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.

__________________
Tom Albrecht
Member, Covenant URCNA, New Holland, PA.

"I'm not a famous man. I'm just a simple country doctor with horse sense."



Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.

__________________
T.E. Wilder
Independent Reformed Church of Maplewood
Oakdale, MN
http://www.contra-mundum.org
http://secondscreenings.wordpress.com

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.

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology

"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor
Oceanside URC
The Heidelblog

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?

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.

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?

__________________
JC
URCNA
PA

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).

__________________
C.P. --Attending Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

"Where is the young man who fears the judgment to come? What is the breath of an enemy of God to the blast of the soul by the breath of the Almighty? If you fear the frowns of a fellow worm, how will you stand in judgment with an angry God?" --Asahel Nettleton

Click to get: Board Rules--Signature Requirements--Suggestions?

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 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!

__________________
Joshua Wiseman
Riverview PCA
Charleston, WV

"Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings."
- Psalm 17:8

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.

__________________
Gil Garcia
Rehoboth Reformed Church (RCUS)
La Habra, CA


"Indeed, one might say that as far as the doctrine of justification
is concerned, if you are not on the road to Wittenberg or Geneva, then the old proverb is indeed true: all roads lead to Rome." Carl Trueman

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.

__________________
Scott Roberts
Ruling Elder, Lakeside Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Southlake, Texas

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...

__________________
Pergamum

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.

__________________
Gage Browning (Layman)
Grace Community Presbyterian Church
PCA Fort Worth, Texas
www.posttenebraslux.squarespace.com

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

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.

__________________
Anne Ivy
Christ Chapel Bible Church
Fort Worth, Texas

Married to Don, mother of six, grandmother to an ever-increasing brood.

The Ivy Vine (my blog)