Daniel Stoddart pointed this post out on G+ and I enjoyed it so much and found it so true and theologically insightful that I wanted to pass it along to you. I’ve added its author to the blogroll. He’s one to watch.
Since his dismissal, Enns has so quickly evolved in his views that he now denies the historicity of Adam and Eve, denies that the Bible says anything about human origins, embraces theistic evolution, and denies the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. What happened to the “Enns is perfectly Reformed and orthodox” defense? One can still argue (wrongly, in my view) than he was right; one cannot argue that his views are compatible with the Reformed confessions.
Rarely has history so quickly vindicated a controversial decision by a seminary. No one can objectively examine those events and conclude anything other than that Enns and his acolytes were speaking with forked tongues or at least crossed fingers.
There’s a good deal more of equally impressive insight. I commend it to you. Unreservedly.
Zwinglius Redivivus 
Of course he deserved to be dismissed; he was beginning to do something academic, and that was just beyond the pale for the institution that employed him!
As I commented about Le Donne’s justified firing, when you work for any institution that so drastically circumscribes the academic work able to be done, getting fired for doing real academic work is “hardly a breach of their own (non-academic) standards”.
LikeLike
actually he decided that he simply wanted to be someone other than the person they hired. le donne was always le donne. they knew who he was when they hired him. enns was a different person with different views. they are different cases.
LikeLike
Can someone show me where Enn’s has denied the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture? Not even Richard Schultz would level that accusation.
LikeLike
I disagree, views change and developed, isn’t that what academia is about? So for Enns to be fired for changing his mind, it sounds more like discrimination than anything else. The big assumption is that, those who don’t sing up to their definition of “Christian” are atheists, agnostics or satanists!!! When in fact are different Christians.
LikeLike
That’s right, Dan – of course views change. This is in no way “proof” that those who fired him were always right – except for those who already had their minds made up.
LikeLike
and if views change substantially, so that one is no longer in harmony with one’s employer, one has a moral duty to leave- both for the sake of one’s conscience and for the sake of those who are paying one’s salary.
LikeLike
Jim, you should have allowed my comment from yesterday to go through. You continue to slander Enns. You are perpetuating an untruth about the circumstances. I’m telling you the truth: what you are saying here and implying about Enns’s character and the circumstances is sin.
LikeLike
nonsense. your comment – in any event – didnt belong here. if you have complaints take them to the post to which i point. my comments aren’t slanderous nor are they improper nor are they sin. what’s sinful is pretending to be something one isn’t and then being angry and turning one’s dismissal into a cottage industry.
LikeLike
[remarks to the final sentence deleted by myself, JW]
I challenge you to have the courage, humility, and decency to post it.
LikeLike
boy are you barking up the wrong tree here. i won’t be coerced, manipulated, or badgered into posting remarks by anyone. including you. i suggest you save yourself the time necessary to post here. in future, they’ll all simply be deleted. and if you don’t like it. well, too bad. go elsewhere and try to manipulate others.
LikeLike