Cretiquing Enns Through Manmade Theological Frameworks

Lets play a game, see if you can point out the criteria in the following statement,

“Just for the record, Dr. Gaffin has produced what is, in my opinion, the best critique of Inspiration and Incarnation. Gaffin confronts Enns’ conclusions from a historic, Covenant Theology perspective that places the canon in the covenantal sphere. This is the fundamental flaw in Enns’ work. He is not teaching historic Covenant Theology. I want to also point out that all the reviews listed above work from a distinctive theological perspective when critiquing I & I. For instance, Carson treats it from an OT exegetical perspective, Helm from a philosophical perspective, Beale from a epistemological perspective, Lillback from a Systematic/Confessional perspective, Tipton from a historic Christology perspective, and Frame from a systematic/doctrine of Scripture perspective.”

The statement goes on to say,

“The combination of these, sometimes overlapping, critiques makes for a fairly comprehensive blow at Enns’ deviant view of inerrancy. However, if I could only choose one it would be Gaffin’s.”

In other words, Enns is not judged on the basis of unbiased research and interactions with Enns’ research, but on the basis of favored theological boxes that are human in origin rather than based on God’s word. These men claim Reform Theology yet abandon Sola Scriptura only to replace it with theories and ideas that have more to do with human creativity than with divine revelation.