The documents that were prepared by the Historical and Theological Field Committee against Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation as well as the response to their report by the Hermeneutics Field Committee (in favor of Enns) were handed out to interested students yesterday. Today, they have been released on Westminster’s website.
Along with these reports are also the Edgar-Kelly Motion, the Faculty Minority Report, and an essay by Dr. Peter Lillback.
These documents are extremely enlightening. We’ll be sure to weigh in on them in the near future.
May 1, 2008 at 1:11 pm
GLW:
I haven’t read your article. Maybe over the summer I can track it down.
I only have a minute here, but I am wondering about your very last comment. Sounds kind of like Goliath taunting the Israelites. Are you trying to scare participants into not associating with me on this post? What kind of culture are you trying setting out to breed?
But come to think of it, fundamentalism does depend on fear tactics to keep it’s adherents in line. I’m not afraid to talk with you GLW or with the connversationalists, honestly and openly, as I hope you know by now. I am under no peer pressure to pass your conservative, WTS, ecclesial/cultural tests.
So are you saying that the hosts should not be posting my comments? Are you saying I am not welcome, GLW, on this site, or at least, that I should not be welcome on this site? Are you looking for someone (else) to take issue with my remarks besides you? I’m having trouble reading between the lines of what you wrote. As always, I want to read you as charitably as I can.
May 1, 2008 at 8:43 am
To All concerned
I purposely waited to see if there would be a stiff response to Carlos’ most recent rabbit punch to the Westminster tradition and that institution’s determined intention to carry on the Old Princeton legacy as personified by BB Warfield.I am diappointed by the silence. Carlos had already stated that he thinks WTS should never had been founded in the first place. Now he declares his preference for C.A. Briggs over Warfield, and just like his new found hero, says that the doctrine of inerrancy has done untold damage. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I knew Harvey Conn, the individual that is the inspiration for this blog. He was still active during my time at WTS. He was a common sight back then in his bib overalls. I chatted with him often, I can only imagine how he would respond to Carlos. I have a much better take on how Van Til would have responded-is the image of a wood shed pictursque enough?
April 30, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Carlos
Have you read my chapter in the book I edited for P&R last Spring on Warfield?
April 30, 2008 at 4:35 pm
GLW:
I’m very much on board with taking a critical stance toward inerrancy and coming up with some other metaphor for scripture’s authority. The Enns thing is not as close to home for me. I think Enns should be allowed to keep teaching, but that’s not a burning issue for me. Of course, I’m not likely an accurate gauge for what the people who host this site would say. They should be the ones to explain to you what they want their site to accomplish.
I don’t think I understand this whole thing about the 30s and 70s but I’ll try to give a brief response to your connecting the dots remark. I’ve read Briggs’ inaugural address, and I think he’s more right on the authority of scripture than wrong. To me, he is representative of a conservative critical spirit with regard to inerrancy that comes up in the 20s-30s, again in the 70s, and now. I think his tempered critical stance was picked up again in the 70s by, among other writers, Dewey Beegle’s Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility, Pinnock’s Scripture Principle, and Stephen Davis’ Debate about the Bible. Most recently Kenton Sparks’ book, along with some of the other books you’ll be writing about in your article, has taken up the mantle. Evangelicalism should fess up to the critical scholars and give them an apology for acting as if the critical scholarship they produced in biblical studies over the last hundred years or so were the erroneous conclusions of unbelieving minds, conclusions that only apostates would accept. They’re not. The Bible critics were right. Now a few generations later some evangelicals are ready to embrace them.
In the 30s, in the 70s, and now, new generations of scholars arise and are ready to admit what they have found in biblical studies and are ready to incorporate those findings into their understanding of the faith. If their understanding of the faith does not accomodate these findings, then the faith must be adapted, which is what each generation must wrestle with: precisely how this might be done.
Now if Briggs was a heretic in some matter of doctrine I am not suggesting that all the others that I connect him are also. In my mind, Briggs’ authentic, critical stance against inerrancy was culturally significant and I see a way to connnect some dots whenever that same authentic, critical stance manifests itself during the course of 20th century theological disputes. But those to whom I connect these dots may not appreciate this suggestion. I understand Briggs got in trouble for a bunch of things, not just inerrrancy, but it’s only inerrancy that I’m interested in. I think it’s caused a lot of damage.
April 30, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Craig
I’ve been pondering your explanation about how the issue of inerrancy was ’settled’with inerrancy taking it on the chin by Machen leaving Princeton to found WTS. Could you elaborate a little as to why you think that was the case?
April 30, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Carlos
I have not called you or anyone else on this site a liberal . I’ll say again, this site appears devoted to defending Enns and casting doubt on the doctrine of inerrancy- your frequent appearance testifies to that. I then asked why is seems so inappropriate to connect the dots and everyone defense shields go up.On top of that, you never did spell out what you meant by the relationship the 30’s had to the 70’s.
April 30, 2008 at 1:21 pm
GLW:
You might want to type full names instead of CV and CB. That’s confusing people, plus, you yourself slipped up typing in the wrong initials at the wrong time. On top of that, somehow the threads got confused.
Craig V. doesn’t think the 1930s settled anything. I know that from talking to him before on this site; he’s still into inerrancy and trying to hash the whole thing out for himself. But somehow this and another thread got intertwined and the conversation became unintelligible (my attempt to help sort things out included).
