# Dr. Peter Enns suspended from WTS



## raekwon

Between Two Worlds: Peter Enns of Westminster Theological Seminary Suspended

Talk amongst yourselves...


----------



## ADKing

I am encouraged by this news. I hope they follow through in May. Thanks for the update.


----------



## turmeric

Not familliar with the issue.


----------



## Josiah

ADKing said:


> I am encouraged by this news. I hope they follow through in May. Thanks for the update.





This is good news indeed. Underlying todays events, I hope that WTS PA moves back toward its *militant* stand for *confessionally* reformed Orthodoxy. In my humble opinion We need more men like Stonehouse, Murray, Machen and Van Til. I love my friends who broad evangelicals, but I want to persuade them of my theological convictions, and not to become more like them hoping they will except my views on soteriology. May the lord grant the men at WTS PA wisdom and humble hearts in how to proceed.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

My brain hurts. I forgot how detailed Helm can be.

anyway, good move for WTS.


----------



## DMcFadden

> This is good news indeed. Underlying todays events, I hope that WTS PA moves back toward its militant stand for confessionally reformed Orthodoxy. In my humble opinion We need more men like Stonehouse, Murray, Machen and Van Til. I love my friends who broad evangelicals, but I want to persuade them of my theological convictions, and not to become more like them hoping they will except my views on soteriology. May the lord grant the men at WTS PA wisdom and humble hearts in how to proceed.



These kinds of discussions are grievous. During my college days at Westmont, I lived through the theological Sturm und Drang when one of my profs (who had been one of T.F. Torrance's students) was judged to be too neo-orthodox, so he ended up at Fuller (where he became my teacher again). Then, my major prof in college (32 units of courses and the one who officiated at my wedding!) was voted out of the Evangelical Theological Society (a few years after my graduation) for publishing a Midrashic interpretation of Matthew's Gospel.

Times have changed. Now, the broadly evangelical movement appears totally tone deaf to matters of heterodoxy and breaches of boundaries. One cannot even get voted out of the ETS for holding Open Theism views! From what I see in recent seminary grads from several of the standard broadly evangelical schools, we have reason to fear that, inch by inch, profs are erasing the theological boundaries and expanding the zone of acceptable uncertainty.

So, part of me grieves whenever any institution feels compelled to suspend or terminate a prof for the breach of theological boundaries. And, Enns' work is largely unknown to me (other than a couple of reviews). However, along with Josiah, you have to admire an institution that takes its confessional commitments seriously. Without vigilant trustees, we would be only a couple of generations away from rank heresy and even apostasy. 

For those of you who know WTS, what do you expect the outcome to be in this case? Were his views truly outside the pale?


----------



## Pergamum

What was his book about which seemed to stirup the controversy?


----------



## DMcFadden

Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament


----------



## Sydnorphyn

*What!*



ADKing said:


> I am encouraged by this news. I hope they follow through in May. Thanks for the update.



How can you say this? He is a brother in the Lord with a family...

concerned,

John


----------



## Herald

John, are you sure what is behind Rev. King's comments? A seminary professor may indeed be a brother in the Lord with a family, but he influences others who also are brothers in the Lord with families. I am not speaking specifically of Peter Enns, but of any teacher of the word of God that replaces truth with error. WTS-Philly is handling this matter and we pray they do the right thing in the sight of God. Perhaps it is because he has a family that his suspension does not begin until the end of the term.


----------



## Sydnorphyn

*humm...*



North Jersey Baptist said:


> John, are you sure what is behind Rev. King's comments? A seminary professor may indeed be a brother in the Lord with a family, but he influences others who also are brothers in the Lord with families. I am not speaking specifically of Peter Enns, but of any teacher of the word of God that replaces truth with error. WTS-Philly is handling this matter and we pray they do the right thing in the sight of God. Perhaps it is because he has a family that his suspension does not begin until the end of the term.



Bill

I am only responding to the words on the page, nothing more.

John


----------



## JohnOwen007

Someone being suspended even if they are wrong is a grievous occasion. Sometimes things like this have to be done, but it is sad. The temptations for gossip and gloating can be all too strong.

Alas.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Josiah said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am encouraged by this news. I hope they follow through in May. Thanks for the update.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is good news indeed. Underlying todays events, I hope that WTS PA moves back toward its *militant* stand for *confessionally* reformed Orthodoxy. In my humble opinion We need more men like Stonehouse, Murray, Machen and Van Til. I love my friends who broad evangelicals, but I want to persuade them of my theological convictions, and not to become more like them hoping they will except my views on soteriology. May the lord grant the men at WTS PA wisdom and humble hearts in how to proceed.
Click to expand...


Which is why having Carl Trueman in charge over there is a great thing.


----------



## toddpedlar

Sydnorphyn said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> John, are you sure what is behind Rev. King's comments? A seminary professor may indeed be a brother in the Lord with a family, but he influences others who also are brothers in the Lord with families. I am not speaking specifically of Peter Enns, but of any teacher of the word of God that replaces truth with error. WTS-Philly is handling this matter and we pray they do the right thing in the sight of God. Perhaps it is because he has a family that his suspension does not begin until the end of the term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill
> 
> I am only responding to the words on the page, nothing more.
> 
> John
Click to expand...


Then perhaps you should have taken a look at the reason Bill said what he did before you commented?


----------



## Pergamum

So can anyone give a synopsis and a review of this book which seems to have gotten this proff into hot water. What is so scandalous?


----------



## jaybird0827

*Question*: Does this thread allude in any way to the current issue?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

See also,
http://www.puritanboard.com/f55/1998-response-save-our-seminary-29160/
and
http://www.puritanboard.com/f55/d-g-hart-save-our-seminary-29913/


----------



## toddpedlar

Pergamum said:


> So can anyone give a synopsis and a review of this book which seems to have gotten this proff into hot water. What is so scandalous?



A brief review is found here at the OPC website.


A longer one with much more substantive discussion of the book's problems, at Reformation21.


----------



## jaybird0827

toddpedlar said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can anyone give a synopsis and a review of this book which seems to have gotten this proff into hot water. What is so scandalous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A brief review is found here at the OPC website.
> 
> 
> A longer one with much more substantive discussion of the book's problems, at Reformation21.
Click to expand...

 
The review on the OPC website is most helpful. The Reformation21 critique is also excellent. Thanks!!!


----------



## NaphtaliPress

jaybird0827 said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can anyone give a synopsis and a review of this book which seems to have gotten this proff into hot water. What is so scandalous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A brief review is found here at the OPC website.
> 
> 
> A longer one with much more substantive discussion of the book's problems, at Reformation21.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The review on the OPC website is most helpful. Thanks!!!
Click to expand...

Yes, the conclusion about sums up the divide:


> The book concludes with a plea for temperate discussion, apart from "judgmental suspicion" and "polarization and power plays." Enns anticipates being vilified, writing, "The problem is that true Christians erect a wall of hostility between them, and churches, denominations, and schools split" (p. 172).
> This plea cannot smooth over the troubling fact that Enns writes beyond the boundaries of the Reformed tradition as exemplified by chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession. When he says the Bible looks human, he means it does not look divine. When he says Genesis is part myth, he means it is not true in historic, narrative particulars. When he says "conflicting theologies," he means the Bible contradicts itself. This book has the cumulative effect of lowering conservative preconceptions about the inspiration of Scripture. It seems unlikely that it will raise any liberal-leaning preconceptions. Liberals believe the Incarnation is a myth.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

In each of the three main sections of the book, readers will be provoked by the extent to which Enns is willing to embrace the Bible's humanness. He says the opening chapters of Genesis exemplify mythical history (pp. 39-41, 49-50, 53, 55-56). "[God] adopted the mythic categories within which Abraham - and everyone else - thought. But God did not simply leave Abraham in his mythic world. Rather, God transformed the ancient myths so that Israel's story would come to focus on its God, the real one" (pp. 53-54). Enns defines "myth" by saying, "Myth is an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we? Where do we come from?" (p. 50). He says the distinction between myth and history "seems to be a modern invention. It presupposes - without stating explicitly - that what is historical, in a modern sense of the word, is more real, of more value, more like something God would do, than myth" (p. 49). This is another way of saying that some things in Genesis (and beyond?) are not necessarily factually true. How much historicity is being denied?


*So Genesis is a myth and the bible is partly human.*


----------



## Pergamum

Richard Pratt stresses how Moses wrote Genesis for a human audience too. However, this author appears to go further. Myth is a very poor choose of words - what was he thinking anyway!


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Pergamum said:


> Richard Pratt stresses how Moses wrote Genesis for a human audience too. However, this author appears to go further. Myth is a very poor choose of words - what was he thinking anyway!




methinks that sometimes people get educated out of thier common sense.


----------



## Stephen

I also believe the OPC link is most helpful. I have no issuse with saying that the Bible has a divine and human author, because God certainly inspired men to write Scripture, but Enns go far beyond this. The whole issue of regarding the history of Genesis as myth is purely old liberalism. I think what he does is redefine his terms and place them within "evangelical" language. I am afraid that much of modern evangelicalism like the culture redefines classic terms, but no matter how you redefine it a myth is a myth. I know (not personally) the names of a number of the men on the board of WTS-Philadelphia and they are solid, so I have confidence in their judgment. There has been concern by many about the direction of WTS-Philadelphia, so I wonder if the dismissal of Enns is the beginning of spring cleaning.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Pratt stresses how Moses wrote Genesis for a human audience too. However, this author appears to go further. Myth is a very poor choose of words - what was he thinking anyway!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> methinks that sometimes people get educated out of thier common sense.
Click to expand...


Amen!!!


----------



## SEAGOON

Hi All,

I sincerely appreciate the wise words of R.S. Clark and Jim Cassidy on this subject.

Having been a student at WTS, here are my own ruminations:

My experience at WTS was slightly different from Jim's. In 1997 I made the decision to quit my job as a System's Administrator in Washington D.C. and begin attending seminary full-time. Because I had been taking extension courses at the RTS campus in Washington D.C. and because my theological development had been so profoundly impacted by R.C. Sproul, my first inclination was to attend RTS-Orlando. My wife and I went down and visited the campus and sat in on some classes. By doing this I quickly figured out that I simply hadn't been built for the constant heat and humidity of Orlando, and also that I was considerably more conservative than many of the professors and most of the students. In particular, the frank answers I received to questions I asked about adherence to the Westminster Standards and the Regulative Principle quickly convinced me that this was not the seminary I was looking for. So having read about Machen and his struggle to form the OPC, and having heard from many people that Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia was conservative (a pastor in my church at the time actually tried to convince me it was _too conservative) _I decided to check them out. I sat in on a class (I believe it was Systematic Theology) and was very impressed by what I heard and saw. I then went to lunch with a member of the administration and was as clear as I possibly could be about what I believed about scripture and the Reformed confessions. I made it clear that I was very conservative and asked if he thought that was going to be a problem. He answered "not at all" and indicated that "we believe what you believe, we are still the seminary of J. Gresham Machen". 

Thus assured, I enrolled in the seminary and my wife and I quit our jobs, gave up our happy home in VA, and moved up to Hatboro, a suburb of Philadelphia. My first year was one of confusion. While I found that there were some profs who were conservative and committed to staying within the parameters of confessional orthodoxy, others weren't, and that what I had been told about the position of the seminary being compatible with mine was definitely not the case. Nowhere was this more true than in the Old Testament department. 

Now to be fair, I am terrible at languages in general, and Hebrew in particular. I will freely admit that I can barely understand the structure of the English language, and break out in a sweat if asked to diagram anything but the most simple of sentences. So a department entirely oriented around the teaching of a subject I'm no good at was never going to be my favorite. As for the OT professors themselves, I found them to all be witty, highly educated and intelligent, and very personable and approachable. Although I was born in England, I too grew up in North Jersey (Short Hills/Millburn to be exact) like Jim and Pete, so I had no problem understanding the way they communicated (at least when they were speaking English). What I did have increasing problems with were their views of scripture, ecclesiology, and the confessions. There, sadly, I wasn't the only one. During my time at WTS, I watched as the faith of several students in the inerrancy of scripture was effectively dismantled by the biblical studies department and some even fell away from the faith. The crisis became so bad at one point that I recall a professor holding talks about it. I remember one OT prof pleading with students that regardless of doubts they had about scripture, they needed to keep their faith in Jesus "in an untouchable box" as he indicated he did. I remember my jaw dropping at that remark. I struggled through classes in which Genesis 1-3 were presented as an "Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology" and the structure was taught as a highly primitive and symbolic view of the universe. One prof illustrated what he thought these primitives believed about the universe complete with pillars etc. Another boldly discussed his thesis that Judges was a political work designed to press forward the claims of Judah over Benjamin and that it involved "spinning" the details of biblical history in order to make political arguments. Inevitably, my relationship in class became more adversarial and by my second year, I was beginning to feel thoroughly depressed and definitely developing something of an Elijah complex (_I alone am left!_) On several occasions I tried to discuss my concerns with OT professors. I remember at one lunch an OT prof admitting to me that what I believed was in keeping with where the seminary _once was_ and that it was what the old supporters and contributors to the Seminary hoped was still being taught, but that they had moved on. They were committed, he said to letting the Biblical Theological "tiger" out the cage of Confessions and freely admitted that they were going where men like Young and Vos had been too timid to venture. 

The third year, though, was the worst for me. I made the mistake in that year of letting it be known that for the first time in WTS history, a woman had led the prayers at the worship service at the convocation. I sent a letter of protest both to the seminary, and published an open letter on the internet. This led to my being called before the then president of the seminary, and being angrily berated for over an hour for making the events public. He pointed out that this had led to his having to field five days of phone-calls from concerned and even angry supporters of the seminary. The most amazing moment for me in the exchange, came after I pointed out that Machen, the founder of the seminary, had also done essentially the same thing, blowing the whistle on actions of the Presbyterian Church via the newspapers. The President amazingly responded that he wasn’t about to defend Machen, and that he had blundered. He went on to comment that there should never have been a schism between Macintyre and Machen and that it was following a course of action similar to mine that had brought about that schism. At that point I realized that what I had been told, "this is still the seminary of Machen" was definitely no longer the case. I remember that I sweat so badly during that interview that my clothes actually stuck to the chair, and that it was only by the grace of God that I fought down the urge to get sick. What followed that interview was a warning from the Dean of Students to stop causing trouble for the seminary or face possible expulsion. From that point on I simply put my head down and worked as hard as I could to simply escape from WTS. I stopped the letters of protest and arguing the confessional line in classes. Things thus became in one sense, "easier" but I left WTS in a state of deep depression with a deeply wounded conscience. I felt that I had been absolutely up-front about what I believed when I visited, but they had been less than frank about the schisms between the members of faculty and the deeply divided "vision" regarding the course the seminary should be following. I can honestly say, that were it not for the church we attended and the excellent mentoring I received from Pastor Mark Herzer (who can confirm these events actually took place) that I would never have been able to finish and leave the Seminary with a degree. Also, I can honestly say, had I not gone in confessionally Reformed, I would not have come out that way.

So in one sense, I am relieved that WTS has finally suspended Enns, while he is an extrememly nice guy, I believe his views and his leadership of the OT department have done untold damage amongst the student population for over a decade. I am mindful though, that much more needs to be done if the seminary is to be reformed. Most of the other profs in the OT department are in lock-step agreement with Enns, and if that department is ever to be turned from the course Dillard began to chart for it and moved back into the old "E.J. Young" channel, then Enns can't be the only one to go. I'm also sad that it took so long to accomplish, and that consequently the seminary experience of many conservative students was a painful one. I am trying not to blame the board, but I don't believe anyone should have to feel at graduation like an animal being set free from a leg-hold merely because their views lined up with the Confession the seminary itself endorses, especially when one has paid $30,000 in order to go through that experience. I also believe that concealing the actual views of the faculty from alums and financial supporters has to stop. I had one prof admit to me that this was done deliberately because the widows who send in their donations aren't yet ready for the views of men like Enns (they "wouldn't understand them" right) and that first the WTS graduates have to prepare the ground in the church for the coming changes. My response to that today is just the same as it was then: "mh. ge,noito"!

Your Servant in Christ,

Andy


----------



## Ivan

That is an amazing story, Andy. We had a few professors at Southwestern in the mid to late 80's that would have been similar to those at WTS but they were far and few between and are gone now. Southern was having the most difficulty back in the day, but Dr. Mohler took care of that. 

My friend and mentor, Roger Ellsworth, a solid believer in the DoG, went to Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City circa early-70's. That is when the Conservative movement was just getting moving in the SBC (at least in pointing out the problems in the seminaries; the churches and the pastors I knew during that time were solidly conservative, with a few exceptions). Roger's experience was very similar to yours, although I know Roger didn't get depressed. He just kept fighting them, which I know is a very difficult thing to do and I doubt that I would have been as bold as Roger. I'm sure the seminary wished that he (and others at MWBTS) would have just gone away.

Things are different now in the SBC, but that doesn't mean we let are guard down.


----------



## DavidGGraves

SEAGOON said:


> While I found that there were some profs who were conservative and committed to staying within the parameters of confessional orthodoxy, others weren't, and that what I had been told about the position of the seminary being compatible with mine was definitely not the case. Nowhere was this more true than in the Old Testament department.
> 
> snip
> 
> I am trying not to blame the board, but I don't believe anyone should have to feel at graduation like an animal being set free from a leg-hold merely because their views lined up with the Confession the seminary itself endorses, especially when one has paid $30,000 in order to go through that experience. I also believe that concealing the actual views of the faculty from alums and financial supporters has to stop. I had one prof admit to me that this was done deliberately because the widows who send in their donations aren't yet ready for the views of men like Enns (they "wouldn't understand them" right) and that first the WTS graduates have to prepare the ground in the church for the coming changes. My response to that today is just the same as it was then: "mh. ge,noito"!
> 
> Your Servant in Christ,
> 
> Andy



Two thoughts here:

1) Vis-a-vis OT Faculties and their failure to maintain orthodox or confessional standards. I find this to be the case across the boards. My experience at TEDS was/is that OT professors often see themselves as spoilers on those rubes in the pews. I am not limiting this to TEDS by any means but include interaction with profs from other schools at ETS and in their publications. They spend more time trying undermine deeply held convictions of the faithful that do not square with the "critically assured results." I had one professor so atomize the first verse of Ruth so that one could not make any theological issues out of "in the days the judges judged" or "there was a famine in the land." In both cases the author is telling us "in the days the judges judged" remember how messed up things were. We were told no you can't say that. And then with a "famine in the land" one cannot make any recourse to the covenant curses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy! Thus evince the multiple theologies and the fact that one one cannot do biblical theology! Argh!

2) Money is king at seminaries--while we hope otherwise, the bean counters have come in with a vengeance. Thus at TEDS a Barthian is the chief money draw thus nothing can be done. Even though he decries inerrancy, point one of the schools doctrinal statement. 

--End of Rant


----------



## Herald

I know this wasn't the purpose of the thread, but it sure does make a case for confessional subscription. As educational institutions and pulpits "modernize" biblical truth, the confessions are a standard that keep the faithful from serious error. Is scripture sufficient? Certainly! The confessions remind us of that.


----------



## DMcFadden

Andy,

Wow! What a story! Your tale is so much more existentially gripping than my own. But, I would concur with you that some in my seminary seemed to enjoy the "spoiler" role David describes. We heard (back in the 70s) all of the reasons NOT to take the Bible at face value. Some of the profs were quite Godly and conservative. However, this struck me as more the exception than the rule.

For some time, it has been my constant carp that the pressure to earn terminal degrees at secular schools puts people in the position many are ill equipped to deal with: experiencing the cognitive dissonance of a really really really nice prof/mentor who holds to some realy toxic theological views. In my opinion, theological latitudinarianism is often birthed in this delivery room. I wish that our human need to feel smart and important did not so threaten our ability to remain faithful to the truth of God. But, even suggesting this tends to beg the question. If we want an educated clergy, then we will have this tension with us always.

Bill said:



> As educational institutions and pulpits "modernize" biblical truth, the confessions are a standard that keep the faithful from serious error. Is scripture sufficient? Certainly! The confessions remind us of that.


 

I know that this may sound naive or unsophisticated. But, brethren, this broad evangelical is running toward confessionalism BECAUSE of what I have been through in the mainline and evangelical movement.


----------



## Ivan

joshua said:


> How is it that these men who seek to undermine (ultimately) the authority of Scripture make it in to Reformed Seminaries and Churches which are supposed to be quite subscriptionist?



Excellent question.


----------



## Pilgrim

joshua said:


> How is it that these men who seek to undermine (ultimately) the authority of Scripture make it in to Reformed Seminaries and Churches which are supposed to be quite subscriptionist?



Probably because over time there tends to be little enforcement and the envelope keeps getting pushed further and further. Prof. X taught y so why can't I teach z since it is perfectly in line with it, and why should we be bound to these 17th century primitive documents anyway? Then typically _semper reformanda_ is appealed to and an argument is made that strict subscription hasn't ever been the majority view and they will name a whole host of worthies from the past who weren't strict subscriptionists. As Dr. R.S. Clark pointed out in a recent blog, Charles Hodge didn't favor requiring strict subscription because he thought doing so would cause the Presbyterian Church to splinter into a number of smaller and more irrelevant denominations, which is what happened in the 1930's anyway. But at least people back then were somewhat more honest about what they were doing and amended the standards in 1903. I see no such call for confessional revision from those out of accord with the standards now. 

If I'm not mistaken, around the time of the Shepherd controversy in the OPC some spoke of a "hermeneutic of trust" where for a long time a lot was accepted and men were assumed to be orthodox because, after all, they came out of WTS.


----------



## Ivan

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I know this wasn't the purpose of the thread, but it sure does make a case for confessional subscription. As educational institutions and pulpits "modernize" biblical truth, the confessions are a standard that keep the faithful from serious error. Is scripture sufficient? Certainly! The confessions remind us of that.



That's why Dr. Mohler made the Abstract of Principles a meaningful document again. There was quite a fuss when he first gave it teeth, but he was able to use it to identify the professors who needed to find employment elsewhere.


----------



## RamistThomist

joshua said:


> How is it that these men who seek to undermine (ultimately) the authority of Scripture make it in to Reformed Seminaries and Churches which are supposed to be quite subscriptionist?



