The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Enns and Wright - a different God

I came across this article in the Aguila Report that I thought brought out some interesting points in the debates of the day (last several years). It seems as if those teaching these errors are expanding their heresies onto other central tenets.

http://theaquilareport.com/index.ph...t&catid=79:commentary&Itemid=137

Any thoughts?

Enns and Wright are expressing what a lot of us feel about so-called "salvation by dogma," as though one is truly converted merely by having one's doctrinal ducks in a row.

But they take their objections way too far. One must first believe "that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." The Apostle John explains that "the one who abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son (2 John 9 emphasis mine)." The following verses of John's second epistle drive home the point:


One must believe in the God of the bible, the God revealed in Scripture. While Mr. Enns is right to say that God is beyond what our limited facilities can perceive, He has nevertheless revealed Himself to us limited creatures in Christ, in Christ's teachings, and in His word, "the teaching."

This is the same argument used by those who say, "The Lord said and did much more than just what is recorded in scripture, therefore we must accept as true more than just scripture."

But the writer of Corinthians warns:


He was speaking of himself and Apollos, neither of which sought disciples of their own, but sought to bring disciples to Christ - the God revealed in the things written.

John,

Both Enns and Wright, although Enns is far "ahead" of Wright, redefine what Scripture IS and/or how it is to be recognized. For Enns, of course, it is a fallible book of culturally bound musings. For Wright, it can only be understood through the lens of "Second Temple Judaism", i.e., by imposing the writings of fallible unbelieving Jews upon Scripture, which de facto relegates Scripture as a secondary authority.

Consequently, with such views of the Bible, anything goes and nothing is true propositionally, i.e., there is no such thing as "true truth", as Schaeffer wrote.

A good counter to such heretical nonsense is J.I. Packer's article, Freedom and Authority, and Herman Ridderbos' article, The Inspiration and Authority of Holy Scripture.