# New Pres at WTS PA



## wsw201 (Apr 21, 2005)

Peter Lillback has been named the new President of WTS PA. You can check it out at WTS Announcement.

I know he was up for moderator of the PCA last year and he wrote "the Binding of God", but I also heard that he was a defender of Norm Shepherd and Jack Kinnaird (OPC Case from 2 years ago). 

Does anyone know anything about this?


----------



## weinhold (Apr 22, 2005)

*Dr. Peter A. Lillback to become WTS President*

Any reactions to the recent decision to make Dr. Peter A. Lillback president of Westminster Theological Seminary?

CLICK HERE for an article from the website of Westminster Seminary


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 22, 2005)

moving to Colleges & Seminaries


----------



## weinhold (Apr 22, 2005)

Thanks for putting this post where it belongs!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Peter Lillback has been named the new President of WTS PA. You can check it out at WTS Announcement.
> 
> I know he was up for moderator of the PCA last year and he wrote "the Binding of God", but I also heard that he was a defender of Norm Shepherd and Jack Kinnaird (OPC Case from 2 years ago).
> ...





A few months ago, I looked through his _The Binding of God_ for awhile in a bookstore, since I had heard about it and thought it should be a neat, sound work, since the sub-title was interesting - "Calvin's Role in the Development of Covenant Theology." To my dismal surprise, it turned out to essentially be a book dedicated to showing that Calvin actually held the same ideas on the "objectivity of the covenant" that are being pushed today (i.e. it can be broken in every sense, etc.). I was disappointed when I realized that was what Lillback's book was actually arguing for, so you mentioning this unfortunately goes right in-line with what I read in the book myself expecting to find good meat.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 22, 2005)

This is an e-mail I received from the Trinityfoundation on the new President




> Dear Friends,
> 
> The Board of Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia has just announced (via several puffs of smoke from Van Til Hall) that Dr. Peter Lillback has been chosen as the Seminary's new president.
> 
> ...


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 22, 2005)

Though most people here (myself included) take Trinity Foundation critiques with a grain of salt, this is one case in which I think it is right on. I suppose now there will be even more reasons to consider PA the least Reformed of the WTS branches.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Though most people here (myself included) take Trinity Foundation critiques with a grain of salt, this is one case in which I think it is right on. I suppose now there will be even more reasons to consider PA the least Reformed of the WTS branches.



I really like alot of with the Trinityfoundation offers, but I also try to take EVERYONE with a grain of salt.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 22, 2005)

I am glad Chris mentioned his view here first, otherwise I would have believed opposite of what Robbins told me to believe just to be ornery. But Chris spared me that. In other words, I heard it from a more objective source.

[Edited on 4--23-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 22, 2005)

You need to look at the review that Dr. Venema gave the book. It is more balanced than Robbins (surprise!) and yet still has some criticisms. Venema's credentials in this fight are beyond reproach.

http://www.grebeweb.com/linden/Venema_on_Lillback's_Binding_of_God.htm


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 23, 2005)

From the several sections I read of Lillback's work, Venema hit the nail on the head in taking note of the single point that Lillback erred on: seriously blurring the fine-but-crucial line between works in sanctification as an inevitable but separate result of justification (i.e. Lordship Salvation), and works in sanctification as virtually non-distinguishable from the justification realm, as a "subordinate righteousness" of sorts. 

Lillback attempted to contrast Calvin and Luther's emphases by stating that Calvin essentially affirmed the latter concept of works, which in fact inevitably leads to the same type of objectifying of the covenant and confusion with works in justification that is seen in movements like the Federal Vision and Reformed Catholicism.

Furthermore, Lillback's blurring of that line might not even make his book so potentially dangerous were it not for the fact that _so much_ of the book is dedicated to expounding Calvin's thought on that very thing in the grand scheme of the covenant theme.

Getting back to the original thread topic, I only hope that Lillback has either changed since writing that book or else simply failed to precisely communicate his actual thoughts on justification's relation to sanctification in Calvin's (and his own) thought in his book - because if neither of those are true (or even if the second _is_ true to some extent), there would be a good chance that he will bring to WTS-PA the _very_ thing the American Reformed churches need the _least_ at this time, which is more confusion on the doctrine of justification in relation to the works and external means of grace associated with the covenant.


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 23, 2005)

It is a real battle to hold on to the truth of Scripture. Assaults come from varied and often unexpected sources. Too many churches fail to ground their members in any real understanding of Doctrine so they readily accept any "new idea" that sounds good to them. So called Sunday School classes teach things like "All the Plants of the Bible" or something equally inane instead of grounding people in the basics. And yet God's church survives and God's Word endures!

Matthew 16:15-18
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 
16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 
17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 
ESV


----------



## smallbeans (Apr 23, 2005)

I'm not sure I understand what the allegation is. It sounds you guys are saying:

1. We believe doctrine X is wrong
2. Lillback says Calvin said X
3. We know that Calvin didn't say X
4. Therefore Lillback is wrong in his assessment
5. Therefore, Lillback must have gotten it wrong because he believes X to be true and read it into Calvin

My question would be:

1. How did you go about disproving his historical claims about Calvin? - That seems like it would be a lot of work since the book interacts with all the primary sources. I got the book the other day on amazon z-shops (12.50!) and just in flipping through it, I thought, "man, I'm going to have to spend a lot of time with this one" and shelved it 'til summer.

2. Once you concluded Lillback is wrong in the treatment of the materials, how did you determine that his historical blunder is *because* he holds to a false view, X? I don't think it stands to reason that every bad historical judgment belies a bad theological judgment, right? I mean, can't you just say he got Calvin wrong, whew, good thing he's not head of the history department, now?