Studying biblical theology is like drinking beer: awesome. It is a heady drink. But both can be overdone. I have been there. I used to be a "moderate" in the baptist church. NT Wright was way too conservative for me. I laughed at his fundamentalism. He believed in silly things like a single Isaianic authorship.

But when you read heavy amounts of biblical theology (and Andy's comment about Vos fearing to go such and such is correct) you start, or at one time I did, to get annoyed with what you perceive to be artificial constraints on the text. This hits some people differently than others.


----------



## sastark

Ivanhoe said:


> Studying biblical theology is like drinking beer: *awesome*.



That should be made into a t-shirt.


----------



## ADKing

Ivanhoe said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that these men who seek to undermine (ultimately) the authority of Scripture make it in to Reformed Seminaries and Churches which are supposed to be quite subscriptionist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Studying biblical theology is like drinking beer: awesome. It is a heady drink. But both can be overdone. I have been there. I used to be a "moderate" in the baptist church. NT Wright was way too conservative for me. I laughed at his fundamentalism. He believed in silly things like a single Isaianic authorship.
> 
> But when you read heavy amounts of biblical theology (and Andy's comment about Vos fearing to go such and such is correct) you start, or at one time I did, to get annoyed with what you perceive to be artificial constraints on the text. This hits some people differently than others.
Click to expand...



I do not think this is accurate. Biblical theology is simply a theological discipline. Overdoing it would be like "overdoing systematic theology" or "overdoing exegesis". The problem is not with the discipline itself, it is with _the presuppositions_ and the _philosophy_ and (to be honest) _the agendas_ with which people do it. Consider the radical difference between the "timid Vos" who emphatically defends supernatural divine revelation beginning with the life of God against all forms of criticism on the one hand, and works like Enns'. They _are_ radically dissimilar.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Ivanhoe said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that these men who seek to undermine (ultimately) the authority of Scripture make it in to Reformed Seminaries and Churches which are supposed to be quite subscriptionist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Studying biblical theology is like drinking beer: awesome. It is a heady drink. But both can be overdone. I have been there. I used to be a "moderate" in the baptist church. NT Wright was way too conservative for me. I laughed at his fundamentalism. He believed in silly things like a single Isaianic authorship.
> 
> But when you read heavy amounts of biblical theology (and Andy's comment about Vos fearing to go such and such is correct) you start, or at one time I did, to get annoyed with what you perceive to be artificial constraints on the text. This hits some people differently than others.
Click to expand...


But is this not what the hyper preterists and the hyper-calvinists do? They just attempt to go where the evidence leads.

CT


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

sastark said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Studying biblical theology is like drinking beer: *awesome*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That should be made into a t-shirt.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ivan

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Studying biblical theology is like drinking beer: *awesome*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That should be made into a t-shirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I wonder what would happen if I wore that t-shirt when I'm preaching.


----------



## RamistThomist

ChristianTrader said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that these men who seek to undermine (ultimately) the authority of Scripture make it in to Reformed Seminaries and Churches which are supposed to be quite subscriptionist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Studying biblical theology is like drinking beer: awesome. It is a heady drink. But both can be overdone. I have been there. I used to be a "moderate" in the baptist church. NT Wright was way too conservative for me. I laughed at his fundamentalism. He believed in silly things like a single Isaianic authorship.
> 
> But when you read heavy amounts of biblical theology (and Andy's comment about Vos fearing to go such and such is correct) you start, or at one time I did, to get annoyed with what you perceive to be artificial constraints on the text. This hits some people differently than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But is this not what the hyper preterists and the hyper-calvinists do? They just attempt to go where the evidence leads.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Probably. I was merely making an empirical observation from my own limited experience.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Ivan said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> That should be made into a t-shirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder what would happen if I wore that t-shirt when I'm preaching.
Click to expand...


Well if you want to be relevant...


----------



## bookslover

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Perhaps it is because he has a family that his suspension does not begin until the end of the term.



It's also probably because it's now the middle of the semester and they don't want to leave the students in the lurch half way through.

By the way, Bill, you're looking younger in each new avatar photo!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I got a WTS graduate (a pastor) upset once when I said I was not a product of a "theological cemetery", but there is much truth to it. _Is_ there a sound seminary these days? MARS? Reformed Baptist Seminary? (apart from the baptistic stuff -- sorry credos!) Any that can be recommended?

So much apostatizing begins over issues of Scripture, both OT and NT. And this seems -- to me, with my peculiar point of view -- to be intrinsic to Critical and Eclectic Text assumptions (I would have to include Majority Text too, to some extent, I'm afraid), where what we have is a _provisional_ Scripture dependent on ongoing studies and research. Pandora's Box has been opened in this discipline and there is no getting what came out back in. The "best minds" in Evangelical (_and Reformed_) scholarship are taken with the notion of progress in determining the text of Scripture. Within this paradigm anything is fair game.

Does the future of P & R churches depend on graduates from seminaries? Theological education used to be a great blessing; now it is increasingly becoming a bane. And we are locked into drawing our fish from these pools, which are more and more polluted with poisons.

I remember when the Lord and the apostles picked unlearned men (for the most part) and trained them.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I got a WTS graduate (a pastor) upset once when I said I was not a product of a "theological cemetery", but there is much truth to it. _Is_ there a sound seminary these days? MARS? Reformed Baptist Seminary? (apart from the baptistic stuff -- sorry credos!) Any that can be recommended?
> 
> So much apostatizing begins over issues of Scripture, both OT and NT. And this seems -- to me, with my peculiar point of view -- to be intrinsic to Critical and Eclectic Text assumptions (I would have to include Majority Text too, to some extent, I'm afraid), where what we have is a _provisional_ Scripture dependent on ongoing studies and research. Pandora's Box has been opened in this discipline and there is no getting what came out back in. The "best minds" in Evangelical (_and Reformed_) scholarship are taken with the notion of progress in determining the text of Scripture. Within this paradigm anything is fair game.
> 
> Does the future of P & R churches depend on graduates from seminaries? Theological education used to be a great blessing; now it is increasingly becoming a bane. And we are locked into drawing our fish from these pools, which are more and more polluted with poisons.
> 
> I remember when the Lord and the apostles picked unlearned men (for the most part) and trained them.




Amen brother Steve. 

Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.


----------



## Herald

I'm not against seminary training. There is a risk in swinging the pendulum too much to either side. Seminaries are human run organizations, and like most organizations, often stray from the path after a period of time. Unfortunately the men who leave these seminaries man pulpits that teach others. Even when/if the school reforms the damage is already done in the local church. This is another reason for confessional subscription. 

I have always wondered what it would be like if a young man was called to preach and then came under the mentorship and guidance of his pastor and denomination. Certainly there would be a requirement for languages, exegesis and much study. But imagine the value of watching ministry take place from men who were engaged in it. There are many stories of men who have gone to seminary but not the ministry. They never knew the call of God on their life or found out, in school or after, that ministry was not something they wanted to do. Perhaps they had a crisis of faith because of an issue such as a provisional approach to scripture. Entering into an apprenticeship along side a minister of the gospel would expose the ministerial candidate to the realities of ministry. 

I am just sharing a thought and by no means am I impugning seminaries in general. I may be out to lunch with this idea but it's one that I've often entertained.


----------



## Ivan

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what would happen if I wore that t-shirt when I'm preaching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you want to be relevant...
Click to expand...


I think I'll stick with my suit and tie.


----------



## Ivan

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I'm not against seminary training... I have always wondered what it would be like if a young man was called to preach and then came under the mentorship and guidance of his pastor and denomination. Certainly there would be a requirement for languages, exegesis and much study. But imagine the value of watching ministry take place from men who were engaged in it....Entering into an apprenticeship along side a minister of the gospel would expose the ministerial candidate to the realities of ministry.



I'm certainly not against seminary training either (or Bible college). When I was in seminary we had a class called "field education". For one semester we worked in a church with the pastor (or associates). That was a good effort, but not enough, In my humble opinion. Students were encouraged to be involved in their local churches while in seminary. That's good too but certainly not the same as having a mentor. Students were encouraged to take ministry positions while in seminary. I think that's fine too, however with 5,000 students vying for positions it made it tough to find these church positions. I got involved in a position at the seminary, which became essential a full-time position, while attending semiary full-time. That didn't leave a lot of time for local church activities other than attending services. 

However, I had the opportunity to have a wonderful mentor before I went to seminary. I was a member of Calvary Baptist Church in Edwardsville, Illinois while going to Southern Illinois University in the same town in 1974. The church had just called a young pastor by the name of Roger Ellsworth. Roger had been preaching since he was twelve years old (maybe younger) and had started his pastoral ministry at the age of sixteen. Now I don't know when Roger came to believe the Doctrines of Grace but he was a firm believer (which caused him some problems during his ministry at Calvary). 

While I was at Calvary I came to believe that God wanted me to enter the pastoral ministry. I made that belief public (my wife was not happy at the time!) and was taken under the wing of Roger for about three years before I went to seminary. I was essentially the assistant pastor to Roger. I taught Sunday School, lead the children's church, the bus ministry, wrote articles for the church's newletter, worked with Roger in pastoral visitation, preached at Calvary in Roger's absence and supply preached in many churches in Southern Illinois. I remember that at one point we had a group that met at Roger's home on a Friday to study more deeply the Doctrines of Grace. That started with James Packer's _Knowing God_. I taught some of those evenings before a roaring fire and hot mugs of coffee in the living room of the Ellsworths. 

I was involved in every aspect of ministry with Roger. One of the things I enjoyed the most was visiting bookstores with Roger. That was an education in itself. I learned what good books were and the discussion about them was enriching and edifying. I heard Roger preach three times a week and teach a couple times a week. Believe me, it was a education all within itself.

I tell people all the time that I learned more about the pastoral ministry in the three years I was with Roger than I ever learned in three years at Southwestern Seminary. That's the truth. It's interesting that during my time with Roger at Calvary there where members of the church that thought it best that I changed churches, basically to get away from Roger's teaching. I really didn't understand why at the time. At one time I had the opportunity to take a paid position within our local association which involved moving. I know we didn't move more than about 20 minutes from Calvary but the members of the church said it would be a good time for me to move my membership. Of course, I didn't and I'm glad I stayed under Roger's teaching.


----------



## A5pointer

These are thw words of a recent graduate:


Yes, I was able to look through the thread. Some seem to have been waiting for this "spring cleaning" at WTS. But I'm just not of the same mindset. Enns and Green were my favorite professors (OT dept). I had Pete as my Intro to OT prof. and I remember dinstinctly the day he introduced himself to me in the men's room by saying, "Hey I'm Pete." Real down to earth guy, played baseball, really smart. His teaching style was that of a man wrestling with the text with real honesty. He never claimed to have the answers, but he presented us with lots of questions to think about.

I'm really disturbed by WTS's decision.


----------



## greenbaggins

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I got a WTS graduate (a pastor) upset once when I said I was not a product of a "theological cemetery", but there is much truth to it. _Is_ there a sound seminary these days? MARS? Reformed Baptist Seminary? (apart from the baptistic stuff -- sorry credos!) Any that can be recommended?
> 
> So much apostatizing begins over issues of Scripture, both OT and NT. And this seems -- to me, with my peculiar point of view -- to be intrinsic to Critical and Eclectic Text assumptions (I would have to include Majority Text too, to some extent, I'm afraid), where what we have is a _provisional_ Scripture dependent on ongoing studies and research. Pandora's Box has been opened in this discipline and there is no getting what came out back in. The "best minds" in Evangelical (_and Reformed_) scholarship are taken with the notion of progress in determining the text of Scripture. Within this paradigm anything is fair game.
> 
> Does the future of P & R churches depend on graduates from seminaries? Theological education used to be a great blessing; now it is increasingly becoming a bane. And we are locked into drawing our fish from these pools, which are more and more polluted with poisons.
> 
> I remember when the Lord and the apostles picked unlearned men (for the most part) and trained them.



Steve, are you really laying the whole problem at the feet of critical text advocates? There are a myriad of issues here, ranging from the fragmentation of the theological disciplines (which I think is much more fundamental, with each discipline viewing every other discipline with great suspicion), to just plain pride/ego, to faulty views of Scripture (this is really a distinct issue from the TR/CT issue). I highly doubt that acceptance of the CT can be blamed for this problem.


----------



## Herald

Ivan said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not against seminary training... I have always wondered what it would be like if a young man was called to preach and then came under the mentorship and guidance of his pastor and denomination. Certainly there would be a requirement for languages, exegesis and much study. But imagine the value of watching ministry take place from men who were engaged in it....Entering into an apprenticeship along side a minister of the gospel would expose the ministerial candidate to the realities of ministry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not against seminary training either (or Bible college). When I was in seminary we had a class called "field education". For one semester we worked in a church with the pastor (or associates). That was a good effort, but not enough, In my humble opinion. Students were encouraged to be involved in their local churches while in seminary. That's good too but certainly not the same as having a mentor. Students were encouraged to take ministry positions while in seminary. I think that's fine too, however with 5,000 students vying for positions it made it tough to find these church positions. I got involved in a position at the seminary, which became essential a full-time position, while attending semiary full-time. That didn't leave a lot of time for local church activities other than attending services.
> 
> However, I had the opportunity to have a wonderful mentor before I went to seminary. I was a member of Calvary Baptist Church in Edwardsville, Illinois while going to Southern Illinois University in the same town in 1974. The church had just called a young pastor by the name of Roger Ellsworth. Roger had been preaching since he was twelve years old (maybe younger) and had started his pastoral ministry at the age of sixteen. Now I don't know when Roger came to believe the Doctrines of Grace but he was a firm believer (which caused him some problems during his ministry at Calvary).
> 
> While I was at Calvary I came to believe that God wanted me to enter the pastoral ministry. I made that belief public (my wife was not happy at the time!) and was taken under the wing of Roger for about three years before I went to seminary. I was essentially the assistant pastor to Roger. I taught Sunday School, lead the children's church, the bus ministry, wrote articles for the church's newletter, worked with Roger in pastoral visitation, preached at Calvary in Roger's absence and supply preached in many churches in Southern Illinois. I remember that at one point we had a group that met at Roger's home on a Friday to study more deeply the Doctrines of Grace. That started with James Packer's _Knowing God_. I taught some of those evenings before a roaring fire and hot mugs of coffee in the living room of the Ellsworths.
> 
> I was involved in every aspect of ministry with Roger. One of the things I enjoyed the most was visiting bookstores with Roger. That was an education in itself. I learned what good books were and the discussion about them was enriching and edifying. I heard Roger preach three times a week and teach a couple times a week. Believe me, it was a education all within itself.
> 
> I tell people all the time that I learned more about the pastoral ministry in the three years I was with Roger than I ever learned in three years at Southwestern Seminary. That's the truth. It's interesting that during my time with Roger at Calvary there where members of the church that thought it best that I changed churches, basically to get away from Roger's teaching. I really didn't understand why at the time. At one time I had the opportunity to take a paid position within our local association which involved moving. I know we didn't move more than about 20 minutes from Calvary but the members of the church said it would be a good time for me to move my membership. Of course, I didn't and I'm glad I stayed under Roger's teaching.
Click to expand...


Ivan,

I had a similar experience. My "mentor" was Pastor John Schmucker, previously of the Oakwood Baptist Church in Kearny, New Jersey and now the pastor of Paramus Bible Church in Paramus, New Jersey. John would not agree with Roger on the doctrines of grace but he has the heart of a pastor. When I separated from the Air Force in 1983 I spent a few years at John's side doing many of the things (except for preaching) that you did with Roger. What I learned from this dear man aides me today.

Our anecdotal experiences aside I wonder whether a formal mentorship program could be developed, especially in Baptist churches. It worth discussion. I'm not going to get into it now because I will be hijacking this thread. Perhaps I will start a separate thread on this topic.

Blessings.


----------



## Gryphonette

*Seminary must be the only institution of higher learning....*



A5pointer said:


> These are thw words of a recent graduate:
> 
> I had Pete as my Intro to OT prof. and I remember dinstinctly the day he introduced himself to me in the men's room by saying, "Hey I'm Pete."...He never claimed to have the answers, but he presented us with lots of questions to think about.


...where the students are happy to have those paid to teach them say they don't have any solid information for them, which is surely what not "claim[ing] to have the answers" boils down to.

If the professor doesn't know the answers, what's the point of him teaching?

Doesn't living in a perpetual sea of unanswered questions pretty much describe what Paul referred to in his second letter to Timothy as "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth"?


----------



## DMcFadden

greenbaggins said:


> Steve, are you really laying the whole problem at the feet of critical text advocates? There are a myriad of issues here, ranging from the fragmentation of the theological disciplines (which I think is much more fundamental, with each discipline viewing every other discipline with great suspicion), to just plain pride/ego, to faulty views of Scripture (this is really a distinct issue from the TR/CT issue). I highly doubt that acceptance of the CT can be blamed for this problem.



Steve, as can be adduced from many of my own posts, I resonate with your concern about the future of seminary education. However, with Lane, I would not frame the issue as narrowly as one of TR/CT. It seems to me that the larger issue relates to modernist (the postmodernist is even worse here!) presuppositions when approaching the Bible. The attitude that animates the critical method leads to the objectification of scripture and the exaltation of the critical examiner. Given the pervasiveness of human hubris, any method that leads the reader to confuse his role with that of ruler will inevitably lead to problems.

Reformed theology, more than other varieties of Protestantism, has depended upon an "educated clergy." We are "stuck" with the unintended consequences of that dependence, including drift away from orthodoxy. Other than SBTS, name a seminary that has been around for more than a few decades that was able to retain its original theological convictions without the struggle reported at WTS.

My alma mater, Fuller, didn't take more than two decades to begin retreating from inerrancy. Now, the place is a hothouse for NPP, McLaren/Jones/Pagitt notions, ridicule of traditional theological views in a number of areas, and general latitudinarianism.

If my thesis that intellectual hubris will continually exert a pull away from orthodoxy can be sustained, something must be counterposed to prevent that drift. My provisional theory (and part of the reason I am hanging out with you TR folks these days) is that confessionalism honestly embraced and diligently applied functions as a check on my autonomous reason. The case of WTS demonstrates that such a corrective only works when the trustees, administration, faculty, and constituency take seriously the vigilance required.

What do you folks think?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Steve,

When those untrained men can raise people from the dead, speak natural foreign languages without learning them, shake off serpents, survive stoning, beatings, drownings, be transported by the Spirit from place to place, and even pronounce a death sentence.

Until then seminaries are still a good idea.

Yes there are solid confessional seminaries. I can think of one or two.

rsc


----------



## Ravens

> How is it that these men who seek to undermine (ultimately) the authority of Scripture make it in to Reformed Seminaries and Churches which are supposed to be quite subscriptionist?



I have very little experience in these areas, but apparently even those with great experience can't stop the "seminary slide" from happening, so I have one thought: Does it have anything to do with the fact that secular universities are still sort of a farming system when it comes to theological professors? That is, if you want to be a professor in a confessionally Reformed seminary, more often than not you have to get your finishing touch and coup de grace at a Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, etc. 

I'm not claiming guilt by association, nor am I going off in an anti-intellectual direction. Just wondering if that might have something to do with it. We act as if pride is somehow less of a temptation than lust. And yet all of us men recognize the temptation present with the computer, regenerate status notwithstanding, and take status to avoid it. However, we don't hesitate to put men in the schools of Babylon for their M.A., followed by the instruction of Egypt for their Ph. D., before they go back and teach the children of Judah.

Ideally it would be great to know all of the wisdom of the world so as to combat it, but as long as there is an almost universal trend for seminaries to at least tip towards liberalism within a matter of decades, I wonder whether it is a good idea to make men go through the current system. When you read their books, and are forced to gain tenure and respect by publishing in "non-conservative" theological or historical journals, with all the tongue-holding and what not that goes along with it, how can we expect these men to not come out smelling a little fishy?

I might be completely off, but that's the thought I'm having.


----------



## A5pointer

This is interesting to me. Best I can tell this man's methods have not led him to conclusions that stray from theological tenants of the faith. However in this thread it seems some see him in that light or even worse in the light of a non-believing critical scholar. Is my observation right? I am not saying there should not be concern but it seems to be too broad brushed by association.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

JDWiseman said:


> How is it that these men who seek to undermine (ultimately) the authority of Scripture make it in to Reformed Seminaries and Churches which are supposed to be quite subscriptionist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have very little experience in these areas, but apparently even those with great experience can't stop the "seminary slide" from happening, so I have one thought: Does it have anything to do with the fact that secular universities are still sort of a farming system when it comes to theological professors? That is, if you want to be a professor in a confessionally Reformed seminary, more often than not you have to get your finishing touch and coup de grace at a Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, etc.
> 
> I'm not claiming guilt by association, nor am I going off in an anti-intellectual direction. Just wondering if that might have something to do with it. We act as if pride is somehow less of a temptation than lust. And yet all of us men recognize the temptation present with the computer, regenerate status notwithstanding, and take status to avoid it. However, we don't hesitate to put men in the schools of Babylon for their M.A., followed by the instruction of Egypt for their Ph. D., before they go back and teach the children of Judah.
> 
> Ideally it would be great to know all of the wisdom of the world so as to combat it, but as long as there is an almost universal trend for seminaries to at least tip towards liberalism within a matter of decades, I wonder whether it is a good idea to make men go through the current system. When you read their books, and are forced to gain tenure and respect by publishing in "non-conservative" theological or historical journals, with all the tongue-holding and what not that goes along with it, how can we expect these men to not come out smelling a little fishy?
> 
> I might be completely off, but that's the thought I'm having.
Click to expand...


Excellent points JD, I have often wondered the same thing. One of my Professors at RPTS, Dr. Richard Gamble, received his Ph.D from the University of Basel in Switzerland and his M.A. from Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (from which I wish I could be delivered) and often tells us that he had many opportunities and temptations to "temper" his papers and arguments so that he could keep his grades up and "make friends". He said it was a great struggle and caused many sleepless nights that while it made him stronger in his faith, caused him much emotional harm. 

BTW where is Riverview in Charleston? I grew up in Charleston and am curious (went to Overbrook Elementary).


