I’m not following all the Enn’s links (most are here). (Thanks Brandon!! I don’t know you, but I appreciate your work.) I wanted to mention a couple updates here:
Christianity Today has a follow-up article describing yesterday’s meeting with students (standing room only) and has quotes from the President, chairman of the board, old faculty and students. The vice-chair of the board Peter Janssonvice is quoted as saying,
We’re very disappointed because we think it’s a mistake, possibly a serious mistake . . . The nine of us strongly support Dr. Enns.
[The board vote was 18-9]
- The Audio of Westminster’s special chapel (including Q&A about Enns) can be downloaded from here http://www.digitalbrandon.com/audio/SpecialChapel.mp3
- Shibboleth – gives some of the “minority report.”
- Questions of Westminster students.
Michael Bird asks Reformed Theologians four genuine historical-critical questions. “I honestly want to know how Reformed Theologians address these issues.”
1. What is the “Reformed Orthodox” view of using extra-biblical sources in exegesis? What led you to this answer and what (if anything) makes your answer prescriptive?2. Why is Genesis 1-3 similar to the Enuma Elish? On what do you base your answer?3. Did the Apostle Paul believe in the inerrancy of the autographa? Why are Paul’s citation of Scripture often different from the wording and meaning in the original Hebrew Bible and even the Septuagint (to give one example: Isa. 59.20 cited in Rom. 11.26-27)?4. Did the historical person of Enoch prophesy about the coming of the Lord (Jude 14-15)? Why does Jude cite this extra-canonical source (an Enochic tradition?), without differentiating it from the Hebrew Scriptures that he also quotes in his short epistle?
Moreover, what I want to know is:
– What is the evidence and reasoning behind your answer?
– How do you differ from Enns’ answer?
– What are the theological implications of your answer (if any)?
Click here for the full post and responses.