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 Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

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
Slated for the Jan. 10th Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon

Soli Deo Gloria

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
Elder elect, Covenant URCNA, New Holland, PA.

"When I find the time, I'm going to write the social history of bourbon."

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.

So, what is the solution -- put WTS under some denomination's GA?

Then make it a denomination, ordain all the faculty, and give it those rights.

Of course WTS has no jurisdiction over A or B. It’s not a church, but it cannot help acting like one when it comes to defining orthodoxy within its ranks. That is the nature of parachurch organizations; it is very difficult for them to not act like a Church at times.

I realize the Church at large has a difficult time with jurisdiction. And if B chooses not to pay any attention to the concerns of A, then there is no much that A can do except stop exchanging fraternal delegates with B

But the problem is only made worse by the existence of independent seminaries that wield quasi-ecclesiastical powers over their faculty.

It would be refreshing to see WTS or any other seminary that feels it needs to address the content of an instructor’s teaching to do so with the aid and direction of the instructor’s presbytery, rather than just giving him the old heave ho. Instead we see them responding to the closing of denomination B’s purse strings.

The present situation just appears like the worst we see in the world for resolving these types of conflict.

Perhaps I'm just being too naive and idealistic in this modern age.

Or, maybe, it's just a matter of remembering the histories of the various organizations.

Was God mistaken in letting Machen and Van Til found WTS first, or should He have had them be involved in organizing the OPC and put WTS under it before returning to seminary teaching?

I would not go so far as to attribute the potential errors of God's saints to God Himself.

But the question is legitimate; was Machen acting properly when he worked to form not only WTS but also the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions? Or should he have arranged these activities within the context of a new presbytery/denomination?

Have the concerns of conservatives within the UPSUSA of that day negatively influenced churchmen today when it comes to defining the sole prerogatives of the Church?

Should we really think that anyone can come along and start a missions board just cuz Machen did?

I have not resolved these issues in my mind.

tcalbrecht;

How would it be blackmail?

If they disagree with what is being taught, isn't it more respectful and even Godly, for them to go and explain why they will no longer be sending candidates to their college instead of just stop sending candidates and leaving the leaders at the college wondering why?

But more importantly, how are the leaders of the college going to KNOW something is amiss if nobody tells them??

__________________
Bobbi Clark
Covenant Member
Pinewood Pres. (PCA) Middleburg

When I kept Silent, My bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. Psalm 32:3

It is neither blackmail, nor an ill-conceived tactic. It is men who are putting their pastoral concerns into action. Any and every pastor should be free to encourage or discourage a future seminarian from attending particular institutions based on his convictions. There are no "safe havens" for institutions just because of pedigree, affiliations, or by-gone glory days. These are men who are seeking to safeguard the future of their congregations, and fulfill their role as undershepherds.

Who is to say without all the facts? How would a presbytery know that something is amiss with a seminary instructor? Could you really figure that out from reading a book, or listening to the statements of a student? And if they do, why would they go to the seminary and not the presbytery of the instructor (assuming they are an officer bearer)?

Also, if the seminary doesn't know there is a problem, doesn't that kinda undermine the notion that they are capable to sit in judgment of the instructor's confessional integrity?

I'm thinking you can't have it both ways.

I'm rather surprised that folks don't seem very concerned about ninth commandment wrt the instructor in question, and due process with the brother. I would very suspect of any pastor who starts giving advice to students under his care based on such testimony. Being an undershepherd does not give one the right to judge a brother on confessional integrity. Perhaps they could look for guidance from the presbytery, or the presbytery of the instructor, but they are not charged to be a lone wolf on such judgment calls.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought that's what presbyterianism was all about.

Yeah, I think you're missing something rather obvious -- this professor published a book 3 years ago. Any pastor can read the book and advise young pastoral candidates under his care whether he thinks the book is heretical or not. He would be remiss not to, but instead to withhold judgment until some presbytery somewhere, perhaps in another denomination, pursues an examination of the book and its author.