----------



## bookslover

A5pointer said:


> These are thw words of a recent graduate:
> 
> 
> Yes, I was able to look through the thread. Some seem to have been waiting for this "spring cleaning" at WTS. But I'm just not of the same mindset. Enns and Green were my favorite professors (OT dept). I had Pete as my Intro to OT prof. and I remember dinstinctly the day he introduced himself to me in the men's room by saying, "Hey I'm Pete." Real down to earth guy, played baseball, really smart. His teaching style was that of a man wrestling with the text with real honesty. He never claimed to have the answers, but he presented us with lots of questions to think about.
> 
> I'm really disturbed by WTS's decision.



Don't confuse the niceness of the man with the badness of the teaching. I'd bet that, at the personal level, Arius was a swell guy, too.


----------



## bookslover

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I remember when the Lord and the apostles picked unlearned men (for the most part) and trained them.



You actually remember that? Wow! Your avatar photo looks really, really good!


----------



## SEAGOON

Hi Bruce,



A5pointer said:


> Yes, I was able to look through the thread. Some seem to have been waiting for this "spring cleaning" at WTS. But I'm just not of the same mindset. Enns and Green were my favorite professors (OT dept). I had Pete as my Intro to OT prof. and I remember dinstinctly the day he introduced himself to me in the men's room by saying, "Hey I'm Pete." Real down to earth guy, played baseball, really smart. His teaching style was that of a man wrestling with the text with real honesty. He never claimed to have the answers, but he presented us with lots of questions to think about.
> 
> I'm really disturbed by WTS's decision.



No one would argue that Enns wasn't a nice guy, or very bright and sophisticated, or that the student body didn't like him immensely. All of these are very true. Unfortunately they were also true of men like Charles Erdman, Professor of Practical Theology at Princeton. He had a legion of admirers in the student body, was praised for his irenic spirit and was viewed as the man who could carry the seminary forward in the new century - a man unafraid of new ideas and cutting edge scholarship and certainly not an out and out liberal. Machen by comparison was socially awkward and somewhat stuffy, he was characterized by Erdman as. *"temperamentally defective, bitter and harsh in his judgments of others and implacable to those who [did] not agree with him."* It was Erdman's camp that won the day at Princeton and paved the way for the departure of Machen and his fellow uncool, "old fashioned" malcontents. It was Erdman, a much more up-to-date, popular, and thoroughly moderate man who paved the way for the neo-orthodox takeover at Princeton and destroyed, brick by brick, the legacy of Princeton.

Today it is the cool, moderate, post-modernists at WTS who are dismantling the legacy of Westminster. Instead of answers, all students are getting these days are "questions" because of course meta-narratives are bad and pretending we know the answers is arrogant. In true postmodern fashion, instead of the destination being important, its the "journey" that we want to appreciate. We all have to become the theological "tourists" that Wells spoke of in _Above all Earthly Powers_ rather than Pilgrims. Never knowing always questioning, and talking about "my truth" rather than "THE truth" because "THE truth" would be an oppressive meta-narrative that would stifle the endless quest we are supposed to be on, always seeking, never finding.

You may have enjoyed this experience of denying that we can ever know "THE answers" but for a lot of evangelical kids showing up at seminary, it was the gateway to disillusionment and sometimes even apostasy. As I wrote elsewhere:

And yes, at the end of the day many a student's faith that the bible was literally God's _Theopneustos_ Word, was shaken. There was also considerable damage done via a profound cynicism about the Reformed Confessions and denominations and extensive contact with non-Conservative writings like those of Neusner and Gundry. Part of the problem was that the kids coming to seminary by and large only had a vague grasp of orthodoxy themselves. Their faith was a simple faith, and instead of having that faith built up via exposure to the authors of the Old Paths, they were immediately confronted with a huge variety of different positions including the work of skeptics. I had one prof tell me he viewed it as his job to shake the dogmatic conclusions instilled in students by catechizing and so on. I pointed out that most of my classmates didn't even know the Shorter Catechism. ... what do you think would happen if you simultaneously trained up your kids using liberal, conservative, orthodox, Jewish, Catholic, and neo-orthodox materials? At best, they'd have a confused and uncertain faith, and at worst end up denying that the truth could ever really be known.

As for me, I want a Seminary that teaches us how to definitively, finally, and perfectly answer the great question *"what must I do to be saved?"* rather than teaching us to rhetorically ask *"what is truth?"* (John 18:38)


----------



## Christusregnat

raekwon said:


> Between Two Worlds: Peter Enns of Westminster Theological Seminary Suspended
> 
> Talk amongst yourselves...



Rae et ales,

If I'm not mistaken, this sounds like Old Princeton's decline all over again; except they're doing something about it!

Here's a quote from Enns:

Enns wants to "contribute to a growing opinion that what is needed is to move beyond both sides by thinking of better ways to account for some of the data, while at the same time having a vibrant, positive view of Scripture as God's word"


This is the same paradox theology that Westminster has been pushing since Van Til's day. I want to say that the bible is "inspired" so that I sound orthodox, but I also want to say that it's a nice story that doesn't contain any actual rational propositions.

It's not a terrible surprise that he is saying these things. Irrationalism is the order of the day: Credo quia absurdum est.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Joshua,

I wrote a long post in reply to your post but it got lost somehow (operator error probably). 

A few points. 

Studying in "Israel" is no guarantee of orthodoxy nor is studying "Egypt" no predictor of heterodoxy.

I know that you don't want to be taken as advocating anti-intellectualism but I think you are. The Reformed tradition from the 16th century through Princeton and Old Westminster was always to study at the highest levels and never to fear the best scholarship. Their criticism of the liberals was that they often did bad scholarship. We have no reason to fear good, careful scholarship.

Our churches need seminary profs who have faced the challenges of the academy at the highest levels. Yes it can be a spiritual trial but, frankly, anyone who would be a sem prof should probably endure such. It's good preparation for the work. 

Doctoral work requires more money/resources than small schools (which even the largest seminaries are) usually have. The best scholars often work in the schools with the resources which allow them to conduct their research. 

To say that sem profs shouldn't study in "Egypt" is to sentence our seminaries to a sort of unintended intellectual mediocrity that will not serve our churches well.

There are things that can be done to help preserve the orthodoxy of seminaries:

Vigilance and honesty. Boards and churches must be vigilant. They must hold schools to their confessional commitments. Faculty who can no longer honestly subscribe the confession should either challenge the confession in the courts/assemblies of the churches or they should leave. See Machen's Christianity and Liberalism on this.

Orthodoxy is hard work and cannot simply be assumed. It's an act of the will as much as it is an act of the intellect.


----------



## DMcFadden

SEAGOON said:


> And yes, at the end of the day many a student's faith that the bible was literally God's _Theopneustos_ Word, was shaken. There was also considerable damage done via a profound cynicism about the Reformed Confessions and denominations and extensive contact with non-Conservative writings like those of Neusner and Gundry.



Gundry? Do you mean Bob Gundry? If so, then here is some support for your rant. When he was my prof back in the early 70s, we called him "Bible Bob" because he was so conservative. A couple of the neo-orthodox theologians were purged from Westmont (with either Bob's initiaitve or at least tacit support as the chair of the department). He taught me to love the Word of God and to hold tenaciously to inerrancy. Not only did I take 32 units from him, he also officiated at my wedding, was my boss as a grader in the "Bible office," I helped proof the footnotes for one of his books, and he secured for me a full-ride scholarship that paid my tuition during two years of Westmont (the world's most expensive Christian college) and all of seminary. Bob is the most intelligent human being I have ever been privileged to meet. One of his daughters teaches NT at Yale and is married to the well-known theologian Miroslav Volf.

Unfortunately, Bob is not typically remembered today for being "Bible Bob." Instead, people remember him as the guy who got expelled from the ETS back in '83 for his Midrashic view of Matthew (e.g., no star, no magi, no women in Jesus' _real _genealogy). More recently, Piper wrote his *Counted Righteous* to deal with Gundry's denial of imputation and blurring of the distinctions between justification and sanctification. How does the smartest man I ever met begin as a conservative CONSERVATIVE evangelical and end up where he did?


----------



## py3ak

> Unfortunately they were also true of men like Charles Erdman, Professor of Practical Theology at Princeton. He had a legion of admirers in the student body, was praised for his irenic spirit and was viewed as the man who could carry the seminary forward in the new century - a man unafraid of new ideas and cutting edge scholarship and certainly not an out and out liberal. Machen by comparison was socially awkward and somewhat stuffy, he was characterized by Erdman as. "temperamentally defective, bitter and harsh in his judgments of others and implacable to those who [did] not agree with him." It was Erdman's camp that won the day at Princeton and paved the way for the departure of Machen and his fellow uncool, "old fashioned" malcontents. It was Erdman, a much more up-to-date, popular, and thoroughly moderate man who paved the way for the neo-orthodox takeover at Princeton and destroyed, brick by brick, the legacy of Princeton.



As D.G. Hart pointed out in his biography of Machen, it is rather ironic that the irenic Erdman would say something so harsh about the mean Machen.


----------



## nicnap

This goes back a bit...lemme just say, easy on Pratt, fellas. His take in no way questions the inspiration of Scripture. As a matter of fact, he has probably the best hermeneutics class that I have ever taken...yes, that does tie into this. His hermeneutics has a lot to do with what has been said of him here.


----------



## SEAGOON

DMcFadden said:


> SEAGOON said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, at the end of the day many a student's faith that the bible was literally God's _Theopneustos_ Word, was shaken. There was also considerable damage done via a profound cynicism about the Reformed Confessions and denominations and extensive contact with non-Conservative writings like those of Neusner and Gundry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gundry? Do you mean Bob Gundry? ... How does the smartest man I ever met begin as a conservative CONSERVATIVE evangelical and end up where he did?
Click to expand...


Yes, I meant Robert Gundry, and unfortunately it happens all the time. Just look at what happened to Clark Pinnock, from staunch defender of Calvinism and Plenary Verbal Inspiration to Mr. Open Theism. History is full of men who began running well and then took a left turn that carried them out of the way. Usually, its a combination of factors, amongst them, the desire to be:

liked
respected
PUBLISHED
interviewed
quoted
listened to

and so on... 

Let's face it, defending the old paths of established orthodoxy is almost always an E-Ticket to obscurity, you have to be of the caliber of a Mohler or a Sproul to even get noticed by the mainstream media, and then you will generally be called upon not as an authority, but a foil - a token "Dr. No" for Larry King to call in when someone else comes up with a "new" way of denying the truth. Everyone in theology these days is falling all over themselves to find a way to both say something new, maintain their "evangelical" credentials, avoid making it seem like anyone is wrong, and simultaneously make everyone but implacable grumps like us happy. Evangelicalism generally wants the "Defenders of the Faith" to go away at this point. As Mark Noll tells us, the Reformation is over, now we have to all focus on getting along and finding a way to contextualize Christianity before we become total irrelevant. I mean, how will we get published by a subsidiary of Harper Collins and justify our 58 Earned degrees if that happens??

So my friend, you and I need to get out of the way so the pop-star theologians can do what _needs_ to be done.


----------



## DMcFadden

SEAGOON said:


> History is full of men who began running well and then took a left turn that carried them out of the way. Usually, its a combination of factors, amongst them, the desire to be:
> 
> liked
> respected
> PUBLISHED
> interviewed
> quoted
> listened to
> 
> and so on...
> 
> So my friend, you and I need to get out of the way so the pop-star theologians can do what _needs_ to be done.



Andy, your narrative is one of the most powerful and resonate pieces I have read in a very long time. It sounds like we share many concerns in common! 

I appreciate Scott Clark's commitment to intellectual preparation. My complaint is with the all-too-typical leftward drift among broad evangelical and (even) Reformed schools. At mid life, too many of my evangelical teachers have since drifted into heterodoxy or even apostasized from the faith.

How many evangelical Christian liberal arts colleges take a stand against the nonsense of the emergent church? Most of them serve as its cheerleaders.

I agree with Dr. Clark, that what is needed to keep an institution on track is . . .



> Vigilance and honesty. Boards and churches must be vigilant. They must hold schools to their confessional commitments. Faculty who can no longer honestly subscribe the confession should either challenge the confession in the courts/assemblies of the churches or they should leave.



In an earlier post, I observed much the same thing:



> If my thesis that intellectual hubris will continually exert a pull away from orthodoxy can be sustained, something must be counterposed to prevent that drift. My provisional theory (and part of the reason I am hanging out with you TR folks these days) is that confessionalism honestly embraced and diligently applied functions as a check on my autonomous reason. The case of WTS demonstrates that such a corrective only works when the trustees, administration, faculty, and constituency take seriously the vigilance required.


----------



## DMcFadden

R. Scott Clark said:


> There are things that can be done to help preserve the orthodoxy of seminaries:
> 
> Vigilance and honesty. Boards and churches must be vigilant. They must hold schools to their confessional commitments. Faculty who can no longer honestly subscribe the confession should either challenge the confession in the courts/assemblies of the churches or they should leave. See Machen's Christianity and Liberalism on this.
> 
> Orthodoxy is hard work and cannot simply be assumed. It's an act of the will as much as it is an act of the intellect.



Wise words, Dr. Clark! Part of the problem is that few of us have the stomach to confront a colleague, teacher, or faculty member honestly. We do not want to be stigmatized as Machen was for being "temperamentally defective, bitter and harsh in his judgments of others and implacable." And, since we all see through a glass darkly, even fewer of us are willing to rule out of bounds the tentative exploratory comments by a trusted colleague with a life-long reputation for probity and faithfulness.


----------



## Ivan

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Our anecdotal experiences aside I wonder whether a formal mentorship program could be developed, especially in Baptist churches. It worth discussion. I'm not going to get into it now because I will be hijacking this thread. Perhaps I will start a separate thread on this topic.



Please do start a thread! Again, I'm not adverse to seminary training, but a mentor is, I believe, essential. I have a young man who was ordained in our church a few months ago. I'm now his mentor as Roger was to me. That is the best way I can "repay" Roger.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Richard,

I thought someone might call me on that! (Post #59) I suppose you could say I live in the Word, and remember it by faith. I probably should change my avatar, though – this one’s about 3 years old. On my recent birthday (66) I would tell my young friends, “I’m not getting old – I’m a year closer to my eternal youth!”


Lane (#50),

Of course you’re right that there are many more issues contributing to this than the textual one, *and yet*….if one could state the primary _watershed_ event in the declension of the spiritual wellbeing of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches…what would _you_ say it was?

_I_ would say it was when the church lost her moorings to the Reformation Bible.


Scott (#54),

Between the vitality and wisdom of the apostolic men on the one hand, and the increase in seminary-trained apostates inundating the churches on the other, what have we besides the “one or two…solid confessional seminaries” you mention to stem the tide of antichrist spirit washing through the church? Today there are a good number of outspoken men of your caliber defending the Faith, but watchmen on the wall, however astute, cannot make up for the ravages in other sectors of the City, where rebellion and destruction are rampant, and spreading.

I thank the King for the seminaries you speak of, but will they meet the need of the hour? Or that of the year to come?


Dennis (#67)

When I read what you and others write about the once-stalwart turning traitor (seeing it happen to the seeming best!), I betake myself to the Lord and ask, “Please don’t let it happen to me, Lord!”

I too think there is a danger in the “spiritual academies,” the danger of intellectual headiness departing from the restraints of suffering and humility among the rank and file believers. To be among the elite is an unsafe place. Those who maintain genuine godliness and doctrinal soundness in such an atmosphere are becoming uncommon, and must depend on God’s grace to a great degree.


Bill and Ivan,

You probably know I’m no Baptist, but I have to admit that among the Reformed Baptists there is a uniform integrity I don’t see _to the same extent (and this caveat is important)_ in the P & R churches. I think it has to do with the mentoring in the churches. I remember when Al Martin’s church in Montville, NJ formed Trinity Ministerial Academy. From what I know of it this was a unique institution. I wonder if Reformed Baptist Seminary is of the same caliber? Looking at some of the men there it may well be.

If the Lord tarries another 50 or 70 years (I know, it doesn’t look like it, but men were certain 50 years ago He was coming _quickly_ then as well), and our Great-heart defenders and brilliant apologists have all gone to their Reward, and the apostatizing of the seminaries continues apace, there being no sound P & R schools left, where shall the faithful pastors be found, if not those men being mentored by older faithful men?

Do we need to inaugurate a new approach?


----------



## A5pointer

From a former WTS student with permission to post:

These issues have been boiling for a great many years.
Prior to 1991 I remember
getting a letter asking everyone who graduated within
the last 10 years to essentially comment on where
Dillard/Longman were taking the Seminary. Enns is just
a further extension, as am I. It is a question
regarding rethinking inspiration and infallibility,
taking greater care to more precisely define the
human/cultural elements, particularly as they relate
to God's revelation via anthropomorphism and story.
This controversy will most certainly spill over into
the Presbyteries


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Hi,

We don't live in the Apostolic age do we? That was my first point. 

Second, what evidence do you have that there is an increase in "seminary-trained apostates" inundating the church?

Let's grant this premise for the sake of discussion. What evidence do you have that there is a necessary connection between seminaries and corruption of the church? Why isn't this a example of the "after which, therefore because of which" (post hoc, ergo propter hoc) fallacy?

If I see Elmer driving away and find Bugs Bunny dead on the pavement does it follow that Elmer killed Bugs? No. Bugs could have died _before_ Elmer. Maybe Elmer is guilty only of reckless disregard for Bugs' corpse. 

How do we know it isn't congregations who are corrupting students before they get to seminary? We do spend a fair bit of time at WSC unwinding complicated balls of twine, as it were, sent to us by various congregations.

I don't deny that some seminaries have done much damage, but When I say "one or two" I was using a little understatement. The confessional Reformed churches are blessed with a remarkable number of faithful confessional seminaries. They could always be improved but arguably things are better now, in that respect, than they were during the glory days of Old Princeton when there were (so far as I know) fewer such institutions.

I don't think you can blame "seminaries" in general for whatever decline you perceive. Less training and more ignorance certainly won't help things! Even in the CRC, which is moving toward the mainline via evangelicalism, it is probably not the seminary that led the way. Most of the time, the seminary has been relatively conservative. The college, however, is another question. It has been far ahead of the seminary in pushing broad evangelicalism and even liberalism. So, is the answer to get rid of Christian colleges too? To ban higher education? No. The Synod of the CRC failed to due diligence and to hold faculty members to their confession of faith. They allowed finger-crossing and closed their eyes to what was happening. See the interesting essay in the latest Nicotine Theological Journal on Calvin College on this very question.

In fact, viewed historically, we (the confessional Reformed churches) are climbing out of a deep hole. When modernism undermined the faith of the mainline churches the work of many faithful was wrecked. The RCUS went from being hundreds of thousands to 1900. The OPC was a tiny fragmentof the PCUSA. The URCs left the 300,000 member CRC to become 15,000. 

Since the early 20th century, however, we've been making a slow comeback. Meanwhile the mainline churches have continued to decline. When I was a student out here in the early-mid 80s there were few NAPARC congregations now there are many. In the same period the mainline has only declined. In that respect WSC has helped to spark a real turn around from 30 years ago.

One final thing to consider. The controversies we've faced over the last 30 years within NAPARC haven't always come from "seminary-trained" men. I witnessed the theonomy fight in the RCUS in the 80s and it was led by non-sem trained men. We then had the KJV only fight, again led by non-seminary trained men. Now the FV controversy has a significant influence from non-sem trained men (e.g. Lusk and Wilson). Yes, there were sem-trained men who helped to facilitate these problems but it was sem-trained men who helped steer the churches through them too.

The issue isn't "seminary-trained" men. The issue is integrity and the will to be orthodox (and properly defining orthodoxy by the Reformed confessions).


----------



## Herald

*Mentorship Thread*

For those of you interested in a separate thread on mentorships as a method of training men for ministry, you can go HERE.


----------



## DMcFadden

Dr. Clark,

I'm sympathetic to your point that the problem is not with the seminary qua seminary, but with the issue of accountability by the various stakeholders (e.g., churches, trustees, administration, etc.). Since you occupy a catbird seat to make discursive comments on the state of seminary education in the Reformed schools, what do you see happening? 

I have already added my two cents about the my take on some of the broadly evangelical schools. It did not take long for them to become the champions of error, not merely the tolerators of it. That is one of my major reasons for hanging out with you confessional folks over here on PB. More than half century of watching evangelical schools take theological headers into a downgrade, I want to believe that confessionalism with vigilance shows prospect for holding the line.

Do you see your colleagues honoring academic freedom (etc.) AND still being willing to confront one another on departures from confessional fidelity?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

DM,

Our faculty handbook discusses this. We balance the two all the time. The short story is that academic freedom ends where the confession begins. 

Yes, over the years, we've had discussions about whether this or that view was compatible with the confessions. We had a faculty member who used to teach here (who does so no longer) who denies the Reformed view of worship and the second commandment and was latitudinarian on justification. Those issues finally came to a head when we were having some of the same kinds of discussions that are occurring in Phila. They were difficult and they remain etched in my memory. It was painful and we suffered for it. People took the opportunity to paint the school as bigoted and close-minded etc. It didn't help that we had to hold our tongues while the now disaffected faculty felt free to misrepresent us on the web. I'm glad we did it, however, since things have been very peaceful since.


----------



## DMcFadden

This is one baptist who rejoices in the integrity of my confessional brethren in Escondido. Whether I ultimately agree with you on every specific conclusion or not is entirely secondary to me. The real issue for me is do you take the confessions seriously enough to apply them in HR cases respecting friends and colleagues? Obviously, praise the Lord, you do. 

My existential crisis over the loss of my mainline denomination and the sad game of theological dominos afflicting broadly evangelical colleges and seminaries (and, after your post #72, the churches  ) inclines me to look to you confessional folks for an answer. Confessionalism with integrity would seem to be the best check on theological drift. Clearly, the answer is not anti-intellectualism or lobotomizing one's intellect. But, particularly in an era of unfettered autonomy, confessionalism proclaims that my singular opinion is not always the most important thing.

On my way to church this morning, I was listening to Don Carson's lectures on the NPP. He was asked a direct question about several people by name. Carson, the consistent man of integrity, refused to comment on any person who had either not gone into print with their views or professed it to him in direct conversation. He did allow having heard the same scuttlebutt about a "couple" of profs at Westminster (Phila.) but would say no more.


