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.