Dr. Peter Enns suspended from WTS

[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.

 

[tcalbrecht]

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.

 

[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.

in my opinion, 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.

 

[Gryphonette]

It seems to me "blackmail" is a little harsh.

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?

 

[wsw201]

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.

 

[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.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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

 

[timmopussycat]

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.

 

[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.

 

[tcalbrecht]

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 in my opinion. 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.

 

[tcalbrecht]

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.

 

[Gryphonette]

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.

 

[tcalbrecht]

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?

 

[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?

If I'm correct, then It seems to me 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. ;^)

 

[Pilgrim]

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

 

[tcalbrecht]

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??

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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??

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

Tom?

 

[tcalbrecht]

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?

 

[Gryphonette]

No, I think I understand you fine. I just disagree with you.

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. It seems to me 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, in my opinion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

 

[wsw201]

Tom,

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

 

[Stephen]

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.

 

[Stephen]

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.

 

[tcalbrecht]

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.

 

[tcalbrecht]

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.

 

[tcalbrecht]

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?

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.

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.

2. It seems to me 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.

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, in my opinion.

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.

 

[Gryphonette]

Much as I dislike the FV, I don't have a problem with them building a seminary.

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?

It seems to me 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.

 

[daver]

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 .

 

[christianyouth]

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?

 

[A5pointer]

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 .

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.