----------



## LadyFlynt

A couple of questions:

Is this seminary overseen by a particular denomination or denominations, parachurch, or independent?

Dr. Clark stated that the issue should be taken up with the church (I agree), but if their is no church oversight, then that leaves......?

Other rumours are that the majority of the faculty agree with Enns and a previous "investigation" stated he was still within Orthodoxy. Thus he's getting sympathy elsewhere for possibly being dealt with wrongly. 

How would you answer these? (curious due to conversation elsewhere)


----------



## JohnOwen007

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I remember when the Lord and the apostles picked unlearned men (for the most part) and trained them.



Yes he did. But the ones who wrote much of the NT were highly intelligent. Paul was obviously a towering mind. However, John was nothing less than a genius. How else can one explain the utter profundity of his gospel written in language of simplicity! Incredible.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Steve,



Jerusalem Blade said:


> _I_ would say it was when the church lost her moorings to the Reformation Bible.



I would question this. People were dumping reformed theology _way _before Westcott and Hort entered on the scene. The turning point was the arrival of the 18th century. Look at Geneva after Turretin. Look at England, much of non-conformity became Arian or Deist whilst the KJV had a hegemony. 

It was the rise of modernity (modern science, the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, the political revolution) that helped bring the great challenge to the church of the first and second reformation not simply modern textual criticism.

Every blessing,

Marty.


----------



## greenbaggins

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear Steve,
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I_ would say it was when the church lost her moorings to the Reformation Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would question this. People were dumping reformed theology _way _before Westcott and Hort entered on the scene. The turning point was the arrival of the 18th century. Look at Geneva after Turretin. Look at England, much of non-conformity became Arian or Deist. happened whilst the KJV had a hegemony.
> 
> It was the rise of modernity (modern science, the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, the political revolution) that helped bring the great challenge to the church of the first and second reformation not textual criticism.
> 
> Every blessing,
> 
> Marty.
Click to expand...


Exactly. This is the fundamental issue. Scripture was definitely one of the things that the Endarkenment attacked (with regard to inerrancy, not with regard to textual criticism, which is something that the Reformers themselves did). The Endarkenment also resulted in the fragmentation of knowledge, which I think is at the root of many, many problems today, all the more so, because most people are blind to this problem.


----------



## tcalbrecht

R. Scott Clark said:


> DM,
> 
> Our faculty handbook discusses this. We balance the two all the time. The short story is that academic freedom ends where the confession begins.



Does an unaffiliated seminary, such as Westminster East or West, have the biblical prerogative to determine whether a position is confessional or not? Assuming all these men are members of confessional denominations, are not their individual views subject to the Church alone, and not an unaffiliated seminary?

The bottom line is that the first line of defense for the Church is the local presbytery/classis which has the duty before God to examine and ordain men faithful to Scripture as summarized in their confession.

Any presbytery/classis which cannot overcome bad seminary training, esp. the occasional aberration from a single professor, doesn’t seem to me to be doing their job very well.


----------



## tewilder

ADKing said:


> I do not think this is accurate. Biblical theology is simply a theological discipline. Overdoing it would be like "overdoing systematic theology" or "overdoing exegesis". The problem is not with the discipline itself, it is with _the presuppositions_ and the _philosophy_ and (to be honest) _the agendas_ with which people do it. Consider the radical difference between the "timid Vos" who emphatically defends supernatural divine revelation beginning with the life of God against all forms of criticism on the one hand, and works like Enns'. They _are_ radically dissimilar.



Well, it is not quite so simple.

Vos believed in a Biblical Theology constructed on the model of Systematic Theology. It was just that the doctrines of the Systematic Theology were studied chronologically in their development through the history of revelation. Behind this is the assumption that there is a single theology that can be extracted objectively and harmoniously from the Biblical writings as a whole, that it can be arranged systematically, and THEN studied chronologically.

With the failure of the neo-orthodox Biblical Theology Movement in the 1950s, liberal faith in any unitary Biblical Theology, even a liberal one was ended. From then on, the hermeneutical assumption in Biblical studies is that there there is no center, no unifying theology. There are only the perspectives of each author, and those even change over time. 

Anyone going to get a PhD in Biblical studies in a major university (the type of degree you need to be a seminary professor) has to give up Vos's idea of Biblical Theology and buy into the multiple perspectives thinking in order to be considered worthy of a degree. Once they have such a degree, a seminary, Westminster for instance, can be sure of one thing: These people no longer hold to Vos's idea of Biblical theology, and their hermeneutical assumptions have changed to something incompatible with Vos's perspective. 

Westminster seminary gave up the Vos ideal of systematic theology long ago.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

A seminary can't make ecclesiastical judgments but it can and must make judgments relative to its own commitment to the standards. WSC profs do swear an oath to God and the board not to teach anything contrary to the system of doctrine (which IS the Reformed confessions). 

We have a disciplinary procedure etc that is roughly parallel to the sort of thing a session/presbytery would do.

At the same time our MDiv faculty are ministers and accountable to consistories/sessions and to presbyteries/classes.



tcalbrecht said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> DM,
> 
> Our faculty handbook discusses this. We balance the two all the time. The short story is that academic freedom ends where the confession begins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does an unaffiliated seminary, such as Westminster East or West, have the biblical prerogative to determine whether a position is confessional or not? Assuming all these men are members of confessional denominations, are not their individual views subject to the Church alone, and not an unaffiliated seminary?
> 
> The bottom line is that the first line of defense for the Church is the local presbytery/classis which has the duty before God to examine and ordain men faithful to Scripture as summarized in their confession.
> 
> Any presbytery/classis which cannot overcome bad seminary training, esp. the occasional aberration from a single professor, doesn’t seem to me to be doing their job very well.
Click to expand...


----------



## tcalbrecht

R. Scott Clark said:


> A seminary can't make ecclesiastical judgments but it can and must make judgments relative to its own commitment to the standards. WSC profs do swear an oath to God and the board not to teach anything contrary to the system of doctrine (which IS the Reformed confessions).
> 
> We have a disciplinary procedure etc that is roughly parallel to the sort of thing a session/presbytery would do.



How is that not an ecclesiastical judgment, esp. in light of the fact that you are judging one’s confessional commitment? Does the confessional interpretation of the faculty/board trump that of the minister’s own presbytery/classis?



R. Scott Clark said:


> At the same time our MDiv faculty are ministers and accountable to consistories/sessions and to presbyteries/classes.



Exactly. I don't mean to be provocative, but what I see here is the parachurch intruding into the strict prerogatives of the Church, which alone has the power to judge faith and practice, the potential result being the tarnished reputation of one of Christ’s own. 

The Church is the guardian of the faith, and I do not find it in her constitution where she may hand that responsibility over to a non-ecclesiastical organization.


----------



## LadyFlynt

LadyFlynt said:


> A couple of questions:
> 
> Is this seminary overseen by a particular denomination or denominations, parachurch, or independent?
> 
> Dr. Clark stated that the issue should be taken up with the church (I agree), but if their is no church oversight, then that leaves......?
> 
> Other rumours are that the majority of the faculty agree with Enns and a previous "investigation" stated he was still within Orthodoxy. Thus he's getting sympathy elsewhere for possibly being dealt with wrongly.
> 
> How would you answer these? (curious due to conversation elsewhere)



Anyone???

Other questions...

People are saying that he is simply pointing out things like Moses' birth not being unique (no kidding, I'm sure there were many mothers trying to hide their children or 'adopt' them out) and that there are many similar cultural stories to the ones in the Bible. But from what I am reading here, elsewhere, and from one pastor we know that agrees with Enns, Enns is taking it further than this, yes?


----------



## Pilgrim

LadyFlynt said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of questions:
> 
> Is this seminary overseen by a particular denomination or denominations, parachurch, or independent?
> 
> Dr. Clark stated that the issue should be taken up with the church (I agree), but if their is no church oversight, then that leaves......?
> 
> Other rumours are that the majority of the faculty agree with Enns and a previous "investigation" stated he was still within Orthodoxy. Thus he's getting sympathy elsewhere for possibly being dealt with wrongly.
> 
> How would you answer these? (curious due to conversation elsewhere)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone???
> 
> Other questions...
> 
> People are saying that he is simply pointing out things like Moses' birth not being unique (no kidding, I'm sure there were many mothers trying to hide their children or 'adopt' them out) and that there are many similar cultural stories to the ones in the Bible. But from what I am reading here, elsewhere, and from one pastor we know that agrees with Enns, Enns is taking it further than this, yes?
Click to expand...


Almost all of the Reformed seminaries are essentially parachurch organizations overseen by a board. The exceptions would be Covenant (PCA--this was the seminary of the RPCES which "joined" the PCA in 1982), Knox (overseen ultimately I think by Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church), Erskine (ARP) and RPTS (RPCNA). WTS (1929) preceded the formation of the OPC (1936) and RTS (1966) preceded the formation of the PCA (1973).


----------



## Ravens

Dr. Clark,

I appreciate your interaction. I do not in any way wish to lock horns with you or disrespect you, as I have neither your scholastic, nor your ecclesiastic, pedigree. That being said, I still have some thoughts. So feel free to interact with them, and if you are too busy, no big deal. 

You said:



> I know that you don't want to be taken as advocating anti-intellectualism but I think you are. The Reformed tradition from the 16th century through Princeton and Old Westminster was always to study at the highest levels and never to fear the best scholarship. Their criticism of the liberals was that they often did bad scholarship. We have no reason to fear good, careful scholarship.
> 
> Our churches need seminary profs who have faced the challenges of the academy at the highest levels. Yes it can be a spiritual trial but, frankly, anyone who would be a sem prof should probably endure such. It's good preparation for the work.
> 
> Doctoral work requires more money/resources than small schools (which even the largest seminaries are) usually have. The best scholars often work in the schools with the resources which allow them to conduct their research.
> 
> To say that sem profs shouldn't study in "Egypt" is to sentence our seminaries to a sort of unintended intellectual mediocrity that will not serve our churches well.



I do not think that your inference that I am supporting "anti-intellectualism" is valid. In an ideal world I think rigorous academic preparation should accompany preparation for the ministry. In fact, practically, I think it is a shame that every ordained elder is not familiar with Greek, Hebrew, Latin, as well as being intimately acquainted with church history, to the point that he could engage in learned discourse with Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic clergy. 

I simply question whether Doctoral work at an unbelieving university is necessary to achieving that goal. Actually, I question whether it is even the best of the available options towards meeting that goal. That's all. I don't see how putting men in a hostile environment, separated from their local church, possibly in cities with no good, Reformed churches, is helpful, especially when their professional career and the maintenance and care of their families depends on them, more often than not, actually finishing their doctorate. How many times have people had to compromise, I wonder, or bite their tongue, or avoid certain topics, or use language they weren't quite comfortable with, just to pander to the unbelieving faculty? 

Regardless, that isn't my main point. I guess I would like your thoughts on this more than anything else: Why is Yale, or Harvard, or Tubingen, necessarily viewed as a good education? That might sound simplistic and trite, but I am rather sincere.

At what point does the "intellectual credibility" of an institution begin to be evaluated by their teaching in the light of facts? All of mankind actually descended from the eight people who exited the ark. God _really did_ judge Egypt with ten devastating plagues. The resurrection actually and historically took place. The Scriptures are the revealed, inerrant, unbreakable word of God. Those things are most certainly not simple matters of dogma. They are matters of settled fact, and settled history.

So when an institution manages to outright deny *all* of those dogmas and facts, why are they viewed as any more intelligent or reputable? I can't help but seeing an analogous situation in my mind: I liken the leading universities of the world to the world's best lawyer. He has a silver tongue: The tongue of Loki and of Satan. His rhetoric, and the ability to twist his words and bedazzle minds, the depth of his vocabulary, his polished skill in presentation, all the pomp and circumstance that he represents, is unbearably impressive. On the other side of the courtroom stands an ill-favored man, by worldly standards, who, perhaps, stutters when he speaks and lacks some of the _je ne sais quois_ that seems to fuel the Faustian lawyer. 

Yet there is one small difference. The stuttering lawyer has actually received the facts of the case. And though he cannot present them in a captivating fashion, he nonetheless is in the right, and people who want to learn *the truth* should associate with him. People who want to learn how to impress others, and seduce others, and twist anything into becoming " truth " should hang out and associate with the big time lawyer.

That's at least how I see it. Let me use an example. Take Tubingen and everything that came out of the German universities. I realize that reality and history are more complicated than this simple retelling, but surely they were instrumental and foundational in laying the foundation of much of modern scholarship. Just the whole movement of criticism in Germany.

I remember reading things from that school about how some of the Gospels and Scriptures weren't around until the late 2nd century, how Christ never performed miracles, etc. To throw another name in due to the related issues, think of Wellhausen and the JEDP, and all of that. They were demonstrably wrong (we know now) on the claims regarding Scripture. As Christians, we know they were wrong about the miracles. And the JEDP thing, at least in that form, has been largely abandoned. 

And yet, in their hey-day, they were the "real scholars." I just can't help but to think that there is some bifurcation in the Christian mind wherein fundamentally mistaken and misguided people in these universities who are writing _errors, lies, and mistakes_, are somehow seen to be the "real scholars" from whom evangelicals could learn, and one's academic credentials are somewhat lacking if one is not favored with one of their doctorates. 

Do we actually think there is neutrality there? We know what happens in some universities when a scientist questions Darwinism. What happens if, perhaps, a few years from now, those who believe in the resurrection, or the exclusivity of Christ, are denied entrance to doctoral programs on an _a priori _basis, because they are by nature "unfit for the rigorous demands of the academy"? Would that still be a "real education"? 

Point being, everything that contradicts Scripture is a lie, and an error. So, when everything about these faculties and schools are a walking contradiction of Scripture, I can't help but to think that the church and seminaries *convey a message* to prospective teachers that, ultimately, unbelief and a lack of faith in Scripture is a "real" education. That message is sent implicitly, if not explicitly.

And in my opinion, that's part of the problem.

Sidenotes:

Did orthodox bishops as a matter or rule send clergy to study at the Academy in Athens or to schools in Alexandria? Justin, Clement, Origen, etc., certainly seem to be the exception, and not the rule, when it comes to a near complete marriage of Jerusalem and Athens. Once the reformation was established, did they go to the older, well-resourced Catholic universities of Europe, or did they send them to Geneva? Later, did Protestant scholars send their impressionable young men off to Bellarmine? Clearly he had a fierce and and impressive capacity for rhetoric and reading. How are those situations any different than that of today? How are we not sending people to learn from Plato, Arius, and Bellarmine?

Also, you said that the challenges of the academy were almost necessary (i.e. something that should be done) for the prospective seminary teacher. I don't see why interaction with liberal scholarship would be any more necessary than interaction with, say, Mormon teaching, or Islamic doctrine, etc. It's simply apologetics. To put liberalism in one class, and say that we have to learn from them, and put all the other errors in a different class as something we need to do apologetics against, is still to implicitly bow the head to liberalism, it seems, as a vessel of truth.

When secular institutions by and large, teach that there is no design in the universe, that right and wrong simply don't exist, that men can marry men and babies can be slaughtered in the womb, that the Bible is unreliable, the the miracles of Scripture are lies, that Derrida is king and language means nothing, etc., etc., it just baffles me to think that this is a "real education." It reminds me of what C.S. Lewis said about the Unman in _Perelandra_. The Unman gives grandiose speeches and flowery rhetoric that seduce the Lady from the simplicity of her trust in Maleldil. He goes on for chapters, convincing arguments, but something always not quite right about it. Later Ransom says something to the effect that, from memory, the unman used reason like a tool for its own dark purposes. When it suited him, he'd pick it up and use it. When it stopped suiting him, he'd put it down.

That's how I see modern academia. They are brilliant at twisting and using reason, but when they don't need it, they set it down. I fail to see how some doctoral programs are not more of a doctorate in rhetoric and oratory as opposed to a doctorate in truth and facts.

Anyhow. As I said, I'm not attacking seminaries. I'm just questioning that Tubingen and it's children represent a "real education." I think most of the stuff that needs to be learned in the ministry can be learned by knowing Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and a thorough acquaintance with the primary sources. None of which must necessarily be associated with doctoral work in Gottingen.

Blessings Dr. Clark!


----------



## SolaGratia

With respect to the RCUS denomination that was mention above, we have two seminaries because of the sad state of our current Reformed seminaries:

1. City Seminary of Sacramento ( City Seminary of Sacramento - Home)

and 

2. Heidelberg Theological Seminary 
(Heidelberg Theological Seminary Home Page)

The majority of the RCUS Pastors attended WTS (east) back in the 50's, 60's and 70's and I can personally tell you that these faithful mature Pastors make all the difference in our denomination. What these pastors learned from Van Til, Murray, Young, etc. is very hard to find nowadays within our Reformed Churches and Seminaries.


----------



## Scott

Gryphonette said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are thw words of a recent graduate:
> 
> I had Pete as my Intro to OT prof. and I remember dinstinctly the day he introduced himself to me in the men's room by saying, "Hey I'm Pete."...He never claimed to have the answers, but he presented us with lots of questions to think about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...where the students are happy to have those paid to teach them say they don't have any solid information for them, which is surely what not "claim[ing] to have the answers" boils down to.
> 
> If the professor doesn't know the answers, what's the point of him teaching?
> 
> Doesn't living in a perpetual sea of unanswered questions pretty much describe what Paul referred to in his second letter to Timothy as "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth"?
Click to expand...


Well, said. The student seems to like Enns for his personality. Being a "down to earth guy." That does not qualify someone to teach theology. And, as you mention, a guy who has questions but not answers has no business teaching. He is just going to bring confusion and weaken the faith of students.


----------



## Pergamum

tcalbrecht said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> A seminary can't make ecclesiastical judgments but it can and must make judgments relative to its own commitment to the standards. WSC profs do swear an oath to God and the board not to teach anything contrary to the system of doctrine (which IS the Reformed confessions).
> 
> We have a disciplinary procedure etc that is roughly parallel to the sort of thing a session/presbytery would do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that not an ecclesiastical judgment, esp. in light of the fact that you are judging one’s confessional commitment? Does the confessional interpretation of the faculty/board trump that of the minister’s own presbytery/classis?
> 
> 
> 
> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the same time our MDiv faculty are ministers and accountable to consistories/sessions and to presbyteries/classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. I don't mean to be provocative, but what I see here is the parachurch intruding into the strict prerogatives of the Church, which alone has the power to judge faith and practice, the potential result being the tarnished reputation of one of Christ’s own.
> 
> The Church is the guardian of the faith, and I do not find it in her constitution where she may hand that responsibility over to a non-ecclesiastical organization.
Click to expand...



Being fired from a seminary does not mean being excommunicated from his church. His presbytery can conclude him orthodox and the seminary unorthodox. Westminster has no power over his local session, "only" over his job...


----------



## tcalbrecht

Pergamum said:


> Being fired from a seminary does not mean being excommunicated from his church. His presbytery can conclude him orthodox and the seminary unorthodox. Westminster has no power over his local session, "only" over his job...



Even assuming the judgment was correct, being fired for theological reasons is not the same as being fired for violating some private board policy like, say, no moonlighting at another seminary. Such a firing does damage to the individual’s reputation. Even if found "not guilty" by his own denomination, the damage has already been done. Is the seminary bound to come back, apologize, and seek forgiveness, or may they continue to assert that their action was permissible by their board’s policy?

So, it would appear to be unwise for an independent seminary board to intrude into the sphere of the Church less they be reproved for their action, esp. in a rather controversial area. 

Does an independent seminary board’s interpretation of a confession carry the same weight as a Church court? Does it carry any weight?

It seems that a board should be able to draw a line between things it can legislate and legitimately judge, and those it cannot. If a seminary wants to only employ confessional men (which is a legitimate desire), it must also be willing to acknowledge that confessionalism may only be determined by the candidate’s denomination, not some ad hoc hearing process of the seminary. 

in my opinion, this should be obvious to a seminary that professes to have a high view of the Church.


----------



## Gage Browning

I listened to the audio of the chapel explaining the goings on over at Between Two Worlds...in that audio the President of WTS PA mentioned that two (I believe PCA) presbyteries informed them that as long as Prof Enns was there they would not be allowing or admitting young men who desire the office to attend. Something it seems had to be done. If Presbyteries won't send their own men there, the "Main Seminary" then that is trouble.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Gage Browning said:


> I listened to the audio of the chapel explaining the goings on over at Between Two Worlds...in that audio the President of WTS PA mentioned that two (I believe PCA) presbyteries informed them that as long as Prof Enns was there they would not be allowing or admitting young men who desire the office to attend. Something it seems had to be done. If Presbyteries won't send their own men there, the "Main Seminary" then that is trouble.



For the seminary, the PCA, and Professor Enns’ sake, I hope the report is not accurate for it sounds like ecclesiastical blackmail to me.


----------



## Pergamum

tcalbrecht said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being fired from a seminary does not mean being excommunicated from his church. His presbytery can conclude him orthodox and the seminary unorthodox. Westminster has no power over his local session, "only" over his job...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even assuming the judgment was correct, being fired for theological reasons is not the same as being fired for violating some private board policy like, say, no moonlighting at another seminary. Such a firing does damage to the individual’s reputation. Even if found "not guilty" by his own denomination, the damage has already been done. Is the seminary bound to come back, apologize, and seek forgiveness, or may they continue to assert that their action was permissible by their board’s policy?
> 
> So, it would appear to be unwise for an independent seminary board to intrude into the sphere of the Church less they be reproved for their action, esp. in a rather controversial area.
> 
> Does an independent seminary board’s interpretation of a confession carry the same weight as a Church court? Does it carry any weight?
> 
> It seems that a board should be able to draw a line between things it can legislate and legitimately judge, and those it cannot. If a seminary wants to only employ confessional men (which is a legitimate desire), it must also be willing to acknowledge that confessionalism may only be determined by the candidate’s denomination, not some ad hoc hearing process of the seminary.
> 
> in my opinion, this should be obvious to a seminary that professes to have a high view of the Church.
Click to expand...



I see no practical way how a seminary could operate under your suggestions above unless it was under the direction of only one church body.