Well friend, I've been in enough presbytery meetings where the "9th Commandment!" was wrongly invoked with the intent of keeping sin stuffed in the closet, and the truth of a matter locked up from proper discussion, that these sort of appeals no longer phase me. The folk who make constant appeal to this often overlook the fact that "outfacing and overbearing the truth...concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or a complaint to others" is just as much a part of keeping the 9th (according to WLC#145) as anything else.

Presbyterianism can be used as a tool both to impede righteousness or to advance it, the system in and of itself is no cure for the sins of leaders in the church.

Not if he has any regard for Christ's church beyond his own four walls, IMO. Is it the pastor's place to make a heresy judgment against a brother elder in his own or fraternal denomination? Isn't that what church courts are for?

Or is it OK to function as an independent when we think it is expedient?

Any thoughts onLongman and his work? I enjoyed his commentary on Ecclesiastes although it has an untraditional view. It made sense to me.

Tremper Longman Says:
February 1st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I cannot speak to all the issues that this web page
addresses, but I can speak with some measure of
authority concerning biblical studies at WTS. I was a
student from 1974-1977, where I was captivated by the
teaching of many professors, but most notably Ray
Dillard who was my mentor and was soon to be my
colleague and close friend. I taught Old Testament at
the school from 1981 to 1998 with Ray, Bruce Waltke,
and Al Groves. I was involved with these friends in
the hiring of Peter Enns (as well as Doug Green). I
have continued as Visiting Professor of Old Testament
since 1998 till the present. I have recently written
an article on E. J. Young for the Dictionary of
Biblical Interpreters that has taken me back to the
earlier history of the school’s instruction in
biblical studies.
I have a great love for the school to say the least. I
like to say that there is no institution I love as
much as Westminster Seminary. However one of the
reasons why I left in 1998 was my perception that the
seminary was beginning to change from the deeply
Reformed but outward facing institution that it was
from the time that I first knew it in the 1970’s to a
more inward defensive institution. I remember talking
to one colleague, for instance, who told me that if I
felt the Bible taught something that the Confession
did not that I had to side with the Confession. That’s
not the Reformed approach to the study of the Bible
that I know and love. However it is a perspective that
I think has only grown with time.
In any case, I have no desire to cast aspersions on
anyone. I think everyone is acting out of a good
conscience in this. This, however, I can say with a
great measure of confidence. The present Old Testament
department represents continuity with the past. I work
closely with Peter Enns. We are co-editing two Bible
dictionaries together and are on a number of editorial
boards. I have served as his editor for his wonderful
Exodus commentary and have read his important
Incarnation and Inspiration three times. In my own
speaking and teaching, I have talked to countless
people whose faith has been increased and whose
confidence in the Bible has been enhanced by reading
this book. His thinking is clearly within the
Princeton-Westminster tradition. If WTS loses him or
anyone else, I worry who might replace them. Will they
continue the WTS tradition while still not “shirking
the difficult questions”? I know what I think about
the matter and I am confident that my dear departed
friend Ray Dillard would agree.
I would encourage my former students and others to
express their support for the OT department at WTS.
Notice I am asking for shows of support. We can do
this without casting aspersions on anyone at the
seminary.

Longman's thoughts mean little. It seems that when people's jobs depend on confessional subscription that they will bend over backwards to show how some new or contradictory view meshes with the Confession. We see this extensively in the Federal Vision debate now, we saw it in the Norm Shepherd issue, and the like.

Regarding Longman's statement that someone told him that if he believes the Bible teaches something other than the confession, he should side with the confession, that is just silly. If he believes the Bible teaches something other than the confession, he should boldly announce his exception to the confession. If it it a serious enough matter, he should leave posts which require confessional subscription (whether in the seminary or church). He can go somewhere else and do something else.

