This is interesting. Seems the WTS group is getting caught with it's pants down. I read Enn's book. If I am getting it right his thesis was to question the popular view of "inerrancy" ie what biblical text "must" look like in regard to views of historical accuracy and uniqueness. To do this he suggested an analogy between the incarnation of Christ(human and divine aspects) and the biblical text. Suggesting that each be seen in the human and divine combination(whatever that looks like, no Christology intended here). His point was that defined "inerrancy" in it's expectation of historical accuracy and uniqueness was leaning too much toward the divine at the expense of the human element. As I read the book I thought the incarnation analogy may not be the best as like most analogies it can be broken down. I think he could have made his point just as well without the analogy. It is this analogy that seems to be at the heart of his detractors attack. If so, I think they are grasping at a straw. Straw man that is. I do not see how one could take Enn's work to have a defined Christology in view at all, it was just being used as a loose analogy. See Carson's review, Carson takes Enn's apart on his scholarship but does not seem to think high Christology is intended. I have not read the HTFC report just the article by McCormack. If I am missing the mark let me know. Whether one is in agreement with, find curious or is offended by Enn's view of "inerrancy" to attack it on grounds of Christology seems to me dishonest.

__________________
Bruce
PCUSA
Ocean City NJ