----------



## Gryphonette

*It seems to me "blackmail" is a little harsh.*



tcalbrecht said:


> Gage Browning said:
> 
> 
> 
> I listened to the audio of the chapel explaining the goings on over at Between Two Worlds...in that audio the President of WTS PA mentioned that two (I believe PCA) presbyteries informed them that as long as Prof Enns was there they would not be allowing or admitting young men who desire the office to attend. Something it seems had to be done. If Presbyteries won't send their own men there, the "Main Seminary" then that is trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the seminary, the PCA, and Professor Enns’ sake, I hope the report is not accurate for it sounds like ecclesiastical blackmail to me.
Click to expand...


If a presbytery has lost confidence in a seminary, wouldn't it be preferable for them to frankly let the seminary know this, rather than waiting for someone there to think "Gee, we haven't had anyone enter from or be called to Whatever Presbytery for ages. How come, do you suppose?" and investigate? And to be brutally honest as to the source of the presbytery's reluctance to call pastors from it?

Thing is, if all presbyteries continue sending and receiving men from a seminary, that would - quite reasonably - encourage the seminary to assume the presbyteries must be alright with what those men are being taught. Even if the presbyteries let their concerns be known, and even flatly complain, if the sending and receiving continues unabated, there's no real reason for the seminary to make any drastic changes.

There's a saying I've bored my children with for years, but it's true for all that: Do what you've always done, and you'll get what you've always had.

That's true in this situation, as well. If the presbyteries wish to insist upon a change in direction at a particular seminary, the most effective way to get that change is by stopping the sending and receiving.

Don't you think?


----------



## wsw201

> Does an independent seminary board’s interpretation of a confession carry the same weight as a Church court? Does it carry any weight?



Consider the situation with Norm Shepherd. He was let go by WTS for his views but his Presbytery cleared him (though by only a couple of votes). Bottom line is that a Presbytery can take into consideration what a Seminary does but that's up to the court.


----------



## py3ak

Here is a quote from Carl Trueman about the incarnational analogy, which should show that simply invoking the incarnation in order to defend your docrtine of inspiration is not going to make all questioners go away and be quiet.



> one has to be very careful about using incarnational analogies for things such as the doctrine of Scripture. There is no equality of divinity and humanity in the orthodox understanding of the incarnation. They are not parallel and they are not equal because of this: the humanity brings no personhood into the incarnation. The humanity is just an abstraction until its united to the divinity. The form of the humanity in the incarnation is provided by the divinity. 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.



Taken from here, which was linked to here.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Has there been any statement or report about the meeting with WTS students on April 1st?


----------



## timmopussycat

wsw201 said:


> Consider the situation with Norm Shepherd. He was let go by WTS for his views but his Presbytery cleared him (though by only a couple of votes). Bottom line is that a Presbytery can take into consideration what a Seminary does but that's up to the court.



My understanding is that this is not a correct statement of what finally occurred at the time Mr. Shepherd was let go by WTS and left the OPC. As I understand the matter, although charges were either pending or about to be placed against him, Mr. Shepherd left for the CRC and was not tried on the charges.


----------



## wsw201

timmopussycat said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the situation with Norm Shepherd. He was let go by WTS for his views but his Presbytery cleared him (though by only a couple of votes). Bottom line is that a Presbytery can take into consideration what a Seminary does but that's up to the court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that this is not a correct statement of what finally occurred at the time Mr. Shepherd was let go by WTS and left the OPC. As I understand the matter, although charges were either pending or about to be placed against him, Mr. Shepherd left for the CRC and was not tried on the charges.
Click to expand...


I'm going from memory from O. Palmer Robertsons account in his book about what happened. I'll double check when I get home. I believe that when Shepherd was acquited, charges were going to be refiled or new charges were going to be filed with his Presbytery. Before any new proceeding could be started, Shepherd moved to the CRC.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Gryphonette said:


> If a presbytery has lost confidence in a seminary, wouldn't it be preferable for them to frankly let the seminary know this, rather than waiting for someone there to think "Gee, we haven't had anyone enter from or be called to Whatever Presbytery for ages. How come, do you suppose?" and investigate? And to be brutally honest as to the source of the presbytery's reluctance to call pastors from it?
> 
> Thing is, if all presbyteries continue sending and receiving men from a seminary, that would - quite reasonably - encourage the seminary to assume the presbyteries must be alright with what those men are being taught. Even if the presbyteries let their concerns be known, and even flatly complain, if the sending and receiving continues unabated, there's no real reason for the seminary to make any drastic changes.
> 
> There's a saying I've bored my children with for years, but it's true for all that: Do what you've always done, and you'll get what you've always had.
> 
> That's true in this situation, as well. If the presbyteries wish to insist upon a change in direction at a particular seminary, the most effective way to get that change is by stopping the sending and receiving.
> 
> Don't you think?



Why would a presbytery loose confidence in a seminary? I can think of several possible reasons, lack of orthodoxy in general being one.

However, if the cause for concern is with one faculty member, then isn’t it the presbytery’s responsibility to address the matter with the individual and/or his own presbytery before they go pulling the plug?

I don’t see where "we don’t think we like what this guy is teaching so we may pull our support" is any way to address the matter from a Christian standpoint. Dialog to at least be sure all the facts are known and acknowledged is in order in this type of situations.

And look at the burden it places on the seminary. They are now forced to attempt to justify themselves, their orthodoxy, their faculty’s orthodoxy, etc., to one or more presbyteries. That’s an insurmountable task in my opinion. The most expedient thing they can do is fire the offender. Hopefully that will counter the drag on support.

That is why I hope the characterization of what the PCA presbyteries said/did is mistaken.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Pergamum said:


> I see no practical way how a seminary could operate under your suggestions above unless it was under the direction of only one church body.



That is the problem with these quasi-ecclesiastical/parachurch organizations. They are operating within the ecclesiastical sphere, and so, in order to function, they need to arrogate to themselves certain prerogatives of the Church. 

If they want to do it properly they must do it within the jurisdiction of the Church, or else they should give up the fiction of holding a high view of the Church.


----------



## Gryphonette

Perhaps the seminary - and mind, I haven't any info on this situation apart from the bit I've read here, at Greenbaggins, and the Warfield list, so I'm likely missing heaps of useful facts - had been assuring various presbyteries for awhile that they _are _going to Do Something about the OT department and the "early Genesis is mythology" stuff that was coming out of it, only nothing ever seemed to happen.

Finally _some _sort of definite action was deemed necessary, and Dr. Enns apparently being the lightning rod (and with his book, a self-made one at that), his suspension was the action taken, intended to reassure the presbyteries that _this_ time they _really, really_ mean it and Steps Are Being Taken.

I'm not sure where you're going with the "we don't think we like what this guy is teaching" argument. Apparently they don't "think", they KNOW they don't like what "this guy" had been teaching his students, and its those students who'd apply for pastorate positions in their churches.

Fair's fair, if a presbytery comes to realize that 4 out of 5 graduates of a particular seminary are leaving it holding ideas about Scripture that the presbytery wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, I'm not seeing what the problem is with that presbytery deciding to not even review resumes from graduates from that seminary (or whatever it is potential pastors fill out).

And why on earth would that presbytery be interested in sending its own young men there to be taught a lot of stuff they'll have to unlearn? _That'd_ be silly.

I'm just not understanding what the problem is with a presbytery deciding, based upon what they're hearing from the men coming out of a certain seminary about what a fairly high-profile professor has taught them, advising said seminary that so long as _that_ professor is teaching, they'll give it a miss.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Gryphonette said:


> I'm just not understanding what the problem is with a presbytery deciding, based upon what they're hearing from the men coming out of a certain seminary about what a fairly high-profile professor has taught them, advising said seminary that so long as _that_ professor is teaching, they'll give it a miss.



 Let’s please remember that he’s not just a professor. I believe he’s a church officer in good standing somewhere. (I don't recall seeing Dr. Enn's denominational affiliation mentioned.)

Let me put it this way, do you think that a church court ought to be encouraging a non-ecclesiastical body to sit in judgment of the orthodoxy of a church officer, even from another denomination? 

Do you think those same PCA presbyteries would allow one of their own to be examined and labeled unconfessional by another body?


----------



## Gryphonette

Aren't you conflating the seminary with the presbytery? I'm sure I've read that WTS/PA is not formally affiliated with _any_ denomination, or am I mistaken?

If I'm correct, then It seems to me such a seminary may take whatever action it deems appropriate with regard to any of its professors, without factoring in the professor's church situation.

You can't have it both ways, surely....not connected to a particular denomination but still obligated to take Greenwich time from the various denominations with which its professors are themselves attached?

Mercy Maud. Think about it. This is a guess on my part, but if my memory isn't letting me down (as it's wont to do) and WTS/PA is _not _affiliated with a specific denomination, ifit's obligated to factor in how its many professors are viewed by their respective denominations when it comes to evaluating their theological positions, _that_ way would surely lie madness. 

What do some of you other PB'ers say?

No point letting Tom and me monopolize the conversation. ;^)


----------



## Pilgrim

Is it proper to ban or suspend PB members without asking their church first?


----------



## tcalbrecht

Gryphonette said:


> Aren't you conflating the seminary with the presbytery? I'm sure I've read that WTS/PA is not formally affiliated with _any_ denomination, or am I mistaken?



I guess I'm not making myself very clear.

If the report is accurate, I believe we have two problems.

1) The independent seminary (WTS/PA in this case) is acting as a quasi-ecclesiastical body in making a judgment as to the man’s confessionalism. That is a divine right reserved to churches alone. It cannot be reassigned to a non-ecclesiastical entity like a seminary.

2) The presbytery is acting irresponsibly in utilizing the seminary to make a judgment as to the confessionalism of a fellow church officer. If there is an issue, they should be handling it directly with the individual and his denomination (if it is different from their own), rather than relying on second or third hand reports of what is being taught. 

So, we get back to my earlier question, does an independent, parachurch organization like WTS/PA have the right to decide whether men’s confessional position is within the bounds of orthodoxy, and, by extension, does it have the right to define what the confessions mean in any given area?

Or, in other words, if an independent body like WTS/PA specifies in its bylaws or staff handbook that all instructors will hold to a confession by oath, do they have the right to judge whether the individual is being faithful to their oath, or can that only be properly judged by the individual’s denomination?

Those are the bottom line questions for me in the matter.

Now, what were your saying about playing Monopoly??


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tcalbrecht said:


> Gryphonette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you conflating the seminary with the presbytery? I'm sure I've read that WTS/PA is not formally affiliated with _any_ denomination, or am I mistaken?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm not making myself very clear.
> 
> If the report is accurate, I believe we have two problems.
> 
> 1) The independent seminary (WTS/PA in this case) is acting as a quasi-ecclesiastical body in making a judgment as to the man’s confessionalism. That is a divine right reserved to churches alone. It cannot be reassigned to a non-ecclesiastical entity like a seminary.
> 
> 2) The presbytery is acting irresponsibly in utilizing the seminary to make a judgment as to the confessionalism of a fellow church officer. If there is an issue, they should be handling it directly with the individual and his denomination (if it is different from their own), rather than relying on second or third hand reports of what is being taught.
> 
> So, we get back to my earlier question, does an independent, parachurch organization like WTS/PA have the right to decide whether men’s confessional position is within the bounds of orthodoxy, and, by extension, does it have the right to define what the confessions mean in any given area?
> 
> Or, in other words, if an independent body like WTS/PA specifies in its bylaws or staff handbook that all instructors will hold to a confession by oath, do they have the right to judge whether the individual is being faithful to their oath, or can that only be properly judged by the individual’s denomination?
> 
> Those are the bottom line questions for me in the matter.
> 
> Now, what were your saying about playing Monopoly??
Click to expand...




Pilgrim said:


> Is it proper to ban or suspend PB members without asking their church first?



Tom?


----------



## tcalbrecht

Pilgrim said:


> Is it proper to ban or suspend PB members without asking their church first?



I do not speak for the PB, but I’ll give my opinion.

It depends. 

If it has to do with an infraction of the rules(*) and "fair play", then the generally answer is no. The rules are meant to make life here easier for all to live and play together. 

If the rule violation indicates a deeper problem, or if there has been personal conflict requiring the steps in Matthew 18, then those offended may need to contact the person’s spiritual leaders to see that things are handled biblically. But I would think that is between the individuals, not the board in general.

However, if the rule(*) in question has to do with a violation of the confessional adherence rule, then that becomes more complicated in this medium. 

If the person claims to hold to confession A and belongs to a church that also holds to confession A, and the person’s beliefs via their statements to the PB seems to conflict with that confession, then addressing that with the individual and potentially involving their church may be in order. I think the issue has to be a heavy hitter and statements clearly contrary to get noticed by the mods, e.g., person espouses pelagian beliefs. In this case it is OK to suspend them with the intent to see they receive proper instruction from the church officers.

However, if the person claims to hold to confession A and belongs to a church that has no interest at all in confession A, then the process become a bit stickier. Presumably the leadership would have no interest in instructing the person into a more consistently confessional position. Suspension is permissible in this case.

Clear as mud?


----------



## Gryphonette

*No, I think I understand you fine. I just disagree with you.*



tcalbrecht said:


> Gryphonette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you conflating the seminary with the presbytery? I'm sure I've read that WTS/PA is not formally affiliated with _any_ denomination, or am I mistaken?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm not making myself very clear.
> 
> If the report is accurate, I believe we have two problems.
> 
> 1) The independent seminary (WTS/PA in this case) is acting as a quasi-ecclesiastical body in making a judgment as to the man’s confessionalism. That is a divine right reserved to churches alone. It cannot be reassigned to a non-ecclesiastical entity like a seminary.
> 
> 2) The presbytery is acting irresponsibly in utilizing the seminary to make a judgment as to the confessionalism of a fellow church officer. If there is an issue, they should be handling it directly with the individual and his denomination (if it is different from their own), rather than relying on second or third hand reports of what is being taught.
> 
> So, we get back to my earlier question, does an independent, parachurch organization like WTS/PA have the right to decide whether men’s confessional position is within the bounds of orthodoxy, and, by extension, does it have the right to define what the confessions mean in any given area?
> 
> Or, in other words, if an independent body like WTS/PA specifies in its bylaws or staff handbook that all instructors will hold to a confession by oath, do they have the right to judge whether the individual is being faithful to their oath, or can that only be properly judged by the individual’s denomination?
> 
> Those are the bottom line questions for me in the matter.
> 
> Now, what were your saying about playing Monopoly??
Click to expand...

1. The independent seminary certainly has the authority to determine for itself what it considers to be confessional or not, seeing as how it IS independent. Apparently you believe the seminary is obligated to accept a professor's denomination's opinion as to his confessional orthodoxy, period.

Sooooo....if a professor is with the PCUSA, having been made a professor back before that denomination went doctrinally whoppy-jawed, the seminary's stuck with that professor even if he has begun to teach the worst of PCUSA theology, seeing as how he's "confessionally orthodox" by PCUSA standards?

_That's _a fearsome thought.

I really don't think you've considered all the ramifications of the position you're arguing for.

2. It seems to me the presbytery's simply telling the seminary this particular professor is teaching stuff it - the presbytery - isn't willing to have in its churches, so no one trained under him will be welcome from here on out. I grant you I'd think the professor's presbytery ought, in humility, to take seriously the fact that a couple of other presbyteries have found their elder's theology so dreadfully deficient. 

In response to your next to last question (Monopoly? May I be the little dog?), if there's a problem with an independent seminary stating that it will teach according to confessional standards and, BTW, it's going to be the final authority as to whether this is happening, I'm not seeing it. Someone had better be able to make a final decision, for pity's sake. Having what counts as "confessional" be up to however many denominations are represented by its teaching staff is tantamount to having no confessional standard at all, in my opinion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tcalbrecht said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it proper to ban or suspend PB members without asking their church first?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not speak for the PB, but I’ll give my opinion.
> 
> It depends.
> 
> If it has to do with an infraction of the rules(*) and "fair play", then the generally answer is no. The rules are meant to make life here easier for all to live and play together.
> 
> If the rule violation indicates a deeper problem, or if there has been personal conflict requiring the steps in Matthew 18, then those offended may need to contact the person’s spiritual leaders to see that things are handled biblically. But I would think that is between the individuals, not the board in general.
> 
> However, if the rule(*) in question has to do with a violation of the confessional adherence rule, then that becomes more complicated in this medium.
> 
> If the person claims to hold to confession A and belongs to a church that also holds to confession A, and the person’s beliefs via their statements to the PB seems to conflict with that confession, then addressing that with the individual and potentially involving their church may be in order. I think the issue has to be a heavy hitter and statements clearly contrary to get noticed by the mods, e.g., person espouses pelagian beliefs. In this case it is OK to suspend them with the intent to see they receive proper instruction from the church officers.
> 
> However, if the person claims to hold to confession A and belongs to a church that has no interest at all in confession A, then the process become a bit stickier. Presumably the leadership would have no interest in instructing the person into a more consistently confessional position. Suspension is permissible in this case.
> 
> Clear as mud?
Click to expand...


Seems like you're making the case that a Seminary has grounds to suspend at least in a muddy, clear, sticky sort of way.


----------



## wsw201

Tom,

Do you think that WTS had any right to remove Norm Shepherd? Should they have reinstated him after his Presbytery trial?


----------



## Stephen

py3ak said:


> Here is a quote from Carl Trueman about the incarnational analogy, which should show that simply invoking the incarnation in order to defend your docrtine of inspiration is not going to make all questioners go away and be quiet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one has to be very careful about using incarnational analogies for things such as the doctrine of Scripture. There is no equality of divinity and humanity in the orthodox understanding of the incarnation. They are not parallel and they are not equal because of this: the humanity brings no personhood into the incarnation. The humanity is just an abstraction until its united to the divinity. The form of the humanity in the incarnation is provided by the divinity. 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taken from here, which was linked to here.
Click to expand...


Carl hit the nail on the head. This use of incarnational theology was popular in Arminian circles 15 years ago. Much of it came out of places like Fuller that denied the full inerrancy of Scripture. The incarnation applies only to the coming of Christ as man. I do not know all of the particulars of the decision to suspend this man from WTS-East, but when I read his use of this kind of language it raised my Reformed flags.


----------



## Stephen

wsw201 said:


> Tom,
> 
> Do you think that WTS had any right to remove Norm Shepherd? Should they have reinstated him after his Presbytery trial?





Yes, they did have the right and obligation to remove him, but they were slow in doing it. He should never have been found innocent of the charges. I still believe the OPC presbytery erred. Why did he flee to the CRC? The CRC certainly had no issue with his heresy.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Semper Fidelis said:


> Seems like you're making the case that a Seminary has grounds to suspend at least in a muddy, clear, sticky sort of way.



I was speaking of the PB. No presbytery is going to stop sending men or money to the PB until we clean up our act by suspending certain malcontents. 

However, the quasi-ecclesiastical nature of independent seminaries has a unique set of problems, which I've tried to enumerate elsewhere.


----------



## tcalbrecht

wsw201 said:


> Tom,
> 
> Do you think that WTS had any right to remove Norm Shepherd? Should they have reinstated him after his Presbytery trial?



After he was found guilty by his presbytery *and failed to repent* he should be removed. At that point he has been judged unconfessional by the only body able to make that legitimate determination, and the independent seminary may act according to the decision of the presbytery. Reinstatement becomes unnecessary since the school is not putting the cart before the horse, and is showing respect for the ecclesiastical process.

I think any pastor or elder in the position of having his views examined via trial by a church court should voluntarily step down from his responsibilities until the matter is adjudicated.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Gryphonette said:


> 1. The independent seminary certainly has the authority to determine for itself what it considers to be confessional or not, seeing as how it IS independent. Apparently you believe the seminary is obligated to accept a professor's denomination's opinion as to his confessional orthodoxy, period.



If we are going to have independent seminaries I think it is legitimate for such a seminary to determine beforehand which denominations it will draw its instructors from. If WTS/PA is concerned about the theology of the PCUSA and its allegiance to the historic Reformed Confessions then it ought not accept teachers with such denominational affiliations. Do they really want to get into a shouting match over the substance of the confessions with such a body?

On the other hand, if WTS/PA can’t trust the OPC or PCA to supply orthodox officers -- men who have been examined by and are accountable to their presbytery -- as instructors who can they trust?



Gryphonette said:


> Sooooo....if a professor is with the PCUSA, having been made a professor back before that denomination went doctrinally whoppy-jawed, the seminary's stuck with that professor even if he has begun to teach the worst of PCUSA theology, seeing as how he's "confessionally orthodox" by PCUSA standards?
> 
> _That's _a fearsome thought.



Simple. So don’t employ such a person in your seminary. 

Let’s get practical for a moment. If your support base and student population come primarily from small conservative denominations, why hassle with someone from the PCUSA? What is it telling your potential donors and students? 

On the other hand if you are dependent on conservative donors who happen to live in large liberal denominations, then you might want to employ such a person. But you better be prepared to cut him (or her!!) some slack on his theology.




Gryphonette said:


> I really don't think you've considered all the ramifications of the position you're arguing for.



You’re absolutely right. I’m sure there are innumerable practical problems with what I’m suggesting. However, the overarching concern is that non-ecclesiastical bodies to not arrogate to themselves work that is only properly done by the Church. 




Gryphonette said:


> 2. It seems to me the presbytery's simply telling the seminary this particular professor is teaching stuff it - the presbytery - isn't willing to have in its churches, so no one trained under him will be welcome from here on out.[/SIZE] I grant you I'd think the professor's presbytery ought, in humility, to take seriously the fact that a couple of other presbyteries have found their elder's theology so dreadfully deficient.



But that is a church decision. 



Gryphonette said:


> In response to your next to last question (Monopoly? May I be the little dog?), if there's a problem with an independent seminary stating that it will teach according to confessional standards and, BTW, it's going to be the final authority as to whether this is happening, I'm not seeing it. Someone had better be able to make a final decision, for pity's sake. Having what counts as "confessional" be up to however many denominations are represented by its teaching staff is tantamount to having no confessional standard at all, in my opinion.



So you think that an independent entity has the divine right to say what the Confession says, perhaps in opposition to the Church? Perhaps you’ll rethink that if some independent FVers ever build a seminary.

Somehow I’m missing a high view of the Church in that suggestion.


