People may not know but the blogosphere has revealed that Westminster Seminary (Philadelphia) is about to hold a decisive meeting of the board at which the fate of Pete Enns may well be decided. Enns, of course, is the author of the controversial book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. His critics argue that Enns’ views of Scripture are defective and that his proposal for the way to do theology is at best wobbly. His supporters contend that Enns is carrying on the seminary’s tradition of combining evangelical theology with up-to-date biblical scholarship. The best place to go for links to the various discussions is: http://connversation.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/wts-is-at-impasse-please-prayer-for-her-an-alumni-plea/
So alarmed are some of Enns’ supporters that they have called for a student demonstration on campus the day before the board convenes.
The problem for WTS is not simply the novelty of Enns’ views per se but that the school has lived for some time with a degree of theological latitude that is fundamentally unstable. Enns was indeed one of the first professors to come out of the closet and put in black and white the questions that some faculty have about the Reformed doctrine of Scripture. But he and other biblical faculty have been swimming in the pool of biblical theology and taking their cues from older BT sources for so long that they cannot understand why conservatives are upset. Because of the freedom unofficially granted to biblical scholars at WTS, Enns is right to be surprised that all of a sudden voicing questions about the Reformed tradition is beyond the pale.
A good illustration of the apparently valuable perspective that Enns represents comes from the testimonials at www.saveourseminary.com, a website started as a petition to show support for a professor admired as a funny and accessible loose canon. One recent graduate writes:
it was at Westminster where I learned the importance of the sufficiency of Scripture. It was at Westminster where I learned the importance of a redemptive-historical and Christo-telic hermeneutical understanding. It was at Westminster where I learned the importance of understanding the brokenness of our world and the corrupting influence of sin and idolatry. It was at Westminster that I learned the need to walk in another person’s shoes first, so that I might understand his or her presuppositions and worldview in order to contextualize and incarnate the gospel. It was at Westminster where the biblical studies scholars applied this culturally sensitive, presuppositional approach to the Scriptures and taught me not only how to understand people but also how to understand the Bible. It was at Westminster, through both the words and deeds of the entire faculty, where I learned the nature of God’s providence and that Jesus is Lord.
Now that’s a lot to learn and it is generally to the good. But what is interesting about the many voices expressing support for Enns is how little those graduates learned about WTS’ founding theological consensus as expressed by the likes of another biblical scholar, J. Gresham Machen. In 1929 at the seminary’s first convocation Machen elaborated the cause of the new school:
Westminster Seminary will endeavor . . . not on a foundation of equivocation and compromise but on an honest foundation of devotion to God’s Word, to maintain the same principles that old Princeton maintained. We believe, first, that the Christian religion, as it is set forth in the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian church, is true; we believe, second, that the Christian religion welcomes and is capable of scholarly defense; and we believe, third, that the Christian religion should be proclaimed without fear or favor, and in clear opposition to whatever opposes it, whether within or without the church, as the only way of salvation for lost mankind.
Machen also made clear that systematic theology, not biblical theology, was still the queen of theological studies at Westminster. “There are those who think that systematic theology on the basis of the Bible is impossible,†he declared. “There are those who think that the Bible contains a mere record of human seeking after God and that its teachings are a mass of contradiction which can never be resolved. But to that number of persons we do not belong. We believe for our part that God has spoken to us in his Word, and that he has given us not merely theology, but a system of theology, a great logically consistent body of truth.â€
That consistent body of truth, according to Machen, was Reformed orthodoxy as summarized in the Confession and catechisms of the Presbyterian Church. The system of theology found in the Bible, he explained , “is the Reformed faith, the faith commonly called Calvinistic.†“It is sometimes referred to as a ‘man-made creed.’ But we do not regard it as such. We regard it, in accordance with our ordination pledge as ministers in the Presbyterian church, as the creed which God has taught us in his Word. . . . We rejoice in the approximations to that body of truth which other systems of theology contain; we rejoice in our Christian fellowship with other systems of theology contain; . . . But we cannot consent to impoverish our message by setting forth less than what we find the Scriptures to contain; and we believe that we shall best serve our fellow Christians . . . if we set forth not some vague greatest common measure among various creeds, but that great historic faith that has come through Augustine and Calvin to our own Presbyterian church. Glorious is the heritage of the Reformed faith.â€
Now the interesting thing about the contrast between one of Enns’ supporters and the original vision for WTS is that Machen and the original faculty could actually support most of what the recent graduate of Westminster writes. Old WTS practiced a biblical theology that saw Christ everywhere revealed in Scripture, a form of apologetics that was philosophically savvy and culturally engaged, and advocated a ministry that took seriously human depravity. In other words, a student graduating from WTS in the 1940s might have written similar sentiments to those expressed over at saveourseminary. Yet, that 1940s graduate would have also recognized the value and importance of being narrowly and militantly Reformed, of the need to be part of a disciplined Reformed church, and that the church is always militant, always needing to be on guard for departures from the truth.
