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

__________________
Bruce
PCUSA
Ocean City NJ

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

__________________
Dave
OPC
Winter Springs, Florida


"'For I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I committed unto him against that day'" (2 Timothy 1:12).

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

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

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

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

daver, please be careful what you say. This being the internet, tone or intentions are many times difficult to discern. So, though I'm sure you didn't meant harm with your Babylon statement (and I'm sure there are many who would agree with your assessment concerning the PCUSA), it's too easily perceived as inflammatory and a cheap shot.

A5Pointer, I don't think he intended to say that you were partial to Babylonian teachings, etc. Nonetheless, there has been an address of the matter.

From the pen of Richard Sibbes:

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Daddy
Member of TRBC. My Blog
The Puritan Pub (Team Blog)
Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Oops, sorry Lane!

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

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

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

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

Admin/Mod Note:

Again, this has gone way off topic. It was addressed. And you're doing the very same thing you've accused him of doing. You've accused him of delivering a sucker punch, but you can't really know that's what he meant. Thus, you've sucker punched him by presuming that his intent was a personal attack on you. It certainly can be perceived that way. And I, a Moderator/Administrator, addressed it. Lane's comments were fine and sufficient.

No more comments about it. PM daver if you want to resolve anything.

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

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

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Back to looking for a call...
Evergreen PCA
Salem, Oregon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________

HaigLaw, ruling elder
Grace PCA, Shreveport, LA
http://www.xanga.com/HaigLaw

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

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

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

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

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

WTS has no jurisdiction over denomination A either.

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

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

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

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

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

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