----------



## Gryphonette

*Much as I dislike the FV, I don't have a problem with them building a seminary.*



tcalbrecht said:


> If we are going to have independent seminaries I think it is legitimate for such a seminary to determine beforehand which denominations it will draw its instructors from. If WTS/PA is concerned about the theology of the PCUSA and its allegiance to the historic Reformed Confessions then it ought not accept teachers with such denominational affiliations. Do they really want to get into a shouting match over the substance of the confessions with such a body?


But isn't that the precise reason WTS even exists and is independent? Because whatever seminary it was that Machen _had_ been at (please forgive me if I'm mussying up the history, as I'm just learning it) was attached to a denomination that went peculiar and - because the seminary was attached to the denomination - insisted upon the seminary following suit? So WTS was founded to be independent of _any_ denomination in hopes that if the various denominations go strange, the seminary needn't do the same? 

If a seminary hires a professor from Denomination X when both the denomination and professor are confessionally orthodox, it has to have some way to muzzle the professor in the event he goes peculiar. This is what, at least so far's I can tell, WTS/PA is trying to do. However, if I'm understanding you properly, you're saying WTS/PA ought not suspend (or otherwise muzzle) a professor for being unconfessional unless the professor's denomination agrees with that assessment.

I'm truly curious, what if the professor's denomination has become - in the period between his being hired and now - just as peculiar as the professor? How the dickens can a seminary ever get rid of him, if it can only legitimately do so if his own denomination deems him unconfessional?

It seems to me you've effectively cut off at the knees the whole reason for a seminary's being independent. 

How can it be considered at all independent if it's being held hostage to each and every denomination to which its professors belong? No matter _how_ warped the denomination becomes, for according to you, the seminary hasn't the right to evaluate the denomination's confessionalism.

Honestly, Tom, don't you see a problem here? I certainly do!



> So you think that an independent entity has the divine right to say what the Confession says, perhaps in opposition to the Church? Perhaps you’ll rethink that if some independent FVers ever build a seminary.
> 
> Somehow I’m missing a high view of the Church in that suggestion.


Actually, I'd _far_ prefer they build their own seminary than take over those already in existence. 

And I'm not sure about "divine right", but I'd say a seminary has an _effective _right to decide what is confessional. Remember, anyone who moves from one confessional position to another is doing the same.

As for a "high view of the Church", as an ex-RC I can tell you all _about_ that, and I no longer hand my conscience over to _any _person or organization. Christ Chapel holds firmly to unlimited atonement.

I don't. I think they're wrong.

If that means I haven't a properly high view of the Church, so be it.


----------



## daver

Well here goes with my first post. Here are a couple of thoughts I have in general about those in the “profession” i.e. seminary professors. There appears to be a temptation to “make ones bones”. In the mafia world this refers to someone who has performed their first mafia “hit”. My analogy is that some theologians write in order to establish their reputation among their peers, instead of edifying the church. The end result is a”hit” is made upon the faith of their pastoral students. My suggestion is that any “unique” insights into scripture should first be discussed with ones peers while enjoying a good cigar and a refreshing beer. Hopefully any errant theology will disappear with the cigar smoke before it ends up in the class room or a GA .


----------



## christianyouth

tcalbrecht said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> After he was found guilty by his presbytery *and failed to repent* he should be removed. At that point he has been judged unconfessional by the only body able to make that legitimate determination, and the independent seminary may act according to the decision of the presbytery. Reinstatement becomes unnecessary since the school is not putting the cart before the horse, and is showing respect for the ecclesiastical process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happens if the presbytery makes a wrong decision? What if they were to deem Enns to be completely orthodox and within the bounds of the confession?
Click to expand...


----------



## A5pointer

daver said:


> Well here goes with my first post. Here are a couple of thoughts I have in general about those in the “profession” i.e. seminary professors. There appears to be a temptation to “make ones bones”. In the mafia world this refers to someone who has performed their first mafia “hit”. My analogy is that some theologians write in order to establish their reputation among their peers, instead of edifying the church. The end result is a”hit” is made upon the faith of their pastoral students. My suggestion is that any “unique” insights into scripture should first be discussed with ones peers while enjoying a good cigar and a refreshing beer. Hopefully any errant theology will disappear with the cigar smoke before it ends up in the class room or a GA .



Going to motive here may be hasty and unwarranted. Welcome, sorry to question your first post but that is the great benefit of this wonderful board.


----------



## daver

A5POINTER,
I appreciate the admonition to refrain from unwarranted assertions about motives. I made a general statement which may apply to some professors and indeed scripture testifies to this fact. See Romans 16:18, 2 Peter 2:1, 2 Peter 2:4. Actually I was more “charitable” to alleged “false teachers” than Calvin and Luther were to those who corrupted the faith. (Not that I would be even qualified to clean the stables of those great men.) 
I was trying to point out one of the “flaws’ I see in the current reformed theological education system. Perhaps this thread was not the best one to use to state my personal observation. In any event it is good to know that someone in Babylon pays attention.


----------



## A5pointer

daver said:


> A5POINTER,
> I appreciate the admonition to refrain from unwarranted assertions about motives. I made a general statement which may apply to some professors and indeed scripture testifies to this fact. See Romans 16:18, 2 Peter 2:1, 2 Peter 2:4. Actually I was more “charitable” to alleged “false teachers” than Calvin and Luther were to those who corrupted the faith. (Not that I would be even qualified to clean the stables of those great men.)
> I was trying to point out one of the “flaws’ I see in the current reformed theological education system. Perhaps this thread was not the best one to use to state my personal observation.* In any event it is good to know that someone in Babylon pays attention*.



Wow, who the heck are you referring to with that? And what does it mean?


----------



## daver

A5POINTER,
Your Signature states: First Presbyterian PCUSA(I know yuk)
I guess I was just agreeing with your comment next to PCUSA in your signature. I know nothing about the individual congregation you belong to and apologize if I wrongly applied the name Babylon to your specific church. I would not back off of my use of that name as applied to the PCUSA.


----------



## greenbaggins

I don't think there was anything wrong with Daver's comments. Let's move on, please.


----------



## greenbaggins

Josh, I think we're aiming at the same thing, so, no problem. Folks on the board: we need to give newbies a bit of room, especially as many of them probably don't have a lot of experience in internet communication. Newbies, do please realize that since we don't know you that well, yet, we may not be able to tell whether you're joking or not. So, a certain exaggerated clarity would be in order until you become very well known in terms of your habits.


----------



## A5pointer

greenbaggins said:


> I don't think there was anything wrong with Daver's comments. Let's move on, please.



Should I change my sig to "Someone from Babylon"? GB you must be mad at me for suggesting you look old to condone that comment. I am kind of shocked. I thought I was reading wrong when I saw the post. I have thick skin as we all should but that was a sucker punch. Where is the turning the other cheek moticon? I need it.


----------



## greenbaggins

A5pointer said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there was anything wrong with Daver's comments. Let's move on, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should I change my sig to "Someone from Babylon"? GB you must be mad at me for suggesting you look old to condone that comment. I am kind of shocked. I thought I was reading wrong when I saw the post. I have thick skin as we all should but that was a sucker punch. Where is the turning the other cheek moticon? I need it.
Click to expand...


There I go now, not being clear! **Slaps myself** Bad boy, Lane, you hypocrite! No, I was not offended by your earlier comment about Sarah in the slightest. I was merely asking for clarity. And in my reference to Daver's comments, I was not trying to slap you at all. I was just trying to move the conversation along.


----------



## A5pointer

greenbaggins said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there was anything wrong with Daver's comments. Let's move on, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should I change my sig to "Someone from Babylon"? GB you must be mad at me for suggesting you look old to condone that comment. I am kind of shocked. I thought I was reading wrong when I saw the post. I have thick skin as we all should but that was a sucker punch. Where is the turning the other cheek moticon? I need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There I go now, not being clear! **Slaps myself** Bad boy, Lane, you hypocrite! No, I was not offended by your earlier comment about Sarah in the slightest. I was merely asking for clarity. And in my reference to Daver's comments, I was not trying to slap you at all. I was just trying to move the conversation along.
Click to expand...


We all suffer from lack of clarity, I knew you were not mad at me complimenting your wife. Your post was not a slap, just shocking a mod not having a problem with the sucker punch from my new friend Daver. It was in my opinion a low blow. But as someone who requires much grace I freely offer much. Peace.


----------



## A5pointer

Found this if anyone is curious Save Our Seminary » Save Our Seminary


----------



## Archlute

tcalbrecht said:


> Gage Browning said:
> 
> 
> 
> I listened to the audio of the chapel explaining the goings on over at Between Two Worlds...in that audio the President of WTS PA mentioned that two (I believe PCA) presbyteries informed them that as long as Prof Enns was there they would not be allowing or admitting young men who desire the office to attend. Something it seems had to be done. If Presbyteries won't send their own men there, the "Main Seminary" then that is trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the seminary, the PCA, and Professor Enns’ sake, I hope the report is not accurate for it sounds like ecclesiastical blackmail to me.
Click to expand...



In this case, I would say that one man's blackmail is another man's wisdom.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Archlute said:


> In this case, I would say that one man's blackmail is another man's wisdom.



There is no wisdom in ill-conceived tactics. Or perhaps the presbytery is admitting it knows of no better way to deal with an unaccountable entity like WTS/PA. Could it be that economic pressure is all that remains?


----------



## tcalbrecht

daver said:


> Well here goes with my first post. Here are a couple of thoughts I have in general about those in the “profession” i.e. seminary professors. There appears to be a temptation to “make ones bones”. In the mafia world this refers to someone who has performed their first mafia “hit”. My analogy is that some theologians write in order to establish their reputation among their peers, instead of edifying the church. The end result is a”hit” is made upon the faith of their pastoral students. My suggestion is that any “unique” insights into scripture should first be discussed with ones peers while enjoying a good cigar and a refreshing beer. Hopefully any errant theology will disappear with the cigar smoke before it ends up in the class room or a GA .



I'm just wondering, do you have any reason to think that was not what took place in this instance? I understand a good percentage of the WTS/PA faculty is OK with Enn's teaching. Could they not have arrived at that level of support from cigar caucus gatherings?

I'm still looking for some confirmation that Enn's presbytery is concerned about these views.


----------



## HaigLaw

raekwon said:


> Between Two Worlds: Peter Enns of Westminster Theological Seminary Suspended
> 
> Talk amongst yourselves...



I read some of that and didn't understand a lot of it, but did understand this comment by Jeremy Pierce:

"It's about inerrancy. Enns says he affirms the Westminister statement of faith, but he in fact denies inerrancy in practice even if he doesn't admit it. An example is his claim that the daughter of Pharaoh didn't say what the text says she said. That kind of attribution of historical error in the Bible is compatible with Fuller's denial of inerrancy but not with Westminster's acceptance of it."

There were other examples in different comments, but this one made more sense to me.


----------



## HaigLaw

tcalbrecht said:


> It seems that a board should be able to draw a line between things it can legislate and legitimately judge, and those it cannot. If a seminary wants to only employ confessional men (which is a legitimate desire), it must also be willing to acknowledge that confessionalism may only be determined by the candidate’s denomination, not some ad hoc hearing process of the seminary.
> 
> in my opinion, this should be obvious to a seminary that professes to have a high view of the Church.



I don't follow the logic of that. WTS provides pastors to several Reformed denominations. If it wants to assert that it is at least as Reformed as the most-Reformed of the denominations it serves, then it can and should make orthodoxy determinations on its faculty.

Otherwise, it would in effect be only as Reformed as the least-Reformed of those denominations, and have its graduates be rejected by the more-Reformed denominations.


----------



## HaigLaw

*economic pressure, or ecclesiastical jurisdiction?*



tcalbrecht said:


> There is no wisdom in ill-conceived tactics. Or perhaps the presbytery is admitting it knows of no better way to deal with an unaccountable entity like WTS/PA. Could it be that economic pressure is all thay remains?



I don't see this as an issue of economic pressure. 

Let's say the professor is in denomination A. Denomination B has trouble with his orthodoxy, but all A and B have is fraternal delegates to each other's GA's. B has no jurisdiction over the professor's orthodoxy or over his denomination A.

All B can do is contact WTS and say -- hey, we're not sending our candidates there anymore because the professor is not orthodox. 

WTS has no jurisdiction over denomination A either. 

But it does have jurisdiction over its professors. It would be foolish to have tenured professors it could not deal with unless their presbyteries disciplined them and that discipline held up at their denomination's GA.


----------



## tcalbrecht

HaigLaw said:


> I don't follow the logic of that. WTS provides pastors to several Reformed denominations. If it wants to assert that it is at least as Reformed as the most-Reformed of the denominations it serves, then it can and should make orthodoxy determinations on its faculty.



I’m not sure what is so hard to follow. The questions are simple and straightforward, in my opinion.

How does the faculty of an independent non-ecclesiastical entity like a seminary assert that collectively it does, in fact, correctly interpret whatever confession it claims to stand upon? 

What authority does it bear which gives it any right to make such a claim? Are they claiming a divine charter and mandate?

How does any such claim not undermine the legitimate authority of the Church to make such determination for itself *and for its officers*? 



HaigLaw said:


> Otherwise, it would in effect be only as Reformed as the least-Reformed of those denominations, and have its graduates be rejected by the more-Reformed denominations.



Not to be redundant, but that is the nature of an independent seminary. Who claims that it has the right to any such high ground? It is _de facto _independent. It has no authority to make a collective assertion for itself since it is not an ecclesiastical body. It is merely a collection of independent parts (faculty and staff) who may only properly be judged by their constituent denominations wrt confessional fidelity.


----------



## HaigLaw

So, what is the solution -- put WTS under some denomination's GA?


----------



## tcalbrecht

HaigLaw said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no wisdom in ill-conceived tactics. Or perhaps the presbytery is admitting it knows of no better way to deal with an unaccountable entity like WTS/PA. Could it be that economic pressure is all thay remains?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see this as an issue of economic pressure.
> 
> Let's say the professor is in denomination A. Denomination B has trouble with his orthodoxy, but all A and B have is fraternal delegates to each other's GA's. B has no jurisdiction over the professor's orthodoxy or over his denomination A.
> 
> All B can do is contact WTS and say -- hey, we're not sending our candidates there anymore because the professor is not orthodox.
> 
> WTS has no jurisdiction over denomination A either.
> 
> But it does have jurisdiction over its professors. It would be foolish to have tenured professors it could not deal with unless their presbyteries disciplined them and that discipline held up at their denomination's GA.
Click to expand...


Then make it a denomination, ordain all the faculty, and give it those rights.  

Of course WTS has no jurisdiction over A or B. It’s not a church, but it cannot help acting like one when it comes to defining orthodoxy within its ranks. That is the nature of parachurch organizations; it is very difficult for them to not act like a Church at times.

I realize the Church at large has a difficult time with jurisdiction. And if B chooses not to pay any attention to the concerns of A, then there is no much that A can do except stop exchanging fraternal delegates with B 

But the problem is only made worse by the existence of independent seminaries that wield quasi-ecclesiastical powers over their faculty. 

It would be refreshing to see WTS or any other seminary that feels it needs to address the content of an instructor’s teaching to do so with the aid and direction of the instructor’s presbytery, rather than just giving him the old heave ho. Instead we see them responding to the closing of denomination B’s purse strings. 

The present situation just appears like the worst we see in the world for resolving these types of conflict.

Perhaps I'm just being too naive and idealistic in this modern age.


----------



## HaigLaw

Or, maybe, it's just a matter of remembering the histories of the various organizations.

Was God mistaken in letting Machen and Van Til found WTS first, or should He have had them be involved in organizing the OPC and put WTS under it before returning to seminary teaching?


----------



## tcalbrecht

HaigLaw said:


> Or, maybe, it's just a matter of remembering the histories of the various organizations.
> 
> Was God mistaken in letting Machen and Van Til found WTS first, or should He have had them be involved in organizing the OPC and put WTS under it before returning to seminary teaching?



I would not go so far as to attribute the potential errors of God's saints to God Himself. 

But the question is legitimate; was Machen acting properly when he worked to form not only WTS but also the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions? Or should he have arranged these activities within the context of a new presbytery/denomination? 

Have the concerns of conservatives within the UPSUSA of that day negatively influenced churchmen today when it comes to defining the sole prerogatives of the Church? 

Should we really think that anyone can come along and start a missions board just cuz Machen did?

I have not resolved these issues in my mind.


----------



## BJClark

tcalbrecht;



> For the seminary, the PCA, and Professor Enns’ sake, I hope the report is not accurate for it sounds like ecclesiastical blackmail to me.



How would it be blackmail? 

If they disagree with what is being taught, isn't it more respectful and even Godly, for them to go and explain why they will no longer be sending candidates to their college instead of just stop sending candidates and leaving the leaders at the college wondering why?

But more importantly, how are the leaders of the college going to KNOW something is amiss if nobody tells them??


----------



## Archlute

tcalbrecht said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, I would say that one man's blackmail is another man's wisdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no wisdom in ill-conceived tactics. Or perhaps the presbytery is admitting it knows of no better way to deal with an unaccountable entity like WTS/PA. Could it be that economic pressure is all that remains?
Click to expand...


It is neither blackmail, nor an ill-conceived tactic. It is men who are putting their pastoral concerns into action. Any and every pastor should be free to encourage or discourage a future seminarian from attending particular institutions based on his convictions. There are no "safe havens" for institutions just because of pedigree, affiliations, or by-gone glory days. These are men who are seeking to safeguard the future of their congregations, and fulfill their role as undershepherds.


----------



## tcalbrecht

BJClark said:


> tcalbrecht;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the seminary, the PCA, and Professor Enns’ sake, I hope the report is not accurate for it sounds like ecclesiastical blackmail to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would it be blackmail?
> 
> If they disagree with what is being taught, isn't it more respectful and even Godly, for them to go and explain why they will no longer be sending candidates to their college instead of just stop sending candidates and leaving the leaders at the college wondering why?
> 
> *But more importantly, how are the leaders of the college going to KNOW something is amiss if nobody tells them??*
Click to expand...


Who is to say without all the facts? How would a presbytery know that something is amiss with a seminary instructor? Could you really figure that out from reading a book, or listening to the statements of a student? And if they do, why would they go to the seminary and not the presbytery of the instructor (assuming they are an officer bearer)?

Also, if the seminary doesn't know there is a problem, doesn't that kinda undermine the notion that they are capable to sit in judgment of the instructor's confessional integrity? 

I'm thinking you can't have it both ways.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Archlute said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, I would say that one man's blackmail is another man's wisdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no wisdom in ill-conceived tactics. Or perhaps the presbytery is admitting it knows of no better way to deal with an unaccountable entity like WTS/PA. Could it be that economic pressure is all that remains?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is neither blackmail, nor an ill-conceived tactic. It is men who are putting their pastoral concerns into action. Any and every pastor should be free to encourage or discourage a future seminarian from attending particular institutions based on his convictions. There are no "safe havens" for institutions just because of pedigree, affiliations, or by-gone glory days. These are men who are seeking to safeguard the future of their congregations, and fulfill their role as undershepherds.
Click to expand...


I'm rather surprised that folks don't seem very concerned about ninth commandment wrt the instructor in question, and due process with the brother. I would very suspect of any pastor who starts giving advice to students under his care based on such testimony. Being an undershepherd does not give one the right to judge a brother on confessional integrity. Perhaps they could look for guidance from the presbytery, or the presbytery of the instructor, but they are not charged to be a lone wolf on such judgment calls. 

Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought that's what presbyterianism was all about.


----------



## HaigLaw

*why not read the professor's book?*



tcalbrecht said:


> I'm rather surprised that folks don't seem very concerned about ninth commandment wrt the instructor in question, and due process with the brother. I would very suspect of any pastor who starts giving advice to students under his care based on such testimony. Being an undershepherd does not give one the right to judge a brother on confessional integrity. Perhaps they could look for guidance from the presbytery, or the presbytery of the instructor, but they are not charged to be a lone wolf on such judgment calls.
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought that's what presbyterianism was all about.



Yeah, I think you're missing something rather obvious -- this professor published a book 3 years ago. Any pastor can read the book and advise young pastoral candidates under his care whether he thinks the book is heretical or not. He would be remiss not to, but instead to withhold judgment until some presbytery somewhere, perhaps in another denomination, pursues an examination of the book and its author.


----------



## Archlute

tcalbrecht said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no wisdom in ill-conceived tactics. Or perhaps the presbytery is admitting it knows of no better way to deal with an unaccountable entity like WTS/PA. Could it be that economic pressure is all that remains?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is neither blackmail, nor an ill-conceived tactic. It is men who are putting their pastoral concerns into action. Any and every pastor should be free to encourage or discourage a future seminarian from attending particular institutions based on his convictions. There are no "safe havens" for institutions just because of pedigree, affiliations, or by-gone glory days. These are men who are seeking to safeguard the future of their congregations, and fulfill their role as undershepherds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm rather surprised that folks don't seem very concerned about ninth commandment wrt the instructor in question, and due process with the brother. I would very suspect of any pastor who starts giving advice to students under his care based on such testimony. Being an undershepherd does not give one the right to judge a brother on confessional integrity. Perhaps they could look for guidance from the presbytery, or the presbytery of the instructor, but they are not charged to be a lone wolf on such judgment calls.
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought that's what presbyterianism was all about.
Click to expand...


Well friend, I've been in enough presbytery meetings where the "9th Commandment!" was wrongly invoked with the intent of keeping sin stuffed in the closet, and the truth of a matter locked up from proper discussion, that these sort of appeals no longer phase me. The folk who make constant appeal to this often overlook the fact that _"outfacing and overbearing the truth...concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or a complaint to others"_ is just as much a part of keeping the 9th (according to WLC#145) as anything else. 

Presbyterianism can be used as a tool both to impede righteousness or to advance it, the system in and of itself is no cure for the sins of leaders in the church.


----------



## tcalbrecht

HaigLaw said:


> Yeah, I think you're missing something rather obvious -- this professor published a book 3 years ago. Any pastor can read the book and advise young pastoral candidates under his care whether he thinks the book is heretical or not. *He would be remiss not to, but instead to withhold judgment until some presbytery somewhere, perhaps in another denomination, pursues an examination of the book and its author. *



Not if he has any regard for Christ's church beyond his own four walls, in my opinion. Is it the pastor's place to make a heresy judgment against a brother elder in his own or fraternal denomination? Isn't that what church courts are for?