In sum, the 1940s student of WTS would have known how to join together Machen, Van Til, and Vos for ministry in the church and for maintaining and defending the Reformed faith. He would have recognized that theological breadth and tolerance were threats to the truth. And yet, he still would have seen the value of what Enns’ defender advocates. But recent grads of WTS who defend Enns do not know what to do with Van Til and Machen as contenders for the Reformed faith, as sticklers for Presbyterian polity, or as bystanders to any number of evangelical proposals for all Protestants “to just get along.†These seem like vulgarities from a polemical past that need to be excised for the generic evangelical-Reformed church to advance.
This is arguably the biggest dilemma facing the current faculty and administration at WTS – how to restore the original consensus at the seminary that balanced the fruits of biblical theology with Reformed polemics and strict Presbyterian ecclesiology. The defenders of Enns do not see the need for Reformed polemics and Presbyterian ecclesiology. Machen, in contrast, recognized that biblical theology was a necessary and valuable partner in the cause of defending the Reformed faith and in maintaining a faithful Presbyterian ministry. How to get the proponents of biblical theology to see the need for polemics and ecclesiology is the $64,000 question of the hour.
What hurts the chances for such a restoration of Westminster’s original vision is the presence of other theological tendencies that may be more conservative than Enns’ proposal but are just as uncomfortable with a militant and ecclesiastically disciplined Reformed witness. New Life Presbyterianism’s pietistic quest for relevance, Christian counseling’s egalitarian leveling of the minister’s pulpit and the counselor’s armchair, and neo-Calvinism’s push for cultural transformation all clutter the path back to the original balance of biblical theology, Reformed orthodoxy, and committed Presbyterianism. The vote on Enns could be a step in the right direction. But depending on how much the board understands how far contemporary WTS is from its founding, the vote on Enns could end up only adding to the confusion at WTS.
[...] March 22, 2008 in Recovering the Reformed Confession Tags: confessions, Pete Enns, scripture, Westminster Theological Seminary Philadelphia It might not be as easy as some think. [...]
[...] [...]
[...] tagged scholarshipOwn a WordPress blog? Make monetization easier with the WP Affiliate Pro plugin. Can Westminster Seminary Put the Genie Back in the… saved by 3 others YUFKGJH bookmarked on 03/23/08 | [...]
[...] is taking hold through events and actions on the part of some churches. …www.tuscaloosanews.comCan Westminster Seminary Put the Genie Back in the Bottle? People may not know but the blogosphere has revealed that Westminster Seminary Philadelphia is [...]
Would it be too simplistic to say the diagnosis here comes down to “the defenders of Enns do not see the need for [militant] Reformed polemics and Presbyterian ecclesiology” and too many of his challengers “are just as uncomfortable with a militant and ecclesiastically disciplined Reformed witness”?
Couldn’t agree more.
Of course, Hart misspeaks a little towards the end. Instead of referring to neocalvinism (or neo-Calvinism), he meant to say (or should have said) “contextualist missiology that co-ops the language of ‘transformation’” is included among the forces that clutter WTS’ path back toward the original balance of biblical theology, Reformed orthodoxy, and committed Presbyterianism.
If there are any neocalvinists at WTS, I’m fairly certain that they are militantly Reformed and ecclesiological hardcore Presbyterian. I’m open to hear specific examples to the contrary, if anyone is ready to name names. Until then, I won’t let neocalvinism be exiled from the old school. Thanks.
DGH,
I concur with your analysis and share your perplexity.
As a WTS student in the late 70’s and early 80’s I observed that the drift into an a-militant ( is that a word?)generic, Reformed evangelicalism was well underway. It was hurried along by the division of the faculty into East and West, but arguably, Machen’s vision of the seminary was finished with the retirement of Van Til, with several notable exceptions. In fact during my student days Van Til more than once lamented to me that, ” a generation has arisen that knows not Van Til.”
