Westminster Seminary Rift

[J.D.]

What is a "liberal?" If it's someone who doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ or that we are save through accepting Him as our Lord and Savior I agree. I'm talking about heresy with respect to fundamental Christian beliefs. What other things would make a person a liberal in your eyes to the extent that you wouldn't accept them into your church?

A liberal is anyone that stands to the left of me. And since there are some people on my right, I am a liberal to them. (said in humor and attempted humility). The issue at hand is whether WTS should dismiss or discipline someone that teaches that there are uninspired scriptures in the Bible. If this is what Mr. Enns is doing, he should be accountable for it. If true, his teaching qualifies as liberal theology in my view.

Mr. Enns must be very conservative in most of his views, or else he would not be at WTS to begin with. My statement was a broadside against liberalism in general, and it was posted in haste. To be more specific, I should have said "do not allow people to become members of your church that do not essentially agree with your church confession/SOF, and subject those members that stray from it to discipline". An essential provision of a good church confession would be, among other things, a provision that clearly states the nature of inspiration.

 

[J.D.]

I've tried to read up on this subject a little since I first started this thread. Here are my thoughts--very unrefined, but my thoughts.

I don't think Enns is making up problems in regard to the biblical text. Two of his issues I am not that familiar with. However, the third, the use of the OT in the NT and the hermenuetic involved, is pretty problematic. If you believe in a literal, historical, grammatical, contextual hermenuetic, and most evangelicals do, it is hard to demonstrate that NT writers are using such a hermeneutic in their quotations of OT passages. Some very capable minds are attuned to this problem and are wrestling with it; Enns being among them. I may not agree with what he is saying (I certainly do not know the solution), but I think he is wrestling honestly with the issue and is trying to make a helpful contribution. In doing this, he is NOT a liberal.

The problem with Westminster Seminary is that they are so steeped in presuppositionalism, that the very idea of wrestling with the hermaeneutic of NT writers the way Enns is, is outside of their parameters. I don't see how they can abide him. This doesn't make him a liberal. It simply means that he is outside of their historical theological position. They cannot have him on their faculty any more than they could have Charles Ryrie on their faculty. I think there are evangelical schools that do not have the commitment to presuppositionalism that Westminster has where Enns could teach.

"it is hard to demonstrate that NT writers are using such a hermeneutic in their quotations of OT passages." -- I agree that this is an ongoing issue to be examined, but isn't inspiration the issue in the Enns case and not hermeneutics?

"The problem with Westminster Seminary is that they are so steeped in presuppositionalism, that the very idea of wrestling with the hermaeneutic of NT writers the way Enns is, is outside of their parameters." -- I tend to agree that WTS is "stuck on presupp", but again, is this the issue?

"any more than they could have Charles Ryrie on their faculty" -- I think WTS would be more concerned with Ryrie's disp'ism than his apologetical method.

 

[swaimj]

J.D. said:

I agree that this is an ongoing issue to be examined, but isn't inspiration the issue in the Enns case and not hermeneutics?

The issue of what hermeneutic the NT writers used is an issue of...hermeneutics. Perhaps the conclusion Enns is coming to becomes an issue of inspiration, but not necessarily.

I tend to agree that WTS is "stuck on presupp", but again, is this the issue?

I think it is an issue as the whether Westminster is capable of addressing controversies that arise. Holding to a confession that is 450 years old presents a problem when dealing with modern controversies, IMO.

I think WTS would be more concerned with Ryrie's disp'ism than his apologetical method.

My point was that Ryrie is an excellent scholar, theologian, teacher, writer, Christian gentleman, but he would not be welcome as a faculty member at Westminster because of his dispensationalism. I think we are in agreement here.

 

[swaimj]

It is now official: Peter Enns has been released by Westminster Theological Seminary. Read the seminaries' statement here: http://www.wts.edu/stayinformed/view.html?id=187

 

[Tom Butler]

It is now official: Peter Enns has been released by Westminster Theological Seminary. Read the seminaries' statement here: http://www.wts.edu/stayinformed/view.html?id=187

I don't see how it could have turned out any other way.

 

[swaimj]

Yeah. Sounds like it was amicable and done with regret on both sides, judging by the statement.

 

[Marcia]

Enns has been entrusted with the task of preparing young men and women for a lifetime of ministry. He is acting as a mentor, a guide, a coach to them, and what these young folks are hearing is appealing to them. It makes their faith "compatible" with what they see of the world -- with what the wisdom of the world declares as "truth," or "fact."

It is disquieting that after a generation of striving to restore a proper understanding of Scriptural inspiration and authority, there seems to be some even here on the Baptist Board who are willing take a bite of the fruit Satan first offered to Eve in Eden. "Hath God said..?" "Surely God hath not said..."

Dr. Jerry Vines said many years ago: "The Bible is not a science book -- but when it speaks on science, it does so accurately. The Bible is not a history book -- but when it speaks on history, it does so reliably. If the Bible is wrong about creation, can we be sure it's right about salvation? You cannot ascribe inspiration to one portion of Scripture and deny it to another portion of Scripture. You either have a Bible full of holes, or you have a whole Bible."

It may be fashionable once again to question the parts of Scripture we don't understand, or that human scholarship tells us their "facts" contradict. But I was not ready to concede that ground in the 1980's, and I'm not ready to concede it now. I am thankful that not a few Presbyterians share that conviction.

All else that we affirm as believers in Christ rises and falls on the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture. Anything less than that conviction -- even when we may disagree on some interpretations and applications -- is unacceptable. It is unacceptable in the Church, it is unacceptable among Baptists, and it is unacceptable to the whole of the Body of Christ.


JDale

Well, said, JDale. I agree.