This is why I steer clear of theology. This professor lost his job because he spoke about the wrong meta-narrative in a book.
Whatevs, man – whatevs.

And when you talk about Scripture as being analogous to the incarnation, you better take that into account, or you’re going to come of what a doctrine of Scripture that is Nestorian at best and Ebionite at worst.
Well, ok, so Trueman says there’s a way to make the analogy properly but Enns doesn’t do it right?
(Speaking as one with Ebionite sympathies …)

With Jim West and others, I agree that WTS may have very well been justified if it turns out there there is any clear breach of contractual obligations. My question has to do with the problem of dogmatic orthodoxy itself and how that affects open theological debate. If the rules of exploring theological questions are this strict then it seems to stultify theological thinking and shove it into the rather narrow confines of the Westminster Standards as if that is somehow specially revelatory of God above anything else. The Standards need to be contingent upon biblical scholarship (and I would argue that all theological abstraction should be) and it seems that the penchant is to go the other way around.

The Standards need to be contingent upon biblical scholarship … and it seems that the penchant is to go the other way around.
They’re understood to be so contingent, by their proponents. Once established, they must hold (and be held).
There’s another penchant for modifying principles in midstream. That won’t wash here.

“They’re understood to be so contingent, by their proponents. Once established, they must hold (and be held).
There’s another penchant for modifying principles in midstream. That won’t wash here.”
So doctrine is immutable? Is that what you are saying? Can doctrine change? Why hold so firmly to the Westminster Standards over all else? What divine right does that Confession have over all other sources of doctrinal inspiration? The entire premise that something “must hold” is completely and utterly arbitrary.

I would admit a development of doctrine, i.e., refinements.
Is Enns anywhere near defining doctrine with his book?
I haven’t read the book but I would guess he’s merely building a hermeneutic framework. Moreover, my sense is that this work of his is not revolutionary.
To redirect Dr. West’s analogy, this strikes me as approaching a “no-fault” divorce.
WCF isn’t my confession, so maybe michele can give you a Reformed perspective on the weight it carries. But, designations such as “narrow,” “strict,” “stultify” tend to stack the deck against an fair-minded consideration.
I’m actually interested in what the ETS is saying.

Justin Taylor has a link to CT article which explains where/how Enns falls outside Chapter I of the Confession.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/114-24.0.html
“Critics argue that Enns’ method falls outside the Westminster Confession’s statement, ‘The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.’ ‘Instead of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, Dr. Enns interprets verses in isolation from and at odds with the clear testimony of other parts of Scripture, and allows an infelicitous use of extra-biblical sources to reassess what Scripture as a whole is.’”

Sorry … more … I agree with this Horton quote in the CT article, seminaries are different:
“I think it’s really important for seminaries that serve particular church bodies to realize that they are not simply academic institutions, but that they are accountable to the church to whom they are preparing ministers and missionaries,” said Michael Horton, theology and apologetics professor at Westminster Seminary in California.

Moonshadow,
“But, designations such as “narrow,” “strict,” “stultify” tend to stack the deck against an fair-minded consideration.”
Consider those designations an hypothesis. Now you can build a case to disprove it. The deck is never stacked unless one does not have evidence to disprove an hypothesis with contrary evidence.

My impression is that folks who hold happily to the Confession don’t view it in those terms you used.
Therefore, my proof accepts the opinion of those living happily with that statement of faith.
Why would you want me to think otherwise?

I can only tell you what I’ve learned in Intro to Sys Theology with Gaffin and in my various readings.

You make a fascinating point in your brief summary. “Left unresolved is what happens to the majority of professors who don’t see anything wrong with Enns’ view.” I simply wanted to counter that the vote may be more complex than you suggest. Voting in favor of Enns may not have been a vote that indicated that one didn’t “see anything wrong with [his] view.” One could have slight or even strong reservations about Peter’s understanding of inspiration without voting for his non-renewal. Faculty tend to be supportive of one another, you know. It would have been very difficult for people to vote down a likeable colleague such as Peter.

“Voting in favor of Enns may not have been a vote that indicated that one didn’t “see anything wrong with [his] view.”"
I was speaking of the professors I know that hold a similar view to Enns’ view.

I just finished the book and agree with the categorization of its content as disquieting in the least, explosive or even heterodox in the extreme. However, the wonderful thing about such endeavors is that they force those of us who sincerely follow Christ to reexamine our own personal matrixes, frameworks, predispositions, etc. when it comes to understanding God’s word. That Enns is firm in his profession of Christ’s dual nature, the value of Scripture as a gift from the loving God to His people, and his sincere faith in Christ’s salvific work, should give support to his basic premise as at least worthy of consideration and challenge to our preconceptions. I am saddened to read the vitriol of those whose faith is so weak as not to stand challenge. The church’s history is filled with attack from without and within, by those not committed to Christ above all. Are Enns’ critics such wolves-in-sheep’s clothing? Who can say? All we can say from the truths that ARE clearly identified in Scripture is that we know one another by our fruit. Specifically, “outdo one another in brotherly love” comes before Paul’s appeal to legal authority in Romans 13, the principle being in line with the whole of God’s word – love God and neighbor as the summation of the law. To do otherwise is to run counter to one’s claims of being a Christian – a little Christ, as the Antiochans so derisively termed those crazy people who lived sacrificially and pursued death to the flesh in the hopes of an eternity of bliss with the All Mighty Creator God.
We will disagree in the Church, but our fellowship is more important than the things that divide those purchased by Christ’s blood. That fact, and not our fancy didactic reasoning or apologetic gymnastics, will convince the world that we belong to Him. How sad that the Church is so bad at doing that most clear of all commands.
Just my two cents, from a Political Science professor deeply committed to Christ and His glory.