The thing that opened my eyes was visiting a new life presbyterian church, and seeing first hand ( and as a former Episcopalian) the disconnect between the Reformed Theology of Murray and Van Til and the worship promoted by OPC professors, ministers, and students who attended.
I thank you for maintaining your lonely vigil in reminding us all of the militant,Presbyterian vision of Westminster’s founding fathers. Please do not stop.
A remnant at least, still desire with you for alma mater to return to the old paths and walk once more upon them.
I admit I was a bit discouraged on reading your post. Although perhaps that is because I find it a distraction from my “pietistic quest for relevance”. But I will make a couple of comments.
I presume that you and I share the belief that our only hope is our union with the living Christ in his life, ministry, suffering, death, ressurection and glorification. The seal of this union is the dynamic, TODAY, presence of Christ within us by his Spirit. In other words, the cross and resurrection is not just a past but a present reality for us by the Spirit. So our faith is in a living, NOW, relationship with Christ.
Our understanding of this is informed by the Holy Spirit speaking scripture to us (WCF 1.10). This speech is the active, TODAY, speaking of scripture to our hearts and minds by the Spirit, manifesting the full living power of the gospel in that speaking. The today speaking of the Spirit certainly incorporates all the historical speaking of the spirit as understood across the generations, and yet, it is only fully complete as it is spoken today. This is why “relevance” is so important. That is the work of the Spirit, relevance to me, relevance to you, shared relevance. Conviction of sin, surprised by the Gospel, spurring on of the obedience of faith for you and me.
This immediate speaking by the Spirit of the Gospel of Christ compels certain humilities on us. Scripture is subordinated to Christ, it finds its meaning and authority in Christ and the Spirit’s manifestation of Christ. And not in a past Christ, but in the today, living Christ. So System (as you describe it) is subordinated to Scripture and to Christ, and, in particular is subordinated to the Spirit’s today speaking of scripture (of the Gospel). Finally, this means that historical expressions of that system testimonies, theologies, confessions of faith), are fruitful and relevent, but limited. Because they are derived from the Spirit’s speaking of the word into their time and context.
But, you may argue, the truth is described by the system, and the truth does not change. And, of course, Christ does not change. But Christ is living and active and glorious in every moment, personally speaking his word to us by his Spirit. And that speaking to us is relevant and authoritative and is cannot be reduced to how the Spirit spoke to the reformers or the elders at Westminster.
Biblical theological perspectives are essential for our understanding of the word specifically because they help us grapple with trajectories and eschatalogical tensions implicit in “Today” in ways that systematic methods, (indeed systems themselves) are less responsive to. Biblical theological perspectives highlight the way that “today” speaking of the Spirit can require reappraisals of all that has gone before.
Ultimately, even biblical theological perspectives are not adequate. The personal, relational dynamic — Christ speaking to our hearts manifesting his glory by his Spirit, a theophany of Gospel, forces us into a reappraisal of all that we have ever known before. Every day, is the Today that Hebrews warns us demands a responsive heart as we are presented the glorious, vital powerful present availability of Grace offerred afresh and anew to us in our moment.
When confronted with the immediacy of Gospel, we experience an eschatalogical imperative, we experience both the realization and potential of newness, of justice, of rightness, of beauty. We are compelled to repentence as the commonness and corruptedness of our lives are contrasted with the glory of Christ. Yet we are also invited to see ourselves and our relationships made new in Christ, sanctified.
So the gospel — The living presence of the risen Christ manifested by the Spirit, and our union with him — relativizes (or perhaps better to say “perspectivalizes” both systematic and biblical-theological perspectives with a “Christophanic (or Christotelic)” perspective rooted in “TODAY”.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe in the Gospel because I believe in scripture, I believe in scripture because the Spirit speaks Christ to my heart (and I repent daily, because often my heart hardens against the Spirit’s speaking). I trust and find help and wisdom in the confessions because I know that they are the work of those to whome the Spirit spoke scripture. I think the benefit of the confessions is less in the setting of boundaries, and more in naming useful trajectories, guidelines, not to be departed from lightly for they represent wisdom.
