Thread: Dr. Peter Enns suspended from WTS

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Originally Posted by sastark

That should be made into a t-shirt.

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

Well if you want to be relevant...

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

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!

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

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

Well if you want to be relevant...

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

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

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, IMHO. 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

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, IMHO. 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.

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.

Originally Posted by A5pointer

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"?

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

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?

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by JDWiseman

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.

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).

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

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!

Hi Bruce,

Originally Posted by A5pointer

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)

Originally Posted by raekwon

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

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.

Originally Posted by SEAGOON

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?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Originally Posted by SEAGOON

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?

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.

Originally Posted by SEAGOON

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.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

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.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

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.

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?

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

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).

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

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?

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.

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.

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)

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

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.

Dear Steve,

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

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.

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Dear Steve,

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.