HaigLaw
Puritan Board Sophomore
What to make of Longman? I don't know.
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.
Any thoughts on Longman and his work? I enjoyed his commentary on Ecclesiastes although it has an untraditional view. It made sense to me.
(Quoting Longman on Enns)... 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.
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.