So, my point? Lets be careful we don’t make Westminster into a museum to the confession, or to Machen, or Van Til. Lets recognize the essential dynamic of “TODAY” and ask how Westminster can be like the teacher in Matthew 13:52. “Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”
In Christ,
Peter Kress
Member, New Life Presbyterian
Westminster Alumnus (1981-1984)
Mr. Kress, Sorry to be so yesTERDAY. But looking to the past and deriving our bearings from creeds and confessions is what Presbyterians do. I didn’t make up the rules. The same point applies to WTS. Perhaps Machen was wrong to be so yesterday also. But that was what he and others founded the school to be precisely because of presentist arguments (like yours) made by evangelicals of his day about not being bound by the past and responding to the present. Perhaps you were not as well served by your education at WTS as you could have been in your desire for the present and active work of the spirit. (I am curious how your view of the spirit is not charismatic, but those may be dated categories of theological analysis.)
I am surprised though that you would make arguments apparently in defense of the current situation at WTS that sound a lot like those made by the authors and signers of the Auburn Affirmation. Your view of the work of the spirit and the continual unfolding of truth would leave the Presbyterian church, as Machen argued about the Auburn Affirmation, without a confessional basis. Your comment confirms my point that WTS has for too long been passing on the fruit of biblical theology without the underpinnings of Reformed confessionalism and polemical theology. It’s as if folks don’t know the controversies and arguments that brought WTS into existence. Can you really have Enns without Longman, Dillard, Kline, Stonehouse, Young, Machen and Vos? There is a reason for thinking that we stand on the shoulders of giants.
Mr. Hart.
For clarification I will state that my desire is for the present and active work of Christ through the Spirit, and that my argument has not so much been the continuing unfolding of truth, as for our contextual wonder at the living Christ, renewed in every generation. In that hope, I do look for bearings in the creeds and the confessions of the church. Then I seek to head in the direction they point –> Christ, living and active. I think this can rightly be called confessional, although certainly not confessionism.
I won’t apologize for my focus on the present, for if Christ is not risen, living and active today, then our hope is in vain. But suppose that I am not really a presentist, but a futurist, for I expect all things to be made new, my hope is eschatalogical. And the Holy Spirit, Christ in us, is a sign and gaurantee, even a foretaste of that eschaton.
The confession itself submits itself to scripture and to Christ, and explicitly teaches a “presentist” doctrine of the knowledge and understanding of scripture and the gospel. Can we do anything different?
PeterKress,
I’d be happy to give you my seat at the next CRC Synod. I think you might be a much bigger boon to the Committee on the Revision to the Form of Subscription than me. You sound an awful lot like them.
Like I keep telling the deafer members of my own Council, high opinions are simply not the same as high views. As opposed to nastier, low-view Biblicists (i.e. “paper popes†lingo), in relation to the forms, (friendlier Evangelicals and) under-confessionalists use words like “guidance†and “bearings†and “wisdom,†where the historical-confessionalists use words like “binding†and “authoritative.†Of course, high views include the former-type words, whereas mere high opinions preclude the latter type. So if it’s “inclusiveness†under-confessionalists want, the historical-confessional tradition really does have it all, just not the way you think.
The CRC has been correctly diagnosed as being “on a trajectory toward broad evangelicalism†(contra the mis-diagnosis of “Liberalismâ€). Seems to me much of the same is going on here.
(Not that I am warm to the mere pseudo-social-conservatives in the CRC who want to make the trajectory male and think we can all go home after that, the appeal to “the leading of the Spirit†and all this “presentism†was at the heart of the triumph of the ordinationists over the sub-ordinationists. I have to admit, it was a nice euphemism for heavy-handed politics and soft tyranny.)
Stevez: As a life long Grand Rapidian I would like to point out that the least of your problems in the CRC is your move toward “broad evangelicalism.” In fact if we were both being honest we would admit I think that your biggest problem is a lack of any witness to the gospel you preach, and mass attrition by the majority of your youth. You may be still be confessional as a denomination but the reality is that most of your constituents confess nothing. The issue is not under-confession, but lack of regeneration.
D
http://blog.beliefnet.com/reformedchicksblabbing/2008/03/the-wts-board-has-suspended-pr.html#more
The WTS board has suspended Prof. Peter Enns
Over his book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Crap! I was hoping they wouldn’t do this! He is such a wonderful professor, I can’t believe they did it. The seminary has lost someone who has helped conservatives understand the issues we face with the doctrine of inspiration and the OT and gave us a defense for it. Someone who introduced us to how the Bible is interpreted in this age of post-modernism and helped us to understand the similarities and differences between Second Temple Judaism and the NT writers in interpreting the OT. I deeply valued that class as much as I did my systematic theology classes and I am really upset that I probably will not be able to take Poetry and Wisdom with him.
