# Question about WSCAL and WTS



## DMcFadden (Jun 3, 2008)

I assume that this is very OLD ground covered often, but from before I joined PB. However, it would be helpful to get a "wikipedia" like explanation of the differences between WSCAL and WTS on the issue of the covenant. This has been alluded to in several threads, but without a clear explanation. If there is an old thread that does it, please direct me to the best summary post. Thanks!


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2008)

When Scot Oliphant published/edited the book from WTS responding to NPP, it was the same standard response (though I enjoyed it more than the other ones). But some pointed criticism to the book in that it did not allow for more biblical studies guys to contribute. I can't vouch for how accurate that is. 

WSCAL is very Klinean and very anti-FV, but, as is it an old can of worms, I believe Klineanism entails other problems.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Archlute (Jun 3, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> When Scot Oliphant published/edited the book from WTS responding to NPP, it was the same standard response (though I enjoyed it more than the other ones). But some pointed criticism to the book in that it did not allow for more biblical studies guys to contribute. I can't vouch for how accurate that is.
> 
> WSCAL is very Klinean and very anti-FV, but, as is it an old can of worms, I believe Klineanism entails other problems.



So, does the fact that you have not studied at either institution give you special insight into the position of the combined faculties of these seminaries?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2008)

No, in fact I think I said something like I don't have special insight. A librarian at a Reformed seminary (who is a published Klinean and a friend, btw) told me on WTS and the connection about Klineanism and WSCAL is fairly obvious. In fact, I said that they were strong on the NPP/FV issue. _In other contexts most people would have interpreted that as a compliment_. Hermeneutics of suspicion, or something.


----------



## Archlute (Jun 3, 2008)




----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2008)

I apologize for the hermeneutics of suspicion comment. But I thought the rest was self-explanatory. Most of the contributors in Oliphant's book were from the theology dept (it's been over a year since I had it in my hands, so my comment is open for revision). I am not making a judgment on the seminary (I happen to like Westminster, For what it's worth).

And there is a Klinean influence at WSCAL. That should be obvious, too. I even slipped a compliment in there. I said they were firm about NPP/FV.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 3, 2008)

So, er . . . ah . . . well Mrs. Lincoln, other than that, how did you like the play? Repeating my question for this thread:



> I assume that this is very OLD ground covered often, but from before I joined PB. However, it would be helpful to get a "wikipedia" like explanation of the differences between WSCAL and WTS on the issue of the covenant. This has been alluded to in several threads, but without a clear explanation. If there is an old thread that does it, please direct me to the best summary post. Thanks!



??????


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 4, 2008)

Archlute said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > When Scot Oliphant published/edited the book from WTS responding to NPP, it was the same standard response (though I enjoyed it more than the other ones). But some pointed criticism to the book in that it did not allow for more biblical studies guys to contribute. I can't vouch for how accurate that is.
> ...



Adam,

I'd be lying if I told anyone I haven't been significantly influenced over the past several months by a lot of the theology and teachers within, and coming out of, Westminster Seminary California. In many ways, it seems like a seminary essentially _is_ its faculty, collectively speaking of course. When I speak of the teachers to whom I've been exposed over the last year, I'm referring to material from books such as _CJPM_, as well as individual books, articles, lectures and sermons by faculty including (as examples) Doctors Horton, Clark, Godfrey, Jones, Johnson and VanDrunen, former professors such as Darryl Hart, and graduates and other closely-related pastors including Rev. Hyde, Dr. Riddlebarger, and the pastors on "Sinners & Saints." From helping me to balance out a lot of my general understanding of systematic and historical theology, as well as worship, ecclesiastical practices and philosophy, to partially shaping and further refining my understanding and views on more specific issues like the Law/Gospel hermeneutic, creation, natural law and Two-Kingdoms theology (with its implications for ethics and eschatology), I have to honestly say that the body of preaching, writing and teaching from sources like those I mentioned above has probably done more to shape my understanding over the past year than that of any other sources, relatively speaking.

But as an honest inquiry, where did your initial reply to Jacob come from, and what point were you trying to make with it? I really don't see how it is either relevant or helpful in any way. As he later noted, he never claimed to have some kind of "special insight" into the collective positions of WSC or WTS, whatever that means. Rather, with respect to WTS, he merely made a simple observation about a specific book they published, and with respect to WSC, he noted that 1) many of their professors, teachings and standpoints are significantly influenced by the teachings and legacy of Dr. Kline, and that 2) they are decidedly very opposed to FV teachings. Do you disagree that either of those two things in particular are largely true about WSC? Furthermore, more generally speaking, do people need to have studied at an institution to make informed observations about its positions (regardless of whether or not they _agree_ with all of them)? Have you studied at WTS-PA?


----------

