Dear Bruce,

Yes, I'll update the thread if and when people interact with McCormack.

McCormack calls himself an "evangelical" (as does just about anyone these days). In reality his theology moves in the realm of Barthianism. Hence, I found it interesting to hear the opinion of someone quite outside the WTS tradition looking in and making observations--not least about what he perceives to be traditionally "reformed".

This controversy (as I see it) in the blogosphere has focused on everything (especially personalities!) but Enns' actual position on Scripture. Hence McCormack bypasses the doctrine of revelation for Christology, not at all an unimportant issue but not what the controversy is focused upon. Moreover, much attention has been given to Lillback's paper on the WCF view of sola scriptura.

But what about Enns' notion that some biblical authors thought they were writing history but in actual fact were writing non-historical myth? Surely that is hard to square with Enns' claim to believe in inerrancy? Or Enns' claim that the NT writers used the OT without consideration of the latter's context?

Every blessing.

__________________
Marty
Minister / Theological Educator
Anglican Church of Australia
(On Sabbatical) Cambridge, UK.
"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)