Using the WTS’s HTFC’s “Inspiration and Incarnation: A Response”, I aim to examine WTS’ approaches to doctrinal formulation, which are being used as their measuring tape to negatively evaluate Enns’ thesis. Hence I will not be in any sense defending Peter Enns’ stance in particular. I am more concern with the 3 underlying theological presumptions and methods that gave rise to WTS’ disagreement with Enns.
Part 1. Hermeneutics and Formulation of Doctrine
Part 2. Unfairly Pitting Neo-Orthodoxy as Against the Reformed Tradition
Part 3. Between Provisional and Absolutist Articulation of Doctrine
*WTS’s Hermeneutic Field Committee (HFC) that sympathizes with Peter Enns’ thesis has provided a detailed and extensive reply to the HTFC report. The HFC reply can be found in the downloadable pdf file.