Or is it OK to function as an independent when we think it is expedient?


----------



## A5pointer

Any thoughts onLongman and his work? I enjoyed his commentary on Ecclesiastes although it has an untraditional view. It made sense to me.

Tremper Longman Says: 
February 1st, 2008 at 12:43 pm 
I cannot speak to all the issues that this web page
addresses, but I can speak with some measure of
authority concerning biblical studies at WTS. I was a
student from 1974-1977, where I was captivated by the
teaching of many professors, but most notably Ray
Dillard who was my mentor and was soon to be my
colleague and close friend. I taught Old Testament at
the school from 1981 to 1998 with Ray, Bruce Waltke,
and Al Groves. I was involved with these friends in
the hiring of Peter Enns (as well as Doug Green). I
have continued as Visiting Professor of Old Testament
since 1998 till the present. I have recently written
an article on E. J. Young for the Dictionary of
Biblical Interpreters that has taken me back to the
earlier history of the school’s instruction in
biblical studies.
I have a great love for the school to say the least. I
like to say that there is no institution I love as
much as Westminster Seminary. However one of the
reasons why I left in 1998 was my perception that the
seminary was beginning to change from the deeply
Reformed but outward facing institution that it was
from the time that I first knew it in the 1970’s to a
more inward defensive institution. I remember talking
to one colleague, for instance, who told me that if I
felt the Bible taught something that the Confession
did not that I had to side with the Confession. That’s
not the Reformed approach to the study of the Bible
that I know and love. However it is a perspective that
I think has only grown with time.
In any case, I have no desire to cast aspersions on
anyone. I think everyone is acting out of a good
conscience in this. This, however, I can say with a
great measure of confidence. The present Old Testament
department represents continuity with the past. I work
closely with Peter Enns. We are co-editing two Bible
dictionaries together and are on a number of editorial
boards. I have served as his editor for his wonderful
Exodus commentary and have read his important
Incarnation and Inspiration three times. In my own
speaking and teaching, I have talked to countless
people whose faith has been increased and whose
confidence in the Bible has been enhanced by reading
this book. His thinking is clearly within the
Princeton-Westminster tradition. If WTS loses him or
anyone else, I worry who might replace them. Will they
continue the WTS tradition while still not “shirking
the difficult questions”? I know what I think about
the matter and I am confident that my dear departed
friend Ray Dillard would agree.
I would encourage my former students and others to
express their support for the OT department at WTS.
Notice I am asking for shows of support. We can do
this without casting aspersions on anyone at the
seminary.


----------



## Scott

A5pointer said:


> Any thoughts onLongman and his work? I enjoyed his commentary on Ecclesiastes although it has an untraditional view. It made sense to me.
> 
> Tremper Longman Says:
> February 1st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
> I cannot speak to all the issues that this web page
> addresses, but I can speak with some measure of
> authority concerning biblical studies at WTS. I was a
> student from 1974-1977, where I was captivated by the
> teaching of many professors, but most notably Ray
> Dillard who was my mentor and was soon to be my
> colleague and close friend. I taught Old Testament at
> the school from 1981 to 1998 with Ray, Bruce Waltke,
> and Al Groves. I was involved with these friends in
> the hiring of Peter Enns (as well as Doug Green). I
> have continued as Visiting Professor of Old Testament
> since 1998 till the present. I have recently written
> an article on E. J. Young for the Dictionary of
> Biblical Interpreters that has taken me back to the
> earlier history of the school’s instruction in
> biblical studies.
> I have a great love for the school to say the least. I
> like to say that there is no institution I love as
> much as Westminster Seminary. However one of the
> reasons why I left in 1998 was my perception that the
> seminary was beginning to change from the deeply
> Reformed but outward facing institution that it was
> from the time that I first knew it in the 1970’s to a
> more inward defensive institution. I remember talking
> to one colleague, for instance, who told me that if I
> felt the Bible taught something that the Confession
> did not that I had to side with the Confession. That’s
> not the Reformed approach to the study of the Bible
> that I know and love. However it is a perspective that
> I think has only grown with time.
> In any case, I have no desire to cast aspersions on
> anyone. I think everyone is acting out of a good
> conscience in this. This, however, I can say with a
> great measure of confidence. The present Old Testament
> department represents continuity with the past. I work
> closely with Peter Enns. We are co-editing two Bible
> dictionaries together and are on a number of editorial
> boards. I have served as his editor for his wonderful
> Exodus commentary and have read his important
> Incarnation and Inspiration three times. In my own
> speaking and teaching, I have talked to countless
> people whose faith has been increased and whose
> confidence in the Bible has been enhanced by reading
> this book. His thinking is clearly within the
> Princeton-Westminster tradition. If WTS loses him or
> anyone else, I worry who might replace them. Will they
> continue the WTS tradition while still not “shirking
> the difficult questions”? I know what I think about
> the matter and I am confident that my dear departed
> friend Ray Dillard would agree.
> I would encourage my former students and others to
> express their support for the OT department at WTS.
> Notice I am asking for shows of support. We can do
> this without casting aspersions on anyone at the
> seminary.



Longman's thoughts mean little. It seems that when people's jobs depend on confessional subscription that they will bend over backwards to show how some new or contradictory view meshes with the Confession. We see this extensively in the Federal Vision debate now, we saw it in the Norm Shepherd issue, and the like.

Regarding Longman's statement that someone told him that if he believes the Bible teaches something other than the confession, he should side with the confession, that is just silly. If he believes the Bible teaches something other than the confession, he should boldly announce his exception to the confession. If it it a serious enough matter, he should leave posts which require confessional subscription (whether in the seminary or church). He can go somewhere else and do something else. 

Westminster is a confessional seminary. That is what gives it is unique value. The world does not need yet another non-confessional seminary. Those are innumerable. If professors want to take non-confessional views, then they should go to other seminaries. There are plenty of seminaries that do not subscribe to the confession.


----------



## HaigLaw

*Individual judgment starts any heresy determination*



tcalbrecht said:


> Is it the pastor's place to make a heresy judgment against a brother elder in his own or fraternal denomination? Isn't that what church courts are for?
> 
> Or is it OK to function as an independent when we think it is expedient?



Every heresy trial at every presbytery starts with a charge by an individual elder stating the kinds of opinions that you are saying no elder can express apart from the collective judgment of some presbytery.


----------



## HaigLaw

*What to make of Longman? I don't know.*



A5pointer said:


> Any thoughts on Longman and his work? I enjoyed his commentary on Ecclesiastes although it has an untraditional view. It made sense to me.
> 
> (Quoting Longman on Enns)
> 
> 
> 
> ... However one of the
> reasons why I left in 1998 was my perception that the
> seminary was beginning to change from the deeply
> Reformed but outward facing institution that it was
> from the time that I first knew it in the 1970’s to a
> more inward defensive institution. I remember talking
> to one colleague, for instance, who told me that if I
> felt the Bible taught something that the Confession
> did not that I had to side with the Confession. That’s
> not the Reformed approach to the study of the Bible
> that I know and love. However it is a perspective that
> I think has only grown with time.
> In any case, I have no desire to cast aspersions on
> anyone. I think everyone is acting out of a good
> conscience in this. This, however, I can say with a
> great measure of confidence. The present Old Testament
> department represents continuity with the past. I work
> closely with Peter Enns. We are co-editing two Bible
> dictionaries together and are on a number of editorial
> boards. I have served as his editor for his wonderful
> Exodus commentary and have read his important
> Incarnation and Inspiration three times. In my own
> speaking and teaching, I have talked to countless
> people whose faith has been increased and whose
> confidence in the Bible has been enhanced by reading
> this book. His thinking is clearly within the
> Princeton-Westminster tradition. If WTS loses him or
> anyone else, I worry who might replace them. Will they
> continue the WTS tradition while still not “shirking
> the difficult questions”? I know what I think about
> the matter and I am confident that my dear departed
> friend Ray Dillard would agree.
> I would encourage my former students and others to
> express their support for the OT department at WTS.
> Notice I am asking for shows of support. We can do
> this without casting aspersions on anyone at the
> seminary.
Click to expand...


The line about the Bible speaking to an issue and the Confession not, and having to side with the Confession, makes no sense, the way it's worded. Now if the Confession speaks to an issue and contradicts the Bible, then you have to side with the Bible, and let your fellow elders know your views on that; but that's not the way he phrased it.

As for whether he says Enns is orthodox, he never says. Enns is a good guy and his writings have blessed others -- is all he says. That's why I don't know what to make of it. Why is he hesitating? He's gone from there now, apparently. Or is he still adjunct?

It's like Semper Fi counseled me on PB not to side with the FVers on the basis that Steve Wilkins is a nice guy or needed his paycheck. Not that I was so inclined, but I appreciated my ole Marine friend's counsel nevertheless.


----------



## tcalbrecht

HaigLaw said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it the pastor's place to make a heresy judgment against a brother elder in his own or fraternal denomination? Isn't that what church courts are for?
> 
> Or is it OK to function as an independent when we think it is expedient?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every heresy trial at every presbytery starts with a charge by an individual elder stating the kinds of opinions that you are saying no elder can express apart from the collective judgment of some presbytery.
Click to expand...


A charge is very different from a decision/conviction. Anyone can make a charge. But no individual may act towards a brother based merely on a charge. (A trial court may take appropriate action based on church order to convict/vindicate the accused.)

So what do we have in this case? A pastor makes a charge with no intent or ability to carry through on the charge other than to warn potential students about a perceived problem.

You don't see a problem with this?

I will admit it is troublesome at times being presbyterian.


----------



## DMcFadden

Dr. Longman, the Robert H. Gundry professor of Biblical Studies at Wesmont (my alma mater) is known for his Reformed evangelicalism. I am sure that he is a man of integrity and have personally been helped by some of his writings.

However, it does not surprise me that he would defend Westminster. The chair he holds at Westmont is named after my major professor (and the one who officiated at my wedding) who takes a Midrash view of Matthew (e.g., no magi, no star, no women in Jesus' real genealogy), was booted from the ETS, and was the one against whom John Piper wrote his _Counted Righteous in Christ_. In other words, Dr. Longman teaches at a school known for its uncompromising commitment to broad evangelicalism.

I would not count his recommendation as meaning any more than that Dr. Enns fits within the big tent of broader evangelicalism. But, as a confessional seminary, I thought that WTS was supposed to take stands somewhat more specific than what would be acceptable at a Westmont, Wheaton, Azusa, Asbury, or Fuller. Dr. Longman's explanation for leaving WTS for Westmont speaks of his concern that WTS was becoming more "inward" and "defensive." Based on what some of my TR brethren have written on this board, I would think that many of you disagree with the direction WTS is going, including the course Dr. Longman would like to have seen it take. Regardless of Enns' orthodoxy (I don't know the man), he may still not fit within a confessional framework. And, that is an open question for the trustees of WTS to determine with respect to his employment and his ecclesiastical authorities with respect to his ministerial standing.


----------



## HaigLaw

*we all make choices.*



tcalbrecht said:


> A charge is very different from a decision/conviction. Anyone can make a charge. But no individual may act towards a brother based merely on a charge. (A trial court may take appropriate action based on church order to convict/vindicate the accused.)
> 
> So what do we have in this case? A pastor makes a charge with no intent or ability to carry through on the charge other than to warn potential students about a perceived problem.
> 
> You don't see a problem with this?
> 
> I will admit it is troublesome at times being presbyterian.



It's called freedom of association. I could decide to quit dialoging with you, without filing charges with your session or presbytery.

If someone were to ask my why I quit dialoging with you, I could give them a reason, without backing it up with a conviction before the church court that has jurisdiction over you. 

I could say -- he's obsessed about church courts. I don't think that's a 9th commandment offense. That's an opinion. I'm free to act on my opinions; and people who respect my opinion are free to act on them too.

Maybe people who are obsessed about church courts will want to dialog with you, so my opinion spread around might help you. 

Others who might not agree with my opinion but are not obsessed about church courts might give you more attention to see if they agree with my opinion or not. 

Even the ones who agree with me and ignore you are not hurting you, because you had no right to their attention to start with.

Make sense?


----------



## wsw201

One should not assume that Mr. Enn's Presbytery is not already involved. A lot of folks thought for a long time that LAP was sitting on their collective hands regarding Wilkins but know we know better.


----------



## HaigLaw

*thanks!*



wsw201 said:


> One should not assume that Mr. Enn's Presbytery is not already involved. A lot of folks thought for a long time that LAP was sitting on their collective hands regarding Wilkins but know we know better.



Yes, indeed, we do know better now.


----------



## Pilgrim

HaigLaw said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it the pastor's place to make a heresy judgment against a brother elder in his own or fraternal denomination? Isn't that what church courts are for?
> 
> Or is it OK to function as an independent when we think it is expedient?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every heresy trial at every presbytery starts with a charge by an individual elder stating the kinds of opinions that you are saying no elder can express apart from the collective judgment of some presbytery.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pilgrim

tcalbrecht said:


> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it the pastor's place to make a heresy judgment against a brother elder in his own or fraternal denomination? Isn't that what church courts are for?
> 
> Or is it OK to function as an independent when we think it is expedient?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every heresy trial at every presbytery starts with a charge by an individual elder stating the kinds of opinions that you are saying no elder can express apart from the collective judgment of some presbytery.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A charge is very different from a decision/conviction. Anyone can make a charge. But no individual may act towards a brother based merely on a charge. (A trial court may take appropriate action based on church order to convict/vindicate the accused.)
> 
> So what do we have in this case? A pastor makes a charge with no intent or ability to carry through on the charge other than to warn potential students about a perceived problem.
> 
> You don't see a problem with this?
> 
> I will admit it is troublesome at times being presbyterian.
Click to expand...


I do see a problem if the pastor or elder believes another officer is guilty of heresy but does not move to charge him for whatever reason. My understanding is this is largely how the PCUSA was lost.


----------



## A5pointer

McArthur weighs in John H Armstrong : Interpreting the Bible: The False Assumptions of Modernism


----------



## A5pointer

As I am understanding what the content of the controversy is about, I realize it has barely been tackled in this thread. Ens and others contention is that modern insistence for wooden literal factual historical accuracy on the ancients is unwarranted. Any thoughts?


----------



## tcalbrecht

HaigLaw said:


> Make sense?



Not really in this context since your earlier comment had to do with a pastor reading a book and giving pastoral advice to students under his care as to which seminary to attend. So it was not really a personal matter. Now you have turned it into a personal matter, which is fine as far as it goes.

But it fails to address my earlier concerns about publically labeling brethren based on personal opinion. 

Scott Clark said something in another thread that I think is important and speaks to the fundamental issue:



> I'm glad for your zeal but take it up with the Reformed Churches. Gordon Clark was a good man and we've all benefitted from his teaching, even those of us who have fundamental disagreements with him, * but there is a basic difference in the authority of the private views of a philosopher/theologian and the public confession of the Reformed churches.*



Exactly! That is what I have been trying to say here wrt the private, individual pronouncements against Dr. Enns. You may read his book and consider it troubling, even heretical. But Dr. Enns is a man under authority, the authority of a presbytery called by God to make judgment calls as to a man’s confessionalism. I would even go so far as to say that any pronouncements by an independent seminary amount to no more than “private views” ala Dr. Clark’s comment.

All you may say at this point is that he doesn’t appear to agree with your interpretation of the confession. You may think that's enough to withdraw fellowship or reco young students not attend his seminary, but I certainly wouldn’t go that far.


----------



## tcalbrecht

wsw201 said:


> One should not assume that Mr. Enn's Presbytery is not already involved. A lot of folks thought for a long time that LAP was sitting on their collective hands regarding Wilkins but know we know better.



Which presbytery is it, and how are they involved at this time?


----------



## tcalbrecht

Interesting related article by Reed DePace over at Green Baggins.


----------



## wsw201

tcalbrecht said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One should not assume that Mr. Enn's Presbytery is not already involved. A lot of folks thought for a long time that LAP was sitting on their collective hands regarding Wilkins but know we know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which presbytery is it, and how are they involved at this time?
Click to expand...


I do not know what Presbytery he is apart of. 

I do not know what his Presbytery is doing or how involved they are, but I think it is safe to _assume _that they are aware of this situation and will deal with it. As you know, the wheels of Presbytery turn very slowly.


----------



## HaigLaw

*public vs. private views?*



tcalbrecht said:


> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really in this context since your earlier comment had to do with a pastor reading a book and giving pastoral advice to students under his care as to which seminary to attend. So it was not really a personal matter. Now you have turned it into a personal matter, which is fine as far as it goes.
> 
> But it fails to address my earlier concerns about publically labeling brethren based on personal opinion.
Click to expand...


The public-private distinction you make is not the issue. I used two examples to reason with you -- one a pastor counseling a seminary candidate, and two a hypothetical dialog between you and me.

The public-private point you make is what we in the law call a "distinction without a difference." Or, a distinction that makes no difference to the point at hand.

The point at hand was the legitimacy of WTS exercising orthodoxy determinations in terms of whom it retains on its faculty.

You questioned that legitimacy; I defended it. 

It makes no sense to characterize WTS's decision to let the professor go as a "private" decision. It was very public the instant they announced it. Hundreds of churches and thousands of presbyterian church members are interested in the orthodoxy of WTS's professors. And rightly so.

They took 3 years to act on this professor's book.

It took Reformed Jackson only one year to get rid of Bahnsen after his _Theonomy in Christian Ethics_ was published.

And the latter was not a matter of orthodoxy, but merely controversy. 

I question the wisdom of that, but not the para-ecclesiastical authority.

It was very unwise of them to run Greg off, but they surely had the authority.


----------



## tcalbrecht

HaigLaw said:


> The point at hand was the legitimacy of WTS exercising orthodoxy determinations in terms of whom it retains on its faculty.
> 
> You questioned that legitimacy; I defended it.
> 
> It makes no sense to characterize WTS's decision to let the professor go as a "private" decision. It was very public the instant they announced it. Hundreds of churches and thousands of presbyterian church members are interested in the orthodoxy of WTS's professors. And rightly so.




We are in agreement that WTS decision was not a "private matter". 

We disagree as to whether independent WTS has the legitimate authority to determine orthodoxy (what is confessional and what is not), and base faculty decisions on such independent determinations. 

I’m still waiting for any argument on the nature of independent authority in the matter of confessional determination.

That is the distinction with a difference, in my opinion.


----------



## greenbaggins

I think where I would net out on this is in the scope of a seminary's authority in contrast with the authority that a Presbytery has, say. A seminary has the authority to determine what it is going to teach within its bounds, just as a presbytery has the authority to determine what is going to be taught within its bounds. A seminary therefore has the right to determine what constitutes confessionalism within its range of authority.


----------



## A5pointer

Hi Lane, Is there anything on your blog that discusses Enn's thrust that ancient literature is being forced to be something it was not intended to be by modern interpreters? Thanks


----------



## greenbaggins

I don't think so. The only real issue I have dealt with in regard to Enns has been the situation as a whole, and how it is being handled by WTS. I have read I&I, however.


----------



## A5pointer

greenbaggins said:


> I don't think so. The only real issue I have dealt with in regard to Enns has been the situation as a whole, and how it is being handled by WTS. *I have read I&I, however*.



Well? Any thoughts you wish to share in public? If not I understand.


----------



## Scott

> We are in agreement that WTS decision was not a "private matter".
> 
> We disagree as to whether independent WTS has the legitimate authority to determine orthodoxy (what is confessional and what is not), and base faculty decisions on such independent determinations.
> 
> I’m still waiting for any argument on the nature of independent authority in the matter of confessional determination.
> 
> That is the distinction with a difference, in my opinion.


Of course WTS has authority. They pay the money. We are not talking about civil servants here.


----------



## greenbaggins

I think I would agree to some extent with Enns on this, though there need to be boundaries set. I do think that ancient history writing differs from modern history writing in some significant ways. However, what Enns does not do justice to is the fact that the biblical writing was always _polemical against _the ANE. I get the feeling with Enns that there is way too much continuity between ANE writing and the Bible. I remember having a conversation with him at GA last year in which I was commenting on Poole's Synopsis Criticorum. Enns seemed a bit neutral with regard to the work. But he did comment about how we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls. The comment seemed to assume that whole paradigms have shifted in biblical interpretation since the Reformation, by means of discovering such scrolls as these. Now, far be it from me to denigrate using the DSS in seeking to understand the first-century world. I have no doubt that many good insights have come from that. However, the main interpreter of Scripture is Scripture, not outside texts. I wonder how much he would affirm that.


----------



## Scott

greenbaggins said:


> I think I would agree to some extent with Enns on this, though there need to be boundaries set. I do think that ancient history writing differs from modern history writing in some significant ways. However, what Enns does not do justice to is the fact that the biblical writing was always _polemical against _the ANE. I get the feeling with Enns that there is way too much continuity between ANE writing and the Bible. I remember having a conversation with him at GA last year in which I was commenting on Poole's Synopsis Criticorum. Enns seemed a bit neutral with regard to the work. But he did comment about how we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls. The comment seemed to assume that whole paradigms have shifted in biblical interpretation since the Reformation, by means of discovering such scrolls as these. Now, far be it from me to denigrate using the DSS in seeking to understand the first-century world. I have no doubt that many good insights have come from that. However, the main interpreter of Scripture is Scripture, not outside texts. I wonder how much he would affirm that.



It seems to me that if we need the DSS to understand the Bible, then the scriptures would be of little value to anyone but speculative scholars.


----------



## tcalbrecht

greenbaggins said:


> I think where I would net out on this is in the scope of a *seminary's authority *in contrast with the authority that a Presbytery has, say. *A seminary has the authority to determine what it is going to teach within its bounds*, just as a presbytery has the authority to determine what is going to be taught within its bounds. A seminary therefore has the right to determine what constitutes confessionalism within its range of authority.



We know where a presbytery gets its authority. It is divinely instituted and strictly regulated by the Word of God. It has the power to institute and define confessions, require subscription of its members, define the boundaries of subscription, and discipline those who stray.

From whence cometh the seminary's parallel authority? I can’t find anything in the Bible to instruct an independent seminary in this regard?

