03-28-2008, 08:39 AM
|
 | Administrator | | Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 6,541
Thanks: 644
Thanked 502 Times in 305 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaybird0827  Quote:
Originally Posted by toddpedlar Quote:
Originally Posted by Pergamum So can anyone give a synopsis and a review of this book which seems to have gotten this proff into hot water. What is so scandalous? | A brief review is found here at the OPC website.
A longer one with much more substantive discussion of the book's problems, at Reformation21. | The review on the OPC website is most helpful. Thanks!!! | Yes, the conclusion about sums up the divide: Quote:
The book concludes with a plea for temperate discussion, apart from "judgmental suspicion" and "polarization and power plays." Enns anticipates being vilified, writing, "The problem is that true Christians erect a wall of hostility between them, and churches, denominations, and schools split" (p. 172).
This plea cannot smooth over the troubling fact that Enns writes beyond the boundaries of the Reformed tradition as exemplified by chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession. When he says the Bible looks human, he means it does not look divine. When he says Genesis is part myth, he means it is not true in historic, narrative particulars. When he says "conflicting theologies," he means the Bible contradicts itself. This book has the cumulative effect of lowering conservative preconceptions about the inspiration of Scripture. It seems unlikely that it will raise any liberal-leaning preconceptions. Liberals believe the Incarnation is a myth.
|
__________________
Chris Coldwell
Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member • Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books • The Confessional Presbyterian, A Journal for Discussion of Presbyterian Doctrine & Practice • The Blue Banner Archive When heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the ‘old dead orthodoxy,’ and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they ‘differ from it only in words.’ This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. Samuel Miller, Introductory essay, The Articles of the Synod of Dort (1841).
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? |