop book by IVP, is Dr. Enns.

I wish Carl F.H. Henry and Harold Ockenga had not been so successful in creating "evangelicalism."


----------



## Stephen (Jul 24, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Well, I suppose that could be a matter of opinion. However, the difficulty is that things could have been a lot worse in terms of Christian unity. Everyone at the seminary considers Enns and evangelical and a brother in Christ. Therefore, there is no need for a strife-filled departure.



Lane, perhaps you could offer me some clarification on this. It was my understanding that Enns held to a view of Scripture that denied full inerrancy. I thought he also held to a view of Christ that was less than orthodox. If he was regarded as evangelical why was he dismissed from WTS/Philadelphia and why was such an issue made over this book he wrote that led to this controversy?


----------



## Stephen (Jul 24, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Want to bet Enns ends up at Covenant?




What makes you think he will end up at covenant if he departs from the Westminister standards?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 24, 2008)

Stephen said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Want to bet Enns ends up at Covenant?
> ...



No reason. Just a flippant statement that was ill-conceived.


----------



## A5pointer (Jul 24, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Chris,
> 
> How right you are! "Evangelical" is about the most elastic term around these days. While writing this I am watching a clip of one of the women on "The View" (the "Christian one") talking about faith in terms of Joyce Meyers and pentecostal faith healers and explaining that she has had more abortions than she can remember but knows that all of her aborted babies will greet her in heaven with a warm "momma." Yikes! That is evangelical. So is the retired prof and world missions icon who told me at lunch a couple of weeks ago that Islam is just a semitic form of Christianity. So are Billy Graham, Answers in Genesis, AWANA, Pat Robertson, Left Behind books, Norman Shepherd, R.C. Sproul, Ligon Duncan, Campus Crusade, WTS, Fuller, Trinity, Dallas, Talbot, Asbury, Master's, RTS, Inter Varsity, James Dobson, and Pastor Hagee. So are the host of purpose driven, seeker sensitized, folks fishing in the shallows, the promoters of the FV, the pro-gay clubs on the campuses of "conservative" Christian colleges, the feminists who say Paul "erred" in 1 Timothy, annihilationist John R.W. Stott, and the wingnuts claiming to have raised the dead. And, evidently, by his co-editorship of a recent door stop book by IVP, is Dr. Enns.
> 
> I wish Carl F.H. Henry and Harold Ockenga had not been so successful in creating "evangelicalism."




Your point is well taken that evangelical is a broad term. It is sad though to see his name in a list like this. I read his book and recommend any who are curious to read it. He is a scholar out of the line of Dillard and Longman not a quack job as some seem to be left with the impression he is. He would be considered confessional excepting his interpretation of of "inerrancy". Ironically it really is a matter of interpreting(defining) inerrancy. Systematically he would not differ with any of us.


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger (Jul 24, 2008)

Enns was dismissed for holding the view that "the reformed doctrine of inerrancy is unsuitable to defend against critical scholarship." His rejection of inerrancy is in stark opposition to the WCF and that is why he was fired. WTS desires to be a confessional Reformed school. 

Am I wrong on this? 

At the moment Enns has a few books he is writing, and hopes to finish those up. I doubt he will go to Covenant. A dismissal from WTS is a strong warning to any reformed seminary thinking of hiring him. Maybe Biblical where Franke is - Enns has a following in the missional/emerging community, it matches up. 

As a person who wants to go to WTS this whole episode has given me massive pause. (I want to go for counseling). But I must say this, we must thank the Lord for men like Carl Trueman, Lane Tipton, Pres. Lillback and others who made a stand on this issue.


----------



## A5pointer (Jul 24, 2008)

Robbie Schmidtberger said:


> Enns was dismissed for holding the view that "the reformed doctrine of inerrancy is unsuitable to defend against critical scholarship." *His rejection of inerrancy* is in stark opposition to the WCF and that is why he was fired. WTS desires to be a confessional Reformed school.
> 
> Am I wrong on this?
> 
> ...