Or is this just a business proposition? It can make rules for its employees same as Penn State or Pizza Hut.

Is it merely _de facto_ authority and I should just get over it?


----------



## greenbaggins

Scott said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I would agree to some extent with Enns on this, though there need to be boundaries set. I do think that ancient history writing differs from modern history writing in some significant ways. However, what Enns does not do justice to is the fact that the biblical writing was always _polemical against _the ANE. I get the feeling with Enns that there is way too much continuity between ANE writing and the Bible. I remember having a conversation with him at GA last year in which I was commenting on Poole's Synopsis Criticorum. Enns seemed a bit neutral with regard to the work. But he did comment about how we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls. The comment seemed to assume that whole paradigms have shifted in biblical interpretation since the Reformation, by means of discovering such scrolls as these. Now, far be it from me to denigrate using the DSS in seeking to understand the first-century world. I have no doubt that many good insights have come from that. However, the main interpreter of Scripture is Scripture, not outside texts. I wonder how much he would affirm that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that if we need the DSS to understand the Bible, then the scriptures would be of little value to anyone but speculative scholars.
Click to expand...


Right. However, there is a difference between those passages of Scripture that are so clear that a normal person, aided by the Holy Spirit, can come into a correct understanding of them for salvation. And indeed, even the other parts of Scripture would not be misunderstood as to their general content, even if we had no extra-biblical texts available to us. However, I would not be willing to say that extra-biblical sources have never helped us to understand better any passages of Scripture.


----------



## greenbaggins

tcalbrecht said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think where I would net out on this is in the scope of a *seminary's authority *in contrast with the authority that a Presbytery has, say. *A seminary has the authority to determine what it is going to teach within its bounds*, just as a presbytery has the authority to determine what is going to be taught within its bounds. A seminary therefore has the right to determine what constitutes confessionalism within its range of authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know where a presbytery gets its authority. It is divinely instituted and strictly regulated by the Word of God. It as the power to institute and define confessions, require subscription of its members, define the boundaries of subscription, and discipline those who stray.
> 
> From whence cometh the seminary's parallel authority? I can’t find anything in the Bible to instruct an independent seminary in this regard?
> 
> Or is this just a business proposition? It can make rules for its employees same as Penn State or Pizza Hut.
> 
> Is it merely _de facto_ authority and I should just get over it?
Click to expand...


Well, I think that the question of a seminary's authority, and the question of whether there ought to be independent seminaries are two separate questions. I have wrestled with the latter question for some time. I am not in the least happy with my own denominational seminary. It doesn't seem to have done a whole lot of good for that seminary to be under the aegis of the PCA. I don't know that any biblical case can be made one way or the other.


----------



## A5pointer

Are there Biblical text that indicate the HS role in aiding of interpretation? The one's I know of seem to be specific to faith in the Gospel and to the teaching to the apostles equipping them specifically ie John.


----------



## Gryphonette

*Both types of seminaries, tied houses and independents, have strengths and weaknesses*



greenbaggins said:


> Well, I think that the question of a seminary's authority, and the question of whether there ought to be independent seminaries are two separate questions. I have wrestled with the latter question for some time. I am not in the least happy with my own denominational seminary. It doesn't seem to have done a whole lot of good for that seminary to be under the aegis of the PCA. I don't know that any biblical case can be made one way or the other.


It seems to me the trouble with Tom's position is that it cuts off at the knees the primary strength of an independent seminary, which is its ability to withstand the errors of doctrine which might come in from the various denominations from which it has drawn its professors. An independent seminary hopefully can act as a stabilizing influence in the Reformed world as it works to maintain a consistent confessionalism, even though on or more erstwhile Reformed denominations go peculiar.

If the seminary is forced to bow the knee to any self-professed Reformed denomination, no matter how unconfessional it has become, then there's no "independence" worth mentioning.


----------



## tcalbrecht

I apologize for not responding directly to your earlier comments. Hopefully I can cover them here.



Gryphonette said:


> It seems to me the trouble with Tom's position is that it cuts off at the knees the primary strength of an independent seminary, which is its ability to withstand the errors of doctrine which might come in from the various denominations from which it has drawn its professors. An independent seminary hopefully can act as a stabilizing influence in the Reformed world as it works to maintain a consistent confessionalism, even though on or more erstwhile Reformed denominations go peculiar.
> 
> If the seminary is forced to bow the knee to any self-professed Reformed denomination, no matter how unconfessional it has become, then there's no "independence" worth mentioning.



I don't have a problem with the charge because, fundamentally, I'm not an independent. The spirit and illusion of independency, especially in a seminary ostensibly purposed with training men for Reformed churches, is troubling, at least it is to me. 

I guess it is possible to justify the existence of these bodies based on the practical experience of denominations going bad, but that reason, if taken to its logical conclusion, could justify all sorts of anti-ecclesial independent activities. 

I found an interesting comment on the WTS describing the school:



> Since our founding, Westminster has been *an unusually faculty-oriented institution*. In the early years, all institutional decisions, large and small, were made by the faculty at formal faculty meetings, chaired by different faculty members. In 1952, the Board of Trustees appointed Professor Ed Clowney the first president of the Seminary. Since then, delegation of institutional affairs to professional administrators has occurred, *but the faculty continues to have exceptional authority over, and responsibility for, the life of the Seminary*.
> 
> Westminster Theological Seminary - Our Founders



Now I understand that at this faculty-oriented institution the faculty voted 12-8 to support Dr. Enns’ views, but because of the division the board voted to suspend Dr. Enns and ask a committee to "recommend the appropriate process for the Board to consider whether Professor Enns should be terminated from his employment at the Seminary." It will be interesting to see the process recommendation.

When a church needs to decide how to proceed against an officer with potentially errant views, it at least has the authority from God to act and an assurance of divine guidance (Matthew 16:19; 18:18). 

BTW, Scripture tells us that gates of Hades shall not prevail against the Church, not independent seminaries. Even though they are all officers in "self-professed Reformed denominations", the board of WTS does not exercise the keys of the kingdom. I might argue that by their very nature (independency) the path to error is wide before them. WTS may merely be well along that path. There is no divine institution to pull them back.

In my opinion, "self-professed Reformed denominations" are far better off than self-professed yet independent Reformed seminaries.


----------



## wsw201

greenbaggins said:


> I think I would agree to some extent with Enns on this, though there need to be boundaries set. I do think that ancient history writing differs from modern history writing in some significant ways. However, what Enns does not do justice to is the fact that the biblical writing was always _polemical against _the ANE. I get the feeling with Enns that there is way too much continuity between ANE writing and the Bible. I remember having a conversation with him at GA last year in which I was commenting on Poole's Synopsis Criticorum. Enns seemed a bit neutral with regard to the work. But he did comment about how we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls. The comment seemed to assume that whole paradigms have shifted in biblical interpretation since the Reformation, by means of discovering such scrolls as these. Now, far be it from me to denigrate using the DSS in seeking to understand the first-century world. I have no doubt that many good insights have come from that. However, the main interpreter of Scripture is Scripture, not outside texts. I wonder how much he would affirm that.



How would you compare Enns use of ANE versus Kline's use of ANE.


----------



## Gryphonette

Ah. Then it's "independent seminary" as a class that you're against.

That clears up a lot.

It was puzzling, for you seemed to be arguing against an independent seminary behaving as one would _expect_ an independent seminary to behave, but without making plain that in your opinion WTS/P ought not to have been set up as an independent seminary in the first place.

If I may be so bold, it'd probably have been best to have framed your objection like this in the first place, rather than criticizing the seminary for behaving precisely as one would expect an independent seminary to behave.

"In my opinion, "self-professed Reformed denominations" are far better off than self-professed yet independent Reformed seminaries."

Hmmm. It seems to me the PCUSA and quite a few other denominations would act as effective arguments against this. 

But there....that's what makes a horse race, eh? ;^)


----------



## DMcFadden

tcalbrecht said:


> From whence cometh the seminary's parallel authority? I can’t find anything in the Bible to instruct an independent seminary in this regard?
> 
> Or is this just a business proposition? It can make rules for its employees same as Penn State or Pizza Hut.
> 
> Is it merely _de facto_ authority and I should just get over it?



Tom, I am perhaps too uncomprehending (as a baptist) to speak on the issue. However, whether we should have independent seminaries or not, we certainly do. Are you asking from whence their authority derives since they do not have the keys to the kingdom? This is really a problem of independent modalities within presbyterian polity . While it would still be a practical problem for a baptist it would not be an ecclesiastical one.

It would seem to me that whether one has ecclesiastical authority or not one ought not reduce it the description to "just a business proposition." From a legal perspective the trustees are the stewards of the mission, vision, and values of an organization. While Penn State and Pizza Hut have a mission that is "just a business proposition," para-church ministries aspire to more than than. Again, the irony of the whole "para church" thing is not lost on me, particularly from a confessionally Reformed perspective. But, we are not debating whether they should exist, but how they have a right to control the theological outcomes. 

Since attempting to serve some niche within the Christian community, in this case providing trained pastors for Reformed churches, involves theological boundaries, the seminary has every right to insure that the institution continues to stay within that mission. Allowing professors to graze outside the fence will defeat the ability of the institution to fulfill its mission, vision, and values. 

In one of my previous posts, I suggested that Dr. Enns is accountable to the trustees for his employment and to the presbytery for his ministerial standing. The two are separate. As an employment matter, the trustees have a right to determine if teaching will likely produce the outcomes that the school wants to achieve in order to continue its particular mission. If they decide that it will not, it is imperative that the trustees act in accordance with the mission, vision, and values of the school since they are, after all, the "trustees" of that reality.

If an independent (there is that strange irony for presbyterian polity again; most of you would not allow such a situation to take place) publishing house hired seminary graduates to write Sunday school curriculua, it would have a responsibility to be sure that the products of that writing conform to the doctrinal and ecclesiastical expectations of the churches its mission calls it to serve. One would not need ecclesiastical authority to judge whether a CEO of a publishing house could/should fire a writer who had gone off the reservation. A publishing house serving charismatic churches would not want someone dissing that point of view. Similarly, someone preparing Calvinist materials would not tolerate one of its writers promoting Open Theism.

Absent the ecclesiastical authority (which you have to accept will be absent if you allow independent seminariesn to exist at all), the controlling principle must be conformity to the mission. The decision here is intellectually separate from the question of what a presbytery would determine. The school has no right to determine what is or is not "confessional" for the churches. It merely acts to decide if its teachers are fulfilling its mission of training pastors who can satisfy the requirements and expectations of the churches it has determined to serve.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Gryphonette said:


> Ah. Then it's "independent seminary" as a class that you're against.
> 
> That clears up a lot.



Actually, if you go back and read my opening comments here you’ll see that I was not speaking against WTS per se. WTS was just the instance to illustrate the problem with the class.



Gryphonette said:


> It was puzzling, for you seemed to be arguing against an independent seminary behaving as one would _expect_ an independent seminary to behave, but without making plain that in your opinion WTS/P ought not to have been set up as an independent seminary in the first place.



I do not expect any seminary to act independently of the courts of the church in determining the fate of their faculty or staff. Any seminary that does is, in my opinion, fundamentally at odds with the only divinely-instituted body for making such a call. 



Gryphonette said:


> If I may be so bold, it'd probably have been best to have framed your objection like this in the first place, rather than criticizing the seminary for behaving precisely as one would expect an independent seminary to behave.



Again, I do not expect any seminary that is training man in the Reformed faith to not respect the oversight role of the presbytery for its officers. WTS does not train independent, non-confessional men for pastoral roles. It trains men who are expected to live and work within a connectional ecclesiastical sphere. It trains students who are expected to respect church courts in the definition of what it means to be confessional. I expect the teacher to play by the same rules.

In this particular case, my sincere hope is that the WTS committee that has been tasked with determining the appropriate process wrt Dr. Enns will come back and say that Dr. Enns confessional standing ought to be decided by his presbytery and that we, the seminary, will respect the will of the church.

But I suspect that you will feel the spirit of the PCUSA makes that unwise if not impossible. 



Gryphonette said:


> Hmmm. It seems to me the PCUSA and quite a few other denominations would act as effective arguments against this.
> 
> But there....that's what makes a horse race, eh? ;^)



Like I was saying above …

BTW, I have yet to see anyone tackle this question: who gave Machen the right to start WTS? Or is that question akin to asking who gave Dave Thomas the right to start Wendy’s?


----------



## Scott

greenbaggins said:


> Scott said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I would agree to some extent with Enns on this, though there need to be boundaries set. I do think that ancient history writing differs from modern history writing in some significant ways. However, what Enns does not do justice to is the fact that the biblical writing was always _polemical against _the ANE. I get the feeling with Enns that there is way too much continuity between ANE writing and the Bible. I remember having a conversation with him at GA last year in which I was commenting on Poole's Synopsis Criticorum. Enns seemed a bit neutral with regard to the work. But he did comment about how we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls. The comment seemed to assume that whole paradigms have shifted in biblical interpretation since the Reformation, by means of discovering such scrolls as these. Now, far be it from me to denigrate using the DSS in seeking to understand the first-century world. I have no doubt that many good insights have come from that. However, the main interpreter of Scripture is Scripture, not outside texts. I wonder how much he would affirm that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that if we need the DSS to understand the Bible, then the scriptures would be of little value to anyone but speculative scholars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. However, there is a difference between those passages of Scripture that are so clear that a normal person, aided by the Holy Spirit, can come into a correct understanding of them for salvation. And indeed, even the other parts of Scripture would not be misunderstood as to their general content, even if we had no extra-biblical texts available to us. However, I would not be willing to say that extra-biblical sources have never helped us to understand better any passages of Scripture.
Click to expand...


I agree.


----------



## Scott

> Is it merely _de facto_ authority and I should just get over it?



It is fundamentally a question of whether a private institution can govern its own employment practices. WTS is not making an ecclesial judgment and is not exercising the power of the keys in church discipline. WTS is exercising its own discretion to determine whether WTS should continue to spend its money to employee this man. The Board has a fiduciary obligation to the institution to exercise its discretion and act as a good steward of its limited resources. If the Board believes that Enns is no longer the best employee, the Board should get rid of him rather than keep spending money on a person that does not advance the institution's goals as well as other men could.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Scott said:


> Is it merely _de facto_ authority and I should just get over it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is fundamentally a question of whether a private institution can govern its own employment practices. WTS is not making an ecclesial judgment and is not exercising the power of the keys in church discipline. WTS is exercising its own discretion to determine whether WTS should continue to spend its money to employee this man. The Board has a fiduciary obligation to the institution to exercise its discretion and act as a good steward of its limited resources. If the Board believes that Enns is no longer the best employee, the Board should get rid of him rather than keep spending money on a person that does not advance the institution's goals as well as other men could.
Click to expand...


However, we're not discussing whether the man can make a decent batch of fries. So it doesn’t sound like any regular employment situation. The man is being judged, and his future employability decided, either directly or indirectly by his confessional credentials. In my Reformed circles, confessionality, or lack thereof, is the concern of the Church, not the parachurch. 

If Wendy’s (a private institution) made adherence to the Reformed confessions a term of employment, folks would wake up and take notice. Folks would (righty) question whether Wendy’s management has both the right and ability to make such a call.

But, we don’t seem to notice when it is (private institution) WTS. 

BTW, having spouted off on this for the last several days, I do realize that WTS has not said how it will decide whether or not to retain Dr. Enns. There is still hope that it will make the right call on process as well as outcome. We also do not know what if any action his presbytery will take. Both are items for prayer.


----------



## Zenas

I have all of the answers, and that being true, I also know all of the problems.

Here's the problem: People aren't brought up to think critically. I wasn't, I had to learn it. I'm the bane of any professor's existence because I dismantle what they say in order to determine just what exactly they're trying to get me to believe. No one else does this that I know. I just get funny looks when I break down what someone said into presuppositions and worldview assertions. 

This sounds like one problem that was mentioned in an earlier post. Professors would espouse damning heresey, leaving students wondering why in the world they should believe in Christ, to which the professors made a weak emotional appeal to just believe anyway. 

I know that's not THE problem, but it sounds like a problem. Please, bring your children up with discerning hearts and minds. 

Something else that could be rectified in these seminaries is the nonfeasance that's going on. People supporting WTS because they're under the dillusion that it's still Machen's baby needs to stop. If it's full of heretical liberals and Scripture-haters, then they need to know that and adjust their donation accordingly. It reveals much that's on the hearts of these men when they all but lie to their benefactors in order to get them to donate money to an organization that no longer is what is was, by its own admission. You can't convince me that the faculty and administration of WTS PA is earnestly on the path to seek out truth and godliness when they're doing everything short of lying through their teeth to keep money flowing in so that they can continue to produce apostates. 

That's my


----------



## Scott

tcalbrecht said:


> Scott said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it merely _de facto_ authority and I should just get over it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is fundamentally a question of whether a private institution can govern its own employment practices. WTS is not making an ecclesial judgment and is not exercising the power of the keys in church discipline. WTS is exercising its own discretion to determine whether WTS should continue to spend its money to employee this man. The Board has a fiduciary obligation to the institution to exercise its discretion and act as a good steward of its limited resources. If the Board believes that Enns is no longer the best employee, the Board should get rid of him rather than keep spending money on a person that does not advance the institution's goals as well as other men could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, we're not discussing whether the man can make a decent batch of fries. So it doesn’t sound like any regular employment situation. The man is being judged, and his future employability decided, either directly or indirectly by his confessional credentials. In my Reformed circles, confessionality, or lack thereof, is the concern of the Church, not the parachurch.
> 
> If Wendy’s (a private institution) made adherence to the Reformed confessions a term of employment, folks would wake up and take notice. Folks would (righty) question whether Wendy’s management has both the right and ability to make such a call.
> 
> But, we don’t seem to notice when it is (private institution) WTS.
> 
> BTW, having spouted off on this for the last several days, I do realize that WTS has not said how it will decide whether or not to retain Dr. Enns. There is still hope that it will make the right call on process as well as outcome. We also do not know what if any action his presbytery will take. Both are items for prayer.
Click to expand...


I think it would be more correct to say that only the church can make ecclesial judgments about individuals. IN other words, only the church can determine whether an individual should be subject to ecclesial discipline (barred from the Lord's Supper, excommunicated, etc.). That monopoly power of the church does not prohibit others from making non-ecclesial judgments or evaluations. For example, if a suitor were to come to court a man's daughter, it would be right and proper for the father to inquire into the depth and understanding of the suitor's doctrine. The fact that the church is tasked with making ecclesial judgments does not rob the father of the right to evaluate the scope of the suitor's understanding of reformed doctrine. 

Likewise, nothing prohibits an insitution from making similar evaluations. WTS has a limited amount of money and can employee only a limited number of people. It has a duty to employee only those people who best advance the institution's mission. Part of that inquiry involves ascertaining the person's understanding of relevant doctrines. If that area was closed off, then they would not be able to fulfill their fiduciary duty.


----------



## A5pointer

Zenas said:


> I have all of the answers, and that being true, I also know all of the problems.
> 
> Here's the problem: People aren't brought up to think critically. I wasn't, I had to learn it. I'm the bane of any professor's existence because I dismantle what they say in order to determine just what exactly they're trying to get me to believe. No one else does this that I know. I just get funny looks when I break down what someone said into presuppositions and worldview assertions.
> 
> This sounds like one problem that was mentioned in an earlier post. Professors would espouse damning heresey, leaving students wondering why in the world they should believe in Christ, to which the professors made a weak emotional appeal to just believe anyway.
> 
> I know that's not THE problem, but it sounds like a problem. Please, bring your children up with discerning hearts and minds.
> 
> Something else that could be rectified in these seminaries is the nonfeasance that's going on. People supporting WTS because they're under the dillusion that it's still Machen's baby needs to stop. *If it's full of heretical liberals and Scripture-haters, *then they need to know that and adjust their donation accordingly. It reveals much that's on the hearts of these men when they all but lie to their benefactors in order to get them to donate money to an organization that no longer is what is was, by its own admission. You can't convince me that the faculty and administration of WTS PA is earnestly on the path to seek out truth and godliness when *they're doing everything short of lying through their teeth to keep money flowing in so that they can continue to produce apostates.*
> 
> That's my



I agree with your premise of being willing to question. But these comments clearly show your unfamiliararity with what is going on at WTS.


----------



## HaigLaw

tcalbrecht said:


> BTW, I have yet to see anyone tackle this question: who gave Machen the right to start WTS? Or is that question akin to asking who gave Dave Thomas the right to start Wendy’s?



I don't know whether this gave him the right, but it helps to remember that he'd gone through years of having the northern Presbyterian church telling him to abandon the independent mission board, and defrocking him for refusing.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Anyone want to take up the other issues of WTS-PA? Such as M.Divs for women?


----------



## TimV

> BTW, I have yet to see anyone tackle this question: who gave Machen the right to start WTS? Or is that question akin to asking who gave Dave Thomas the right to start Wendy’s?



Sometimes the OT can be a good place to ask questions like that. The OT church was run by Levites, but prophets could be from any tribe, like Daniel from Judah and so on. We have the example of the School of the Prophets spoken of in 2Kings 2 and other places that could serve as an approved pattern of a teaching institution under the authority of the church and at the same time independent.

So you could have an teaching institution independent of the church, but at the same time bound by rules of the church. For instance, a professor at a Bible college who taught heresey or was caught up in a serious sin would still be under the discipline of his church of membership, and on the positive side a local church could divert tithe money to that institution.


----------



## HaigLaw

greenbaggins said:


> I think I would agree to some extent with Enns on this, though there need to be boundaries set. I do think that ancient history writing differs from modern history writing in some significant ways. However, what Enns does not do justice to is the fact that the biblical writing was always _polemical against _the ANE....



I'm sorry, but what's ANE?


----------



## HaigLaw

LadyFlynt said:


> Anyone want to take up the other issues of WTS-PA? Such as M.Divs for women?



Sure; what about it?


----------



## Davidius

HaigLaw said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I would agree to some extent with Enns on this, though there need to be boundaries set. I do think that ancient history writing differs from modern history writing in some significant ways. However, what Enns does not do justice to is the fact that the biblical writing was always _polemical against _the ANE....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but what's ANE?
Click to expand...


Ancient Near East


----------



## HaigLaw

Thanks!


----------