GLW, you can address me as you please when you comment and make whatever insinuations you want. I don’t care if I’m called a liberal from the 30s, an agnostic from the 70s, or an unbeliever from 2008–that’s all fine and well. But these other guys here are in real sympathy with Enns (that doesn’t mean, of course, that they are SPEAKING for Enns) and are taking this thing with Enns very seriously, some are taking it personally. Some of these guys truly believe they (and Enns) are expressing a certain biblical-theological trajectory that can claim to boast an Old Princeton-WTS continuity. You may disagree, probably mightily, but they are trying best they can to get a good grasp of what’s happening at WTS and why they are not being heard, why the issues that they want to talk about are not being talked about. You might see them as liberals, but they certainly don’t see themselves that way. They’re not going to be too interested in talking with you if you keep talking to them as if they are card-carrying liberals without even giving them a hearing first. You ARE interested in talking, aren’t you?
April 30, 2008 at 1:19 pm
CV
I posted a valid observation in the wake of the recent actions by the BOT at WTS and followed it by a request for clarification regarding your reference to the 30’s and wondered outloud why it appears that this site has two main objectives: Defend Peter Enns and raise questions about the validity and centrality of inerrancy. CB has completely dismissed the doctrine and you are vague.By the way are you a grad or a student at WTS?
April 30, 2008 at 11:33 am
GLW Johnson,
You entered this thread with a rather unhelpful comment. Aboulet pointed out that your comment was both disingenuous and inaccurate. I added that it embodied a rather embarrassing logic for those of us who stand in the tradition of Machen. So your comment has been accused of being dishonest, inaccurate and muddled. You have made no attempt to defend your comment (no doubt a wise move), but have chosen instead to try to find some hidden liberalism in my response.
I’m more than willing to give you every benefit of the doubt for three reasons. 1.)You are a brother in Christ. 2.) My copy and paste error put my response to you in a thread where it didn’t belong and this may have made it impossible to understand. 3.) I have a friend whose opinions I respect, who was a member of your congregation and who holds you in high regard. In comment #12 on this thread you have indicated, unless I’ve misunderstood you, that you, like me, desire a serious and God honoring discussion. If that’s so, then I think it might be time for you to show interest in real discussion (either defending or distancing yourself from your initial comment) rather than a drive by shooting.
April 30, 2008 at 8:10 am
RG
Well, evidently Carlos understood it the same way I did-althought not for the same reason- Craig will note that on another thread this popped up and CV added that the 70’s confirmed that what was settled in the 30’s was buried in the 70’s. What do you supposed happened in that decade, besides the change in fashionable bellbottoms, that is linked to the 30’s?
April 29, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I thought you were quite clear.
April 29, 2008 at 11:49 am
Thanks R Glenn, that’s exactly what I meant.
April 28, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I think its pretty easy to see what he means. The majority who rejected inerrancy when Machen & company left Princeton & when Machen was tossed out seemed to be on the “winning” side. They had control of Princton & the PCUSA. machen was out. Case settled. But Machen & company did not accept that settlement & continued to discuss the issue.
You seem to be saying the issue is settled & no need for further discussion b/e Enns is out. Seems fairly easy to understand.
April 28, 2008 at 9:04 pm
CV
I am as well, but please explain what you meant by the debate was ’settled’ in the 30’s- with inerrancy coming out on the short end of the stick. Specifically, how was it settled and who settled it?
April 28, 2008 at 7:26 pm
GLW Johnson,
I said “Using this logic it would seem to me that we’d have to concede that the whole authority of Scripture debate was settled”. My recommendation is that we don’t use “this logic” because it would lead us to wrongly think that all sorts of things were settled which aren’t.
What I think about inerrancy is not impacted by the reorganization of the Princeton faculty. All of my heroes in that controversy were on the losing side.
This isn’t a game for me. I’m looking forward to a serious and God honoring discussion.
April 28, 2008 at 6:50 pm
CV
You didn’t answer the question. You said that the issue was ’settled’ in the 30’s. How was it settled by who settled it-in your opinion.I would really like to know.
April 28, 2008 at 6:43 pm
GLW Johnson,
I’m pointing out a flaw in what I take to be your logic. Of course, it’s always possible I have missed your point. You’ve announced that the game is over which seems to mean you don’t see any need for discussion since the results are in. Using that same argument we might conclude that the reorganization of Princeton settled the controversies behind those changes. I find that to be a pretty bad argument.
April 28, 2008 at 6:03 pm
CV
Is that your personal opinion-the debate over inerrancy was settled negatively in the 1930’s? By the way, who settled it and how did they convince you that it was settled?
April 28, 2008 at 3:24 pm
[...] are aware, the faculty and administration of Westminster Theological Seminary recently released (see post below) several documents pertaining to the current situation at [...]
April 28, 2008 at 1:03 pm
GLW Johnson,
Are you arguing that once the results are in there’s no more need to look at the issues? Using this logic it would seem to me that we’d have to concede that the whole authority of Scripture debate was settled in the 1930s (and not in favor of inerrancy).
April 28, 2008 at 10:32 am
For some reason I don’t believe either of your points Johnson.
1) You did not “hate” to write what you wrote.
2) Enns has not been terminated.
April 28, 2008 at 6:58 am
Guys, I hate to break the news to you, but the final results are in. Game over.
April 25, 2008 at 10:24 am
[...] about it . . . all 146 pages of the Westminster documents are available in PDF here (Thanks: Conn-versation; Between Two Worlds; Art Boulet, where comments are [...]
April 25, 2008 at 9:12 am
Craig V.,
I agree. The HTFC paper leaves much to be desired. Thankfully the HFC paper engages it well. We hope to commence some discussion and/or posts on these documents soon.
April 24, 2008 at 6:41 pm
It’s surprising to me that the HTFC response seems unwilling to look at how exegesis and Systematic Theology are actually done (as opposed to how we think they should be done). We almost get the impression that they think we can, when confronted with various manuscripts, find the words of Scripture because they will somehow affirm themselves. It should be obvious that no one does textual criticism this way.