Peter Enns Unbiblical? Jay Wile Plays Semantics

A new Decalogue has been adopted by the neo-Christians of our day, the first word of which reads "Thou shalt not disagree"; and a new set of Beatitudes too, which begins "Blessed are they that tolerate everything, for they shall not be made accountable for anything. It is now the accepted thing to talk over religious differences in public with the understanding that no one will try to convert another or point out errors in his belief. The purpose of these talks is not to confront truth, but to discover how the followers of other religions think and thus benefit from their views as we hope they will from ours.~A.W. Tozer

By now you know that the dis-invite of Ken Ham to the Great Homeschool Conventions in Cincinnati and Greenville is the talk of the homeschooling world right now. What you may not know is that there are other individuals who are involved in this controversy as well. Dr. Jay Wile formerly of Apologia and Susan Bauer of The Well Trained Mind, have both put themselves into the middle of it. Hopefully, I will have time to do a bit more looking into Susan's stand on the controversial dismissal, but for now I want to share a bit of Dr. Wile's response to it. On Dr. Wile's blog he has yet again voiced his disapproval of Ken Ham's outing of Dr.Peter Enns unbiblical views, but more interesting than the blog is the comments. While Dr. Wile states adamantly that he does not agree with Enns' non-literal interpretation of, well frankly, just about the entire Bible, he seems to be consistently defending him and unwilling to call it like it is, WRONG. If Enns is wrong, that is he is not interpreting scripture correctly, then wouldn't that make his views unbiblical? I mean either you have a correct interpretation or you don't, either you are biblical or you are not. So, my question to Dr. Wile would be, at what point does it become unbiblical? Peter Enns represents a growing and dangerous liberal movement not only within the homeschool circles, but also within evangelical Christianity. The movement has not just led to the "theistic evolutionist" view point, but to much more dangerous ones. A non-literal translation of the Bible undermines the entire authority of the scripture! Starting with Genesis, Ennis has systematically turned the Bible into a book of metaphorical fairy tales.

You cannot expect the Bible -- written in ancient times for ancient eyes -- to enter a modern scientific discussion, and you cannot fault the Bible when it fails to answer our questions. This is not a new insight. Augustine said famously 160 years ago that Christians embarrass themselves when they appeal to the Bible to settle scientific matters (cosmology was the issue he was dealing with). Even if many Christians throughout history did assume that the Bible is scientifically accurate, the problems with that position have been understood for a very long time, long before the modern era. - Peter Enns

Dr. Enns has taken the accuracy of the scriptures and thrown it out as being too old fashioned to be interpreted by science. The problem, Dr. Enns, is that we aren't supposed to be interpreting scripture by science, but the other way around! Secondly, Dr. Ennis has taken the Gospel out of the equation when talking to children. His curriculum tells parents not to tell children of their sin nature:

What should not be emphasized is the child's miserable state of sin and the need for a savior... Fuller lessons concerning sin and grace will come in time, and certainly parents and churches have the responsibility to teach the fullness, of what the Bible has to offer. But most young children simply do not have the emotional or intellectual maturity to grasp the adult concepts in the Bible. ...Do not allow yourself to be convinced that you are somehow shortchanging your children by not addressing adult concepts at such a young age...I believe in God's displeasure with sin. But to introduce children to the God of wrath right at the beginning of their lives, without the requisite biblical foundation and before the years of emotional maturity, can actually distort their view of God. Telling God's Story by Peter Enns

I don't know about yours, but my Bible says that without an understanding of our fallen state we are unable to come to Christ in a repentant state, beg for His forgiveness and become born again. Furthermore, my children are not stupid, and are amazingly perceptive when it comes to the things of God. Not only does this stand as an insult to our children's intelligence, but it is just plain dangerous as they have no hope of salvation without an understanding of sin, God's wrath, judgement and provision. Jesus himself said, "suffer the little children to come unto me"! Finally, while this is certainly not the last of the intolerable teachings of Peter Enns, I will end with this quote:

It is entirely accurate to understand Israel’s kings as messiahs: they were anointed by God to do his work. We need to resist the temptation to think that “messiah” in the Old Testament means the supernatural, second person of the Trinity, who will die for our sins. p83 of Telling God's Story

This, in my opinion, not only qualifies as unbiblical, but as heretical. It simply speaks for itself. So tell me again Dr. Wile, what does one have to teach to be considered unbiblical?

I refuse to link to Peter Enns book. Amazon carries it if you wish to verify my uncited quotes. The free book offered online is missing some of the quotes. If you look in the comment section one of the ladies has kindly linked to a scanned copy of the page that contains the page 83 quote.