April 28, 2008
Discussing the Documents Released by Westminster Pertaining to the Current Situation
Posted by Foolish Tar Heel under Confessional, Hermeneutics, Scholarship, Scripture, Westminster Theological SeminaryAs many are aware, the faculty and administration of Westminster Theological Seminary recently released (see post below) several documents pertaining to the current situation at Westminster.
It is our intention on the Connversation blog to post several interactions with various of these documents and to discuss both the documents and our posts on this blog. Some of us are in the process of preparing these posts. One of our members is composing a review of the essay by Peter Lillback in which Lillback argues Peter Enns resides outside the Reformed tradition. I am in the process of writing a couple posts but am taking extra time as I wish to converse with some of the authors of the various documents (1) to make sure I have understood them correctly and (2) to bring my criticisms and comments to their attention prior to making them public. Others on this blog are also thinking up and typing posts.
All this is to say that we are interested in pursuing some (hopefully) edifying discussion of these documents. We hope you will join us in these discussions in the coming weeks. We would appreciate your prayers as we go about typing and interacting with these documents and those who wrote them.
Also, we strongly encourage everyone to read all the documents in their entirety. We especially encourage reading the Historical Theology Field Committee (HTFC) paper and the (lengthy) reply to the HTFC paper by the Hermeneutics Field Committee (HFC: Dan McCartney, Doug Green, Steve Taylor, Peter Enns, Mike Kelly, Elliott Greene, and Adrian Smith). We realize reading the documents represents a substantial time commitment. Part of the function of our posts will certainly be to provide some basic outlines of the documents for those who have not the time to read them. But, again, we primarily hope to interact with them and to facilitate discussion of them—and reading the documents will help immensely in orienting everyone for fruitful discussion.
For now, I would direct readers to Joel Garver’s outline of and reflections on the documents on his blog.
Thank you for your patience and prayers.
April 29, 2008 at 1:01 am
[...] Conn-versation promises more a constructive and Christian engagement soon. [...]
April 29, 2008 at 7:38 am
Garner says the ‘tracjectory’ of Enns party does in fact fall within that of Old Princeton/ Old Amsterdam ( I think the position of Dick Gaffin refutes this) -but he does not tell what kind of tracjectory the other side is on and where it originates. Garner is hardly an unbiased observer-he did sign onto the S.O.S. site.
April 29, 2008 at 9:10 am
Pastor Johnson,
Quick note: it’s Garver, not Garner. And I’m not sure what kind of “unbiased observer” you’re looking for. I haven’t seen many, or any, unbiased accounts of this whole controversy. You, me, Lane Keister, the Conn bloggers, all have opinions on these things. If you know of a blogger who has analyzed these new documents without showing a bias toward one point of view or another, please feel free to point him/her out to us. (really!)
But Garver’s interactions with these things are always thoughtful and worth reading, and I’m glad Stephen pointed folks there. His signature on S.O.S. is worth re-reading.
I do look forward to hearing what the bloggers here have to say about the new documents, and to hearing interactions with them from you and others.
April 29, 2008 at 9:19 am
Thanks for your thoughts Justin and GWL Johnson.
April 29, 2008 at 12:02 pm
There’s no such thing as an unbiased observer.
April 29, 2008 at 1:54 pm
re: JD #5,
Exactly.
April 29, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Dr. Johnson,
What do you mean by Garver “does not tell what kind of tracjectory the other side is on and where it originates.”?
I think I know what you are getting at, but I would like to hear any clarfication you can offer.