I read some of that and didn't understand a lot of it, but did understand this comment by Jeremy Pierce:

"It's about inerrancy. Enns says he affirms the Westminister statement of faith, but he in fact denies inerrancy in practice even if he doesn't admit it. An example is his claim that the daughter of Pharaoh didn't say what the text says she said. That kind of attribution of historical error in the Bible is compatible with Fuller's denial of inerrancy but not with Westminster's acceptance of it."

There were other examples in different comments, but this one made more sense to me.

__________________

HaigLaw, ruling elder
Grace PCA, Shreveport, LA
http://www.xanga.com/HaigLaw