Westminster is a confessional seminary. That is what gives it is unique value. The world does not need yet another non-confessional seminary. Those are innumerable. If professors want to take non-confessional views, then they should go to other seminaries. There are plenty of seminaries that do not subscribe to the confession.

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

Every heresy trial at every presbytery starts with a charge by an individual elder stating the kinds of opinions that you are saying no elder can express apart from the collective judgment of some presbytery.

The line about the Bible speaking to an issue and the Confession not, and having to side with the Confession, makes no sense, the way it's worded. Now if the Confession speaks to an issue and contradicts the Bible, then you have to side with the Bible, and let your fellow elders know your views on that; but that's not the way he phrased it.

As for whether he says Enns is orthodox, he never says. Enns is a good guy and his writings have blessed others -- is all he says. That's why I don't know what to make of it. Why is he hesitating? He's gone from there now, apparently. Or is he still adjunct?

It's like Semper Fi counseled me on PB not to side with the FVers on the basis that Steve Wilkins is a nice guy or needed his paycheck. Not that I was so inclined, but I appreciated my ole Marine friend's counsel nevertheless.

A charge is very different from a decision/conviction. Anyone can make a charge. But no individual may act towards a brother based merely on a charge. (A trial court may take appropriate action based on church order to convict/vindicate the accused.)

So what do we have in this case? A pastor makes a charge with no intent or ability to carry through on the charge other than to warn potential students about a perceived problem.

You don't see a problem with this?

I will admit it is troublesome at times being presbyterian.

Dr. Longman, the Robert H. Gundry professor of Biblical Studies at Wesmont (my alma mater) is known for his Reformed evangelicalism. I am sure that he is a man of integrity and have personally been helped by some of his writings.

However, it does not surprise me that he would defend Westminster. The chair he holds at Westmont is named after my major professor (and the one who officiated at my wedding) who takes a Midrash view of Matthew (e.g., no magi, no star, no women in Jesus' real genealogy), was booted from the ETS, and was the one against whom John Piper wrote his Counted Righteous in Christ. In other words, Dr. Longman teaches at a school known for its uncompromising commitment to broad evangelicalism.

I would not count his recommendation as meaning any more than that Dr. Enns fits within the big tent of broader evangelicalism. But, as a confessional seminary, I thought that WTS was supposed to take stands somewhat more specific than what would be acceptable at a Westmont, Wheaton, Azusa, Asbury, or Fuller. Dr. Longman's explanation for leaving WTS for Westmont speaks of his concern that WTS was becoming more "inward" and "defensive." Based on what some of my TR brethren have written on this board, I would think that many of you disagree with the direction WTS is going, including the course Dr. Longman would like to have seen it take. Regardless of Enns' orthodoxy (I don't know the man), he may still not fit within a confessional framework. And, that is an open question for the trustees of WTS to determine with respect to his employment and his ecclesiastical authorities with respect to his ministerial standing.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

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

It's called freedom of association. I could decide to quit dialoging with you, without filing charges with your session or presbytery.

If someone were to ask my why I quit dialoging with you, I could give them a reason, without backing it up with a conviction before the church court that has jurisdiction over you.

I could say -- he's obsessed about church courts. I don't think that's a 9th commandment offense. That's an opinion. I'm free to act on my opinions; and people who respect my opinion are free to act on them too.

Maybe people who are obsessed about church courts will want to dialog with you, so my opinion spread around might help you.

Others who might not agree with my opinion but are not obsessed about church courts might give you more attention to see if they agree with my opinion or not.

Even the ones who agree with me and ignore you are not hurting you, because you had no right to their attention to start with.

Make sense?

One should not assume that Mr. Enn's Presbytery is not already involved. A lot of folks thought for a long time that LAP was sitting on their collective hands regarding Wilkins but know we know better.

__________________
~Wayne Wylie~
Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Ruling Elder - Inactive
http://www.mcopc.org
Bedford, TX

Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

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

Yes, indeed, we do know better now.