It is a sad day in the history of Westminster Theological Seminary!
(Link posted by Dave Watson, Kent, WA – CRC Minister WTS MAR ‘88)
Peter Enns suspended from Westminster Seminary
March 27, 2008
Thank you very much for your prayers for the special meeting of the Board of Trustees that was held on March 26 to address the disunity of the faculty regarding the theological issues related to Dr. Peter Enns’ book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. After a full day of deliberation, the Board of Trustees took the following action by decisive vote:
“That for the good of the Seminary (Faculty Manual II.4.C.4) Professor Peter Enns be suspended at the close of this school year, that is May 23, 2008 (Constitution Article III, Section 15), and that the Institutional Personnel Committee (IPC) recommend the appropriate process for the Board to consider whether Professor Enns should be terminated from his employment at the Seminary. Further that the IPC present their recommendations to the Board at its meeting in May 2008.â€
In order to provide the entire Westminster community with a more complete understanding of the Board’s decision and to offer an opportunity for questions and dialogue, the Chairman and Secretary of the Board will join the President on campus for a special chapel on Tuesday, April 1 at 10:30 am. Students and staff are encouraged to attend and participate. Following that special chapel, they will hold a separate meeting with the faculty.
Our concern is to honor the Lord Jesus Christ and assure a faithful witness for Westminster for years to come. To that end, please pray for everyone involved during the next two months.
Jack White
Chairman of the Board
[...] The Significance of Westminster Theological Seminary Today (long PDF) and Darryl Hart (current): Can Westminster Seminary Put the Genie Back in the Bottle? (A candid account of the competing [...]
David Drake,
That you point out the “move toward broad evangelicalism” as being the least of the problems helps make the point about misunderstood taxonomies in all this. The evangelical/confessional taxonomy over against the conservative/liberal one is the essential problem and the one largely, but no less surprisingly, overlooked. When you don’t get that, one of the things one does is go around calling believers “unregenerate.” That’s the sort of squabble-speak Fundamentalists and Liberals use while we confessionalists yawn. The problem isn’t the loss of youth. But that sort of worry and diagnoses is what I’d expect from someone at CrossWinds (“Simply stated, CrossWinds is about pursuing God without all the stressful stuff you don’t need!â€)…
…which looks an awful lot like Mars Hill. I always forget that I have Rob Bell (almost literally) in my backyard, until TIME magazine tells me he is “the next Billy Graham” or I find myself at the Grandville Mall getting a coke and a cookie. Fighting broad evangelicalism with more broad evangelicalism, in the words of Holly Hunter, “ain’t no answer. That ain’t no answer.â€
Steve: Did you also check out the statement of belief? You will find it I hope acceptable. It is true we are not under the Westminster Confession, we however do follow that Baptist Confession of 1869. You may rail all you want against an introductory statement on a website but the reality is that the CRC is doing virtually nothing to ensure that solid reformed doctrine is passed on to the next generation. BTW some of the stressful stuff I do not need is tired moralism in place of the gospel…if you know me at all you would know how offensive I find a comparison to Bell (who in my opinion has abandoned the gospel…)..But I will let that go, and repeat you can say that your children are fine and I will say again that the majority are unregenerate. Is there no place in confessional life for being conformed to the image of the Son? Is there no place for those whom God foreknew to live holy lives? And I am not calling believers unregenerate I am calling the majority of your youth who reject any belief unregenerate. Rather than worrying about CrossWinds where we clearly teach the doctrines of grace I would suggest that you look to your own house…
D
David,
I am. If it makes you feel any better, our own time with the CRC is extremely limited, and for something of a similar reason that beguiles you (”the CRC is doing virtually nothing to ensure that solid reformed doctrine is passed on to the next generation”). She and I are more at odds than not, lamentably: http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/letter-to-the-committee-on-the-proposed-revision-to-the-fos/
But I will still take Church over para-church any day, to say nothing of the latter that “follows” an un-Reformed document. “Follows” is one of those under-confessionalist terms.
[...] is adopted from Dillard], and WTS is only now taking action to deal with it. In his post “Can Westminster Seminary Put the Genie Back in the Bottle,” D. G. Hart also points out that Enns is only part of the broad range of issues that WTS [...]
[...] approach to the Scriptures does not line up with traditional Reformed theology, as is recognized by De Regno Christi, a web site set up by Reformed Christian Witness (the author’s of the site seem to approve of [...]
