Peter Enns continues to slide further and further.
I do not remember where I heard it, or when I heard it, but I distinctly recall an atheist saying, when asked about the perspective of some liberal theologian, “He’s an atheist. He just doesn’t know it yet.”
It would certainly be wrong to say that Peter Enns is an atheist. He isn’t. He still maintains that Jesus is Lord, at least in some sense. That being said, his understanding of scriptural authority is staunchly liberal- liberal to the point where the very bottom of everything has no foundation. The floor is gone.
If you would like to hear a recent exchange between Peter Enns and David Instone-Brewer (which can be frustrating on several levels), check out the following Unbelievable radio show:
Now if you would like to read a good review of Peter Enns' most recent book, I would encourage you to hop over to Reformation 21. Noel Weeks interacts in a very helpful way, critiquing the work in a level-headed manner.
For a taste, here is a quote:
“Basically, the work presents a fairly common understanding of the authors of the Bible as victims of Historical Determinism. They could not but present the views of their time, erroneous although some of those were. God was happy with that because he allows the believers to tell their own story. Enns is relieved by that explanation, because it allows him to see the genocide involved in the killing of the Canaanites as something that did not happen, but was rather the reading of the past by people defined by their tribal way of life, who, naturally read God as a tribal leader slaughtering his foes.
Historical Determinism is a two-edged sword. If its premises are correct, then we also should be every bit as trapped by the beliefs of our time. That means I should be able to explain Enns as forced by the modern context of concern about genocide to want to explain it away. And Enns could then interpret my critique of him as determined by some tendency in the present world, and so on and so on.”