Thread: Dr. Peter Enns suspended from WTS

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.

Originally Posted by ADKing

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.

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.

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

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.

Originally Posted by 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)

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?

Originally Posted by LadyFlynt

Originally Posted by 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)

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?

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).

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 IMO, 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!

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.

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

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"?

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.

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

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.

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...

Originally Posted by Pergamum

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Originally Posted by Pergamum

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by wsw201

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.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Originally Posted by wsw201

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

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 IMO. 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.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

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?

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 ISTM 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. ;^)

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

Originally Posted by 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?

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??

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Originally Posted by 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?

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??

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

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

Tom?

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

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?

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Originally Posted by 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?

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??

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. ISTM 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, IMO.

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

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?

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

Tom,

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by wsw201

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.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

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.

Originally Posted by wsw201

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.

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

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?

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

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.

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

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.

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

2. ISTM 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.

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

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, IMO.

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.

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

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?

ISTM 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.

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 .

[quote=tcalbrecht;382435]

Originally Posted by wsw201

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?