I don't think it is as simple as saying he rejected inerrancy. He questions whether it is proper to impose post enlightenment paradigm on ancient texts by demmanding a modern definition of accuracy. He and others see among other things authoral bias and loose use of what we would call facts. in my opinion he raises valid questions that we need not fear answering. It seems Lane is more familiar with the issue and much more able and qualified to comment on this than I am. Lane am I close with my understanding of Enns? And do you see Enns as much closer to over all reformed orthodoxy than some are assuming?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 24, 2008)

As I see it, the issues are two, and they are inter-related. The first is that the authority of Scripture does not come from Scripture alone, in Enns's view. He explicitly says that our doctrine of Scripture (what Scripture is) has to come not only from Scripture (he does not deny that Scripture has a place), but also from Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) sources. This is quite distinct from saying that the interpretation of a text here or there can be helped by referencing the ANE sources. He is talking about what Scripture actually is. 

The second related issue is his Christology. He seems to affirm that the humanity of Christ and the deity of Christ are equally ultimate in the person of Christ, rather than saying that the humanity of Christ does not exist outside of the hypostatic union. The only way that Christ exists in full humanity is in taking the human nature upon Himself in hypostatic union with the divine nature. But the divine nature is primary (and saying this in no way implies something less than than fully human about Christ), the human nature is secondary (that is, it was taken on, or assumed in hypostatic union). 

The Christology of Enns factors into his view of Scripture in the following way: Enns claims that the Scriptures are analogous to Christ in being fully human and fully divine. By itself, such a statement would not be objectionable. However, in context, what that means for Enns is that the humanity of Scripture becomes _equally foundational_ to the nature of Scripture as the divine is. Hence, the definition of the humanity of Scripture involves what is common to all the rest of humanity, such as ANE sources. Functionally, what happens is an over-emphasis on the humanity of Scripture, I would argue at the expense of the divine. No one has ever really denied (even in the mechanical theory of dictation!) that human beings wrote the Bible. Countless millions, on the other hand, have denied that God ultimately wrote the Bible. "Has God really said?" Enns has picked the wrong target, a mythical group of people who think that God dropped the Bible out of the sky. As a result, he has skewed his doctrine of Christ and Scripture.


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 24, 2008)

> greenbaggins
> Lanesterator Minimus
> 
> The first is that the authority of Scripture does not come from Scripture alone, in Enns's view.



Laymen can understand this. This is very serious. Why has there been hesitancy to protect the seminary from this (e.g. why has this divided people and taken so many years to be dealt with)?



> He seems to affirm that the humanity of Christ and the deity of Christ are equally ultimate in the person of Christ, rather than saying that the humanity of Christ does not exist outside of the hypostatic union. The only way that Christ exists in full humanity is in taking the human nature upon Himself in hypostatic union with the divine nature. But the divine nature is primary (and saying this in no way implies something less than than fully human about Christ), the human nature is secondary (that is, it was taken on, or assumed in hypostatic union).



Layman may not understand this, but with your explanation, it too seems to be very serious. Why has there been hesitancy to protect the seminary from this (e.g. why has this divided people and taken so many years to be dealt with)?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 24, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> > greenbaggins
> > Lanesterator Minimus
> >
> > The first is that the authority of Scripture does not come from Scripture alone, in Enns's view.
> ...



The simple answer is that the faculty and board wanted to talk with Enns quietly and thoroughly to make sure that they really understood what he was saying. Enns is not always crystal clear in his assessments. Indeed, he himself would probably claim that I am misunderstanding him. Every benefit of the doubt was to be given to someone who had been 14 years at the seminary, and the process had to be fair.


----------



## staythecourse (Jul 24, 2008)

Lane,

Feel free to omit this post if this guy's summation of the controversy is errant. This helped me understand in general what the Enn's hub-bub was.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 24, 2008)

No need to delete your post. It is an interesting summary. I don't think he has a grasp of the Christological issues involved in Enns's book, but a lot of the other things are accurate.


----------



## staythecourse (Jul 24, 2008)

I saw that, too. This guys focused on the Scripture part of the controversy.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 24, 2008)

My old mentor, Bob Gundry (32 units of NT classes + he officiated at my wedding + he was responsible for getting me a full-ride scholarship for 2 years of Westmont and all of Fulller), got booted out of the ETS back in the early '80s at the instigation of Geisler due to his Midrash view of Matthew. Gundry contended that the Bible is "inerrant." Yet, he suggested that Matthew was of the genre of Midrash, not historical narrative. By this explanation, Matthew "invented" some things that we would call non-historical (because they NEVER happened): the inclusion of the four women in the genealogy, the star over Bethlehem, the magi, etc. He argued that the genre permitted creative re-telling of the story, including the addition of details that never happened. To Gundry, that did not efface the inerrancy of the Bible in any respect.