I’m struck by the fact that perhaps someone could post the archives from 1950’s and 1960’s of the old “Reformed Journal” and “Torch and Trumpet” and then each side could merely requote what has essentially been argued in another venue.
Even moreso, we could go back a century and hear what Kuyper said to the Presbyterian Historical Society:
“See here, then, my answer. In case you have to deal with a gentleman or a lady, who pleads enthusiastically for splendid music, brilliant singing and richly decorated churches, but to whom the confession for which our martyrs died, is immaterial; not caring a bit for the most fundamental points of our confession; and almost refusing to give an answer, if a reason is asked of the hope that is in them,�then know that the symbolical blood-poisoning has commenced, and try to save them with meekness and fear. But if, on the contrary, the man who warmly and even with cogency vindicated the rights of a more dignified liturgical worship, becomes threefold more earnest and eloquent, as often as the foundations of the divine Truth are assailed, then do not be afraid, such a one has no drop of symbolism in his lifeblood. In him speaks the true Calvinist. And, rather than mistrust him, you might better correct your own lack of obedience to the law of the Sublime and the Beautiful, which God has ordained.”
That warning a century ago should be applied in our contemporary situation, viz, on the one hand those who would want to make the gospel “relevant” are in danger of losing the confessional nature of truth while on the other hand the hyper-traditionalists deny the experiential knowledge of God.
[...] of this chatter see here and here.) Some succeeded in drawing attention to the controversy well before news broke in official channels. A current student posted full audio of today’s chapel address [...]
[...] "What hurts the chances for such a restoration of Westminster’s original vision is the presence of other theological tendencies that may be more conservative than Enns’ proposal but are just as uncomfortable with a militant and ecclesiastically disciplined Reformed witness. New Life Presbyterianism’s pietistic quest for relevance, Christian counseling’s egalitarian leveling of the minister’s pulpit and the counselor’s armchair, and neo-Calvinism’s push for cultural transformation all clutter the path back to the original balance of biblical theology, Reformed orthodoxy, and committed Presbyterianism. The vote on Enns could be a step in the right direction. But depending on how much the board understands how far contemporary WTS is from its founding, the vote on Enns could end up only adding to the confusion at WTS." (Can Westminster Seminary Put the Genie Back in the Bottle?) [...]
[...] Can Westminster Seminary Put the Genie Back in the Bottle? by Darryl Hart [...]
It was heartening to read Hart’s carefully defined/delineated description of this news item. It reminded me of the exhortation of Hebrews 2:1, “Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away.” Fear of either God, or the spiritual-theological tendencyto “drift,” is difficult to discern in our day. Few seem zealous to understand yesteryear’s theology, and fewer still are those who see its relevance for our sad day. Obviously this malaise (i.e., drifting) may afflict even the good types of people who might be represented by the “Hebrews.” The author warns them precisely because of their vulnerability. So why aren’t we more fearful, humble and timid(concerning our tendency “to drift”) today?
This debate raged in the old Journey Magazine for about four years. At the time, many accused us of sensationalism and Christian insensitivity. It appears that the root problems continue with Mr. Enns, and Hart manages to characterize WTS’s complex problems fairly accurately.
Considering the then theological culture (the “rotten wood” of B.B Warfield’s comment), the Old WTS was almost a miracle. It was definitely a dramatic movement of God’s Spirit against the Zeitgeist. May I be so bold as to argue that the “miracle” has not been sustained — to our day. Populism, evangelicalism, celebrity-ism and syncretism are not ineffecutal enemies of the church — but deadly enemies. Yet, with all their skill and worldly charm, there is (thankfully) no prophecy which countenances their ultimate victory! That is reserved for our Great King and High Priest — Jesus Christ and his Orthodoxy.
[...] tagged bottle poolOwn a WordPress blog? Make monetization easier with the WP Affiliate Pro plugin. Can Westminster Seminary Put the Genie Back in the… saved by 1 others WillbotProductions bookmarked on 04/26/08 | [...]
[...] fate of Pete Enns may well be decided. Enns, of course, is the author of the controversial book, Ihttp://deregnochristi.org/2008/03/22/can-westminster-seminary-put-the-genie-back-in-the-bottle/Through April 26 The Andalusia Star-NewsBETHEL AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL church will sponsor a [...]
[...] of us have thought that the problems at WTS went beyond whether or not Pete Enns believed in biblical inerrancy. A [...]