What about Westminster Theological Seminary

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Greg Linscott, Aug 21, 2004.

  1. Greg Linscott

    Greg Linscott
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/7963.jpg>

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    0
    After all the stimulating conversation about John MacArthur, let's take another example- Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Fundamentalist or no?
     
  2. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fundamentalist in the strictest definition - yes.

    However, many of their positions are false and are to be rejected.
     
  3. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Given that fundamentalism, in its current state, is dispensational and pre-millenial, Westminster would not identify themselves with fundamentalists.

    On the other hand, you could argue that they are the original fundamentalists. J. Gresham Machen was the first to take a stand against liberalism in a demomination and to take the major step of separating from it to start a new school and a to form new churches. In that sense, if Westminster is not fundamental, there is no such thing!
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Belief in historic fundamentals? Of course.

    Separation from theological liberalism? You betcha.

    Belief in all the added "schtuff" that each person has called fundamentalism? No.

    And neither do I.
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    But again, I would remind us that fundamentalism is not simply belief in the fundamentals and separation from theological liberalism. It is separation from false teachers and disobedient brothers. One cannot be a fundamentalist while retaining relationships with enemies of the truth or those who give aid to enemies of the truth. Fundamentalism is, and always has been, about taking sides, both from those who deny the faith and those who consort with them.

    Machen split from Princeton over the issues of fundamentalism and helped to start Westminster. But we are far removed from those days. I don't think it is as simple as "Christians" or "liberals" (as Machen's book so ably set forth). Theological life is more complicated these days.

    What is being described here as fundamentalism is actually conservative evangelicalism. These two are distinct and should remain such, IMO.

    I don't know that much about Westminster. I would suspect they are a good conservative evangelical school.
     
  6. Greg Linscott

    Greg Linscott
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/7963.jpg>

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, would you have a prof from Westminster speak in your pulpit without any reservations?
     
  7. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly. The reason adhering to the five fundamentals does not make one a fundamentalist today is that issues have arisen since the 1920s (when the fundamentals were set forth) which the fundamentals do not address. What made them fundamentalists at that time was that they addressed the real and important issues of that time and took a stand. We are fundamentalists today not because we agree with what they said, but because we act in the spirit in which they acted, that is, we look at the issues that face us TODAY, we address them biblically, and take a stand.
     
  8. Greg Linscott

    Greg Linscott
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/7963.jpg>

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, would you have a prof from Westminster speak in your pulpit without any reservations? </font>[/QUOTE]My point in asking this is to try to determine if there is a difference between exercising discretion and practicing separation when it comes to who you have have in your pulpit. I believe there is.
     
  9. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,639
    Likes Received:
    310
    My only doctrinal quibble with them is their adherance to infant "baptism". That sounds to me alot like baptismal regeneration no matter what kind of clothes you put it in.
     
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    No, you are mistaken.

    Fundamentalism IS belief in the fundamentals and separation from theological liberalism.

    MILITANT fundamentalism (which obviously you describe) requires more 2-3rd degree separation from error and those who condone error, etc. Most who are MILITANT fundamentalists think they are the "only" ones. I was one without apology. I now am slightly less feisty.

    MODERATE fundamentalism does not, and of course, MODIFIED fundamentalism is barely separated from anything!
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, There doesn't seem to be too many historic fundamentalists who agree with you, for whatever its worth. The "kindler gentler fundamentalism" is no fundamentalism at all. The old school fundamentalists seem much closer to my position than yours, at least if their writings and teachings mean anything.

    Be that as it may, the Scriptures do require separation from disobedient brethren, whatever you want to call it.
     
  12. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I tend to agree with Dr. Bob. I think it is unfortunate that the term "fundamentalist" as coined by the greats like Machen, Boyce, et.al., has been hijacked and corrupted in modern times.

    In this particular instance, how significant is paedobaptism? Well, significant if you ask (I can't resist) John MacArthur. Not significant according to Martyn Lloyd Jones.

    I would allow a WTS faculty member in my pulpit, so long as paedobaptism didn't join him there [​IMG]
     
  13. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,639
    Likes Received:
    310
    Tom, I did say it's a quibble. But then I was raised Presby, so I tend to think of paedobaptism as a rank heresy. The Presbys and the rest of Protestantism are no better than the Campbellites or the RC and EO Churchs.
     
  14. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow. I don't know that I'd lump Presbys and all others in with RC or EO. But that's just me [​IMG]
     
  15. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,639
    Likes Received:
    310
    I was refering to the issue of infant baptism. For me, it is not a trivial issue.
     
  16. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I tend to agree with you. I am not ready to throw Presbys out and tread them underfoot, but I am troubled by paedobaptism. Then again, baby dedications in baptist churches trouble me greatly. These are Paedobaptist dry cleaning :D
     

Share This Page

Loading...