A little background - I'm taking my Ph.D. comprehensive exams next week, and one of the questions I'm having to prepare for is to "sketch" Puritan covenant theology. Part of that involves also giving a summary of the historiography of the issue - in other words, talking about all the scholars who have also written about the Puritans and what the changing paradigms of interpretation were. Perry Miller, an atheist who loved the Puritans, in a 1939 publication was big on the idea that the covenant was the way that the noble puritans domesticated the horrible decreetal absolutism of Calvin and carved out a niche for human voluntarism. Of course, Miller is wrong, but man, the subsequent generations of scholars have each held to varying interpretations of Puritan covenant theology. Really good scholars who in many cases didn't have a dog in the fight (they were Wesleyans, etc.) came to very different conclusions from looking at the source material. The upshot of this is that I've just become kind of apprehensive about being too hard on an historian because it is pretty hard work to bring any modern question to an older text that may or may not have been asking the same question and almost assuredly was not asking it in the same context. I did read Muller's work on Calvin - "The Unacccommodated Calvin" and that book convinced me pretty heartily that to understand Calvin rightly, I'm going to have to do a *lot* more background reading in his influences. So anyway, I just feel like being hard on a man's theology on the basis of what he thinks some historical figure believed is kind of a thin reed. In the end, he could just be a bad historian, or a good historian who got something wrong, or he could be right about the historical figure and you could be wrong, etc. There are a lot of options to explore before one imputes to a historian the doctrine that the historian finds in the subjects of his research. Right?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 23, 2005)

The thing is, in saying Calvin held the blurred views of justification I commented on above, Lillback also in fact declared repeatedly that he held the same views, continually referring to the "genius" of Calvin's thought on the matter as well. So again, I can only hope that he has either changed since then, _or_ that he wasn't very clear on what he meant in the first place (which seems to be similar to what you're suggesting about it perhaps just being bad history).


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 23, 2005)

In other words, Lilliback is misreading and misunderstanding Calvin. That's not too hard to figure out. Calvin did not tach X. Lilibback says he taugth X. What is the man thinking? Go figure, he's now head of the School. (??)

Liberal and Heretical Theology is really taking a turn these days. Its rediculous that so many uneducated "voters" keep putting men like these in positions of authority and guidance. 

The rememnant who have not bowed thier knee to liberalism of all kinds is realatively small. If it were not for the grace of God where would we be?

I was going to take Liliback to task, but Venema beat me to the punch.




> How did you go about disproving his historical claims about Calvin?



Simple - _read_ Calvin.



> Jonathan Barlow
> Under Care, Missouri Presbytery, PCA



Jonathan - with being IN the Missouri Presbytery and All the nonsense that has been rampart with the Federal heretics, I'd imagine you would have a first hand experience in seeing through the nonsense of these men, and other like them.

[Edited on 4-23-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## smallbeans (Apr 23, 2005)

They are studying the issue here in the MO Presbytery - there is a committee with a lot of local pastors on it, including some seminary professors from Covenant. I don't think that they are using the word "heresy" though, which most reserve for things that go against the Apostle's creed, but yes there a lot of people here concerned about things. I think the main concern here has not been justification so much as it has been the sacramental theology of the federal vision proponents - apparently the idea of some form of baptismal regeneration is the issue that generates the most disagreement and reaction.

I'll read Venema and compare with Lillback - but I'll have to wait for a week until my exams are over. I did read a journal article recently about the reception of Luther's theology in Elizabethan England - the upshot was that people tended to see Luther's theology as antinomian. Throughout Puritan history, the epithet "antinomian" and "arminian" were used to kind of denote the two ditches on either side of the road. So I do think there are some tensions in the Puritans about works, but I do not find any of the big names denying that salvation is by anything but grace, and that even good works are the gift of God.

How are you defining the word "heresy"? I always thought there was a continuum:

Isolated Errors -> Systemic Errors -> Heresy

Where "heresy" itself would be for anti-trinitarianism or denial of the deity of Christ or the necessity of Christ's saving work for salvation. So that Pelagianism would be a heresy, semi-pelagianism would be a systemic error or something. Would be interested in your thoughts.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 23, 2005)

I've said this before, but we should also keep in mind the distinction between heresy and damnable heresy. Not all heresy is damnable or with respect to cardinal doctrines.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 23, 2005)

Fred, I think we should make the difference between error and heresy.

Heresy alone is already "self-condemening" acording to Titus. He did not have to say "damnable heresy." Heresy is damanable by definition.


----------



## ARStager (Apr 23, 2005)

Anyone have a clue why Westminster PA would put someone so controversial in this post? Doesn't it make sense, if you're not intentionally trying to be a newbie, to place someone there who isn't the subject of controversy already? It's like nominating Hilary Clinton for president when your party needs to reach the middle independents and moderate republicans. 

Does their putting this guy there explicitly say something about the faculty's consensus regarding direction and vision? 

Just something I'm curious to hear your opinions on. I have no clue what the politicking of seminaries entails, but I have to imagine that the boss has some sort of representative colors to sport.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 23, 2005)

I have several questions concerning the school:

1) How widespread is Kline's view on creation at WTS?
2) How sympathetic is Gaffin to FV?

Do the answers to the above questions shed any light on the appointment of Dr Lillback? I know 1. seems tangential, I was just wodnering.


----------



## yeutter (Apr 24, 2005)

David Engelsma reviewed the book for the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal

http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov2001.html


----------

