Westminster Seminary Rift

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.

 

"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.

 

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

 

Well, said, JDale. I agree.