Recently Bruce McCormack posted some reflections on the Christology of the HTFC position paper on Art Boulet’s blog. For those of you who do not know, McCormack is a recognized, top-of-his-field, senior scholar and professor at Princeton Theological Seminary.
Not surprisingly I have encountered (most offline and/or through email) some who agree with the HTFC’s critique of Enns who also take issue with McCormack’s piece. Also, not surprisingly, most of these people I encounter do not offer ANY interaction and critique of McCormack’s arguments and historical points. Rather, they protest that “he is a Barthian” or “he rejects doctrine X and doctrine Y of the Reformed Tradition” and thus we need not listen to his historical-theological critique of the HTFC. R. Scott Clark’s post stands as a slight exception in that he attempts to engage McCormack on some historical-theological grounds (see McCormack’s response). Nevertheless, Clark frames his post in rhetoric of incredulity that a Princeton Seminary professor would dare to “lecture” Westminster Seminary/ies professors on points of Reformed Historical-Theology. So, again, the logic in most of these offline and un-blogged (frequently overly bold) critiques of McCormack seems to be that since McCormack is a Barthian, we do not need to listen to him on points of Reformed Historical-Theology.
It is at this point that some basics of hermeneutics and logic serve us. (more…)