Well, despite how much I owe him, the man was WRONG! I see the Enns controversy in the same light. A scholar trying to keep faith with a high view of the Bible and simultaneously operate with the presuppositions of critical scholarship must trim one or the other to make them fit. Unfortunately, so many of our "best" evangelical scholars decide to do the trimming on the side of Scripture.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 24, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...


----------



## staythecourse (Jul 24, 2008)

> Yet, he suggested that Matthew was of the genre of Midrash, not historical narrative. By this explanation, Matthew "invented" some things that we would call non-historical (because they NEVER happened): the inclusion of the four women in the genealogy, the star over Bethlehem, the magi, etc.



You're right, Dennis. He was wrong. It's a pity that such smart men, get _too_ smart and start falling into error.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 24, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> As I see it, the issues are two, and they are inter-related. The first is that the authority of Scripture does not come from Scripture alone, in Enns's view. He explicitly says that our doctrine of Scripture (what Scripture is) has to come not only from Scripture (he does not deny that Scripture has a place), but also from Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) sources. This is quite distinct from saying that the interpretation of a text here or there can be helped by referencing the ANE sources. He is talking about what Scripture actually is.
> 
> The second related issue is his Christology. He seems to affirm that the humanity of Christ and the deity of Christ are equally ultimate in the person of Christ, rather than saying that the humanity of Christ does not exist outside of the hypostatic union. The only way that Christ exists in full humanity is in taking the human nature upon Himself in hypostatic union with the divine nature. But the divine nature is primary (and saying this in no way implies something less than than fully human about Christ), the human nature is secondary (that is, it was taken on, or assumed in hypostatic union).
> 
> The Christology of Enns factors into his view of Scripture in the following way: Enns claims that the Scriptures are analogous to Christ in being fully human and fully divine. By itself, such a statement would not be objectionable. However, in context, what that means for Enns is that the humanity of Scripture becomes _equally foundational_ to the nature of Scripture as the divine is. Hence, the definition of the humanity of Scripture involves what is common to all the rest of humanity, such as ANE sources. Functionally, what happens is an over-emphasis on the humanity of Scripture, I would argue at the expense of the divine. No one has ever really denied (even in the mechanical theory of dictation!) that human beings wrote the Bible. Countless millions, on the other hand, have denied that God ultimately wrote the Bible. "Has God really said?" Enns has picked the wrong target, a mythical group of people who think that God dropped the Bible out of the sky. As a result, he has skewed his doctrine of Christ and Scripture.



Thanks, Lane for your explanation. I will have to give more thought to these issues before I say too much, but it is not in error to say that the Scriptures have both a divine and human author. Enns seems to go to what I think may be an extreme and this causes some real concern for me. He is not always clear in his explanations, which creates more difficulty. If the assesment of many is correct he is outside the pale of evangelicalism and orthodoxy.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 24, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> > Yet, he suggested that Matthew was of the genre of Midrash, not historical narrative. By this explanation, Matthew "invented" some things that we would call non-historical (because they NEVER happened): the inclusion of the four women in the genealogy, the star over Bethlehem, the magi, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, Dennis. He was wrong. It's a pity that such smart men, get _too_ smart and start falling into error.



 &


----------



## Stephen (Jul 24, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> Lane,
> 
> Feel free to omit this post if this guy's summation of the controversy is errant. This helped me understand in general what the Enn's hub-bub was.



Thanks for the link, brother. I saw it earlier today and found it to be helpful. Enns view of the early chapters of Genesis being myth certainly puts him outside of an orthodox position.


----------



## A5pointer (Jul 24, 2008)

Lane if you could comment. I do not see Enns as expressing an errant Christology as much as perhaps poorly choosing the analogy to scripture to get at his point. I have not seen where he set out to express a variant Christology it just got mixed up in his real concern regarding inerrancy of scripture. As I read the book I felt the analogy was a poor choice and uneeded to adress his concerns. For perspective see Carson's review. He seems to have more issues with Enns sophmoric scholarship and approach rather than errors in inerrancy and Christology.


----------

